Updated
Summary
Interview with the Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA). The January 6 Committee says that Trump failed to take timely, significant action to stop the violence at the U.S. Capitol.
Transcript
CHARLES BLOW, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: But you can see how people can be led astray by the framing and also the content of what`s happening on that channel. And they are sure that their viewers are not watching other news programs.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Charles Blow, always a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you for making time for us tonight. Appreciate it.
That is “ALL IN” on this Friday night.
MSNBC PRIME starts now with Ari Melber, who is just sitting here.
Good evening, Ari. And thank you for coming on the show.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Yeah, great to see you tonight, Chris. Thank you.
And thanks to everyone at home for joining us.
The investigation of January 6 is yielding information most people did not know about January 6. Like how long before this Capitol was attacked and before President Trump even spoke that day, which was how some viewed what that day was going to be about, a time for a speech and a protest.
Before all of that, these Proud Boys, the white nationalist paramilitary group that Trump had shout-out during the debate, well, they were already in those early hours doing more than preparing for a speech that day. They had a specific operational plan that morning, and the filmmaker embedded with them saw that and recorded it.
And as we begin this hour of MSNBC tonight and we dig into what`s important that transpired last night and across the week and really all of the build up to the January 6 hearings reaching this investigative finding stage, it`s important to listen to what that star witness and that embedded filmmaker told us because that`s why he was one of the star witnesses. That`s why 20 million people were subjected to hear exactly what he said last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NICK QUESTED, FILMMAKER: We met up with the Proud Boys, somewhere around 10:30 a.m. And they were starting to walk down the mall, easterly direction, towards the Capitol.
There was a large contingent, more than I had expected. And I was confused, to a certain extent, why we were walking away from the President`s speech, because that`s what I felt, we were there to cover.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: That`s what he was there to cover. That`s what many people would have thought that there was a different plan.
Now, Committee Chair Bennie Thompson drew on the testimony and other evidence to present some key findings here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): They weren`t there for President Trump`s speech. We know this because they left that area, to march toward the Capitol, before the speech began. They walked around the Capitol that morning. I`m concerned, this allowed them to see what defenses, were in place, and where our weaknesses might be.
The Proud Boys timed their attack, to the moments before the start of the Joint Session, in the Capitol, which is also where President Trump directed the angry mob, quote, We fight like hell, end quote. He told them, before sending them down Pennsylvania Avenue, right to where the Proud Boys gathered, and where you are filming.
Now, central question is whether the attack on the Capitol was coordinated and planned? What you witnessed, is what a coordinated and planned effort would look like.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: What a coordinated planned effort would look like.
And the committee has receipts. The newly-released video, which shows some of what happened that morning, the furtive meetings, the morning march to the Capitol and around the Capitol. The reconnaissance to locate the weak points that the chairman just discussed, which were less protected, because it may not have been the main visible approach to a more iconic parts of the Capitol where people who were more less organized might have naturally gathered and where there were more Capitol police.
There was the Peace Circle entrance, though, where the barriers were overrun. And the first of the crowd arrived, getting there, while Trump was wrapping up the speech.
These hearings, which have now begun were not a replay of the horrific day we lived through. They were the product of investigative findings based on a thousand-plus interviews and a ton of evidence that actually expand the understanding of what happened that day, not a rerun but a deepening, so that people really get why that happened in the first place.
Because remember, a lot of people watching it live thought aren`t these protected areas, wouldn`t it be hard to do this? There was even talk at first online about whether somehow the police were letting them in because it was so unthinkable in so many ways that — well, even very excited speech attendees or rally attendees would just be able to do this.
And that`s why this work of this committee actually does answer some of those questions. The finding suggests it was not a rally that was out of control, nor some emotional riot. The findings of video and evidence and testimony shows this planned premeditated attack on the capital to overthrow the transfer of power, instigated by Trump, led by paramilitary groups. They did the heavy lifting, but also backed by then yes the violent mob willing to join in with the formations, the stacks, the organized attacks and specific operational goals — find the ballots, storm certain offices. And as you heard the chants, openly target the assassination of certain officials.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): You will also hear about plots to commit seditious conspiracy on January 6th, a crime defined in our laws as conspiring to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to oppose by force the authority thereof. Multiple members of two groups, the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, have been charged with this crime for their involvement in the events leading up to and on January 6th. Some have pled guilty.
