Updated
Summary
“The New York Times” reports that former FBI Director James Comey and his former deputy, Andrew McCabe, both of whom President Trump saw as enemies, both of them faced highly intensive IRS audits. This Friday, the January 6 investigation will get to ask former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone about new revelations.
Transcript
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: Chris, good evening to you. You have a great night. Thank you.
And thanks to you at home for joining us at this hour.
We have an entirely different show planned for tonight, but the big news story just broke in “The New York Times”. The former FBI Director James Comey and his former deputy, Andrew McCabe, both of whom President Trump saw as enemies — well, both of them faced rare, supposedly random, but highly intensive IRS audits.
[21:00:09]
You may remember back when the then FBI Director James Comey oversaw the early stages of the FBI`s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia in the summer of 2016. With questions swirling about those ties, as Trump took office, Comey dropped a public bombshell in the early days of the Trump presidency.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I`ve been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government`s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia`s efforts.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: It would later be revealed that Trump had demanded loyalty from Comey, and repeatedly pressed him to end the investigation into Trump`s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Now, after Comey refused to do so, Trump fired Comey in shocking fashion.
In a remarkable Oval Office meeting the following day, the day after he fired him, Trump told Russian diplomats that by firing Comey, the previous day, quote, I faced a great pressure, because of Russia. That`s taken off.
Around the same time, Trump all but admitted to NBC`s Lester Holt that he had fired Comey because of the, quote, made-up Russia investigation.
Well, with Comey gone, Andy McCabe became the acting FBI director. And one of his first actions, the very next day, was to open up a counterintelligence investigation into the president, in his ties to Russia out of fears that he too would be fired, and that investigation would be shut down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW MCCABE, FORMER ACTING FBI DIRECTOR: I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion, that were I removed quickly or reassigned, or fired, that the case could not be closed, or vanished in the night without a trace.
INTERVIEWER: You wanted a documentary record —
MCCABE: That`s right.
INTERVIEWER: — that those investigations had begun, because you feared that they would be made to go away.
MCCABE: That`s exactly where it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: Both Comey and McCabe would repeatedly be targeted by President Trump, who assailed them in public, and called for their prosecution.
The following year, one day before McCabe was scheduled to retire and get the benefits that he had earned on the job, McCabe was fired by the FBI amid accusations that he had lied to Justice Department officials. Charges were never brought, and that case was later dropped.
Both of these men, whom President Trump saw as some of his political enemies, his top political enemies, both of them ended up intensively audited by the IRS. You might be thinking, I`ve been audited, is not that crazy. But this particular type of audit is different.
According to “The New York Times”, tax lawyers refer to this type of incredibly invasive audit as a, quote, autopsy without the benefit of death. The odds of being selected for that audit in any given year are roughly one out of 30,600.
Now, in the end, these audits did not find anything. McCabe told “The New York Times” he and his wife owed the government a small amount of money, which they paid. Comey and his wife actually overpaid their taxes, and this audit led them getting a nearly a $350 refund. But the audit themselves cost the Comey`s $5,000 in accounting fees, and Comey had to turn over all of his personal information, bank statements, a copy of his family`s Christmas card to prove that he had the children that he claimed as dependents.
Now, how did two of President Trump`s top perceived enemies and of facing that kind of an audit? The kind of audit that seems designed to dig up any possible dirt. How exactly does that happen?
A spokesperson for President Trump said he had, quote, no knowledge of this. But in a statement to “The Times”, Cheney said — Comey said that we were all thinking. Maybe it`s a coincidence, or maybe somebody misused the IRS to get at a political enemy. Given the role Trump wants to continue to play in our country, we should know the answer to that question, end quote.
Well, that we should, and part of the story that I really don`t think that we should overlook is how we almost never learned about it. James Comey and Andrew McCabe had worked together for years, and neither one knew that the other had been audited like this. Both after they were fired from the FBI. And neither man knew that the other have been audited until they were told by a reporter for “The Times”.
That reporter was “New York Times`” Michael Schmidt. I don`t know if there are other Trump enemies out there that underwent intensive random audits by the IRS, but if they are and they`re listening, please email my next guest, Michael Schmidt.
[21:05:08]
Joining us now is Michael. He is the reporter for “The New York Times” who broke this story.
