Updated
Summary
The January 6 Committee focuses on Trump`s efforts to call a mob to the Capitol. Congresswoman Liz Cheney alerts the DOJ to a fresh round of possible witness tampering by Donald Trump. Former Oath Keepers spokesperson Jason Van Tatenhove discusses his testimony to the January 6 Committee.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on THE REIDOUT:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation, a witness you have not yet seen in these hearings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Liz Cheney drops a bombshell in the closing moments of today`s January 6 hearing, alerting the DOJ to a fresh round of possible witness tampering by Donald Trump.
Plus:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON VAN TATENHOVE, FORMER OATH KEEPERS SPOKESPERSON: What it was going to be was an armed revolution. I mean, people died that day. Law enforcement officers died this day. There was a gallows set up in front of the Capitol. This could have been the spark that started a new civil war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Gripping testimony about the Oath Keepers and its indicted leader, Stewart Rhodes, from a man who was once on the inside.
That witness, Jason Van Tatenhove, joins me tonight.
But we begin tonight with Trump summoning the mob from the very outset of these public hearings. A memorable line from Liz Cheney laid out exactly what happened: President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.
Today`s hearing spells out exactly how the mob was summoned that day, which, as with most things Donald Trump, can be traced back to a tweet, in this case on December 19, 2020. As the committee showed, it`s important to note what happened in the frantic final weeks of the Trump administration leading up to that tweet.
Today`s hearing filled in those blanks, focusing on everything that happened after December 14, the critical date, when the electors meet and the election is finally over.
In fact, here`s what Mitch McConnell said the very next morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): Yesterday, electors met in all 50 states. So, as of this morning, our country has officially a president-elect and a vice president-elect.
Many millions of us had hoped the presidential election would yield a different result, but our system of government has processes to determine who will be sworn in on January the 20th. The Electoral College has spoken.
So, today, I want to congratulate president-elect Joe Biden.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: So, did the former president follow the advice of his advisers? Because they were certainly sending a unified message?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: If your question is, did I believe he should concede the election at a point in time, yes, I did.
EUGENE SCALIA, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR: I conveyed to him that I thought that it was time for him to acknowledge that President Biden had prevailed in the election.
JUDD DEERE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: I believed at that point that the means for him to pursue litigation was probably closed.
QUESTION: And do you recall what his response, if any, was?
DEERE: He disagreed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: What Trump did instead was to assemble a gathering of his inner circle four days later, on December 18, a mix of the usual motley crew of personal lawyers pushing fraud and a collection of White House and other lawyers telling Trump that what his band of misfits was pushing to do with nuts, including this claim from former White House counsel Pat Cipollone:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CIPOLLONE: To have the federal government sees voting machines, it`s a terrible idea.
That`s not how we do things in the United States. There`s no legal authority to do that. And there is a way to contest elections. That happens all the time.
But the idea that the federal government could come in and seize election machines, now, that — that`s — I don`t understand why we even have to tell you why that`s a bad idea.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: In the meeting, the former president watched up close as Cipollone and other lawyers batted down the increasingly ridiculous claims and legal arguments from people like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.
The latter, he actually considered naming as a special counsel to investigate voter fraud.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CIPOLLONE: I don`t think any of these people were providing the president with good advice. And — so I didn`t understand how they had gotten in.
ERIC HERSCHMANN, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ATTORNEY: I was asking, like, are you claiming the Democrats were working with Hugo Chavez, Venezuelans and whomever else?
CIPOLLONE: I remember the three of them were really sort of forcefully attacking me verbally.
HERSCHMANN: I think that it got to the point where the screaming was completely, completely out there.
RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I`m going to categorically describe it as, you guys are not tough enough, or maybe, put it another way, you`re a bunch of (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[19:05:03]
REID: It was a meeting White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson later described as unhinged.
So, of course, Trump doesn`t listen to the rational lawyers or the fringe lawyers. Instead, he turned to a new plan, riling up his supporters with that 1:42 a.m. tweet on December 19 — quote — “Big protest on D.C. on January 6. Be there. It will be wild.”
He knows the rest of it is a lie. But what happened after that explosive invitation was that the planning and marketing of the rally for January 6 completely changed, as did the effort to sell the big events and his wording of his planned speech that day.
And, today, we heard the inevitable conclusion, predictable in hindsight, from one of the many individuals who went into the January 6 — into January 6 believing that he was following his leader, the former president, Stephen Ayres, an Ohio man who has pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct for his actions that day.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. BENNIE THOMPSON (D-MS): During this review, we identified you entering the Capitol, as we see in this video.
