Updated
Summary
The January 6 Committee formally announced that they will hold their eighth hearing next Thursday and it will be once again in primetime. Former Overstock CEO testifies before the January 6 Committee. The January 6 Committee is now involved in trying to retrieve text messages sent by members of the Secret Service on January 5 and 6 of 2021. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is moving full steam ahead with her investigation into potential criminal interference charges in Georgia`s 2020 election. Joe Manchin told Democratic leaders that he will not support the major climate provisions that are a key part of President Joe Biden`s agenda.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: His name is Gregory Robinson, graduate of Howard University. And this thing has found the most incredible images from all around the planet. Just showing how huge the galaxy is, how small we are and insignificant, but also significant in our own way. We all won the week. Space won the week. Elie Mystal, David Corn, thank you.
And that is tonight`s “REIDOUT”. ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): Tonight on ALL IN.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Well, first of all, the Overstock person, I didn`t understand how he had gotten in.
MOHYELDIN: The overstock person finally meets the committee.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have you been in contact with the FBI about the January 6 investigation?
MOHYELDIN: Tonight, why the former overstock Ceo`s testimony could prove crucial?
PATRICK BYRNE, FORMER CEO, OVERSTOCK: You may have heard about a fairly raucous meeting in an office over there a couple of weeks ago.
MOHYELDIN: Then, Carol Leonnig on reports the Secret Service is not cooperating with the January 6 investigation.
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA) Did text messages disappear? We are seeing conflicting information from the agencies.
MOHYELDIN: Plus, Michael Isikoff on his reporting that target letters were sent to Trump allies in Georgia. John Podesta on why he says Joe Manchin single-handedly doomed humanity. The firestorm over Joe Biden`s visit to Saudi Arabia and how Democrats are forcing Republicans to own the new post- Roe reality when this extended edition of ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN (on camera): Good evening, everyone from New York, I`m Ayman Mohyeldin in for Chris Hayes. We have new developments tonight in the investigation into the insurrection on January 6, as this portion of the House committee`s investigation nears a close. In fact, today, the committee formally announced that they will hold their eighth hearing next Thursday. It will be once again in primetime.
According to Chairman Bennie Thompson, it will be the final hearing, at least for now, but Chairman Thompson would not rule out holding more hearings later in the summer if the committee receives new evidence. And we are expecting at least one more public hearing in the fall sometime before the Midterm elections when the committee issues its final report on Donald Trump`s efforts to incite an insurrection at the Capitol.
And today, committee members conducted yet another key interview with former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne. Now, you may remember him from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone`s testimony that we heard at the last hearing. In fact, Cipollone told the committee about finding Byrne along with big lie promoters like Sidney Powell and Mike Flynn having an unscheduled meeting in the Oval Office alone with Donald Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CIPOLLONE: I opened the door and I walked in. I saw General Flynn. I saw Sidney Powell sitting there. I was not happy to see the people in the Oval Office.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Explain why.
CIPOLLONE: Well, again, I don`t think they were providing — well, first of all, the Overstock person, I`ve never met — I never knew who this guy was. Actually, the first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him and I said, who are you? And he told me — I don`t think — I don`t think any of these people were providing the President with good advice. And so, I didn`t understand how they had gotten in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: That is a great question. Who is the Overstock person Patrick Byrne. He is a successful businessman who launched overstock.com back in 1999. And he led the internet retailing company for almost — for almost two decades. And during that time, Byrne became known for supporting elaborate conspiracy theories.
In 2005, he claimed that a competitor he referred to as a Star Wars villain was trying to ruin Overstock. And then in 2019, he resigned as CEO after disclosing his three-year affair with none other than Russian spy Maria Butina. Byrne issued this company press release referencing the deep state and claiming he “helped the Men in Black,” his nickname for FBI agents.
Now, with all that newfound free time, Byrne started promoting more conspiracies. And after the pandemic began, as you can imagine, he toured the country spreading lies about COVID vaccines. And then came the election and following it 2020 — in 2020, he began pushing Donald Trump`s big lie about election fraud. He financed a movie and wrote a self-published book about the bogus claims.