The attack on our capital was not a spontaneous riot. On the morning of January 6th, President Donald Trump`s intention was to remain president of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his constitutional obligation to relinquish power.
Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Trump`s intent was to remain in office, not another Trumpian publicity stunt, not more cloud chasing on the Internet, but a real, actual coup.
And the committee`s evidence suggests he intended to stay in office literally and so the day was the culmination of the plan to try to make that happen. The fact that they might have still been bad at it or there were other defenses or it was a sloppy coup, none of that is a defense. That`s just a statement about criminal competence if you buy the committee`s findings.
Investigators also present the case that Trump knew that everything he was saying about election fraud was B.S. as Bill Barr put it. He knew he lost the election according to the evidence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: I had three discussions with the president that I can recall. One was on November 23rd, one was on December 1st and one was on December 14th. And I`ve been through the sort of give- and-take of these discussions. And in that context, I made clear, I did not agree with the idea that the election was stolen and putting out this stuff which I told the president was bullshit.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did that affect your perspective about the election when Attorney General Barr made that statement?
IVANKA TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP`S DAUGHTER: It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr. So I accepted what he has said and what he was saying.
JASON MILLER, TRUMP AIDE: I was in the Oval Office, and at some point in the conversation Matt Oczkowski who is the lead data person was brought on and I remember he delivered to the president pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team`s assessment of the sort of county by county, state by state results as reported?
MILLER: Correct.
ALEX CANNON, CAMPAIGN LAWYER: I remember the call with Mr. Meadows, where Mr. Meadows was asking me, what I was finding and if I was finding anything, and I remember sharing with him that we weren`t finding anything that would be sufficient to change the results in any of the key states.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what was Mr. Meadow`s reaction to that information?
CANNON: I believe the words he used were so there`s no “there” there.
CHENEY: President Trump ignored the rulings of our nation`s courts. He ignored his own campaign leadership, his White House staff, many Republican state officials. He ignored the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. President Trump invested millions of dollars of campaign funds purposely spreading false information, running ads he knew were false and convincing millions of Americans that the election was corrupt and that he was the true president.
As you will see, this misinformation campaign provoked the violence on January 6th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: There you have it. Those are mostly Republicans there as witnesses and in the case of Liz Cheney as a member of the committee.
[21:10:03]
Today, Trump stands accused of leading a coup attempt, failing to issue any orders to protect the Capitol under attack, corruptly trying to overthrow an election, fomenting violence, and musing about welcoming the murder of his vice president. That`s a lot even for whatever, even for fill in the blank.
So, how`s he responding? Well, Trump zeroed in today on his daughter accepting Bill Barr`s view that Trump had lost the election, claiming she was basically checked out and adding at the end, if you read at the very bottom there, that Bill Barr, quote, sucked.
Now, even briefly just seeing that response reinforces what we all remember that Donald Trump was like, endlessly petty, self-obsessed and able to almost always miss the mark, because the legal implications here are broader. While he focuses on family drama, just think about what he`s accused of and think about the committee bringing together the testimony from these people around him.
I emphasize this because it`s not automatic but it is damning. This is about facts and findings and they are drawn largely — not exclusively — but largely from his own aides, his own family as you saw there, people that he hired who shared at least a large part of his ideological or political project or whatever you want to call it. People who agreed with what Trump wanted to do when he was lawfully elected the first time.
In other words, their fellow travelers of just about everything but they are under oath recounting what he said and did leading into this. And that damning account is that he knew he lost and he was plotting to stay in power despite that and he was welcoming violence along the way and throughout and after it actually happened and transpired, he continued to welcome him.
Investigators reached a live audience of about 20 million people last night. If you watched some of it, you were not alone, you were not just accompanied by the traditional news viewing part of our populists. Many millions more saw this live, and then when something like that happens more people are able to discuss it. So with something we know about information and social change, a lot more people discussing it today than they otherwise would have.
Twenty million people seeing the facts and this committee`s candidate foundation for making a wider case in upcoming hearings that Trump was the leader of a plot to steal the election to try to end democracy.
And if the committee can prove that or come close and prove it in front of the audience of millions or anybody who`s willing to reckon with the actual facts and if the committee can do that in public with the public evidence to say nothing of any other secret evidence that is still before that parallel Justice Department grand jury assembled in Washington — well, then, ultimately, this will be about more than establishing facts, which itself is part of the purpose of these types of probes. It will also raise the question, does the Justice Department have an obligation to act?
