Updated
Summary
Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone to testify under oath after bombshell testimony mentioning conversations with him prior and during January 6th Capitol insurrection. Trump IRS appointee allegedly ran suspicious audits of former FBI director James Comey and former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. The president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Maya Wiley join Ari Melber to talk about Donald Trump and his GOP allies under scrutiny for alleged abuses of power. Former assistant special Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman joins Ari Melber to talk about former Donald Trump White House counsel that will testify in the January 6 Committee hearing.
Transcript
NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: Thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these extraordinary times. We are so grateful. THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER starts right now.
Hi, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. Nice to see you.
Welcome, everyone. I`m Ari Melber. I`m happy to be back at work and with you tonight. And my thanks to Jason Johnson and Katie Phang, by the way, for their anchoring while I took a little vacation which was great to chill and recharge.
And you do need a full battery right now amidst all the news that we have been living through, including more breakthroughs in the investigation into Trump`s failed coup and the violent insurrection which is where we begin right now.
You know, the January 6th Committee has been compelling new cooperation from a pivotal witness, and just to begin tonight, to get a sense of how large and significant this breakthrough is, recall it is the witness who Vice Chair Liz Cheney name-checked at the end of one of those recent investigative hearings, which was itself an unusual move because there`s plenty of confidential negotiating and wrangling that goes on over time.
So publicly calling out a witness who is ducking the committee is typically kind of a last resort. But that is what Congresswoman Cheney did to name and shame the Trump top White House lawyer whom she memorably said was not fully cooperating at that time. You`ve probably heard his name by now, Pat Cipollone.
Now he had talked to the committee once, so he was not totally defying them like, say, Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro. They didn`t get to the point of recommending a contempt citation where you can actually go on trial for a felony, but at the same time he had not agreed to testify under oath.
So Cheney led that public charge, which we then learned was the prelude to a subpoena, and this all worked, and fast. Now Cipollone will be testifying tomorrow under oath on camera in the main format that the committee has used because you`ve probably seen some of those clips of those video depositions as they explore these issues and build up different parts of the story, the facts, the evidence they`ve gathered in these sometimes blockbuster hearings.
But I want to make one more point about this tonight for you. We are seeing another crack here in how some key Trump veterans have tried to evade this probe, and it matters on both process and substance, because on process it has been vital to Donald Trump`s defense, such as it is, to try to delegitimatize the entire committee probe to, to try to taint its approach and its findings in advance.
That`s why we all remember Kevin McCarthy first was trying to place people like Jim Jordan to be on the committee up there. These hearings would be pretty different if he was there. That was trying to undermine it from within. But when Speaker Pelosi outmaneuvered the Republicans on that, saying that Republicans would be allowed on the committee but not those with blatant conflicts of interest who might be involved in fomenting or helping the coup, well, McCarthy then came up with a backup idea of boycotting this whole thing, to argue that then it would be partisan if they boycotted it.
Now that failed so badly. Even Trump has admitted that didn`t work and he complains they don`t have representatives on the committee.
Now why am I talking about this right now with Cipollone tomorrow? Because then you may have heard this next piece, this emphasis about parsing the available evidence. And if you listen to Trump allies over the last few weeks especially as anxiety has been increased with the evidence piling up, they talk a lot about the committee`s selective information or its, quote, “hearsay” testimony.
But keep this in mind as the committee wins this months` long standoff with Mr. Cipollone tomorrow. What is hearsay? Well, in essence it is basically, if you simplify it, secondhand information. For example, there has been tantalizing leads that feature witnesses talking about what Cipollone said. That`s secondhand in moments like these.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS: Mr. Cipollone and I had a brief private conversation where he said to me, we need to make sure that this doesn`t happen. This would be legally a terrible idea for us.
RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Pat Cipollone weighed in at one point, I remember, saying, you know, that letter that this guy wants to send, that letter is a murder-suicide pact.
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.
Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice or obstructing the electoral college count.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Cipollone said it looks like we`re obstructing an electoral law or we`re going to get charged, or it`s going to be a murder-suicide pact if you get the DOJ in writing on record trying to join a coup. So that`s just some of what Pat Cipollone reportedly said.