And the former CEO of Overstock peddled those conspiracy theories on right wing TV. This is what he was up to the day before that now-infamous, unhinged Oval Office meeting on December 18.
[20:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATRICK BYRNE, FORMER CEO, OVERSTOCK: For about a decade, our national security folks have been wondering why are the Chinese referring to a coming assassins mace, a one stroke way of taking out the United States. And the truth is there are fingerprints on this going all — certainly Venezuela and Cuba, but also the trail goes back to Iran, Pakistani intelligence, and China. Their assassins mace turns out not to be a missile, it turns out to be destroy our election system to take us down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: What? It doesn`t even make sense. I mean, that is the kind of conspiracy mongering that punches your ticket onto team coup. And the night before Donald Trump`s mob would interrupt a peaceful transfer of power, Patrick Byrne took to the stage at the Stop the Steal pre-rally along with pro-coup characters like Michael Flynn and Roger Stone. And the Overstock guys seem to have a pretty good sense for what might be coming.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BYRNE: We have a lot of hope for tomorrow. There`s a lot of ways this can go. And I want to tell you, you may have heard about a fairly raucous meeting in an office over there a couple of weeks ago. The President has far more power than people understand. There are laws on the books and executive orders that go back that let the President just say this — that there was foreign — clear foreign interference in this election. And we have to — we have all kinds of remedies.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: So, you can see why Patrick Burns account of that crazy meeting on December 18 with Michael Flynn and Sidney Powell and White House Counsel Pat Cipollone would be of interest to the January 6 Committee in its investigation. And when he arrived for his interview with the committee today, reporters were interested to know if the Overstock guy has also spoken to the Department of Justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you gotten to the FBI?
BYRNE: It`s kind of a broad question in the context of my life.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: Now, luckily, NBC News producer Julia Jester followed Byrne into the building and fine-tune that question, getting a much less playful response.
JULIA JESTER, NBC NEWS ASSOCIATE PRODUCER: Have you been in contact with the FBI about the January 6 investigation or the DOJ?
BYRNE: No comment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MOHYELDIN: Kyle Cheney is covering the January 6 investigation as the Senior Legal Affairs Reporter for Politico. He joins me now. Kyle, thank you so much for joining us this evening. Lots to break down here. Let me start with today. What do we know about Byrne`s interview and what he may have told that committee?
KYLE CHENEY, SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER, POLITICO: Well, he seemed to have been there for quite a while. I think he was sort of a missing piece for the committee that really wants to understand this December 18 meeting that, as he described, was viewed even within the White House as unhinged. It was this sort of meeting of these external advisors, were pushing Trump to do things like embrace seizing voting machines, declaring martial law, taking all these extreme steps to try to remain in power.
And Byrne had not spoken to them yet. You know, they`ve spoken to Sidney Powell who was there. Mike Flynn pleaded the Fifth rather than answer questions. So, he was one person who seemed eager to talk and could give a more — you know, full accounting of what went on in that room.
MOHYELDIN: What do we know about the — Kyle, what do we know about this series of events or strategy that led to Byrne testifying now long after the other participants at the December 18th White House meeting actually spoke to the — to the committee. Why is he so late to the game so to speak?
CHENEY: So, I don`t fully know exactly what took so long to bring him in. I think part of it is because they viewed him as such sort of fringe figures or someone who as we saw it was, you know, eager and willing to come in and talk to them. I`m not sure they viewed him as a particularly reliable witness though his account is one of the few eyewitness accounts they can have of what happened that night.
So, I think this is sort of, in a way, checking a box for them to make sure they talked to everyone who was there who talked to President Trump who might be willing to say what Donald Trump said to them because a lot of witnesses, especially those in the White House, won`t discuss what they talked about with the president directly. Byrne maybe an exception to that. And so, I think this is just another way for them to try to get around some of the blockades to information.