It has been a long week, busy for many people, including our next guest. Virginia Congresswoman Elaine Luria is a member of the January 6 committee.
Thank you for being here.
REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA): Thank you.
MELBER: Because this was dealing with findings and evidence what if anything do you believe the first hearing last night proved?
LURIA: I think the thing that stood out a lot was the very first video that we showed from the former Attorney General Barr, and it established something very clearly and very early on. The president — the former president knew that he lost, and if that`s the going on assumption for all of his further actions, I think that that just is an underlayment for the fact that — you know, all of these things that he carried out in order to try to stay in office were done with bad intentions and malice from the beginning, to undermine the American people about the results of the election.
MELBER: Uh-huh. The vice chair your committee, Cheney, talked about a sort of seven part or seven-plank plan. The committee`s also shown things that led in or related to the sixth, but were not as in wide public view. Is there any way to for you to share estimate how many parts of the government did Donald Trump attempt to enlist in what was called last night a premeditated, attempted coup?
LURIA: Well, you know, I think we`re all familiar with his quote about, you know, just leave it to the Republican congressman. We know that he attempted to or he actually did apply an extreme amount of pressure on the former vice president and attempting him to change the outcome of the results, as Liz Cheney mentioned in one of our hearings. We`ll talk about the Department of Justice and how there was a potential move underfoot to replace people and the acting attorney general.
[21:15:07]
And, you know, the hearings will lay out a lot of information I look at it as though he tried to pull every lever of government that he could, that he possibly had an ability to influence in order to change the outcome of the election and stay in office. You mentioned as well the DOJ, the former acting attorney general who was in for Barr is going to face this committee. What — what will that do next week?
LURIA: I think that that discussion about the Department of Justice will lay out essentially, you know, how dangerous this was. And, you know, one thing I keep reflecting back on is that if there weren`t the right people in the right places at particular points in time, people at the Department of Justice, the former vice president who actually did the right thing, then the outcome of all of this could have been very different.
So I think —
MELBER: What could that have been?
LURIA: What if he had been successful at this coup? What if he had actually been successful at pulling the right lever in order to get the result that he wanted and he saw it through this coordinated plan and essentially attack that culminated with the riot on January 6?
MELBER: The committee also surfaced this new testimony about Vice President Pence being clear and discussing the use of the National Guard and the protection of the Capitol. Did he have that authority at that time while the president was still, of course, the acting and lawful president United States through the 20th?
LURIA: There was no action that came out of the White House and I think that that`ll be clear through the hearings that we have later on. It was 187 minutes that the president essentially sat in the dining room off of the Oval Office and, you know, one would expect the president as the commander-in-chief to make those calls, to make sure that action was being taken to deal with government agencies, to call the Department of Defense, to get the National Guard, to coordinate with the mayor of Washington, D.C.
All of those things that one would clearly expect from someone in that role, and I think in a vacuum the vice president not hearing or knowing otherwise, and not even hearing from the president during that time — you know, he got on the phone and did what leaders do and reached out to all of those people to make sure that action was being taken.
MELBER: Very interesting all around, and we know we`ll be hearing from you and the other committee members with the way this has been parceled out. So we look forward to that. Congresswoman and January committee member, Elaine Luria, thank you for making time tonight.
LURIA: Yeah, thank you.
MELBER: Appreciate it.
We have a lot more to get to on a busy Friday night, including looking at the actual documented racist origins of one of the groups that January investigators say were leading the attack on the Capitol and some special guests coming up. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:22:37]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: The indictment of a group of Proud Boys alleges that they planned, quote, to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States. And according to the Department of Justice, on January 6, 2021, the defendants directed, mobilized and led members of the crowd onto the Capitol grounds and into the Capitol.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Last night, the January 6 committee explaining to more than 19 million viewers what happened, according to the evidence on January 6.
The committee put Trump at the center of this plot. And they also pointed specifically to these two white supremacist groups to enable the attack, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. They were the people on the front lines of videos like this, leading the charge, showing what they believed was possible in all criminally trespassing it. Everyone on your screen just caught on tape right-handed breaking the law. Committee showing how those groups landed and coordinated the attack. One using a military style stack formation that helped breach one of the entry through the Capitol.
For that reason, several members of the Proud Boys, including its current leader, have been charged with seditious conspiracy, including new charges this past week which came five months after members of the Oath Keepers were charged with seditious conspiracy along the same lines. The committee arguing that Trump called the two extremist groups to the Capitol, that he summoned the mob, that he assembled the Mob and, quote, lit the flame of this attack.