[18:05:02]
And it is the kind of damning stuff that Trump allies have been protesting as, quote, “hearsay,” because as you just heard other witnesses are indeed the ones recounting what Pat said without hearing from Pat. But if people think about this for one minute, and maybe they hope you won`t, the reason some of that damning evidence has been limited to, quote, “hearsay,” is not because of the committee, it`s not because of those cooperating witnesses you just heard, all of them, by the way, Trump loyalists when it comes to policy and ideology, but just telling the truth about how he tried to use a coup to stay in government.
No, the reason that stuff is secondhand is because of Pat Cipollone, just as other material is second hand because of Mike Pence, because of the very Trump appointees who refused to explain themselves under oath, to stand up like any responsible adult or tough person if you want to put it in that faux courage mindset and just say, hey, if you`re not ashamed of what you did, if you didn`t break any laws, if you`re proud of what you did, then just come and explain it.
These are the people ducking and running from that and then complaining about this supposed evidentiary shortcoming they created. This hearsay defense.
Ah, the audacity. So tomorrow this all blows up in their faces. Another one of these self-inflicted hearsay objections just goes up in smoke. This top lawyer will be compelled to explain under oath what he did, and we`re just in the facts. If he has some stories that are different or less harsh than what we just played you, then yes, we weigh that evidence under oath along with other witnesses and contemporaneous documentary material.
But the committee wants to know whether he did warn Trump and other officials about crossing those criminal lines. That itself can be damning evidence of knowing corrupt intent if some of those people or then then President Trump crossed those very criminal lines after getting that warning. The attorney general and his prosecutors might want to know about that, too.
So, the evidence will likely get fuller and stronger as soon as tomorrow. Meanwhile, one of Trump`s top aides former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney is saying out loud that all this evidence has damaged Trump to the degree that both he and the entire party are facing this kind of drag for at least the next two elections if not more.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICK MULVANEY, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: What you`re seeing I think is folks, especially in my party, are looking at Donald Trump as damaged, and something that might weigh down the party going into the midterms and into 2024.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Just like the top lawyer, that`s the top aide. He was the number one official in the Trump White House, talking about Trump being damaged. And if you`re checking, he just said that just now himself. It is not hearsay.
I want to bring in our experts. Neal Katyal is former acting solicitor general for the Obama administration. If we have time, he may even tell us about the Swiss cheese holes of hearsay exceptions but that would only be late, late in the segment because I already did that once in law school, and it was tough. I`m sure he has a better handle on it than I do. And legal writer for “The New York Times” magazine, Emily Bazelon.
Good to see both of you.
EMILY BAZELON, LEGAL WRITER, NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: Thanks, Ari.
NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL: Good to see you, man.
MELBER: Neal, let`s start with this term because it has this grandeur of the law, and we are, as (INAUDIBLE) reminded us, a very legalistic culture here in America. And so when people — I don`t mean just denialists, but people hear, well, some of this is secondhand hearsay, and that`s partially true, it sounds like a knock. Then when you look at what`s happening tomorrow is OK, finally Cipollone`s history will not be hearsay because he`s stopped defying.
KATYAL: Yes, exactly. So, I mean, first of all, Ari, I don`t think the statements last week by Cassidy Hutchinson were technically hearsay. She`s testifying to conversations that she was part of, and so that`s not really quite hearsay. And to the extent it is hearsay, the only reason it was hearsay is, as you say, because people like Pat Cipollone didn`t come forward. And so that was the only evidence that was available to them.
But tomorrow, and I`m so glad to see the committee stepped up their, you know, efforts to get Pat Cipollone`s testimony, they subpoenaed him, Ari, which is like a legal request for him to show up, and then he is now coming before the committee tomorrow, and he`s going to tell his story. And at that point it`s not hearsay anymore, it`s just say. And it will be firsthand information.
MELBER: Right.
KATYAL: And I think the committee`s expecting big news. I mean, they scheduled two hearings for next week right on the heels of this Cipollone testimony. And so it feels to me like they`re not just expecting bombshells, they`re bracing for a full barrage, because Pat Cipollone is the key to a lot of these different events.
MELBER: Exactly. Well, Emily, as Neal puts it, you know, being as clear with English as we can, it goes from hearsay to just say, or as Doja Cat would put it, “Say So.”