Michael, thank you for joining us this evening.
We mentioned this particular type of audit as exhaustive and exhausting. But can you help us understand how much an audit like this makes the IRS ask for, and how much work it is to provide all of the material that they need?
MICHAEL SCHMIDT, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, THE WASHINGTON POST: So, most audits that the IRS do, is set up by an algorithm, or computer that catches something weird in your return. Somebody claims a 500,000 square foot home office, there is something weird, something odd, that the computer says, hey, and they send you a letter, they say what is going on with this home office? Can you help clarify that? You have to explain that individual issue.
That`s what most audits look like. They are annoying. People don`t like them. They see them as invasive. But they are part of the process for the IRS to collect the money that it needs to run the government.
A small percentage of audits are done to figure out what the tax gap is. That`s the gap between wet Americans do pay in taxes, and what they should be paying in taxes. So this is a survey of the country, to figure out who isn`t paying their taxes.
And they go out, and the IRS says that they randomly pick Americans for this. Because they don`t know what they are looking for, they have randomly picked these Americans. They have to turn over everything in your financial life, to recreate your financial year, to determine whether you understated or overstated everything on your taxes. So, that means, producing receipts, in the case of Comey there was a question about a printer cartridge that he had bought two years earlier that he had taken a right off on. And whether he could come up with that receipt, or if there was an AmEx statement to back that up.
As you are pointing out, Comey had claimed dependents. To show that those dependents existed, that his children actually existed, he had to present a family`s Christmas card to the IRS. It took the Comey`s 15 months to get through this audit, and it cost him $5,000 in accounting fees. They needed an accountant to go back and forth with the IRS agent who was doing the audit.
VELSHI: Yeah, and the interesting thing about these audit is you can`t really say, you are the IRS, you know that I have kids, why don`t you handle that? When they ask you for information, you actually have to provide it.
The odds of getting selected for one of these random audits is about one in 30,000 and a little bit, according to your article. The odds that both of these men, who have the same position, back to back, in the same administration, both seen as political enemies of the president in charge, and the IRS headed by a man that the president appointed. It just makes it seem less than random.
SCHMIDT: So, we actually don`t in the story lay out what the odds are because we don`t know how the IRS actually randomly selects these people. Whether it is weighted in a way, all we know is that the IRS says that they are trying to get a full picture of what the country looks like. They`re trying to get people that are W2 employees, people that are maybe making millions of dollars a year, people that may be at the lower end of the economic spectrum.
What the numbers in the story show is that one out of how many taxpayers was subjected to this. So, here were the numbers.
For 2017, the year that they looked at Comey`s return. There were 5,000 audits of these done on individual taxpayers. That could be a husband and a wife, or a partner together, so it could be a little bit more than 5,000 people, but out of 150 million returns. So, they are randomly picking 5,000 people out of 150 million returns.
In 2019, the year that McCabe was audited for, there were 8,000 returns that were selected by the IRS for this, out of 153 or 454 million returns that were from that year.
So, these are very low numbers, and what former IRS people that we talked to said, what are the chances that the people a top of the Trump`s enemies list, people who had overseen some of the most controversial decisions in the FBI`s history. Remember, a lot of people blamed Comey for the election of Hillary Clinton.
[21:10:01]
There`s a lot of people that look very negatively on the FBI from this period of time. And these two people were subjected to these audits.
VELSHI: The defeat of Hillary Clinton.
The current IRS commissioner, Charles Rettig, he was appointed to his post by Donald Trump in 2018. Ironically, he had written an op-ed in “Forbes” at one point, saying that he didn`t think it was necessary for Donald Trump to have to provide his personal tax returns. That was before he was appointed.
What do we know about him and the potential role that he had in this election of these —
SCHMIDT: Well, the IRS in response to questions from us say that the commissioner plays no role in this election of this. He had no discussions with the White House, any White House about any particular type of audit, or law enforcement matter. So, they pretty forcefully came back and said that on the record to us, they included that in the story.
We know that he is someone that advocated during the 2016 election, that Trump should not release his returns. He is an attorney who had dedicated much of his career to helping people that were fighting with the IRS, the often wealthy people that were fighting with the IRS. We know that Biden allowed him to stay in his position.