Based on the history of these groups and their years of menacing, including working with Trump`s inner circle figures like Roger Stone, you can actually see the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers had been circling around this link of right-wing so-called vigilante justice and more direct appeals to violence and what had been the incumbent government of the United States in the Trump administration and all of this coming together.
White supremacist militia groups in American history have not typically faced sedition charges very often. This is a big deal. It is a legal rarity.
And it would appear in a very direct way that Donald Trump was the catalyst. As a side note, groups like the Oath Keepers claim to try to hold the government accountable. That`s one of their talking points, and yet here they were aligned with the incumbent government, to overthrow the election the very thing that in a democracy does — hold the government accountable.
[21:25:02]
Now, given that Cheney was talking about them lighting the flame, let`s look a little deeper at the Proud Boys tonight. This goes beyond some of the newsier aspects. The urgent aspects that we saw last night and into the history which helps show how we got here.
The Proud Boys are the more recent group. They were actually just established in 2016 by Gavin McInnes who is known for his links to Vice Media, which he helped create. Now he described the group as Western chauvinists and initially it was sometimes seen as a kind of performative or trolling activity until, in really a short order of time, in a few years, it turned into something quite physical, real and menacing.
Here he was back in 2018 talking about membership in the group with an NBC reporter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GAVIN MCINNES, PROUD BOYS CO-FOUNDER: We only have one criteria and that is that you accept that the West is the best. You have to be biologically male, but you accept the West is the best.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: McInnes pledge for the group that every member is expected to recite upon joining says, quote, I am a Western chauvinist and I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world and, quote, you can see it`s a sort of a slightly more modern trolling version of other white supremacist tropes about civilization and order and creating something that no other people could somehow create.
And the same year, the group shared a video of Roger Stone reciting that slogan. Stone though, to be as precise as possible, has publicly asserted that he is not a member of the group.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROGER STONE, TRUMP ALLY: I am Roger Stone. I`m a Western chauvinist. I refused to apologize for creating the modern world.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Roger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Thank you, Roger.
The proud boys started mobilizing in support of right-wing figures, and made more public appearances, after they were protesting and clashing during the 2017 speech, that McInnis gave at New York University, 11 were arrested. There were fights. It was a lot of mayhem.
Again, it was at a time where people were trying to figure out what this was all about, and whether the so-called group was a real organization, or more of as some sort of a set of stunts.
Then, there were speakers with group figures like Ann Coulter, and Milo Yiannopoulos. And makeshift security for certain speakers, and then, a member of the Proud Boys helped organize something quite serious, he ultimately fatal Charlottesville rally to, quote, unite the right.
In 2018, they were showing up at a Nancy Pelosi event in Miami where security had to escort her to safety, with Proud Boys members screaming, menacing, yelling she was a blanking communist.
By 2020, they turn this into a sort of a pattern, going where other people were, to try to apparently foment clashes, if not outright violence. They were going to BLM matters — protests. They were going doing this in a very sort of inciting way.
And let`s be clear, you can show up anywhere and talk, but as the footage attests, some of this is starting to look like they want to do more than talk.
Now the current leader of the group was actually sentenced last year for burning a stolen BLM flag and the group evolved much more into an explicit white supremacist male fraternity. Stone who had said he`s not a member began to rely on them for security at certain events.
So when you take this all together and that history and the Trump link, you see by a group that might have started trying to make a point or just be controversial ultimately became a part of something that at least according to prosecutors is one of the most serious crimes on the books, seditious conspiracy and an assault at the Capitol.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:33:37]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): Donald Trump was at the center of this conspiracy and ultimately, Donald Trump, the president of the United States, spurred a mob of domestic enemies of the Constitution to march down the capital and subvert American democracy,
CHENEY: President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: The first primetime January 6th hearing laying the foundation for a specific case against Trump. Now, the foundation is something you build on the committee is trying to do that Monday with a second hearing, bearing down on how exactly Trump knew that he actually lost. Then there`ll be evidence going inside the DOJ about what would have been the mother of all Saturday night massacres as Trump tried to oust the acting AG for resisting efforts to have the DOJ help with the coup.
Three former officials will testify. On Thursday, the committee will focus on Trump`s efforts to pressure Pence. We all remember that. And later hearings will feature evidence on Trump`s efforts to overturn the whole election through state level means.