[18:10:06]
He`s going to say so whatever he wants to explain about what he`s done, and he is, again, a Trump guy, Emily. We`re not talking about whether he agrees on immigration or on executive authority that runs I think broader than some lawyer might view it. We`re talking about bright line criminal stuff which, again, according to, as Neal says, conversations that people were directly in and some other tertiary stuff. He apparently was issuing a lot of warnings, just a reminder to everyone of what kind of Trump loyalist he is and when he used to talk about democracy, this is what he sounded like.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: They`re asking you to tear up all of the ballots across this country on your own initiative. Take that decision away from the American people. It would dangerously change our country and weaken, weaken forever all of our democratic institutions. Why tear up every ballot across this country? You can`t do that. You know you can`t do that. Defend the sacred right of every American to vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Emily, as people can hear there, that was the Trump impeachment defense. He went from being a legal defender of Trump in the first impeachment to being directly involved in trying to, according to some testimony, prevent potential misconduct or alleged crimes that led to the second impeachment.
BAZELON: Right. I mean, I think what I`ll be fascinated to hear, you know, first of all, what is the scope of questions that Cipollone agrees to answer? How much is he going to invoke attorney-client privilege? I would love to hear what Neal thinks about that. And then secondly, what is he going say about the kinds of warnings he was giving about these all crimes imaginable risks that, according to other witnesses, he was concerned about.
And what did he think Trump understood? Did Trump concede that this was a ruse? That he knew that the election was legitimate and what did Trump say about his reasons for wanting to go to the Capitol and for, you know, the fiery speech he gave beforehand? Those are all things that Cipollone seems, you know, crucially placed to answer those questions.
MELBER: Neal?
KATYAL: Yes, so I think Emily`s exactly right. He`s crucially placed. He`s agreed to testify. The problem is, we don`t know what he`s going to testify to. If he follows the Trump playbook, he`s going to assert privilege after privilege. He`ll assert executive privilege, even though the Supreme Court has rejected it 8-1 already, and they`re subject to the crime fraud exception as a federal judge in California already has ruled.
And he`s going to invoke attorney-client privilege, which will truly get him nowhere because when Ken Starr tried that against the White House Counsel`s Office before, there were a whole series of legal precedents that said, hey, if you`re in the White House Counsel`s Office, your client is not just the president, your client is the United States people, and if they have a need for the evidence, the evidence will come out.
So I sure hope he doesn`t claim these privileges. Neil Eggleston who was President Obama`s White House counsel, has written a series of articles this week explaining just how bogus the privilege claims would be and how damaging it`d be for Mr. Cipollone if he tried to invoke them.
And then the last thing I`d say about this is I actually think Donald Trump`s reaction to this whole Cipollone going testify event is really important because he had a soft touch. That`s rare for him. You know, he issued this statement on Truth Social and the like. He didn`t try to undermine Cipollone`s credibility. He didn`t attack his character. He didn`t call him like Phony Cipollone or you know, some name — like name- calling thing.
And, you know, Donald Trump lashes out when he`s scared, but when he`s terrified, and with Cipollone he is, he`s trying to actually butter him up a little bit.
MELBER: I think that`s an astute and fair reading of it, Neal. I suppose we can`t ever really know what`s in anyone`s mind, certainly not the former president.
But, Emily, to Neal`s point, there seems to be an awareness by Donald Trump of just how much Cipollone knows and how much these hearings are breaking through. I mean, we have a bar chart here that just shows, Emily, just how many people have watched parts of these hearings over time. It`s a sustained interest, day and night, and then in the culture, if you will, late-night, internet, there seems to be reaction to a lot of these.
BAZELON: Right. I mean, I think you played earlier Mick Mulvaney, Trump`s former aide, talking about this. These hearings have broken through. They`ve been riveting in a lot of cases. And the question is, you know, how much of the Trump supporting electorate or the uncertain swing vote, as we call it, how much is it affecting those groups?
[18:15:09]
And I think we see especially among independent voters significant interest and significant damage to former President Trump.