Mr. Ayres, why did you decide to come to Washington on January the 6th.
STEPHEN AYRES, PLEADED GUILTY TO DISORDERLY CONDUCT: I was pretty hardcore into the social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. I followed President Trump on all the Web sites.
REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FL): So, why did you decide to march to the Capitol?
AYRES: Well, basically, the president got everybody riled up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Joining me now, Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and MSNBC national security analyst, and Matthew Dowd, political strategist and founder of Country Over Party.
Thank you both for being here.
Frank, I thought this was another dynamic hearing. But what it boils down to in my mind thus far is that Trump had three options for staying president. Option number one, go the legal route that a lot of candidates do who lose elections. You do lawsuits to try to win. He lost all of those by December 14.
Option two, try to get the Department of Justice to play ball to pretend that there was something wrong with the election, so he could convince state legislatures to throw out their own electors willingly. That`s option two.
Option three feels like what we learned about today, which is, get the fake electors. Just get pretend ones. Get those electors somehow to Washington, give them to Mike Pence, and then use violence to make him, make him certify them. What did you make of the hearing today?
Because just to throw one thing in there, before option three, in my reading of it, Donald Trump`s goons assembled, right, like a bad Marvel movie. Kelly Meggs, who was the leader of the Oath Keepers, she put a Facebook message on December 19, saying this: “This week, I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida 3 Percenters and Proud Boys. We have decided to work together and shut this S down.”
Your thoughts?
FRANK FIGLIUZZI, NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, I don`t think anyone can claim anymore that there was a spontaneous riot that developed out of a peaceful rally on January 6. We`re done with that misperception.
But you`re on the money here, Joy, with regard to those three options. And what happened today was, we were taken behind the scenes, as close as we may ever get, really, to kind of the thinking of Donald Trump, because, by behind the scenes, I mean, we understand the chronology that got him to that option number three, which is, I got to appeal to the masses now, because I have got nothing left here.
And I can`t take credit for this great description of that meeting in the White House with people just waltzing in and people asking, who are you? Pat Cipollone is sitting there with other official people. And here comes this ne`er-do-well cast that was described by Neal Katyal earlier today as the bar scene from “Star Wars,” with Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.
And you can`t — you won`t see a more stark contrast between the rule of law and the rule of Trump. By the rule of Trump, I mean, if you can`t get what you want, just get there by any means necessary. And so we saw then the next step is the tweet that says, be there, it`s going to be wild, right?
And we also heard that White House call logs show two calls on January 5 with Steve Bannon. And what does Steve Bannon do after call number one with the president? He gets on the air. And he says, all hell`s going to break loose tomorrow.
So, about as close as we`re going to get to a smoking gun, not the smoking gun showing direct knowledge. But when you combine it with the Secret Service telling him, don`t march down to the Capitol, and he still wants to, and he wants that march to the Capitol, that rally cry to be kept secret just among a few people, because he says, I don`t want to get in trouble with the National Park Service, right?
I`m not buying that. So, where I come from, where I`m at with this now is, there`s clearly enough predication for DOJ to have opened a case, if they have not, that includes Donald J. Trump`s name in the subject line of the case.
[19:10:05]
Do we have a successful indictment, prosecution and conviction? I`m not there yet. But we have got a solid predication to open a case on the former president.
REID: Right.
And, Matthew, I mean, what Trump has in common with people like Stewart Rhodes, in addition to their sort of penchant for violence, sort of interest in violence, is the sense of entitlement, that we`re — that this — it doesn`t matter what the election said. It doesn`t matter if we couldn`t prove that there was any fraud. That doesn`t matter.
We`re — Trump is going to be president no matter what. Here`s Stewart Rhodes. This is him on December 12. And this is him giving a speech about what Donald Trump needs to do, meaning, in his mind, use the Insurrection Act, to stay president. And here he is, Stewart Rhodes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEWART RHODES, FOUNDER AND LEADER, OATH KEEPERS: He needs to know from you that you are with him. If he does not do it now, while he is commander in chief, we`re going to have to do it ourselves later, in a much more desperate, much more bloody war.
Let`s get it on now, while he is still the commander in chief.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: And not to use his stage name. His name is actually Elmer Rhodes, Elmer Stewart Rhodes, the guy who shot his own eye out with a gun he dropped.
Your thoughts, Matthew?
MATTHEW DOWD, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I`m going to pile on with what Frank said and what you said, which is, not only was this not a spontaneous rally at the Capitol. It was an insurrection, organized insurrection.