Representative Kinzinger, the other Republican member besides Cheney, says the evidence together at these hearings will change history.
The Watergate hearings were famously about what Nixon knew and when he knew it. These hearings are going from what Trump knew to what he tried to get government officials to do from the DOJ to Congress to state election officials and state legislators, a kind of dizzying spread of targets for what was an increasingly desperate effort to stay in office.
[21:35:10]
Now most of those officials balked or outright resisted because coups are, among other things, a team sport. Donald Trump never very good at teamwork, and that may be why as mentioned, the committee has so many witnesses, including Trump aides and plenty of Republicans who are out here testifying in detail under oath to his illicit goals and demands.
Joining us now is Professor Melissa Murray from New York Law School, co- host of the “Strict Scrutiny” podcast and as an educator we believe somewhat more skilled at teamwork.
Thanks for joining us on a Friday night.
MELISSA MURRAY, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Thanks for having me, Ari.
We just laid out where the committee is headed including some of the theory of the case. So walk us through your thoughts on that.
So I think the big thing here is they are very much trying to show that not only was Donald Trump at the center of all of these machinations. This wasn`t advertent or coincidental. This was something that he wanted to be at the center at. Indeed, it was something that he was orchestrating or directing others to orchestrate on his behalf.
So this really goes to the question of mental state and that`s critical if there`s going to be criminal liability going forward and, of course, the committee can`t determine whether or not there`s a prosecution against Donald Trump that`s only for the Department of Justice to determine.
But if the Department of Justice is going to go forward, it has to be secure in the knowledge that there is evidence to support the idea that not only did Donald Trump do certain things or fail to do certain things that he was supposed to do, but that he had the mental state to orchestrate this kind of coup against a lawful government. And so, this is all incredibly critical.
And even if there is no criminal prosecution, all of this evidence regarding his mental state and what he knew and at what time could be critically important if there`s going to be civil lawsuits against Trump and anyone in that inner circle, the kinds of civil lawsuits that we saw successfully prosecuted in Charlottesville, Virginia, for example, against the organizers of Unite the Right.
I`m also curious what you thought of the way they presented this last night, which appears to be a template. Rachel and I discussed this a little bit last night because everyone is accustomed to the traditional hearings. First of all, when they`re not select committees, you have the partisan back and forth. Second of all, everyone gets their time.
And this format is really putting one to two members of the committee in the lead, a limited number of witnesses live and then really drawing on the evidentiary cream, if you will, if you want to be a huge nerd with me. The cream of hundreds of depositions and not making the public sit through that which again is different from traditional hearing.
So I`m curious as someone who really is versed in the presentation of the law what you thought about that last night because it`s so different than most hearings.
MURRAY: Well, Ari, I`m wearing a dress that`s literally covered with books. So obviously, I`m happy to nerd out with you.
MELBER: And you have a lot of books behind you.
MURRAY: I like big books and I cannot lie.
This is obviously incredibly — good shout out — this is obviously highly choreographed and by design. And, you know, this was very similar to what they did for the second impeachment where there were a lot of multimedia presentations designed to sort of link all of this together.
Here though, they`re actually I think it`s necessary to have this kind of highly choreographed presentation rather than the back and forth that we`re used to because they need to tell a story that brings together some really disparate pieces of this puzzle and shows how they`re all inextricably intertwined and linked together.
And so, you know, again, this the usual sort of partisan back and forth it`s not really the case here because there are only two Republicans on this committee. So there isn`t the necessary back and forth. But it goes with a kind of interrupted flow.
Here, they have an uninterrupted moment to present their case, to present it the way that they want to present it without any rebuttal in between and they can actually lay the case out for the American people, show how all of these different disparate pieces of evidence link together, and do so in a way that`s compelling for a generation that frankly is not the kind of generation that we saw in Watergate, that`s sort of used to sitting in front of the TV for hours watching these sorts of things. This is a social media audience that wants to see fast-paced, click-baity, like interesting and very dynamic clips all put together and they`re doing that.
So they`ve gotten a lot of blowback for having it be produced, but I don`t really know that they had any other option.
MELBER: Yeah and I would say that that blowback is only on the internal sort of Eastern Seaboard obsessive discussion range.