MELBER: Right, and then it goes to the fact that people can look at this more than one way. There`s democracy, there`s ethics. Mick Mulvaney was just making a self-interested political argument about, I`m not sure that we`re going to get the same coalition if 2 percent, 4 percent, or 6 percent of that coalition thinks that this guy`s an autocrat who would take a third term if he could. Maybe you lose a little bit there. And so that`s just one layer of it.
This has been really interesting for kicking us off. I want to thank Emily and Neal for the king legal insights here at the top of the program.
Let me tell everyone what`s coming up. The Republican Party`s growing comfort and even embrace with abusing government power. It`s a long ways from libertarianism, and we have a special report on that with Maya Wiley here.
And later tonight, I`m going to show you something that we`ve been doing throughout these hearings because it can be so much to take in. One of our special looks at key moments now that we have more hearings coming together. The holistic information. Why some are talking about indicting the former president.
And by the end of the hour, another conservative loss abroad, this time in the U.K. We`ll get into that. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:39]
MELBER: Turning to this new scandal involving a Trump appointee who is still serving in the federal government. So this is an interesting story. It has Trump abuse of power allegations, but in the Biden administration because not everyone turns over immediately. This also is going to bring us into the wider scrutiny on Republican abuse of power and big government overreach in America right now from Trump to DeSantis to Lindsey Graham, which is why, as I mentioned, we`ve got Maya Wiley on hand to get into all of it.
So let me explain what`s going on. The first domino here is pressure on this Trump appointee who still right now oversees the IRS. Now buckling under pressure today and agreeing to order an internal probe of whether under his leadership, the IRS did what Donald Trump had been demanding for so long in public, abuse government any which way to punish his perceived opponents.
All of this happening since “The New York Times” exposed this very rare and suspicious audits launched against not one but two FBI veterans that Donald Trump publicly called to target. One of them is the very famous FBI director ultimately fired by Trump after he stood up to Trump. You remember James Comey. The other was Comey`s actual next replacement, McCabe, who was reviled by Trump for very similar reasons.
And you may recall Donald Trump`s petty, relentless, and public calls for their investigation, punishment, and even imprisonment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: Director Comey was very unpopular with most people. He`s a showboat. He`s a grandstander. The FBI has been in turmoil. I fired Comey. Well, I turned out to do the right thing. Why didn`t Comey come clean? Why didn`t Mueller investigate Comey?
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: You`ve accused your adversaries of treason. Who specifically are you accusing of treason?
TRUMP: Well, I think a number of people. If you look at Comey, if you look at McCabe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: There it is. Comey and McCabe. Treason. Investigate them. And on Twitter, when he was allowed to tweet, he repeatedly posted about demanding their firing, in the case of McCabe, and suspension of his pension and trying to get them imprisoned.
So now you have Comey and McCabe targeted by this tax audit that to this day tonight they`re claiming is just random. So I will report for you that`s basically what the IRS is claiming. It`s not just any audit. It`s considered one of the most invasive in existence in the federal government according to the “New York Times” reporting. The chance of being selected for it would be one in 30,600 for one person. But here you have two people, both named by Trump in the same orbit.
In fact, as far back as 2017, Donald Trump had a lawyer who suggested Comey should be investigated, and that`s the same year of Comey`s IRS audit. Keep in mind, this is a felony if it were proven that it was done as a targeting, that it was not random. Here was McCabe responding today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FBI: We`re talking about a coincidence that really is almost impossible statistically. It defies belief. And so is it possible that there`s someone in the IRS who has an ability to influence this supposedly random process to go after people that they have some sort of an issue with? Yes, I think that`s possible. I think that`s what the IRS needs to find out by conducting a fair and thorough investigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: And that`s all fairly put. As for his point there about the odds, well, “The Times” ran the numbers, you could say it was this like Powerball or is this one in a million, one in five million, one in 10 million, one in 20 million? No. We checked, and “Times” runs the numbers, one in 82 million are the odds that both the FBI director and his replacement would both be audited this way. The IRS says it`s referred it to the inspector general for review.
And this is not the only issue around abuse of power. Take Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who`s tried to help Trump every which way. He`s just been hit with a subpoena over his conduct in an election in a state that he doesn`t live in, Georgia.
[18:25:08]
This was when he was chair of the Judiciary Committee. And to defend his actions, Graham now says that this was done, quote, “as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,” and thus he was within his rights.
