Updated
Summary
The fallout from last night`s January 6 Committee hearing is examined. Steve Bannon is found guilty of contempt of Congress. The January 6 Committee plays chilling audio recordings of Mike Pence`s Secret Service agents fearing for their lives. Video of Senator Josh Hawley fleeing the Capitol mob is shown by the January 6 Committee.
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: You can always catch up with me online @AriMelber on social media, whichever one you use. Indeed, @AriMelber, we have an update on our event in New York tomorrow for those who want to join me.
And the best way to connect to me, as always, go to AriMelber.com, and we can connect directly.
I wish everyone a great weekend.
“THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID” starts now.
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on THE REIDOUT:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This election is now over. Congress has certified the results.
I don`t want to say the election is over. I just want to say Congress has certified the results, without saying the election is over, OK?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: He just could not say that it was over, the perfect summation of the eight blockbuster January 6 hearings.
And, as we learned last night, that 187 minutes on January 6 was not inaction. He was actually watching and waiting for his coup to succeed.
Also tonight, Steve Bannon guilty on both counts and facing up to two years in prison for defying subpoenas from the January 6 Committee.
And the chilling audio recordings of Mike Pence`s Secret Service agents fearing for their lives and how Trump was probably a little too tight with some of his own agents, which might explain those missing text messages.
We begin tonight with the clearest picture yet of what was supposed to happen on January 6, in the mind of Donald Trump, that is. The framing up until now has always been about Trump`s dereliction of duty that day as commander in chief.
But the important distinction laid out by the January 6 Committee last night in the season finale, as it were, of their blockbuster hearings, is that Trump didn`t fail to act,. He chose not to act, instead actively waiting for his plan to be realized, to be executed with military precision.
He was, in a way, acting as commander in chief after all, just not for the people he was elected to lead.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): The mob was accomplishing President Trump`s purpose. So, of course, he didn`t intervene. Here`s what will be clear by the end of this hearing.
President Trump did not failed to act during the 187 minutes between leaving the Ellipse and telling the mob to go home. He chose not to act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: The committee also shared that Trump did not call the vice president or anyone in the military or federal law enforcement to try to end the violence, details confirmed by his inner circle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): So are you aware of any phone call by the president of the United States to the secretary of defense that day?
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: Not that I am aware of, no.
QUESTION: Did you ever hear the vice president or — excuse me — the president ask for the National Guard?
(CROSSTALK)
GEN. KEITH KELLOGG (RET.), FORMER ACTING U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: No.
QUESTION: Did you ever hear the president ask for a law enforcement response?
KELLOGG: No.
GEN. MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: You know, you`re the commander in chief. You`ve got an assault going on, on the Capitol of the United States of America. No call? Nothing? Zero?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: But Trump did make some calls. He was calling senators to encourage them to delay or object to the certification. He did this as he watched his plan unfold from his private Dining Room in the White House.
The plan, of course, was to delay the certification of Joe Biden`s election and thus to overturn it, to even march to the Capitol himself, where members of Congress were running for their lives. It was a demand, an order that stunned the unidentified White House security official working for Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To be completely honest, we were all in a state of shock that this was no longer a rally, that this was going to move to something else, if he physically walked to the Capitol.
I don`t know if you want to use the word insurrection, coup, whatever, we all knew that this would move from a normal, democratic public event into something else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: That something else became what a Capitol Police officer described as a war scene.
People died; 140 police officers were assaulted, as gory bloodshed polluted our Capitol. American democracy did not die that day. But it wasn`t because Trump came to his senses. It was because his vice president chose country over Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KINZINGER: On the screen is the last photograph of the president that night as he went into the residence.
As he was gathering his things in the Dining Room to leave, President Trump reflected on the day`s events with a White House employee. This was the same employee who had met President Trump in the Oval Office after he returned from the ellipse.
President Trump said nothing to the employee about the attack. He said only — quote — “Mike Pence let me down.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: And we`re not letting Mike Pence entirely off the hook, by the way, because, after all of that, the violent attempted overthrow, the deaths, the Secret Service detail calling loved ones to say their last goodbyes, his detail specifically, well, the vice president himself hiding in an underground parking garage, oh, and the gallows, everybody, the gallows, the so-called Day of the Rope, even after all of that, Pence still has not fully rejected Trump.