[21:40:00]
I don`t think most the 19 million Americans watching it live were like, oh, when I read in “Axios” who the committee hired. I think they`re going to really just say, was this a clear story or not? As we`ve emphasized, if it`s done right, that`s so people can have the facts, what they decide about that should be up to them in a democracy.
So, I`ve got Beschloss on standby. So I`m going to let you go into your weekend. Professor Murray, good to see you as always.
MURRAY: Thank you.
MELBER: Absolutely.
When we come back, if journalism is the rough draft, then what do we get out of the second draft that leads to history? Well, as mentioned, historian Michael Beschloss and Obama adviser Chai Komanduri right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:45:15[
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THOMPSON: In 1862, when American citizens had taken up arms against this country, Congress adopted a new oath to help make sure no person who had supported the rebellion could hold a position of public trust. Therefore, congresspersons and United States federal government employees were required for the first time to swear an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That oath was put to test on January 6, 2021.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Foreign and domestic. When the Constitution`s founding to the oath history we heard there, there has always been an awareness that democracy and safety can come in peril by our own fellow Americans. Chairman Thompson was referencing that last night. It may have went right by some people because a lot happened, but it was quite a striking moment and a historically accurate one, the oath that many view is a kind of symbolic gesture that people do when they become members of Congress — we`re showing you many of those from recent times — is actually a version of the ironclad oath that was used after the Civil War.
There was nothing symbolic about it. It was actually a kind of litmus test at the time southern rebels could not truthfully swear to that oath had they attacked the country and they could be barred from office or voting or charged with perjury if they were someone who did do those things and were trying to sneak through the loophole of the oath by claiming otherwise.
Now, many people don`t think practically about that oath or the president`s oath to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic, never in our over 200-year history have people even with the great and deep differences in our nation had to wonder whether the president would become an enemy, whether the president would observe for example an armed attack on the seat of government be it from foreign terrorists or domestic — as I`m emphasized here tonight — and that that president would do nothing, because some enemies would not be enemies to the eyes of that president.
As the chairman said there, January 6 tested all of this and the question is what do we do with history as a road map here, given that we have been tested before we have had armed rebellion before and how did the story of these hearings continue to confer some historical weight as they go on through the next weeks.
For that conversation, we have a little bit of the past and a little bit of the present. Michael Beschloss is NBC News presidential historian, no better guess to talk about that history of rebellion. And here in the present, we have a former Obama advisor political strategist Chai Komanduri, about the rhetorical and communication challenges of holding the nation`s attention in the coming hearings.
Michael, begin with you and your thoughts on that little bit of history the chairman shared and how it applies.
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC NEWS PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I`m so glad he mentioned it and I`m so glad you mentioned it, Ari, because here`s a case where what people were saying at the end of the civil war, people from the north, the victorious side said, you know, we`ve won the civil war but we`re in danger, you know, because without an oath like this that will keep these people out of positions of public trust, who`s to say that old Confederate senators will not run for the Senate again and get elected and they will use their perches in the Senate to try to have another civil war, and another offense against the federal government just as happened in Fort Sumter with the firing on Fort Sumter in 1861?
And they were absolutely right because as you both know, there was a Confederate president whose name was Jefferson Davis. Davis was a former senator from Mississippi. And Davis, after 1865, took him a couple of years but he began giving speeches and what did Davis say? Davis said the South never lost the Civil War. Actually, we won but it was stolen from us, and we`ve got to do something to get that back.
Who does that remind you?
MELBER: Powerful and well put.
And, Che, we wanted to bring you into this segment because you`ve been very thoughtful about how do you do effective communication or governing within these extreme environments. And one of the challenges of standing up to extremism is that you can start to look extreme. In the dawn of the Trump era, some people who were genuinely concerned and issuing warnings were written off as histrionic.
[21:50:01]
People can judge for themselves whether the warnings were you know borne out. Trump left the way he left office and we see that.
What do you see as the challenge for Democrats and how are they navigating it and trying to wake everyone up in these hearings without having it sound like every hearing is, oh, my god, a five alarm fire in a way that reduces the significance? How do you navigate that?
CHAI KOMANDURI, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah, I think quite frankly the Democrats have nailed it. I think it`s been a perfect ten in terms of the execution of this hearing. I think that the way they have packaged this the way they have sort of really tried to tell a story, a specific story about what happened.
Donald Trump said X, Y happened. That is the way this hearing is proceeding. And I think that`s crucial going forward in terms of telling the story of this hearing.