Now I just want to stop right there and say that is a wild and bizarre admission. It would be one thing for someone who is both in power and a candidate or involved in a campaign to say that as part a that campaign they were just calling up and trying to advocate to win, which can be done during and after the election. Bush v. Gore. You have all that jockeying.
But here Lindsey Graham admits that he says he was trying to help Trump as chair of the Judiciary Committee, which would appear to be wrong and an abuse of power for political ends, which is why this is broader than Trump. We`re talking about a party that used to say that its founding tenet was a skepticism of government power. At its most conservative it was supposed to be libertarian. Right? Very concerned about government power, federal in the case of Mr. Graham, Senator Graham is a federal officer, or any big government power.
But from women`s rights to the way they`re interfering in elections, you just have basically all of that going up in smoke. Take Ron DeSantis down in Florida. Consolidating control of an elections police force which he says he will control in a new state office that will now go after voter fraud in ways that, at least critics and some nonpartisan observers say, shows meddling in free and fair elections.
All of this is not only concerning that it happens at all, but that it`s happening in more brazen ways because they`re admitting it in public. So what do you do about it? And is it important to scrutinize it? Especially when you look at journalism working, in the case of “The New York Times” and that Trump appointee.
Well, as mentioned we have someone who`s been at the forefront of dealing with government abuse, including discrimination, Maya Wiley, when we`re back in one minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: We are back with Maya Wiley, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
Nice to see you.
MAYA WILEY, INCOMING PRESIDENT AND CEO, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS: Nice to see you, Ari. Welcome back.
MELBER: Happy to be back, even though there`s plenty going on, and happy to have you here. There`s more than one piece to this. I landed on DeSantis, but starting with the IRS, and I mentioned your work in law and discrimination. It`s wrong to discriminate against people for any number of reasons. Identity is one, race, gender, how they define themselves. It`s also wrong to abuse government power, discriminate against someone because of their beliefs or perceived beliefs.
Given that one in 82 million is very hard to credit as a random explanation, which is the IRS` explanation today, walk us through your views of that legally and ethically.
WILEY: Well, look, let`s start with what any lawyer would start with, which is if something stinks, you look to see if something is rotting or rotten. And this does stink. I mean, to the point that you already raised, Ari. It is — is it somehow possible? It`s very hard to believe that two people who Donald Trump explicitly called out for retribution are now in these audits. It does require independent inspection.
It`s a good thing that there is an independent inspector general who will be looking into investigating just how rotten this might be, but that really is the point, right? You know, it`s really important to recognize right now that one of the presidents coming out of Watergate, Gerald Ford, was one of the people who started instituting some protections to try to restore faith in government, like making sure the White House wasn`t directing the Department of Justice. That`s another norm that Donald Trump violated.
[18:30:00]
In fact, with James Comey, trying to get him to say that he would be loyal to Donald Trump rather than loyal to the office and to the people. And one of the things that Gerald Ford said, which was so important is, we`re a government that is made up of laws, not of people, meaning that what we`re supposed to protect is the rule of law, because otherwise, no one can have any faith in government. And if there`s no faith in government, it`s impossible for government to govern. And that`s what`s going on here.
MELBER: Yes, I mean, you really brought it in an important way, Maya, which is why it`s so corrosive. As for this Trump hold over running the IRS. He`s saying, oh, my gosh, we need an investigation of what we`re doing. And it`s like, OK, dude, but like, you`re in charge. These are high-profile individuals, if you open up an audit of a Comey or a Jeff Bezos, or a presidential candidate, that`s high-level stuff.
We know over at main justice when it comes to investigations, those need high-level sign-off precisely because even the existence of investigations or audits can affect people, can affect them in the court of public opinion or a future election or what have you a confirmation. So, all of that, just as you say, it doesn`t really make sense wrapped up. I`m curious what you think the DOJ should do because the Times points out, I think it`s well known.
This kind of abuse is a bright-line felony. It`s illegal under federal law for anyone in the executive branch with few exceptions to request these kinds of audits or an investigation of taxes. Those caught violating law could be sentenced to up to five years in prison. You have Trump publicly demanding it, and then you have what appears to be either it`s carrying out — I would call that the more likely scenario door number two.