[19:05:10]
And he isn`t the only one, which is another type of crisis we need to address as well. Trump did not fail to act that day. He didn`t want to. And he`s worked hard to keep that from America, so much so that he didn`t even want it documented by the White House photographer.
Joining me now is Andrew Weissmann, MSNBC legal analyst and former FBI general counsel who was a senior member of special counsel Robert Mueller`s investigative team, and Frank Figliuzzi, MSNBC national security analyst and a former FBI official.
Thank you all — both for being here.
And I do want to kind of start with — I want to go kind of a little bit backwards here, Andrew Weissmann, because we talked to you, got a chance to talk to you last night with Rachel and Nicolle and all of us.
And — but I want to kind of reiterate a little bit of what we talked about last night, because, for me, as a layperson, as a nonlawyer, I can see the thread to seditious conspiracy, because it seems to me that everything that`s happened so far, everything that the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been charged for only benefit one man.
And now that we know that Trump wasn`t inactive, he was active,he was actually using the 187 minutes as, like, the stall time to get his plan to work, to get Pence to do what he wanted, I cannot see how he could not be charged with something. And yet — Merrick Garland said the right thing. Let me play with Merrick Garland said.
This is cut five. I`m sorry. I`m jumping around for my producers. But this is five. This is Merrick Garland speaking recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: No person is above the law in this country. Nothing stops us…
QUESTION: Even a former president?
GARLAND: No — I don`t know how to — maybe I will say that again. No person is above the law in this country. I can`t say it any more clearly than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Rachel last night said that`s his version of screaming, right?
And, Andrew Weissmann, you know him better than I do. Do you believe that the Justice Department, with all that we have seen in these hearings, could possibly avoid indicting Donald Trump for a crime?
ANDREW WEISSMANN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think the first step is, can they avoid having a full-scale investigation into all of the aspects of the way in which he was conducting his coup?
We know that they are looking at the people who participated in the actual physical assault of the Capitol. And we know that there is indications that they`re looking at the fake electoral scheme. And they started to — at least a part of the Department of Justice has looked at some of the Department of Justice officials who seemed to be playing into the president`s scheme.
But there is no evidence that I`m aware of that they have interviewed or put in the grand jury a single person who worked in the Trump White House.
And that is what I`m really waiting for, is to see that Merrick Garland is going to carry through. Now, he is an honest, good person. And I think that what he was signaling and that clip that you played, and then he went on, I think that he does get it. It`s impossible for any sentient person to have listened to the evidence and not know that there is tons of factual predication for a full-scale investigation.
And that means resources and backbone and leadership. And this means that American people really rightly can look to Merrick Garland as needing to provide all that at this point.
REID: And just to stay with you just for a minute, Andrew, Bannon now guilty on two counts of obstructing — two counts because of contempt of Congress for basically just blowing off the committee and saying he wouldn`t — that he wouldn`t cooperate.
Peter Navarro was also indicted by a grand jury for not complying with a committee subpoena. He`s pleaded not guilty. There are two others, Mark Meadows, Dan Scavino, were not charged.
But does the Bannon conviction move us any closer and make him some sort of, I don`t know, potential witness? Does it have any bearing on this, the overall investigation?
WEISSMANN: I think it does, but I think indirectly.
I think what it — I don`t think that we`re ever going to see Steve Bannon as a full cooperating witness. I hope I`m wrong. But I don`t think that this charge has enough prison time that it is going to cause him to flip.
REID: Fair.
WEISSMANN: And that is how you flip people. He clearly doesn`t have the moral fiber to behave like Cassidy Hutchinson and other people.
REID: Yes.
WEISSMANN: But I do think it sends a message to everyone else who gets a subpoena that you could end up in being a defendant in a case, and that the Justice Department means business, and that, as the U.S. attorney said today, a subpoena is not an invitation to a party.
It is not a request. It is something that, when somebody gets it, an American citizen get said, you have to comply with it, and there are consequences when you don`t.
[19:10:03]
So I do think we will have consequences for other people who the committee wants to talk.
REID: Yes.