I do think the challenge actually will not be for Democrats the hearing. I think this challenge will be what comes after the hearing, and there I think history gives us two very different examples.
So I`ll bring up Watergate where, you know, the hearings concluded, articles of impeachment were adopted. There was a definite follow-through, there were definite action items. Barry Goldwater went to the White House, the rest was history.
The other one I bring up is Iran Contra. And Iran Contra was a situation where Democrats had the hearings, there were no action items, there was really no follow-up, there was no real argument that Ronald Reagan and the Reagan administration needs to be held accountable. Oliver North kind of swept in and made an appeal to conservative tribalism, which is exactly what Tucker Carlson is doing now and the result was the hearings had no impact.
A year later, voters went to the polls didn`t even think about the Iran Contra scandal when they re reelected the Reagan administration to effectively stay in power.
Those action items that follow up, what follows these hearings I would argue is going to be more crucial towards the outcome of how this would be remembered than the hearings themselves. I think the hearings themselves have been tremendous. Great moments. Liz Cheney was tremendous, that is a world historical moment I think that she had last night.
I think Ivanka Trump, that was one of the most talked about moments, really today on social media with what she said about her father and then what her father today said about her. But I think it`s what comes after the hearings where the challenges lie.
MELBER: Yeah. All fair points.
Michael?
BESCHLOSS: Well, this was a plot against democracy. It`s — I thought it was evident on the day it happened. I was just looking back. I did a tweet at 2:45 p.m. during this attack saying this is a coup d`etat by the president of the United States. It`s not that I was so prescient it was because you began to see who could benefit and what Trump said about people marching to the Capitol, so this was sort of hiding in plain sight.
But the point is that this was done by a president who was happy to dismantle our system and he was doing it — we`re increasingly finding — arm in arm with people who can be fairly described as domestic terrorists, some of the groups that you were talking about earlier this — earlier this hour.
And, you know, more than that, if it had succeeded. You know let`s just think about that for a moment, 6th of January historically, we might not have this program to be saying what we think on the air right now. You know, what would be the role of military be in the society? Would there be martial law? Would there be a invocation of the Insurrection Act? Would there have been a move by President Donald Trump who is holding on to a second term that he didn`t deserve to jail his enemies?
We don`t know any of that, but that`s what`s at stake. And unless we identify those guilty, punish those guilty and as Chai was saying, pass reform laws to make sure it never happens again, all of us in this country will live under a sword of Damocles.
MELBER: All important points.
Michael Beschloss and Chai Komanduri, I want to thank you both. I hope people are listening.
And when we come back, the Biden administration actually reversing something Trump wanted and, boy, wait until you hear the details. I`ll see on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:58:24]
MELBER: Take a look at these 24 karat gold coated seatbelts on a 757. The gilded fixtures — if that`s not to give away, you are looking at Trump Force One, which is what some were calling Trump`s personal plane.
What`s interesting is that the gilded accents aren`t unique to that plane. Trump`s failed airline, Trump Shuttle, had gold plated hardware, just one of the several stylist decisions that made no sense. The planes had marble sinks that were too heavy for the aircraft, so Trump Shuttle had to opt for faux marble. The former president doesn`t have the best track for educated, abjectly speaking, when it comes to these type of plane calls.
We have further evidence of that today because when Trump was in office, he wanted to redesign the replacement for Air Force One — a color scheme that was very similar to his personal plain, red white and dark blue, taking over the iconic light blue and gold design.
Well, today, amidst other admittedly more important things, the Biden administration is scrapping the paint scheme officially, saying no to Donald Trump`s decorations skills and keeping the classic design that has worked since JFK was president, which is much of the plane era.
Officials saying the paint scheme is not being considered because it could drive additional engineering time and cost. The darker blue would`ve made the inside of the plane to hot and then required other modifications to cool the planes parts. That is what we call a rough landing.
All right, that does it for this hour of MSNBC. It`s another big week, though, starting Monday, live coverage all day of the full hearing. You can see the lineup there, including our special coverage.
I will see you — you can always find, 6:00 p.m. Eastern. You can find me online, @arimelber or arimelber.com. And you can find me covering the hearings at 6:00 Eastern, and then Rachel will be here, most importantly, you might say, at 8:00 p.m., along with Chris and Lawrence and everyone else covering the hearings Monday night.
And speaking of Lawrence O`Donnell, well, I`m handing it over to him.
Good evening, Lawrence.