That meeting that occurred, the “Star Wars” bar meeting that occurred, wasn`t a spontaneous meeting. Donald Trump was like a mob boss who goes in and loses a bunch of money at a casino. And then he`s mad that he lost a bunch of money in a casino, and then he wants to blow up the casino, right? This is a — I want to blow up the casino.
And then a number of people around him say, that`s a bad idea. You shouldn`t do that. And then he goes out and finds a bunch of cruel and craven and crazy people to say that`s a really good idea. Why don`t you do that? That`s what he did that.
Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani and all those others that were in that crazy meeting were there because Donald Trump wanted them to tell him, this is a good idea. And so you can`t — part of — I mean, as Frank knows, part of the law is, you can`t just keep acting this sort of willful knowledge, like, oh, I have got people to tell me.
Well, he went out and searched for people to tell them crazy stuff to do. And then he went up and did it. And I think that`s the fundamental problem. I`m not a lawyer in this. I don`t — not only do I think they have enough to open an investigation. I actually think they have plenty to indict him at this point in time.
Whether or not they can get a conviction, I actually think opening an investigation and indicting him is in the best interest of our democracy at this point in time to have a case that goes to trial of Donald Trump for what he did in what happened at the Capitol.
REID: And, Frank, look, I`m not a lawyer either. I just watch lawyers like you on TV, right?
But I think anyone who`s watched like “CSI” like once can sort of put this together, that Donald Trump — by midnight, Rudy Giuliani is being escorted out of the White House by Mark Meadows, who later gets in on the plot. But he`s escorting him out to make sure he doesn`t circle back to the West Wing, right?
Then, he — at 1:49, Donald Trump sends out this rage tweet after he had been told and had his other cuckoo plots like taking all of the voting machines knocked down. Then he sends his tweet. I want to know who he talked to between midnight and 1:49.
I want to know who he spoke to that might have been able to assemble that mob and might have had contact with the Oath Keepers and the 3 Percenters, et cetera, because Donald Trump ain`t calling Kelly Meggs.
Let me play three people who are potential people Donald Trump could have reached out to and what they said on January 5.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROGER STONE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: We will win this fight or America will step off into 1,000 years of darkness.
LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN (RET.), FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: The members of Congress, those of you that don`t have the moral fiber in your body, get some tonight, because, tomorrow, we the people are going to be here, and we want you to know that we will not stand for a lie.
ALI ALEXANDER, JANUARY 6 RALLY ORGANIZER: These degenerates in the deep state are going to give us what we want, or we are going to shut this country down.
ALEX JONES, HOST, “THE ALEX JONES SHOW”: It`s 1776! 1776! 1776!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: There were people that were on the responses to Donald Trump calling for January 6 to be wild who were using the term Red Wedding. If you watched “Game of Thrones,” you know that means bloodshed.
So there was obviously violent intent by people who were at the Capitol.
Frank, if you were investigating this case, do you start by calling — which of those guys do you call first to try to find out who might have been on the phone with Donald Trump from midnight to 1:49 a.m.?
FIGLIUZZI: You have got — so, you got to connect those dots as close to the president as possible, right? What did he know?
We all tend to agree here that, look, he should have known. Many people, including his own attorney general, his own White House counsel, his own daughter were telling him that you don`t have it here, the fraud is not there, we`re done, right?
So now who`s convincing him about a potential violent plot? And why does he say it`s going to be wild? Why does he know he has to march people by the thousands to the Capitol?
[19:15:05]
So I`d start approaching many of the people, of course, who the committee has already got hold of. But I`m more interested in people who don`t want to talk. You remember, Steve Bannon, his trial starts next week for contempt. He`s not — he`s not talking. He claims he wants to volunteer to cooperate with the committee. Don`t buy that for a second. That`s going to be a circus.
So, Mark Meadows is critical here. Mark Meadows has to has to tell what he knows. And then you got to have — and I think it`s happening, Joy. You got to have Proud Boys leaders and Oath Keepers leaders flipping.
REID: Yes.
FIGLIUZZI: We have got a dozen of those at least on both sides charged with seditious conspiracy. They`re going to prison for 20 years to life.
Somebody`s going to flip about who knew that Trump was organizing this or his associates. I think that`s where the case is going to rest.
REID: Yes, somebody needs to talk. Don`t — you`re going to go to jail for life for Donald Trump? Or are you going to try to get a better deal by maybe telling on somebody?
Frank Figliuzzi, Matthew Dowd, thank you both very much.
Up next on THE REIDOUT: Trump`s criminal culpability as he plotted to keep his presidency by force when all other options failed.