So, when Biden came in, he could`ve replaced pretty much anybody that he wanted in the executive branch. I think that going along with trying to restore some of the norms, he allowed the FBI director to stay in his position, even though Trump had appointed him. And he allowed Commissioner Rettig to stay in at the IRS. His term is scheduled to be expired at the end of this year, towards the end of this year in the fall.
So, Biden could`ve replaced him, but allowed him to stay.
VELSHI: Michael, thanks very much for some excellent reporting. We appreciate it. Michael Schmidt is a reporter with “The New York Times”, we appreciate you joining us on short notice, after the story was published.
Turning to our other big story tonight, the one that we are going to start with, I want to start with a meeting in the oval office. There is a lot of yelling in this meeting. It was a Friday night, December 18th, 2020, about a month after the presidential election had been called for Joe Biden.
Inside the Oval Office, President Donald Trump was in an unscheduled impromptu meeting with some of the most florid election conspiracy theorists in the country. His disgraced former national security adviser Mike Flynn, who had gone on Newsmax the day before to call on Trump to declare martial law to seize voting machines and re-run the election. Also there, lawyer Sidney Powell, who is pushing the theory that the election had been hacked by foreign communists, somehow including the deceased former dictator of Venezuela. And Patrick Byrne, the founder of Overstock.com, who was forced to resign from that company when it was revealed that he had had an affair with the convicted Russian agent Maria Butina.
Byrne found a new career finding election conspiracy theories. With a group like, that it was bound to be quite a meeting. Here is how “Axios” reported what happened inside of the Oval Office that night, quote: Sidney Powell proposed declaring a national security emergency, granting her and her cabal top secret security clearances, and using the United States government to seize Dominion`s voting machines. In disbelief, a White House adviser yelled out to an aide in the outer Oval Office, get Pat down here immediately!
Several minutes later, White House counsel Pat Cipollone walked into the Oval. Powell continue to elaborate on a fantastical election narrative involving Venezuela, Iran, China, and others. Right now, people were yelling and cursing Cipollone and other officials said that Powell`s theories were nonsensical.
Flynn went berserk. “You`re quitting! You`re a quitter! You`re not fighting!” he exploded.
Flynn turned to the president and implored, sir, we need fighters! Cipollone, standing his ground amidst this mismatch of conspiracies, said they were totally wrong. He aggressively defended the DOJ and the FBI, saying that they had looked into every major claim of fraud that had been reported. They were now in our four of a meeting, unprecedented even by the deranged standards of the final day of the Trump presidency.
Trump and Cipollone, who had frequently butted heads, went at it over whether the authority had the administration had the authority to do what Powell was proposing, end quote.
By the time Cipollone and other White House officials left after midnight, they were quote, fully prepared for the mad possibility that Trump might name Sidney counsel — Sidney Powell special counsel, giving her the resources of the federal government to propagate her wild theories.
Just on the basis of that meeting alone, December 18th, Friday, December 18th, 2020, you can understand why the January 6th investigation would want to interview Pat Cipollone, Trump`s White House counsel.
[21:15:11]
And that is just one of the many crucial meetings when Pat Cipollone was in the middle of the days and weeks leading up to January 6th, which is why the January 6 committee subpoenaed him last week, after their attempts to secure his voluntary cooperation went nowhere.
And today, we learned that Mr. Cipollone, who was a lawyer and he knows the law, will comply with that subpoena. He will sit for a transcribed videotaped interview with the January 6th investigators this Friday.
Now, Pat Cipollone met with the committee in April for what was referred to as an informal interview. “The New York Times” reports today that the agreement he reached with the committee for that April interview included limits on what he could discuss.
What we don`t know is that whether Friday`s formal interview will be subject to any such limitations.
But even under the April agreement, Mr. Cipollone did talk about one White House oval meeting with Trump. Dramatic showdown in which Trump tried to install Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark as the attorney general, because Clark, you will recall, was promising to set a few if he was installed urging Republican rip legislators to overturn Joe Biden`s win in several states.
At that meeting, the entire senior leadership of the Trump`s Justice Department said they would resign if Trump would put Clark in charge and allowed him to send the letter.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I made the point that Jeff Clark is not even competent to serve as the attorney general. He`s never been a criminal attorney. He`s never conducted a criminal investigation in his life. He`s never been in front of any jury, much less a trial jury.