MOHYELDIN: Let`s talk about some of the things Byrne has done. He`s funded the Arizona audit of the 2020 election along with Michael Flynn. They founded a group called the America Project that is supposedly dedicated to election integrity. What do we know about his continued efforts to fund and promote these conspiracy theories in our country?
CHENEY: I mean, they haven`t really stopped. You know, he was sort of a prolific blogger in advance of January 6, trying to amplify some of these conspiracy theories, ideas that, you know, foreign governments are somehow infiltrating voting machines and changing votes.
And his theories you know in some ways seeded a lot of the other conspiracy theorists who ended up in Donald Trump`s orbit and they all fit together to sort of create the justification for things like seizing voting machines, claiming there was foreign interference so that Trump could use his extraordinary powers to use the military as part of this effort, invoke the Insurrection Act and things like that.
You know, Trump never did any of these things, which is an important point to note. But the fact that he considered them A, as extraordinary, and B, filtered down to some of these extremist groups who were hoping Trump would do them and maybe justify some of their own violent efforts.
[20:10:40]
MOHYELDIN: I`d before I let you go, Kyle, I got to ask you, looking ahead, do we have a sense of what to expect at next week`s final committee hearing?
CHENEY: Yes, so my understanding is they`re going to try to bring in some people who are actually in the West Wing on January 6 and witnessed, you know, the President`s actions or in some ways, his inaction while the violence began to overtake the Capitol. And I think the idea is, why did Donald Trump not act to tell his supporters to go home for 197 minutes? That`s the magic number that you`re going to hear a lot. And what was he doing in the interim instead?
And so, I think they want people who were there who were pleading for Trump to do something, anything to call off this riot and just talk about what they did when Trump didn`t respond for as long as it took.
MOHYELDIN: All right, Kyle Cheney, thank you so much for starting to us off tonight. I greatly appreciated your insights.
Let`s bring into the conversation. Michael Steele. He`s the former chairman of the Republican National Committee. He joins me now. Michael, it`s good to see you, my friend.
MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: It`s good to see you, brother.
MOHYELDIN: I got to start out with a very simple question. What does it say about the Republican Party that a guy like Patrick Byrne, the Overstock guy, has this kind of power and direct access to the White House?
STEELE: Yes. I think a lot of Republicans like Cipollone, when he walked into the Oval Office and saw him sitting in the room going, OK, who are you and why are you here? But that is an example of what Trump does. He doesn`t bring people into the room that he — that will push back against his level of crazy, his level of conspiracy, his level of wanting to change things inappropriately.
He surrounds himself with people who will nod yes, try to figure out how to get it done. The fact that that meeting took place, and the — and the Counsel to the President did not know about it and was not there and probably otherwise would have missed it had he not found out about it, tells you everything about the plotting and planning that was afoot at that time to move the needle, to grab control of the selection to figure out how the President could identify and secure the power he needed to do that.
You have Byrne and others going up to these to these rallies and saying the President has the power. Basically, we found where he has the power and we intend to use it. So, this was a very telling moment that I think the January 6 Committee now wants to explore a little bit deeper exactly what he offered the president and what the President`s response was to what he offered, particularly given that the President`s counsel and his attorney general had told him he had lost the election.
Do you think his testimony, Patrick Byrne`s testimony to the committee could potentially be damaging to Donald Trump?
STEELE: Yes, if — well, if he`s honest, yes. I mean, if he`s absolutely honest about, you know, what the President said to him and how that work. There is no executive privilege here. So, you know, it`s a matter of, you know, hey, the president`s response was he wanted to figure out how we could help him secure a win when he lost.
But I don`t know — I don`t know — and it goes to what you were just saying with Kyle about whether or not the committee was hesitant to bring him in in the first place because there was maybe some question about his reliability.
MOHYELDIN: So, if Donald Trump, Michael, runs again, and the indication early on seems that he is going to run again, do you think we will still see these kinds of crazies getting access to him and influencing him in round two?
STEELE: Oh, my God, yes, yes. And worse.
MOHYELDIN: It`s going to be (INAUDIBLE).