THE REIDOUT continues after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:20:19]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child.
Just like everyone else in our country, he is responsible for his own actions and his own choices. As our investigation has shown, Donald Trump had access to more detailed and specific information showing that the election was not actually stolen than almost any other American.
And he was told this over and over again. No rational or sane man in his position could disregard that information and reach the opposite conclusion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Wow. Well, OK, gangster lady.
Today, the committee laid out in great detail how Donald Trump knew exactly what he was doing. On December 18, he sought counsel with Mike Flynn, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, people who were peddling his big lie, even though they knew it was a big lie.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: One of the other things that`s been reported that was said during this meeting was that President Trump told White House lawyers, Mr. Herschmann, Mr. Cipollone, that they weren`t offering him any solutions, but Ms. Powell and others were, so why not try what Ms. Powell and others were proposing.
Do you remember anything along those lines being said by President Trump?
DEREK LYONS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY: I good. That sounds right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Trump rewarded that bad behavior by offering Powell a job as a special counsel with top-level security clearance.
When his White House lawyers, including Pat Cipollone and Eric Herschmann, advised against that, because Powell was pushing unhinged conspiracy theories that would get him into legal trouble, Trump denigrated them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNEY POWELL, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Shortly before we left and it totally blew up was when Cipollone and/or Herschmann and whoever the other young man was said, you can name her whatever you want to name her and no one`s going to pay any attention to it.
QUESTION: How did he respond? How did the president respond to that?
POWELL: Something like: “You see what I deal with. I deal with this all the time.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: From December 14 through January 6, Trump continued to surround himself with coup sympathizers, including 10 congressional Republicans who were tasked with deploying his plan on January 6.
On December 21, Trump spearheaded a meeting with those members to make sure they were all on the same page.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MURPHY: We have asked witnesses what happened during the December 21 meeting. And we have learned that part of the discussion centered on the role of the vice president during the counting of the electoral votes.
These members of Congress were discussing what would later be known as the Eastman theory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: The committee provided evidence that, as the rally date inched closer, Trump had in fact coordinated with rally organizers about having his supporters march to the Capitol.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MURPHY: The organizer says: “This stays between us. We`re having a second stage at the Supreme Court again, after the Ellipse. POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol. POTUS is going to just call for it unexpectedly.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: On the eve of January 6, the positively jubilant Trump talked about pressuring RINOs and joining the crowd, all while fully comprehending the volatility of the situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER TRUMP AIDE: He did look to the staff and ask for ideas of how, if I recall, he said, that we could make the RINOs do the right thing.
SHEALAH CRAIGHEAD, FORMER OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHER: The president was making notes that — talking then about, we should go up to the Capitol. What`s the best route to go to the Capitol?
QUESTION: Did he give you any indication of how he knew that the crowd was fired up or angry?
DEERE: He continued to reference being able to hear them outside.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: That same night, January 5, Trump was legally advised against attacking Vice President Mike Pence in his speech.
The next day, after Pence informed the former president that he would not be pardoned to a coup, a visibly angered Trump decided once again to ignore his legal counsel by attacking Pence multiple times.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MURPHY: A single scripted reference in the speech to Mike Pence became eight. A single scripted reference to rally-goers marching to the Capitol became four, with President Trump ad-libbing that he would be joining the protesters at the Capitol.
Added throughout his speech were references to fighting and the need for people to have courage and to be strong. The word peacefully was in the staff-written script and used only once.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Joining me now is Charles Coleman, Charles Coleman Jr., a civil rights attorney, former prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst, and Jill Wine- Banks, former assistant Watergate special prosecutor and co-host of the “Sisters In Law” podcast.
And, Jill, I`m going to start with you because you got the popcorn pin on, so, if you wear popcorn pin, Charles, keep that in mind. Next time, you can go first.
[19:25:02]
But I`m going to — I have to ask you about this, because there are a couple of puzzles for me here. And one of the biggest ones is Mark Meadows. Mark Meadows is not Ted Cruz. He`s not like a faux intellectual who sees himself as some sort of 1776 era figure.
He`s just like a schmucky former congressman from North Carolina, whose only sort of notable thing was that he was a birther during President Obama`s presidency and he was a Tea Partier.
He — Cassidy Hutchinson testified about how he seemed to change in the days between December 14 to January 6. Let me play — let me play that. This is Cassidy Hutchinson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO MARK MEADOWS: I perceived his goal with all of this to keep Trump in office.