Or — I mean, door number one, I should say, if I`m doing an order. And then door number two is less likely you`d have to go run that scenario 80 – – you have to go through 82 million doors to have door number two be random. Does — should DOJ be investigating this or should Merrick Garland be so worried about optics — speaking of Comey. That he doesn`t want to open up too many investigations involving Trump`s stuff, even though there would appear to be a predicate?
WILEY: Well, look, I — the Department of Justice often makes decisions about what to investigate based on the weight of what they`re seeing. And it is their job not to make those decisions based on politics. And optics, in this case, I think the optics are that this requires investigation. Now, maybe that what they do is wait and see what evidence the inspector general comes up with.
Because remember, that is an important function of why we have inspectors general, in our agencies. Remember that one of the things that Donald Trump didn`t like, was inspectors general. When he didn`t like the conclusions of the work they were doing, in fact, fired quite a number, including from the intelligence community, Mr. Atkinson.
So, I say that to say inspectors general do have a really important role to play here. And it is one where the DOJ could absolutely pick up on investigation. If an inspector general saying, hey, I found some rotten fish.
MELBER: And all makes sense. You know, Maya, it`s no secret, we come to you often for your expertise. So, you`re one of our favorites. I would say you`re one in a million, but really, you`re at least one at 82 million.
WILEY: I don`t know if I want to be one in 82 million.
MELBER: Well, ask these two fellas. You may not — you may not want to be. But that`s the rarity we`re talking about. Again, because I don`t know in court, you know, you look at fingerprints or certain evidence in court. Sometimes you get down to a big enough number or small enough odds. And you say yes, that`s proof. So, I don`t know, again, as you were careful to say they got to look into — go ahead.
WILEY: Well, I just — one point we really should reflect here. Both James Comey and Andrew McCabe were career public servants. They did not come up because they were necessarily in one party or the other. In fact, they both are probably in different parties. And you know, there is a prerogative for the Department of Justice to protect that public service and make sure it`s not punished because it stays independent.
MELBER: Well, exactly. And that, again, goes to how this is abused. And look, people have different thresholds. We`ve talked about the, quote, courage to go do a day of testimony here at those hearings. Well, what about the courage to have your life and finances turned upside down and your family that`s involved. Their spouses, it noted because of the way people filed jointly.
Mr. Comey, as you mentioned, was a registered Republican and then served in administrations of both parties. So yes, it — as you said, it stinks. But we`ll be on it. Maya Wiley, always good to see you. Let me tell everyone what`s coming up. A Trump ally abroad ousted. We`ll get into that. But first, to mention those January 6th hearings, we have one of our special breakdowns. Coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:39:20]
MELBER: No more hearsay. That was the theme we started with tonight with Neal Katyal and Emily Bazelon. As blockbuster testimony is expected with this Trump White House lawyer facing the January 6 Committee tomorrow. Live hearings also resumed next week. And this is in a way the end of the line.
Legally you could call it closing arguments. You could call it the finale but basically, they`re going to go at the last big evidentiary question about who is tied to those violent extremist groups. Was Donald Trump or anyone in government trying to call in those violent plays? Was that the plan or not? So, with half a dozen hearings now in the books and only two more to come.
We want to share what we`ve been doing here which is showing you only the most important parts. This is short but packed. Some of the most crucial testimony thus far.
[18:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS), JANUARY 6 HOUSE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: The select committee to investigate the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol will be in order.
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA), JANUARY 6 HOUSE COMMITTEE: These false claims of election fraud —
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY), JANUARY 6 HOUSE COMMITTEE VICE-CHAIRMAN: The massive effort to spread false and fraudulent information.
WILLIAM BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: The stuff that these people were shuttling out to the public was bull —
RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: He said dead people are voting —
ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: As a combination of Italians, Germans of Hugo Chavez, and of Venezuelans. Something in the Philippines —
DONOGHUE: Indians are getting paid to vote.
HERSCHMANN: Are you out of your effing mind?
DONOGHUE: It was not true —
BARR: He`s become detached from reality, crazy stuff.
HERSCHMANN: What they were proposing, I thought was nuts.
BARR: There were idiotic plans —
HERSCHMANN: Completely nuts —
BILL STEPIEN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Votes are still being counted. It`s too early to tell, too early to call the race.