STEELE: Yes, and worse. America needs to understand what this means. They`ve done a run-through folks, all right. And so, now, it`s like — it`s like anything you rehearse that go, oh, next time, we`ll move this piece over there. The next time we`ll have this person in the room and not that person.
So, the idea that the President first off running again is probably more of a defensive measure against any future prosecutions that may be underway. But even more importantly, that should — you know, our luck run out and he actually wins the election, you`re looking at a narrative in which the President will not only surround — I mean, the Mike Lindell`s and the — and the Byrne`s and all these other crackpots will be Secretaries of States and Secretary of Defense, and National Security Adviser.
[20:15:21]
MOHYELDIN: I should have laughed but yes.
STEELE: Yes. So, I think we need to be a little bit wiser about what all this means. You know, yes, we like, you know, the clickbait that Donald Trump represents and, you know, people like to make fun, but at the end of the day, it`s a serious business and we see why.
MOHYELDIN: Yes. Michael Steele, it`s good to see you as always, my friend. I appreciate your time and insight as always.
STEELE: You got it.
MOHYELDIN: Coming up, new details on the missing Secret Service text messages from January 5 and January 6. Why were they deleted? And can investigators actually get them back? That`s coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:20:00]
MOHYELDIN: The January 6 Committee is now involved in trying to retrieve text messages sent by members of the Secret Service on January 5 and 6 of 2021. Now, those messages were deleted despite a request from the Homeland Security Inspector General to actually hand them over. The Secret Service, though, has denied any malicious intent and says that the messages were lost in a data migration.
But the Inspector General briefed the January 6 Committee on the loss today, and now the Committee says they want to talk to the Secret Service as well. Washington Post investigative reporter Carol Leonnig is one of the foremost experts on the U.S. Secret Service. She is the author of Zero Fail: The Rise And Fall Of The Secret Service. She joins me now. Carol, great to have you with us. So, what have you been able to find out about the circumstances surrounding these missing text messages?
CAROL LEONNIG, NATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: Well, what I`ve learned thus far is that inside the Secret Service headquarters, they are extremely angry at the — at the accusation by the watchdog for their agency, the Inspector General. The accusation of that inspector general that they intentionally deleted emails — I`m sorry, texts that relate to the attack on the Capitol.
Those days are important pieces of evidence, Ayman, and everybody wants to get their hands on texts that the Secret Service was exchanging on that day. Why? Because Secret Service agencies are witnesses to history. And there are key agents involved in this who knew what the President was saying what he was plotting, and what he was angry about on January 6.
So, they know a lot, they texted a lot, and that should be evidence we all should see. But here`s the problem. Pre-attack on the Capitol, the Secret Service had been planning for months to essentially reboot all their phones and replace some old ones, so that they would begin having a new kind of higher grade communication among all of their staff.
They began that replacement slash reset of their phones in January. On February 26, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general requested records about January 6. What`s the problem with that? By that time, a third of the texts on Secret Service phones are gone in the ether, never backed up.
The critical issue here, Ayman is the Secret Service, which is supposed to be tippy top on cybersecurity, on all sorts of phone technology, on all sorts of investigation, in practice, they don`t back up their phone material, even though many of those contents are government records and should be backed up and should be preserved.
The other problem is the Inspector General asked for these records a month after everybody was basically getting rid of their texts. So — a month and a half, so — forgive me, you are about to ask a question.
MOHYELDIN: Well, you were just about to, I guess, comment on it because the Inspector General has made it pretty clear that he feels this Secret Service isn`t being very cooperative. Is that surprising to you given your extensive reporting on the agency, which is how generally are they a forthcoming agency with the type of information given the access that they have to the Oval Office and the President?
LEONNIG: Such a perfect question, well-framed because 4,000 percent the answer is no. They are generally loath to turn over records. They have been accused in the past of destroying records to obstruct a congressional investigation. That`s a long time going back now when, in the 1980s, a congressional investigative team was trying to understand how much the Secret Service had been warned ahead of time about assassination attempts, including the attempt that took the life of John F. Kennedy. Critical documents were essentially destroyed weeks or days after investigators sought them.