You know, he had very seriously and deeply considered the allegations of voter fraud. But when he began acknowledging that maybe there wasn`t enough voter fraud to overturn the election, I witnessed him start to explore potential constitutional loopholes more extensively.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: During the Watergate hearings, Jill, I mean, the key were people like John Dean, who turned — basically turned state`s evidence. It wasn`t a criminal trial.
But I am fascinated by Meadows. Are you? Because this is one person who, to me, is a puzzle. He`s on the phone with some unknown person during the rally while Trump is out there speaking. We still don`t know who that is. As Cassidy Hutchinson testifies — she was his top aide — he sort of turns from being one of the normals to being in on the conspiracy.
What do you make of that?
JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: It`s one of the strangest things, because I have tried to talk to Trumpers, and they don`t have facts.
He had the facts. And I think he`s smart enough to have understood what was true and what was propaganda. And so it is hard to imagine that he isn`t complicit in all of the crimes that were being committed. What would make him turn? It`s what sucks in anybody to a conspiracy in the presence of the president.
And I saw this in Watergate, where one of our defendants was an outside lawyer who was only briefly involved who had an impeccable record. But in the presence of the president and the top aides, he started doing things that I know he would have never done but for the pressure of being in that environment.
And the only thing I can think of is that Mark Meadows just simply lost his moral compass and was willing to do whatever it took to make Donald Trump happy, to let him have his way. I mean, he`s the one who said, well, just let him go on and rant right now. He will turn over peacefully the reins of power, which, of course, he has never done. To this day, he hasn`t done it.
Maybe Mark Meadows actually believed that if they sort of treated him like a 12-year-old, and let him rant and rave, that he would give up this crazy nonsense of staying in power by any means possible.
You have loyal people like Rusty Bowers who said: I wanted him to win. I just didn`t want to cheat to do it.
So some people said the Constitution matters. My oath matters. Somehow, Mark Meadows lost that and was willing to do — John Dean got hooked into being part of the conspiracy. And then he woke up and went, what I`m doing is terrible. I`m going to cooperate. And I`m going to tell the truth. First, I`m going to tell the president the whole truth. And then I`m going to tell the president I`m going to the prosecutors.
And that`s what he did. And that was a real break for us.
REID: And, Charles, except to the point of committing a felony?
I mean, Mark Meadows got one of the million — part of the $250 million scam money that Donald Trump raised off of the big state, the big lie. So he got a little bit of money, but a million dollars isn`t enough to go to prison for. It is very hard for me to understand why he is resisting the subpoena, why he is refusing to talk, what could be in it for him, because I know it ain`t a million dollars to his PAC.
What do you think just as a — just as a prosecutor, as a lawyer, what do you make of it?
CHARLES COLEMAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Joy, the thing that I have been trying to wrap my brain around this entire time is how President Trump — or former President Trump is still able to influence as many people within the Republican Party and within his circle as he has been able to.
He can`t offer them anything.
REID: Right.
COLEMAN: And so, for me, it`s baffling that these people still feel this endearing sense of loyalty to him, because, if he were president, and could offer them an executive pardon, for example, that might provide some incentive for them not to cooperate.
But there`s nothing that he can do for them. He`s a political pariah, for all intents and purposes. And so, just like you, I`m wondering, what is it that you are offering, or what is it that you believe that this man can offer you, such that your loyalties lie with him, and you`re willing to jeopardize your own freedom by refusing to cooperate with the committee?
[19:30:18]
I have no idea. I wish I had a better answer. But that is the million- dollar question, and literally the million-dollar question, in terms of, why is this worth so much to so many people that they have decided that they`re not going to cooperate with the committee?
REID: I have to ask you this, because the Justice Department went after Bannon. And they went after some people who refuse to comply with the subpoenas. Bannon blinked. He suddenly said, whoa, whoa, whoa, I will cooperate. I will come and testify live. I will come and do a TV show for you. And just let me — don`t cross me. And the judge said, no.
(LAUGHTER)
REID: But I wonder what each of you think — and I will start with you, Charles — on the DOJ not coming down that way on Meadows. What does that tell you? Because it makes no sense to me.
COLEMAN: Well, Joy, I think the American public has been trying to be as patient with Merrick Garland and the DOJ as possible.
But I think the bigger question, as pressure continues to mount on Merrick Garland, is, what are you going to do when are you going to do it, particularly when you`re talking about witnesses and people who are not President Trump?
I can understand waiting until the committee drops its report, its final report, to decide in how you`re going to deal with the referrals around President Trump. But with witnesses like Mark Meadows, that`s what the question is. And there`s a lot of pressure coming on a lot of different people and a lot of different groups.