And, Frank, let me bring you in here, because, I mean, some of what we saw last night, it was incredibly dramatic, I mean, this picture of Chuck Schumer, the House — the Senate majority leader, and Mitch McConnell and all the rest of them — who is now the majority leader, all calling for help, all asking for help.
Mark Milley talking about the fact that he was asked to form a narrative that Vice President Pence wasn`t the one in charge, when he actually was. And he was like, I don`t do narratives, so I`m not doing that.
But, I mean, the reason this, to me, is urgent for me and for a lot of Americans is that the plan isn`t over. There is some really scary reporting at Axios right now, Jonathan Swan. Let me read a little bit of it.
“Trump allies are working on plans that would potentially, if Donald Trump were to be reelected and get another term, strip layers at the Justice Department, including the FBI, and reaching into national security, intelligence, the State Department and the Pentagon. Sources close to the former president say the heart of the plan is derived from an executive order known as Schedule F, developed and refined in secret over most of the second half of Trump`s term and launched 13 days before the 2020 election.”
They want to completely dismantle the government, take out the contents, and put in MAGA Trump people for God knows what purpose. Are you as worried as I am if Donald Trump were to get back into the White House?
FRANK FIGLIUZZI, NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Oh, yes.
If you thought season one of the Trump administration was dangerous to democracy, just wait for season two. This is a great piece by Jonathan Swan, by the way. And it says — look, this Schedule F concept could actually impact the president`s ability to remove about 50,000 federal government employees.
Now, people may say, well, there`s millions of people, the military, what`s 50,000? It means you go to the second and third layer at key agencies. It means that — we`re all familiar with political appointments, yes, the director of the FBI. Yes, we get that.
But now think about going down a couple of levels, go to the deputy director, go to the assistant directors, a position that I held. How about going to the special agent in charge of every single FBI field office and making them subject to Trump`s Whitmer and having Trump named them to their job?
Now do that throughout the government, throughout the intelligence community, and you have a nightmare on your hands. And you really would have the destruction of democracy as we know it.
REID: And, Frank, I mean, this is a man who, with Mike Flynn, wanted to cease voting machines.
He would clearly use the kind of power that he would have as president and run over the Justice Department, gut it, and replace it with something that could persecute all of the people he perceives as his enemies.
Could there possibly be in your view, Frank, a democracy with Donald Trump at the head of this country again?
FIGLIUZZI: All the warning signs and indicators are there that he is about authoritarianism, and not about democracy.
If it were up to him, we wouldn`t even have to deal with elections, because he seems to have a strategy, well-articulated now, particularly by Steve Bannon, that you don`t really have to win. You just have to have people think you won. So that`s the strategy for November and beyond.
And so there`s no — there`s no indication that he truly is wedded to the Constitution or democracy. When CPAC decides to hold their annual conference in Hungary, because that seems to be a template of what they want to put in place, we should take a lesson from that.
So, look, wherever you are, on whatever side of the aisle, and no matter how conservative or moderate Republican or not, if you want to sign up for the demise of democracy and the president literally running every key position at multiple levels of every government agency, then sign up for that.
REID: Yes, because that`s not conservatism. That`s radicalism.
And, Andrew, I will — final question to you. Do you think that Merrick Garland understands that?
WEISSMANN: I do.
When I was listening to Frank, this is really — going back to the clip you played of Merrick Garland, he said, there is no more significant investigation than this one. And it is — there is no more investigation important to get it right.
And it really is going to be a question of backbone and competence. But I do think that what he said the other night gives me some greater hope that he really gets that this is a battle for really the future of the democracy.
And I know that sounds grandiose, but listening to these hearings, it`s important to remember this really could be the end of the American experiment.
REID: And Nicolle Wallace last night said this was damn near the decapitation of the federal government, of the entire government. That`s literally who was in that Capitol, the people that they were looking to hang, to lynch. That`s as bad as it gets.
Andrew Weissmann, Frank Figliuzzi, thank you both very much.
Up next on THE REIDOUT: chilling revelations about how Secret Service agents on Mike Pence`s security detail feared for their own lives on January 6.
[19:15:04]
THE REIDOUT continues after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
REID: Worthy of trust and confidence, that is the motto of the Secret Service. They are also two attributes some leaders of the United States didn`t seem to have in the agency on or around January 6, 2021.