The Secret Service, I think, has a pretty decent fact base to say we didn`t, in this case, intentionally delete information that an investigator was seeking. The problem is, they don`t have a great track record in complying or participating in their oversight investigations. They just don`t like it. They`ve tried to block investigators — a criminal investigator, a Special Counsel, from investigating what they knew about Bill Clinton`s extramarital activities with an intern. They were loathed to talk about that.
So, they`re not in a good position to say, oh, no, no, no, we would never do that because that`s not true. They have done that before.
[20:25:28]
MOHYELDIN: Incredible.
LEONNIG: In this case, though, the basic — the basic problem is they may not have intentionally deleted anything, but they didn`t take the right steps, the correct steps to preserve basic government documents which all federal employees are, are trained in how to do. And that`s not something the Secret Service routinely required of its personnel.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, the timing of it, the circumstance of it, just raising a lot more questions, and certainly a lot of doubt given the context in which this is happening right now. Carol Leonnig, thank you so much for your reporting and your insights. I`m sure you`re going to be very busy the next couple of weeks as you continue to pursue this story. I appreciate your time this evening.
LEONNIG: Thanks.
MOHYELDIN: Charles Coleman is a former prosecutor, now a civil rights lawyer. He joins me now. Charles, it`s good to see you again. So, the Secret Service is, by nature, a law enforcement agency. As a former prosecutor here, tell me what you think about this in terms of the information not being backed up in some fashion before any device migration.
You know, I am a common person and I backup my phone two or three times a month over emails, text messages, a whole lot of things. I can`t imagine a government agency as important as the Secret Service, not having some kind of automatic backup of all these text messages.
CHARLES COLEMAN, FORMER PROSECUTOR: Well, Ayman, it`s good to be here and talk with you again. I think that when you`re talking about them not being backups to this important data, there are a couple of things that viewers need to remember. Number one, as you`ve already said, this is a government agency, and the sensitivity of the information that these people are dealing with absolutely demands as an imperative that these things are taken care of, and that they are backed up. That`s number one.
Number two, as a former prosecutor, my question is accountability. And the reason why I say that is there was a complete nexus of information about how much was coming into Washington around January 6. Everyone knew it. And what we have learned through these — through these January 6 Committee hearings is that there was so much intel that was given around these people being armed, around their intentions. This had been a conversation for weeks.
So, it boggles my mind as a former prosecutor from an accountability space why was there not extra emphasis taken in terms of making sure that this data was backed up, given the amount of intel that they had available to them before January 6 about what was happening in D.C.? It`s an accountability question. It has to put pressure on this — on the January 6 Committee to get actual answers.
As Carol said previously, you cannot take the Secret Service`s word on this given their past history. And so, you have to actually explore this, whether it`s the committee or whether it`s the DOJ to actually get to the bottom and be definitive and clear about what the answers are.
MOHYELDIN: So, are we likely to see accountability for this? I mean, do you see anyone being held accountable or is it just a layer of bureaucratic mistakes that gets rid of a potential trove of critical information?
COLEMAN: Publicly, I don`t expect people to see much of — in terms of accountability. I do think that there are a lot of questions and a lot of conversations that are going to be had behind closed doors at the Secret Service. I think that there will be special attention and special protocols developed, and if not developed, emphasized around who`s responsible for making sure that those data — that those data backups take place.
Because at the end of the day, even if this was something that was a bureaucratic error, it is inexcusable and it`s an embarrassing moment for the Secret Service. And so, while I don`t expect this to be some very long drawn out sort of public display around accountability, I do expect that people internally are going to have a lot of very uncomfortable conversations in the coming days.
MOHYELDIN: All right, Charles Coleman, it`s great to see you. Thank you so much for your insights and take on this important story. Up next, exclusive reporting on the plot to steal the 2020 election in Georgia which Republicans are now facing potential charges. That`s straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:30:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FANI WILLIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA: I think that people thought that we came into this as some kind of game. This is not a game at all. What I am doing is very serious.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AYMAN MOHYELDIN, MSNBC HOST: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is moving full steam ahead with her investigation into potential criminal interference charges in Georgia`s 2020 election.