JASON MILLER, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN SENIOR ADVISOR: We should not go and declare victory until we had a better sense of the numbers.
BARR: I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president it was bull —
IVANKA TRUMP, FORMER TRUMP SENIOR ADVISOR: I respected Attorney General Barr, so I accepted what he sent was saying —
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS` AIDE: There`s ketchup dripping down the wall and there`s a shattered porcelain plate on the floor. The president was extremely angry and had thrown his lunch against the wall.
LOFGREN: After the election, what were the chances of President Trump winning the election?
CHRIS STIREWALT, FORMER POLITICS EDITOR, FOX NEWS: None.
MILLER: He delivered to the president pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.
GREG JACOB, FORMER COUNSEL TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: We would lose nine to nothing in the Supreme Court.
STEPIEN: President`s mind was made up —
LOFGREN: Rather than accept the results of the election. He tried to convince the American people the election had been stolen.
MICHAEL LUTTIG FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: Constitutional mischief —
HUTCHINSON: Mark said something to the effect of things might get really, really bad.
HERSCHMANN: I don`t want to hear any other effing words coming out of your mouth no matter what. Other than orderly transition —
CHENEY: President Trump summoned a violent mob and directed them illegally to march on the United States Capitol.
HUTCHINSON: Mr. Cipollone said we`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.
NICK QUESTED, FILMMAKER: For anyone who didn`t understand how violent that event was. I saw it, I documented it, and I experienced it.
HUTCHINSON: The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr. Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engle.
QUESTED: I documented the crowd turned from protesters to rioters to insurrectionists.
HUTCHINSON: I overheard the president say something`s the effect of, I don`t effing care that they have weapons. They`re not here to hurt me.
QUESTED: The anger and the profanity.
HUTCHINSON: What my people like.
CROWD: Bring Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!
JACOB: The vice president had refused to get into the car. And the vice president had said something to the effect of you`re not the one behind the wheel.
CHENEY: Aware of the rioters` chants to hang Mike Pence, the president responded, Mike Pence, quote, deserves it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The mayor was definitely intoxicated.
STEPIEN: I didn`t mind being characterized as being part of team normal.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Defer to say that the election defense fund was another marketing tactic.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
LOFGREN: A big lie was also a big rip-off.
THOMPSON: He lied to his supporters and the country.
CHENEY: Corruptly pressured state legislators and election officials to change election results.
THOMPSON: He lost. But he betrayed the trust of American people. The people had voted him out. And the courts upheld the will of the people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: We are joined by Nick Akerman, a lawyer and former Watergate prosecutor who knows his way around exactly these kinds of probes. Pretty powerful stuff when you look at it holistically.
NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: You do, I mean, you actually put together a very nice summation of what the committee has done, which has exceeded expectations of what Chairman Thompson said the committee would do from day one, show that Donald Trump was basically the criminal in chief of the effort to undermine the peaceful transfer of power. And I think that`s what this shows.
MELBER: Yes, you lay it out like that. And, look, Nick, we don`t require that you only say orderly transition. You can say other things, unlike the counsel that John Eastman was given there. And I`m curious, the real role of lawyers here — I don`t say that because we are both lawyers, full disclosure.
But just as in the case of John Dean a White House counsel, who you and your investigation dealt with when he turned. Tomorrow, we have a White House counsel going before the committee. Why does this seem to always come back to them?
AKERMAN: Well, I mean, this is the second time we`ve seen this show, basically. John Dean testified, laid out before the Senate Watergate Committee, a very cogent and precise recitation of meetings with Richard Nixon, in which he basically was orchestrating the cover-up of the Watergate investigation.
[18:45:00]
And after he testified, Republicans on the committee, other supporters of Nixon claimed he was a liar, claimed he wasn`t credible. And now we`re seeing the same thing happen again, with Cassidy Hutchinson. And what makes Cipollone so important is that he`s going to be kind of like the tape that corroborated John Dean.
He`s going to be the guy to come in and basically be able to say that what Cassidy Hutchinson said, was absolutely the truth. I mean, Cipollone was the lead lawyer for Donald Trump in the first impeachment. In Trump world, he`s as good as a tape-recorded.