And he kind of retorted by saying, well, I`ve done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation and things like that. I said, that`s right, you`re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office and we`ll call you when there`s an oil spill?
And Pat Cipollone weighed in at one point. I remember saying, that letter that this guy wants to send, that letter is a murder, suicide pact. It`s going to damage everyone who touches it. And we should have nothing to do with that letter. I don`t even want to see it.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
VELSHI: That`s Pat Cipollone right in the thick of it again. And then, of course, we have last week`s bombshell testimony from the White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson once again highlighting Pat Cipollone`s central around January 6th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: On January 3rd, Mr. Cipollone had approached me knowing that Mark had raised the prospect of going up to the capitol on January 6th. Mr. Cipollone and I had a brief private conversation where he said to me, we need to make sure that this does not happen. This would be legally a terrible idea for us. We have serious legal concerns if we go up to the Capitol that day. He then urged me to continue relaying that to Mr. Meadows because it`s my understanding that Mr. Cipollone thought that Mr. Meadows was indeed pushing this along with the president.
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): And we understand, Ms. Hutchinson, that you also spoke to Mr. Cipollone on the morning of the 6th as you are about to go to the rally on the ellipse. And Mr. Cipollone said something to you like, make sure the movement to the Capitol does not happen. Is that correct?
HUTCHINSON: That`s correct. I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out that morning and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don`t go to the Capito, Cassidy, keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.
CHENEY: And do you remember which crimes Mr. Cipollone was concerned with?
HUTCHINSON: In the days leading up to the 6th, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: So, this Friday, the January 6 investigation will get to ask Pat Cipollone about those conversations. Did they happen the way Cassidy Hutchison says they did? And when we refer to being charged with every crime imaginable, what crimes exactly was he imagining that they or the Trump administration or Donald Trump or his staff could be charged with?
And while Pat Cipollone will not be testifying publicly, we`ve learned about another witness who will be. CNN reports that the Trump White House deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews, this woman, has been subpoenaed to testify publicly as soon as next week. She resigned from the White House the night of January 6. And last week, she publicly defended Cassidy Hutchison against attacks by Trump allies.
[21:20:00]
Matthews has already given a recorded deposition to the committee and the people who let her questioning was this man, John Wood, former United States attorney brought on by a senior investigative counsel for the January 6th investigation. We saw him questioning witnesses at a hearing last month. Mr. Wood led the investigation`s gold team, which examined Trump`s involvement in the Capitol attack itself, all of which makes him someone with the unique insight of what the investigation might learn from Pat Cipollone and what we should expect from the next public hearing starting next week.
Luckily, John Wood joins us live next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:25:15]
VELSHI: In addition to the news that the January 6th investigation has secured an interview with this — on this Friday with Trump`s White House counsel Pat Cipollone, we`ve also learned that the committee has subpoenaed another White House staffer to testify publicly possibly as early as next week.
Her name is Sarah Matthews. She served as deputy press secretary until her resignation just hours after the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6. When she was first deposed by the committee, an investigator named John Wood led the questioning. You might remember him from a hearing last month when he cross-examined witnesses about Trump`s pressure campaign on Mike Pence, to get him to block the certification of the 2020 election.
Mr. Wood is no longer part of the committee. He recently left his post as senior investigative counsel to launch an independent bid for the United States Senate in Missouri.
Given his key role in the investigation, he as visibility that almost no one else has, and to what to expect from future hearings and perhaps from Pat Cipollone and Sarah Matthews.
Joining us now is John Wood, former investigation counsel of the January 6 investigation.
Mr. Woods, good to see you. Thank you for being with us tonight. Thanks for taking the time.
JOHN WOOD, FORMER INVESTIGATION COUNSEL, JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATION: Thanks for having me on. I appreciate it.
VELSHI: Let`s talk about Sarah Matthews first. What do you think we expect to hear from her if in fact she does turn out to be a witness next week?
WOOD: Yeah. So, I expect her to be very credible witness. She is very young but she had an important role within the White House. I led the interview as you said conducted by the staff and I found her to be very credible.
So I think she`s going to help fill in some of the gaps in the testimony they`ve heard so far and I think you`re really going to hear focus on the days leading up to January 6 and then, really, the minute by minute of January 6th itself. It may not be as explosive as what we heard from Cassidy Hutchinson, but each of these hearings I think is going to provide additional information that the American people have not heard yet.