Last week, she got subpoenas from a grand jury for former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. Trump`s coup architect John Eastman, and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
And today, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News reports that Willis has “sent so- called target letters to prominent Georgia Republicans informing them they could be indicted for their role in a scheme to appoint alternate electors pledged to Donald Trump.”
Michael Isikoff joins me now. Michael, it`s good to see you again. So, what is a target letter? And what does it mean in this particular case?
MICHAEL ISIKOFF, CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT, YAHOO NEWS: A target letter is the last step before an actual indictment. It`s a letter from the prosecutor saying we are considering indicting you, if there`s any information you have that you want to partake and share with us before we make our final decision, now is your chance, but it`s usually the, you know, penultimate step before an actual indictment.
[20:35:23]
MOHYELDIN: Tell us a little bit about who these Republicans are, who received these letters and what role they may have played in trying to send the alternate slate of electors on?
ISIKOFF: Right, this involves the so-called fake elector scheme on December 14th in the Georgia State Capitol, as in other state capitals in battleground states around the country. Trump electors met in secret behind closed doors, kicked the press out and anointed themselves the true bonafide electors from the state of Georgia. Even though there was actual no legal grounds for them to do so.
Joe Biden had carried the state, the boat had been certified by the Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican. He did — there had been a recount that recertified the results of the election and these Republican electors met that day.
David Shafer, the chairman of the Georgia Republican Party presided over the meeting, as we report, you know, viewed it as a — acted as though it was some sort of official proceeding, they took a vote, they anointed themselves, and they sent a certificate saying they were the real electors from Georgia to the National Archives.
David Shafer, the chairman of the Republican Party in Georgia is one of those who got target letters from Fani Willis.
So too did Burt Jones, who was a state — is a state senator, one of those who was one of these alternative electors met at that meeting. He happens to be the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, the running mate of Brian Kemp in his race against Stacy Abrams.
So, what Fani Willis today did, obviously has, you know, significant legal implications, but it also has enormous political implications in Georgia. We`ve got, you know, two high profile state races, and this is like a bombshell that`s been dropped in the Georgia election by Fani Willis.
MOHYELDIN: What do we know, Michael, about the witnesses who may have spoken to the special grand jury so far?
ISIKOFF: Well, there`s been a lot of witnesses. I mean, this special grand jury was convened on June 1st, and they`ve been hearing witnesses. They started out with Brad Raffensperger, the Secretary of State have got that phone call from Donald Trump. There have been state senators, state officials from the Georgia Secretary of State`s office and the Attorney General`s office in Georgia and the governor`s office in Georgia.
They`ve all been up before the grand jury, including, as we reported today, an independent journalist George Chidi, who actually found the room where the fake electors were meeting, tried to barge in, attended, observed what was going on and got kicked out, escorted out of the room.
So, that is a sign of, you know, the secrecy with which these electors were meeting and you know, clearly, I think Fani Willis intends to present that to the special grand jury as evidence of consciousness of guilt.
MOHYELDIN: It is safe to say all eyes will be on Georgia for the next couple of weeks and going into the November elections. Michael Isikoff, always a pleasure. Thank you for your reporting.
Tanya Miller is a former Fulton County Assistant D.A. and a former federal prosecutor who`s currently running unopposed for the Georgia State House. She joins me now.
It`s great to have you with us. So, elaborate for us a little bit on your understanding of a target letter and why it`s significant in the context we`re learning about today.
TANYA MILLER, FORMER FULTON COUNTY ASSISTANT D.A.: Well, listen, my only experience with target letters have been in the federal system. I was a Fulton County District Attorney for a little under 10 years and we never to my knowledge issued a target letter.
A target letters are by design letters from usually the U.S. Attorney in this case purportedly from Fani or someone working for her, presenting this case to the special grand jury. Letting people know that they are targets, that they could potentially be indicted.
[20:40:03]
It would normally tell a person that they`re a target, what they are a target of, the crimes that are being investigated. Oftentimes, they are done to get that person to give documents in their possession. It also will advise that person that they have a Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves and usually encourages a person to get counsel.