MELBER: Wow. Yes. Liz Cheney is now saying in public that they have the power and they may make more than one criminal referral. How does that all work? What are your thoughts there, Nick?
AKERMAN: Well, I don`t think it makes a difference. The evidence is out there. First of all, the Department of Justice has got to realize that they`ve got serious crimes to investigate. Donald Trump is up to his eyeballs and criminality here. Other people around him are up to their eyeballs and criminality, a legal term, by the way. And they have to investigate it. They have to. They have to put people before a grand jury.
And even more importantly, this same evidence can be used in Georgia and the grand jury investigation that`s going on there. Because this evidence that the committee has gathered puts that potential prosecution into the context of what Donald Trump was doing. It wasn`t just a call to Governor Kemp to try and get him to call a special session, the Georgia Legislature to throw out the electoral vote.
It wasn`t just a call to Brad Raffensperger, to get him to find extra votes to give the election to Donald Trump. It was also the entire context of what Donald Trump was trying to do. It couldn`t — he couldn`t win the election without just Georgia. So, the Georgia prosecutor now has all of this other evidence that she can use, one to show his intent, his motive, his plan, and also possibly to indict him on the Georgia racketeering statute.
Which is a very serious crime in Georgia. Has a minimum of five years in prison and a maximum of 20 years. So, Donald Trump is looking at some serious charges here that have all, you know, been sort of pushed forward by this January 6 Committee.
MELBER: Yes, yes. And as you say, I mean, there`s Chinese talking about what they can do. But you`re saying that the evidence itself, particularly as the DOJ has to process it, that`s their obligation and job, is itself a public referral, whether you call it that or not, by any name. Nick Akerman, always good to have you here, sir.
AKERMAN: Thank you. Good to be here.
MELBER: Appreciate it. So, I have a question for you, if you`re watching at home, what happens when you have right-wing conservative, incompetent government, and people actually stand up and conservatives say enough. That`s the question that was just answered today across the pond. Boris Johnson out. We`ll get into it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:52:37]
MELBER: Major news with a conservative leader stepping down. We`re talking about Boris Johnson, the British P.M. And it became official today there was a wave of scandal after scandal and then something that might not be as familiar these days in America, but a lot of internal pressure from his own Conservative Party.
Indeed, wasn`t one or two witnesses or five or six people complaining in public, it was 50 members of his own government quitting, basically making it almost impossible for him to move forward, no coalition. And the scandals ranged from hypocrisy like passing COVID rules.
But then his own administration blatantly violated with internal parties to the very serious allegations of mishandling sexual assault case against someone that he had appointed. Here`s what some members of his own party were saying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The public can`t afford to put up with this farce of a government.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Once again the prime minister he puts political survival before public duty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At some point, we have to conclude that enough is enough.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the prime minister think there are any circumstances in which he should resign?
(End VT)
MELBER: They know how to ask questions over there. They do it to each other`s faces, there`s still a thing or two we might learn from that British political culture. This is the final chapter for a conservative who had a very erratic tenure and, in some overlaps, United States experience seem to basically disrespect the entire act of governing itself.
Johnson refused to step down initially and critics compared the way he wanted to hold on to power to Trump`s inability or criminal unwillingness. Is one guest put it tonight, to deal with his own loss. There are also differences. Tories in the UK did stand up. And the majority of elected Republicans United States well they do not.
Regardless of what they said before Trump was elected, and what they reportedly often say behind closed doors. And if you`re thinking, will you miss Mr. Johnson, well, perhaps this will answer the question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BORIS JOHNSON, PRIME MINISTER OF THE UNITED KINGDOM: It was all going well, and then not so well. And then really badly.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is the best we hear. She falls the volunteer with him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go, go.
[18:55:00]
JOHNSON: It`s going well. It`s very, very well organized. What they do — get me a ladder. Ow! Ah!
(End VT)
MELBER: Well, now the only ladder he needs is one to walk his way down and out of power. He says he will stay in office though until the conservative party chooses his replacement which through their parliamentary system happens within that party`s vote. Some say he should go immediately. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Great to be back with you here on THE BEAT. Thanks for spending time with us. You can always find me online @AriMelber on social media. And I will see you right here tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. Eastern. “THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID” starts right now.