VELSHI: So the committee had heard from Pat Cipollone and what was called an informal interview. And then the Cassidy Hutchinson stuff came out. What you realize from that and other stories that we keep getting as that Pat Cipollone was central to a lot of stuff. He was around and by the way his testimony may lead him to for people to think of him because the right side of history, given what he kept arguing.
But he`s agreed now to testify in front of the committee on Friday. I`m assuming that`s a product of Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony because so many references were made to him and things he said and legal exposure that he was worried about.
WOOD: So, I think it`s a combination of things. I think there were weeks of back and forth between the committee and Mr. Cipollone`s lawyers to try to get him into talk on the record. And discussions and negotiations about possible accommodations because I think Mr. Cipollone, for some of the information that he has, has legitimate privilege concerns. But a lot of the information he has clearly not privileged.
And so, it was really important that he eventually end up testifying before the committee on the record and videotapes of the American people can see it. I`m really glad to see that that`s coming together this Friday so that hopefully the committee will show some of the key clips of that interview during the hearing next week. So it`s important to American people hear from him.
And you are right about the Cassidy Hutchinson point. I think one of the reasons why Mr. Cipollone`s testimony is so important that on some of the things that Cassidy Hutchinson testified about, Mr. Cipollone was in the room and he will be able to either corroborate or reject some of the testimony she gave, which one of those he does will be very important in telling us how credible Cassidy Hutchinson was, because to me she appeared very credible.
VELSHI: One of the things she said about Pat Cipollone is that he had come to her and said don`t let this happen, don`t let them go to the Capitol. We will be charged with every crime imaginable.
Does that statement if it holds to be true, does that take away the executive privilege or any kind of privilege that Pat Cipollone had? Because obviously, lawyers can`t be engaged in the commission of crimes. If a lawyer warns about the potential commission of a crime, is that privileged information or can he testify against that?
WOOD: So, I will say the conversation that he had with her is probably not privileged to begin with. I don`t think you have to find an exception. The direct communications that he may have had with the president. So, hypothetically, if he said, Mr. President, you should not go to the Capitol because here the reasons why would be illegal, I think that would be privileged. But him just saying to another staffer that he says it might violate every law imaginable, I don`t think that that itself is privileged.
So, the executive privilege is — has some gray areas. But at its core is that senior staff should be able to give candidate advice to the president without becoming public.
[21:30:05]
But I think the comments that Mr. Cipollone may have given to somebody like Cassidy Hutchinson are probably not privileged.
VELSHI: In previous hearings, however, the committee has cited several instances in which path Cipollone allegedly did raise legal concerns over Trump`s actions before and during January 6th. I guess it`s going to be important for the committee to get him on the record, confirming or denying specific statements that he is been said to have been made. Like when we are just discussing.
WOOD: Yeah, that`s exactly right. I think that he said earlier that Pat Cipollone may turn out to be on the right side of history. I think he will. I think that from everything that I have seen, he was one of the good guys here, in that he tried to stop President Trump. In some cases, he did stop president Trump from doing some things that could`ve been harmful to the country.
So I have heard other people saying that he could be the John Dean of this investigation. He is different than John Dean in a very important respect, which is that John Dean was actually involved in some of the wrongdoing.
Here, I haven`t seen any evidence that path Cipollone was involved in any of the wrongdoing, in fact he tried to stop it. But he is similar to John Dean in the sense that not only does he have the same position, White House counsel, but he was right there in the room when so many of these conversations took place. He could turn out to be a very central witness to this whole investigation.
VELSHI: John, you`ve had a really good seat to these hearings, you`ve fine right in them. What is the biggest revelation out of the hearing so far for you?
WOOD: So, you know, I think that the biggest revelation in general is just how close we came to having a constitutional crisis that was even worse than the one that we had on January 6th, believe it or not. So, January 6th was absolutely horrible, both in terms of what it meant for the functioning of our government, and, of course, for the people who were injured or killed. It could`ve been far worse. And our democracy is very fragile.