Before being sworn into office, President Biden he brought back a handful of Secret Service members who worked for him during his time in the Obama White House, because, according to “The Washington Post,” Biden allies were concerned that some agents were politically aligned with Donald Trump.
[19:20:14]
Fast-forward to last month, when we learned former Vice President Mike Pence was also weary of the agents who were with him during the Capitol attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREG JACOB, FORMER COUNSEL TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: When we got down to the secure location, Secret Service directed us to get into the cars, which I did. And then I noticed that the vice president had not.
So I got out of the car that I had gotten into. And I understood that the vice president had refused to get into the car. The head of his Secret Service detail, Tim, had said: “I assure you, we`re not going to drive out of the building without your permission.”
And the vice president had said something to the effect of: “Tim, I know you, I trust you, but you`re not the one behind the wheel.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Seeing — I mean, since the hearing, we have learned that Secret Service members have been deleting text messages from that day, despite being told multiple times to preserve those historical records.
And, last night, we saw the most dramatic evidence yet of just how much was at stake for these officers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The members of the V.P. detail at this time were starting to fear for their own lives.
There were a lot of, there was a lot of yelling, a lot of very personal calls over the radio, so it was disturbing. I don`t like talking about it, but there were calls to say goodbye to family members, so on and so forth. It was getting — for whatever the reason was on the ground, the V.P. detail thought that this was about to get very ugly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Joining me now is Julia Ainsley, NBC News homeland security correspondent Charles Coleman Jr., a civil rights attorney and former prosecutor.
Thank you both for being here.
And, Julia, I`m going to start with you. You have some reporting that the Department of Homeland Security watchdog has launched a criminal probe into the destruction of these January 6 Secret Service text messages.
I want to read you the latest statement from the Secret Service. This is the statement: “We have provided thousands of documents, operationally sensitive radio transmissions and access to Secret Service employees. We will continue to cooperate fully with the committee and any other investigative body and remain committed to helping ensure that another such lawless and violent assault on our constitutional process never takes place again.”
OK. That`s good to know. But that does not explain how an agency that is committed to ensuring constitutional processes would delete all of the e- mails on the relevant days. What`s the latest reporting on, is there any more explanation as to why?
JULIA AINSLEY, NBC NEWS HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, what we understand, Joy, is that there was a overall data migration that was supposed to take place when the Secret Service was going forward with a new update on their cell phones.
They were essentially restoring all their cell phones to factory settings. And the Secret Service actually sent out two e-mails to employees, one in early December and one in January, telling them that they needed to preserve records for the National Archives to not violate the Federal Records Act.
And then they even got one in early February specifically saying, do not delete or let disappear any text messages that have to do with January 6, because, at that point, they already had congressional committees who were interested in this information and were already sending subpoenas.
However, they were still lost. I hesitate to use the word deleted, because we don`t know that anyone went on to their phones and actually deleted them. But they certainly did not follow the instructions that were laid out for them to preserve those messages before the data completion went through and they disappeared.
Also, what`s unclear about this timeline is that, yes, they sent out that e-mail in early February saying, please preserve January 6. I have been told by sources a lot of them are already gone by that point. But from what I understand from my sources on the hill is that it was actually a migration that happened from January to April.
So it`s hard to understand how all of these relevant messages would have been the very first to go out.
Add on top of that we now know that the DHS I.G. probe is criminal Secret Service was just informed about that on Wednesday night. They were told to stop doing internal investigations, because now this is criminal in nature, which means that the inspector general could be referring anything they find as part of their probe into the text messages and what led them to be lost to the U.S. attorney in D.C.
So it could be that we see a prosecution out of this. And, Joy, we now know, again — we`re just hearing more and more, learning more and more from testimony — about how important those text messages would be.
I hear a lot of times that Secret Service doesn`t actually use text messages very often. But if you think about that day and what we`re learning now from the vice president`s detail, people calling their families, telling them goodbye, it would be very likely that in a situation like that, you would see text messages exchanged when people don`t feel comfortable making a verbal communication.
[19:25:01]
So, if it wasn`t happening on their government phones, my question now will, where my reporting is now going, questions I`m asking, is what about their personal phones? And will the inspector general or the congressional committees be making moves to try to get the text messages from the personal phones of these agents and officers?