REID: Yes.
COLEMAN: There`s not only pressure on Merrick Garland and the DOJ.
There`s pressure on House Democrats to make sure that they`re able to actually turn this into something come midterms. That`s obviously a bigger conversation for down the road. But there`s now pressure on the American people.
What we saw today with respect to the different extremist groups and the information that we learned now puts pressure on the American electorate to decide, what kind of country do we want to have? We have ignored the calls and the charges that we have seen in terms of this growing militancy around militias, around violence, around so many different things that, after today`s testimony, can no longer be ignored.
So this has put a lot of pressure on a lot of different people. Merrick Garland is probably at the top of the list, because people want to know, what are you going to do about Mark Meadows, particularly with this question of executive privilege not being as bulletproof as we once thought it was?
REID: Yes.
And if Pat Cipollone doesn`t have executive privilege — he was White House counsel — how does Mark Meadows continue to be able to float out there? I don`t get it.
Charles Coleman, Jill Wine-Banks, thank you both.
And don`t go anywhere. Former Oath Keepers spokesman and January 6 Committee witness Jason Van Tatenhove joins me next.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:37:16]
REID: Today`s bombshell hearing offered real insight into the far right extremist groups involved in the Capitol attack, featuring a former member of one of these groups, the Oath Keepers.
Back in 2014, Jason Van Tatenhove joined members of the anti-government militia organization to document their support of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy, who initiated an armed standoff with federal — with federal and state law enforcement over defaulted grazing fees.
He would go on to work for the Oath Keepers as a national media director. Van Tatenhove said that the best illustration for what the Oath Keepers are happened on January 6. And, though he did get out, his fears remain.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VAN TATENHOVE: I do fear for this next election cycle, because who knows what that might bring if a president that`s willing to try to instill and encourage, to whip up a civil war amongst his followers using lies and deceit and snake oil, and regardless of the human impact, what else is he`s going to do if he gets elected again? All bets are off.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Joining me now is Jason Van Tatenhove, author of the forthcoming book “The Propagandist: Oath Keepers and the Perils of Extremism,” which is out in February.
Jason, thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate you taking the time.
You were very eloquent today. And I can recall just reading the “Denver Post” article about you and saying — I grew up in Colorado, so I`m like, oh, I know what those — I know where those places are. I know where this guy`s from.
And these are not communities that are extreme. They`re conservative, but they`re not extreme. So, how does a tattoo artist, an artist, a punk rock guy wind up with the Oath — wind up with the Oath Keepers?
VAN TATENHOVE: Well, when Bundy ranch first kicked off, I knew that there was going to be a story there.
And one of my biggest influences in life as a writer has been Hunter S. Thompson, and he had his breakout novel with the Hell`s Angels. And I thought this might be an opportunity for me to do that.
So, I went. And I covered the Bundy ranch. I got embedded with Stewart Rhodes and his vehicle as he went down for the second part of that. I was invited back to and given unprecedented access to the Sugar Pine Mine standoff and then the White Hope Mine standoff.
And, at that point, my name got used on a press release. So that was the end of my day job. And Stewart offered me a job as the national media director and an associate editor for the Web site. So that`s really what kind of kicked get off.
[19:40:00]
And I will say and as — admit that I did get swept up in it for a bit. And part of why I`m speaking out is because I want to — I want to communicate to other people that may have been swept up in similar rhetoric that there is an exit ramp, there`s a way out.
REID: And, for a while, I mean, you got so close to Stewart Rhodes, he lived in your basement, right? Like, he actually lived live with you.
VAN TATENHOVE: Yes.
REID: When you got to know him that way, did he show inklings of the megalomania?
Let me play a little bit of him. This is Stewart Rhodes on December 12 of 2020. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RHODES: He needs to know from you that you are with him. If he does not do it now, while he is commander in chief, we`re going to have to do it ourselves later, in a much more desperate, much more bloody war.
Let`s get it on now, while he is still the commander in chief.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Was it always that megalomaniacal, or was there something different about the organization early on?
VAN TATENHOVE: No, no, there are so — we saw an evolution.
They did start off much more like a constitutional book club or an educational outreach. But I think what Stewart found as he participated in these standoffs was that he got a whole lot of camera time, and there was a lot of donations flowing in. And I think that really helped to cement.
I think during Bundy ranch, during the week I was there, I overheard between $30,000 and $40,000 was raised in a week, of which, of course, only about $12,000 ever made it to the Bundy family. So it was a way that fed his ego and got him in front of the cameras and got his message out.