And there were some things that a few people, when these cases who are serving Donald Trump, and appointed by Donald Trump were able to stop downtime from doing, they could`ve made it even worse than it was. So, the pressure that he tried to put on the Department of Justice ultimately was unsuccessful, because his Justice Department senior officials threatened to quit. He tried to place pressure on state officials, who were Republicans. They stood up to him, and said, mister president, we voted for, you but we cannot change the outcome of the election.
So, these are the kinds of things, and, of course, the vice president himself, saying no to the president, saying that he would not change the outcome of the election. In each of those examples, our system held, but just barely. Our system is very fragile. So, I think that`s the key takeaway.
VELSHI: And but for a few people who you just mentioned, who did make choices to be on the right side of history. The system might not have held. And you have left your work on — your very important work on the committee to make a run for — as an independent, for Missouri`s open Senate seat.
Is part of this motivated by the realization you`ve had about how close we came to losing democracy? Is this your — is this your break in the wall that you can put?
WOOD: It is. I feel like our country is more divided than it has ever been, during my lifetime. We`ve gotten to the point where our democracy is at risk. Nowhere is that division more evident than in Missouri U.S. Senate race, where my party — I am a Republican, I`m running as an independent, but I`m lifelong Republican. But my party is poised to nominate a disgraced former governor who resigned from office because of the blackmail scandal involving his mistress, and has since been credibly accused of abusing his ex-wife and child.
He is still leading in the polls. He is unfit to serve in the U.S. Senate, and we need an alternative. And I think I would best represent the views and values of Missouri voters, which by and large are mainstream views. They tend to be right-of-center, but most people are within the mainstream, and rejected two extremes on the left and right.
VELSHI: One of the things that was valuable about you being in the committee, the buzz was that because you are a Republican. Because you`re a conservative, you might be able to back channel to get a lot of Republicans to testify before the committee. And actually, most of the interesting comp testimony has come from the Republicans.
Is that your work, and do you think that is important work? Do you think there are enough Republicans that have come forward and say I am a conservative, a lifelong Republican like you have said, but this is democracy, this is not partisan politics?
WOOD: Yeah, I certainly can`t take credit for the many successes of the committee, but as the successes greatly outnumber the ones where they have come up short. There have been a through very prominent people who have refused to testify. But the vast majority of people that the committee is trying to talk to have cooperated. Either voluntarily, or because they got a subpoena.
And as you point out, most of those Republicans, a lot of them are people who were appointed by and worked for Donald Trump, but they came forward and they did their civic duty, and they told the truth. And that is why, so far in this investigation, it has been such a success in terms of finding out what happened, and now conveying it through these hearings to the American people.
VELSHI: John Wood, good to speak with you tonight. Thank you for joining us.
John Wood is an independent candidate for the United States Senate in Missouri. He`s a former senior investigative counsel for the January 6th committee, and we appreciate your time.
WOOD: Thanks for having me on, Ali.
VELSHI: Up next, an interview with the district attorney investigating President Trump`s effort to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:40:13]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): If you can`t admire Joe Biden as a person, then you`ve probably got the problem. You`ve got to do some of self- evaluation, because what`s not to like? He is the nicest person I think I`ve ever met.
REPORTER: Is that right?
GRAHAM: He`s as good of a man as God ever created.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: A good a man as God ever created. That was South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, getting emotional about his relationship with then Vice President Joe Biden. That was back in 2015.
Here is again on January 6th of last year, speaking with a reporter for “The New York Times” after the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
GRAHAM: What this does, there will be a rallying effect for a while, where this country says, we`re better than this.
JONATHAN MARTIN, NYT: And Biden will help with that, right?
GRAHAM: Yeah, totally. He`ll maybe be the best person to have, right?
I mean, how mad can you get at Joe Biden?
(END AUDIO CLIP)
VELSHI: I mean, how mad can you get at Joe Biden?
Those words became more interesting as we learned that between the 2020 election, in November, and January 6th, Senator Graham made calls to key election officials in key states that Donald Trump lost — most notably, the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger just days after the election. Raffensperger later told “The Washington Post” that he was stunned that during a conversation, Senator Graham had appeared to suggest that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots.
Now, in public, Senator Graham has brushed that call off as nothing more than him being interested in election security.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Why is the senator from South Carolina calling the secretary of state of Georgia, anyway?