A lot of unanswered questions, but we just keep learning more and more how important it is to get this information.
REID: Charles Coleman, having heard all of that and hearing the reporting, if it`s just a migration, why would there be a criminal probe then?
CHARLES COLEMAN JR., MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Joy, I think the simple answer to that is that, at this point, people aren`t buying it.
I don`t think that anyone has any confidence with respect to the Secret Service, because the story continues to evolve and change in different directions. And what that`s telling us is that there`s more than meets the eye in terms of what we`re hearing around this migration and the data which was apparently lost.
The Secret Service historically has an issue around credibility and the preservation of documents and data. We know that going back all the way into Watergate and others — and even the assassination of John F. Kennedy and how that was handled around different records.
And this is, quite frankly, no different, unfortunately. And I think that, at this point, the credibility of the Secret Service is not high enough to keep people from thinking that what they have told us initially about the situation is entirely true.
And so now we`re at the point where, given the nature of the information that was lost and how important it is, this does warrant a criminal investigation. And that`s why we`re seeing what`s happening happen.
REID: Well, let me quickly play — this is some of these radio transmissions for Pence`s detail as they were trying to get him to safety. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We may want to consider getting out and leaving now. Copy?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will we encounter the people, once we make our way?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Repeat?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Encounter any individuals if we made our way to the (EXPLETIVE DELETED)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There`s six officers between us and the people that are 5 to 10 feet away from me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stand by, I am going down to evaluate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have a clear shot if we move quickly. We got smoke downstairs. Standby. Unknown smoke downstairs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: By the protesters?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that route compromised?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We have the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) is secure. However, we will bypass some protesters that are being contained.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: So, Julia, I don`t think there`s any question that Mike Pence`s detail were doing their jobs in an admirable way, at least the ones that were specifically to him.
But he had questions about some of these other men. The two — two in particular are now lawyered up, Tony Ornato and Robert Engel. Ornato had a very unusual job. He was a Secret Service agent that then gets a White House job, a political job, where he`s working for the president. Now he`s back to being a Secret Service agent.
Any reporting on why those two might want to lawyer up?
AINSLEY: Well, Joy, what I do know is that these people also were involved in that incident that we heard about from Cassidy Hutchinson. They were involved in the car when the president wanted to turn it around and go back to the White House.
So what`s unclear to me is whether or not they lawyered up because of the incident happening with the vice president, the missing text messages or in the car, but it`s clear that these three were all in the car. So, for now, I`m assuming it`s for that reason. But, of course, there`s a lot of reasons why people who were that close to this incident and who Congress wants to get a lot of information from would want to have a lawyer to give them legal advice on how they should respond right now.
REID: They`re law enforcement officers, so one would think that they would just want to cooperate and that they wouldn`t need a lawyer. But they do, so it`s all very interesting.
Julia Ainsley, Charles Coleman, thank you both very much.
Still ahead, poor, poor, poor old Josh Hawley. From Republican up-and-comer to national laughingstock just like that, because it`s all fun and games until the mob you riled up starts coming for you. Am I right?
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:33:21]
REID: Yesterday`s hearing wasn`t just about the 187 minutes in which Donald Trump was watching and waiting for his mob to do what he couldn`t do legally, put an end to democracy in America.
It was also about Republican politicians and how they too were willing conspirators, case in point, the junior senator from Missouri, Josh Hawley. In the days leading up to the insurrection, Hawley, a man known for his robust personal ambition, was the first senator to publicly announce his plans to object to Joe Biden`s legitimate election.
Then, on January 6, he strode past the gathering mob and pumped his fist in solidarity, because the prep school kid from a suburb of Kansas City who went to Stanford and Yale wanted Trump supporters to know that he was one of them.
Here`s how Congresswoman Elaine Luria described how that gesture went over with the officers who were keeping the crowd at bay.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA): As you can see in this photo, he raised his fist in solidarity with the protesters, already amassing at the security gates. We spoke with a Capitol police officer who was out there at the time.
She told us that Senator Hawley`s gesture riled up the crowd, and it bothered her greatly, because he was doing it in a safe space, protected by the officers and the barriers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: At 1:05 p.m., the joint session of Congress was gaveled in, and Trump`s Republican operatives began to implement his coup by challenging the results in Arizona, but their plan got derailed, because both chambers were forced into an emergency recess while the building was locked down.