And so, yes, I think I think that all plays a part of it. Now, also, to your earlier question, Stewart, I really don`t think believes a lot of the stuff that he puts on in front of the camera. I think that there`s kind of two Stewart Rhodes.
The Stewart Rhodes that lived in my basement at one time was doing yoga classes in Whitefish while he was living with me. But there was certainly this other Stewart that we see on the cameras and we see in — on Infowars and such. And that`s a really dangerous thing, because he doesn`t seem to care about the repercussions of that messaging.
REID: We — I`m wondering if when you were around him — because you said that you broke with him because of some really antisemitic Holocaust denial and stuff like that.
People like Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, Richard Spencer, that type of person, Roger Stone, to your knowledge — but, I mean, you got out in 2016.
VAN TATENHOVE: Yes.
REID: Did you did you ever see the Richard Spencers, that kind of person around him?
Because we know that the Oath Keepers a year after you were out already did take part in the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville. So they were getting involved in some really violent, ugly stuff. Were any of those people around when you around him?
VAN TATENHOVE: Really, I had begun to disengage.
There was one specific event that I referenced in my testimony today that led to my resignation. And it really was Richard Spencer, he — when he got punched in the face on camera, the Oath Keepers were providing security.
But I have never been a racist. I have never been antisemitic. My cousin is Jewish, my family members that are Jewish. I`m openly queer. So there — again, there`s a lot of things that just don`t jibe when you`re off the camera, the cameras are turned off, when it comes to Stewart Rhodes.
REID: Yes.
VAN TATENHOVE: There are other employees that were gay couples.
REID: Yes.
VAN TATENHOVE: When we went out to Kentucky to cover the county clerk who wouldn`t officiate the gay marriages, the story I had wrote around that piece was completely dismissed by Stewart, heavily edited, like, because what it comes down to is, the Oath Keepers really is just Stewart Rhodes.
All of the messaging, all of the decisions, all of it, it`s Stewart Rhodes.
REID: Well, let me ask you this, because a lot of the people who have testified before the committee have talked about the threats they have received, the threats to their families.
You were involved with some pretty bad guys. And while you have been out for a while, you have now testified publicly. You have told your story. You`re writing a book about them. Have there been repercussions for you?
VAN TATENHOVE: No, but I — just dealing with realms that I dealt with, I gained a thick skin pretty quickly.
And I have got safety precautions and a safety plan put in place for my children, and I have been very vocal in communicating, like, how to be safe with this, as safe as we can be. We have really good communication with local law enforcement, local government in the small mountain town that I live in.
So we have tried our best to do it, but I`m kind of just of the thought process that, if you`re not getting regular death threats, you`re not doing something right. And this is an important thing that we need to talk about as a nation.
[19:45:03]
This — we`re in a very precarious time. And we need to take action now. We need to start speaking out, I knew there would be a time where my story would need to come out.
REID: Yes.
VAN TATENHOVE: And that time is now. So, that`s what I`m doing.
REID: Well, Jason, you started off wanting to be a journalist. And you`re — you`re doing that now with your book. I hope you will come back when your book comes out in February.
Thank you, Jason Van Tatenhove. I really appreciate you. Thank you.
All right, coming up next: how social media and online chat groups made organizing an insurrection much easier than it should ever have been.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:50:12]
REID: During today`s hearing, the January 6 Committee shared the concerns from a former Twitter employee about Donald Trump`s use of the platform to specifically reach out to far right extremist groups to act as his loyal foot soldiers, actions that would have led to the permanent suspension of any other user much sooner than Trump`s account was ultimately shut down.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED TWITTER EMPLOYEE: My concern was that the former president, for seemingly the first time, was speaking directly to extremist organizations and giving them directives.
It felt as if a mob was being organized. After this tweet on December 19, again, it became clear, not only were these individuals ready and willing, but the leader of their cause was asking them to join him.
QUESTION: And you were concerned about the potential for this gathering becoming violent?
UNIDENTIFIED TWITTER EMPLOYEE: Absolutely.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
REID: Joining me now in person, Ben Collins, NBC senior — NBC News senior reporter and the guy, the person that I, like, furiously text “What the hell?” whenever crazy things happen.
Ben, it is so good to actually be — have you on set.
So, when Trump sends out this tweet, this December 19 it`s going to be wild tweet, the response was, like, immediate.
Let me just read some of them.
From a 4chan post: “Why don`t we just kill them, every last Democrat, down to the last man, woman and child? The average Democrat is a traitor. They do not care about election fraud. The punishment for treason is death.”
From a Gab post, the sort of Nazi platform: “It`s time for the Day of the Rope. White revolution is the only solution.”