GRAHAM: Because the future of the country hangs in the balance. I have talked to Doug Ducey in Arizona, I have talked to the people in Nevada. We`ve got contest all over the nation.
REPORTER: Can you clarify this conversation that you had the secretary of state in Georgia? Did you or did you not ask him to throw out ballots?
GRAHAM: No, that`s ridiculous. I talk to him how to verify signatures.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: Now, as much as I wish it weren`t the case, my colleague interviewing Senator Graham, Garrett Haake, does not have subpoena power. There`s a big difference between how much of the story you might share with a reporter and how much of a story you have to share with a prosecutor, and a grand jury if you are under oath.
Brad Raffensperger has already given his account of what happened to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis`s grand jury. It`s on the record. He spoke for five hours about his infamous phone call with Trump, and presumably his interactions with the South Carolina senator as well. It is a fairly thorough investigation,
I`m sure they got to the part about Senator Lindsey Graham. So what about Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina?
Well, he was among seven Trump allies subpoenaed yesterday by that same district attorney, Fani Willis. You might think that because of Senator Graham`s supposed interest in the election integrity, he would be very interested in cooperating with the District Attorney Willis`s investigation into the efforts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.
But today, Senator Graham and his lawyer said that he will not comply. They he said that the investigation is a, quote, fishing expedition and that Senator Graham plans to go to court and challenge the subpoena. Today, my colleague Blayne Alexander got an exclusive interview with the Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, and got her response to what she will do about witnesses who defy subpoenas, and specifically about Senator Lindsey Graham.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLAYNE ALEXANDER, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: If you are met with resistance, how will you respond to that? If you`re met with resistance to people who say they do not want to come testify?
FANI WILLIS, FULTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Nobody wants to come to the prosecutors party, that`s part of the work that we do. We will take it before a judge, and he will make a ruling if we have a legal right to bring him before the court. But, I mean, I`m going to be a trial lawyer for a long time. Most times, people don`t want to come. That`s why you have the power of the state and the power to subpoena people, and bring them here.
ALEXANDER: Lindsey Graham actually put out a statement just since we have been sitting here. Essentially saying that this is all politics, Fulton County`s engaging in a footing expedition and working in concert with the January 6th committee in Washington.
Do you want to respond to that, him calling it a fishing expedition, saying this is nothing but, politics?
WILLIS: What do I have to gain from his politics? It`s an inaccurate estimation. It is someone that doesn`t understand the seriousness of what we`re doing. I hope he will come and testify truthfully before the grand jury.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: I hope that he will come and testify truthfully before the grand jury.
And if not, that`s why prosecutors have the power of the state to bring people in. Strong words from the Fulton County district attorney. And again, Lindsey Graham is just one of seven Trump allies that were subpoenaed yesterday.
[21:45:04]
We will have more from that interview including what may be in store for Donald Trump after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER: We talked about getting — drawing ire and threats. Have you gotten threat specifically because your investigation into the former president?
WILLIS: Yes and a lot of racist comments and foolishness. But I`m a woman — Black woman, I`m proud to be a Black woman, so insulting me with racial slurs is — maybe it entertains them.
[21:50:04]
It`s of no consequence to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: That was Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and an exclusive interview with NBC News correspondent Blayne Alexander earlier today. In addition to talking about the threats that she`s facing as the lead prosecutor investigating Donald Trump`s potential criminal interference in Georgia`s 2020 election, the district attorney also talked about where the investigation goes from here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER: Could we expect to possibly see additional subpoenas from people in former President Trump`s inner circle or Trump associates?
WILLIS: Yes.
ALEXANDER: Are we talking about family members? Are we talking about former White House officials?
WILLIS: We`ll just have to see where the investigation leads us, but 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, it`s very important work and we are going to do our due diligence and making sure that we look at all aspects of the case.
And so, all you see is a prosecutor doing her due diligence. I was — I had a team that was here that was investigating, that was speaking to people. Some people decided that they wanted a subpoena to talk to us.
It was enough people where I thought it was important to bring them before a special purpose grand jury where they could gain the information, and the special purpose grand jury could advise them. And so, that`s the process that we`re in.
ALEXANDER: Might we see a subpoena of the former president himself? ?
WILLIS: Anything is possible.
ALEXANDER: So we`re not ruling out? It is possible, though?