As a practical matter, when these target letters go out, oftentimes, if you`re investigating an organization or a group of people, they will go to lower-level people.
It is a signal to that person and to that person`s lawyer, hey, you`re a target now, but it`s not too late for you to switch sides. You can get out of that category of target into witness. But you got to play ball.
The letter won`t say that. But as a practical matter, lawyers who practice understand that, that that`s what that target letter often means.
Very unusual, very unusual to have it done in a state prosecution. And I don`t think it has ever happened in Fulton County.
MOHYELDIN: Incredible. I`m curious to — I`m sure we`ll find out. But I`m curious to know why that might have been the first time that the district attorney felt it necessary to use a target letter in this case.
Do you — and maybe I can ask it in a reverse way, which is do you ever send a target letter if you`re not planning to indict someone? Not you personally, but would a lawyer ever send a target letter if you`re not planning to indict someone?
MILLER: Yes, so a prosecutor could send a target letter if — even if they do not ultimately indict the person. The target letter signals to the person that they are being investigated for specific criminal charges. It doesn`t mean that they necessarily will be indicted, it just means that this grand jury is — usually it`s in the — in the context of a regular grand jury, that this grand jury is actually investigating you. And you`re the person they`re looking at indicting and we want you to give us these documents, but we want to advise you of some things. For instance, they can say that.
As far as why this would be happening, I think this is an unusual case. Perhaps the DEA is getting advice from some federal operatives that are encouraging her to use tools and tactics that they use in other similar complex long-term white collar investigations.
D.A.`s offices are kind of built for speed, we don`t really do a lot of these kinds of investigations, we typically see these coming out of federal prosecutor`s offices.
So, it`s not clear, only D.A. Willis can tell you why she elected to proceed with a target letter in this case. And I think it is also unusual when one of the individuals who received the letter is actually running for political office.
That`s a big no, no, when the feds are investigating someone who`s an elected person or a person running, they usually do it very quietly, because they don`t want to interfere with the election. They don`t want their investigation to be seen as political.
So, it`s an interesting move. And I`m not entirely sure what it would — it`s supposed to signal at this point.
MOHYELDIN: What kind of pressure is there as somebody who is familiar with that office generally, in the kind of cases and the case load that the district attorney would handle? What kind of pressure is there on D.A. Willis to announce any charges or new subpoenas in a timely fashion given what`s at stake and the amount of attention that this particular allegation carries?
MILLER: Well, I think that there is going to be some pressure. I think this is a very high-profile case. Obviously, probably the most high-profile case to ever come out of that office.
She has been very open for the most part about her intentions with this investigation. I think she has tried to walk the line between transparency and also protecting the integrity of the investigation. Shrouding what the grand jurors do in secrecy, which is so critical to gathering that evidence and gathering it in an untainted way.
But certainly, as she`s investigating the former president, right? And now she`s issued target letters to GOP operatives.
So, there`s going to be a lot of pressure I think on her from the public to understand where we`re going with this.
Remember, this is a special purpose grand jury. They don`t actually indict. They just investigate initial report at the end. The question will be what the D.A. does with that report once this — once this investigation is over. Does she actually then turn around and present it to a regular grand jury? Who does she present charges against? If any, what do those charges look like? All of those things are too far in the future for us to really know right now.
MOHYELDIN: Tanya Miller, I greatly appreciate your insights and analysis on all these complex issues down in Georgia. Thank you so much for your time.
Still ahead, the “one man who`s single-handedly doomed humanity”. Democrats lash out after one of their own shutdowns plans to combat climate change, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:49:31]
MOHYELDIN: The last great hope for actual legislation, that would have a real impact on climate change. That plan just got tossed out by the Democratic senator from West Virginia. The same senator who according to The New York Times “took more campaign cash from the oil and gas industry than any other senator, and who became a millionaire from his family coal business”.