We were talking about it in the break. They actually did bring a rope.
BEN COLLINS, NBC NEWS SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, they actually brought a rope.
Day of the Rope, I — we want to make this clear. In white nationalist literature, Day of the Rope is the day everything changes. It`s the day the revolution starts. They kill journalists. They keep — they go down the list. They kill everybody they think would be retributive for all the harms that have been done since basically Nazi Germany lost. It`s basically what Day of the Rope is.
So that`s what they were planning on in some of those spaces. And you`re right. In those days — remember this. This is like five days before Christmas.
REID: Yes.
COLLINS: So, people — like, people are not naturally like this in this, in this mood, in this mode right now.
It was incredibly virulently violent in these spaces. On The Donald, which they talked about today as well, where this was all planned, they had more specific…
REID: And that`s on Reddit, right?
COLLINS: Yes, it used to be on Reddit. They got kicked off of Reddit for being too violent. What are the odds of that?
REID: Yes.
COLLINS: So, on The Donald, they had real plans they talked about. They talked about this today in the hearing, but they talked about fortifying the stuff underneath the Capitol, the tunnels underneath the Capitol, so people couldn`t escape.
That`s what was going on in those spaces. So, on 4chan, it was the antisemitism…
REID: Yes.
COLLINS: … the racism, the violence. On The Donald, there was planning. And on Donald Trump`s account, there was a guy at the very top saying, no, no, keep going. Go through with this thing.
REID: Yes. Yes.
And just to show you all what — how far right media personalities responded to it, OK, let me just play a little quick mash-up of that. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And now Donald Trump is calling on his supporters to descend on Washington, D.C., January 6.
JONES: He is now calling on we the people to take action and to show our numbers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We`re going to only be saved by millions of Americans moving to Washington occupying the entire area, if necessary, storming right into the Capitol.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You better understand something, son. You better understand something, Red Wedding. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) Red Wedding. There`s going to be a Red Wedding going down January 6.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED) you better look outside. You look out — January 6, kicked out the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) door open. Look down the street. There are going to be a million-plus geeked-up, armed Americans
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: So, the social media platforms were all pretty much lit on fire by this tweet?
COLLINS: Yes, absolutely.
And, by the way, wait a second. We don`t know who`s Salty Cracker is.
(LAUGHTER)
REID: Yes.
COLLINS: But that is a very good example of how, like, down in the weeds every little YouTube and MAGA…
REID: Right.
COLLINS: … account or whatever, they — they all knew.
There was — everyone knew what he meant by that.
REID: Right.
COLLINS: It was, go there on the 6th.
And that`s what we heard in that testimony today too by Ayres, Stephen Ayres. He said: I knew from there to go to the Capitol.
REID: Yes.
COLLINS: And then, when he — when I was there, he said, go to the Capitol, not just the Ellipse, but go to the Capitol, and I will meet you there.
This was unambiguous to every single extremist group and every single extremist wannabe who showed up on the Ellipse on the 6th.
Speaking of Stephen Ayres, I don`t know if we have time to play this. This is Stephen Ayres talking about following Donald Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AYRES: I was pretty hardcore into the social media, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. I followed President Trump on all the Web sites.
[19:55:03]
I was hanging on every word he was saying. Everything he was putting out, I was following it. I mean, if I was doing it, hundreds of thousands or millions of other people are doing it, or maybe even still doing it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Multiply him by like 10 million.
COLLINS: Yes.
I mean, we have heard this over and over again. Ayman, our colleague, did a story about a woman who died on the steps.
REID: Yes.
COLLINS: Same thing. This person was just radicalized by the Internet. And they just had time on their hands during the pandemic, and they just ended up here.
And there`s — like, I`m not saying there`s no malice in that person`s soul or something, but it was activated by what was happening in the two or three weeks before January 6.
REID: Yes.
COLLINS: And there`s no way Donald Trump didn`t know this.
I think we — we have to keep saying this. He brought in the five people in the world who thought this was actually happening, who thought there was the thermostats were rigging the election or something like that.
REID: Right.
COLLINS: You don`t happen upon those people. Those — you find those people…
REID: Yes.
COLLINS: … because those are the people who are the loudest on social media, who are giving you an excuse to go through with this sort of thing.
REID: Yes.
Ben Collins, you`re the best. Thank you very much. Really appreciate you being here.
That is tonight`s REIDOUT.
But do not go anywhere. I will be back in a moment with my friends for a recap of tonight`s dramatic January 6 hearing. You don`t want to miss it.
Stay right there.