WILLIS: Absolutely.
ALEXANDER: I know in an interview recently, maybe a few weeks ago, you estimated that it could wrap up by the end of the summer that could bring the decision on indictments sometime in the fall. Is that still accurate? Is that timeline —
WILLIS: I think that is still a realistic goal with the progress that we`re making.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: All right. There is a lot in there that we need to break down. Luckily, I`ve got just the person to speak with.
Joining us now is Tamar Hallerman, a senior reporter for “The Atlanta Journal Constitution”, who broke the news this week that the Fulton County special grand jury about which the district attorney was speaking had subpoenaed numbers of Trump`s legal team, as well as the South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham.
Miss Hallerman, thank you for being with us tonight.
TAMAR HALLERMAN, SENIOR REPORTER, AJC: Thank you for being having me.
VELSHI: You just heard some of what the DA had to say. She had quite a bit to say about this investigation. What`s your reaction to her acknowledging the possibilities of subpoenas either for President Trump or members of his inner circle?
HALLERMAN: It`s both surprising and not surprising. She`s long told us here in Georgia that she is willing to potentially subpoena President Trump and she`s also willing to potentially indict him if she feels like elements of the crime have been met.
At the same time, it is still a shocking possibility because there is no precedent for this in U.S. history. No s U.S. president as ever been indicted for a crime. The fact that she`s moving up towards the pyramid getting closer to Donald Trump is certainly notable. I think the timeline she mentioned being done by the end of the summer, I`ll be curious if should be able to stick to that especially what we heard today from Senator Graham that he plans to fight the subpoena in court.
VELSHI: And Senator Lindsey Graham`s attorneys have said they`re going to do this. The district attorney does seem prepared for that fight. What`s your sense of how that`s going to work?
HALLERMAN: Well, my understanding is that there is going to be hearings in the states jurisdiction where the people live. Lindsey Graham being in South Carolina or potentially Washington, D.C., depending where he served. John Eastman being in New Mexico, Rudy Giuliani being in New York.
They`ll have a hearing with a local superior judge there, or if they are claiming some sort of privilege via attorney-client privilege, legislative immunity, they can argue their case, there will also be a representative from the DA`s office who will be arguing why those folks are necessary material witnesses and must be brought to Atlanta to testify.
VELSHI: What do you make of DA Willis saying that she is making progress and the timeline does seem to be about a decision about an indictment by fall? I think what Blayne Alexander was getting at there that anyone who is thinking this is political as that anyone will think it`s more political third indictment of Donald Trump or anyone in circle in the fall prior to the midterm elections?
HALLERMAN: Absolutely, and that`s a criticism you`ve heard from Republicans for months here in Georgia. They believe this is a partisan witch hunt that`s being designed for maximum political effect in this for the Democrats.
DA Willis is long denied that, she`s saying she`s not in the evidence taker prosecutors to wear leads. She says she has no predetermined kind of outcomes in her mind. That said, she did kind of pause or at least delay bringing in witnesses until after our may primaries here in Georgia, and I think she also mentioned to your reporting today that should this not be resolved by October which is when Georgia begins early voting, she will also pause until after the elections are passed just to prevent the perception that she is playing politics.
[21:55:12]
No matter what she does, people will accuse her of playing politics.
VELSHI: Yeah. Tamar, thanks for being with us tonight. Tamar Hallerman is a senior reporter for “The Atlanta Journal Constitution”.
We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Today, we learned the identity of the seventh victim killed in the last weekend`s mass shooting in Highland Park, Illinois. He`s been identified as 69-year-old Eduardo Uvaldo. He was pronounced dead just before 8:00 a.m. this morning, surrounded by his family. Members of Mr. Uvaldo`s family, including his wife and grandson were also injured in the shooting spree. Mr. Uvaldo joins the list of seven people who were murdered by the Highland Park gunman.
Those killed range in age from 35 to 88. They leave behind devastated families, including a two-year-old toddler whose parents were both killed, as well as a terrified community.
For those lives lost in the shooting, the gunman has been charged with seven counts of first degree murder. Prosecutors say that they don`t plan on stopping there.
That does it for us tonight. We will see you again tomorrow.
It`s time now for “THE LAST WORD WITH LAWRENCE O`DONNELL”.
Good evening, Lawrence.