After months of back and forth, Joe Manchin told Democratic leaders that he will not support the major climate provisions that are a key part of President Joe Biden`s agenda. The outrage from Manchin`s own party, as you can imagine, has been overwhelming.
[20:50:08]
Massachusetts, Democratic Senator Ed Markey, a champion of the Green New Deal tweeted out, rage keeps me from tears.
New Mexico, Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich question whether Manchin should be the head of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
And John Podesta, former counselor to President Barack Obama and former Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton wrote: It seems odd that Manchin would choose as his legacy to be the one man who single-handedly doomed humanity.
Lucky for us, John Podesta is also the founder of the advocacy organization Climate Power. He joins me now.
John, it`s great to see you again. As someone who has worked for decades on climate change action. Just tell me how frustrated you are by this news?
JOHN PODESTA, FOUNDER, CLIMATE POWER: Frustrated and extremely angry, because this was one man who blocked action that could have lowered energy prices for American consumers, or put us on the path of clean energy, kept America`s commitment to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 2030 as the president has pledged, created a cycle of innovation, created a new sense of leadership by the U.S. in the global community.
And instead, what we`re looking at is one person standing in the door saying no. And all that you just reported I think gives a context for why he said no.
So, he was negotiating, negotiating, dragging his feet throughout the year. You know, he still claims to be open to it, but I think people have just lost faith that he was ever serious about this.
MOHYELDIN: Should Joe Manchin be stripped of his chairmanship? You know, I guess the same way that Senator Heinrich is calling for?
PODESTA: Well, look, I think, you know, we have an election coming up in November. I think that`s probably going to be a decision that`s made after November.
But if people get out to the polls, if Democrats can add one or two senators to the majority, then I think we`ll have a very different Senate and a very different attitude about that.
Right now, you know, it`s a 50-50 Senate. And the control of the Senate is really sort of dependent on that. So, it`s a frustrating, terribly frustrating situation.
But I think it`s also quite frustrating that somebody like that controls the energy future of the country by chairing that committee, so I have a great sympathy for what Senator Heinrich said.
MOHYELDIN: Let me read a part of — because this was back in March, Politico reported on the kind of bill Joe Manchin was asking for from Democrats. Let me read you and our viewers a part of it.
They wrote Manchin said that if Democrats want to cut a deal on a party line bill using the budget process to circumvent a Republican filibuster, they need to start with prescription drug savings and tax reform.
He envisions whatever revenue they can wring out of that as split evenly between reducing the federal deficit and inflation on the one hand, and enacting new climate and social programs on the other hand, to the point where it is sustainable.
If you do that, the revenue-producing measures would be taxes and drugs, the spending is going to be climate, Manchin said.
So, all of that to say, John, that Manchin got exactly the bill he wanted, he still walked away. Is there any point in negotiating with him? I mean, can this guy ever be trusted to be a good faith negotiator after doing this time and time again?
PODESTA: Well, can he ever be trusted to say yes? That`s I think the question.
I mean, he — Leader Schumer has been in deep negotiations for months with him in the last several weeks, they made further concessions, he`s asked for more support for oil and gas industry. And I think the leader was reluctantly willing to go down that road. Notwithstanding the effect that would have on climate, he will back the climate investments. And leader Schumer agreed to that, and he just can`t get to yes.
And I think, you know, you come to a point where you believe that well, maybe he`s never going to get to yes, because this isn`t in good faith.
MOHYELDIN: Yes, I`m just surprised that leaders in the White House keep falling for it time and time again.
John Podesta, it`s always a pleasure. Thank you so much for your time this evening.
Much more — including the presidential fist bump for the man behind the murder of a Washington Post columnist.
And how Republicans are trying to explain away the ramifications of their abortion bans. All that coming up. Stay right here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:59:43]
MOHYELDIN: Good evening, everyone. I`m Ayman Mohyeldin. Welcome to a special second hour of ALL IN on this Friday night.
One of the things that the January 6th investigation has made clear is that the march on the Capitol on January 6th 2021 was arranged by Donald Trump and his allies with in fact a specific goal.
It wasn`t just an expression of anger at the supposedly stolen election.