[19:35:01]
Feet from where they stood, Capitol Police were trying to fight off the insurrectionists who were calling for their heads. Hawley, who had proudly foisted his soft, cherubic fist into the air in solidarity hours earlier, was now running away from that same MAGA crowd, protected by the same Capitol Police who were under assault and receiving no backup from the commander in chief.
That moment, the moment where you saw Hawley`s ambitions supersede his courage, drew a noticeable laugh in the cavernous hearing room.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: It also ignited a litany of tweets and memes on social media that ridiculed the Hawley senator.
On the evening of January 6, Hawley defended his decision to object and doubled down on trying to finish what the president and his mob had started.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): What we`re doing here tonight is actually very important, because for those who have concerns about the integrity of our elections, those who have concerns about what happened in November, this is the appropriate means.
This is the lawful place where those objections and concerns should be heard.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Ten minutes later, Senator Mitt Romney, who came within feet of the mob before being redirected by Officer Eugene Goodman, excoriated Hawley and the other senators who insisted on continuing their objections.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITT ROMNEY (R-UT): What happened here today was an insurrection incited by the president of the United States.
Those who choose to continue to support his dangerous gambit by objecting to the results of a legitimate democratic election will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Six other senators joined Hawley in objecting, even after a mob stormed the Capitol. What they did that night was side with the insurrectionists, not the men and women who kept them safe.
And one of those officers joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:41:49]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL FANONE, FORMER D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE OFFICER: To be completely honest, to give you my — like, the first thoughts that popped into my mind was, Josh Hawley is a (EXPLETIVE DELETED). And he ran like a (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Well, when you put it that way.
Retired Capitol Police officer Michael Fanone was one of the roughly 150 officers from the Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police Department and local agencies that were injured on January 6.
Yesterday`s hearing made crystal clear that the number one priority for Donald Trump on that day was protecting the mob that hurled racist slurs, called for the assassination of the vice president and looked to murder other members of Congress.
And joining me now is Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who was also at the Capitol on January 6.
And, Officer Dunn, it always good to see you.
And I saw you and Officer Fanone and others in the hearing room every day. We can see during the beginning that you guys are there. And I`m just wondering. I want to let you look at a piece of what was played last night and just get your response to it.
Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LURIA: Murtaugh said: “Also (EXPLETIVE DELETED) not to have acknowledged the death of the Capitol police officer.”
Wolking responded: “That`s enraging to me. Everything he said about supporting law enforcement was a lie,” to which Murtaugh replied: “You know what this is? Of course, if he acknowledged the dead cop, he`d be implicitly faulting the mob, and he won`t do that because they`re his people. And he would also be close to acknowledging that what he lit at the rally got out of control.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: That is in regard to officer Sicknick, whose partner, Sandra Garza, has also been there every day.
I wonder how that struck you that, when Donald Trump finally gave his statements about the insurrection, he didn`t mention Officer Sicknick, he didn`t mention any of the officers who defended the Capitol?
HARRY DUNN, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER: Hey, Joy. It`s good to be on which you.
The first thing that stood out with that statement right there is the line that said, the dead cop. That just stuck out with me. His name is Brian Sicknick. And his mother, his father, his brother was in that room, his partner, Sandra. And to refer them as a dead cop, I don`t know why that just — that stuck with me.
So I had to go back and actually read that statement today or late last night. And I don`t know who those gentlemen were having those texts. I`m not a political guy, or as much of as I guess others are. But they`re 100 percent right. That all back the blue stuff is just rhetoric. And people use it to throw it out there because it sounds cool. It sounds cliche. It`s something you could put on a T-shirt, something you can put in a tagline of a Twitter profile.
It just sounds good, right? But the actions of it is what matters, and not just the rhetoric. And that`s what so many people are full of, is just rhetoric and just talking. Show me your actions. Like, whatever.
[19:45:00]
Any time I hear that back the blue stuff, I think you`re full of it.
REID: And the thing is, is that some of the people who were as part of that mob were law enforcement.
The Oath Keepers deliberately recruit among current and former law enforcement officers. The Proud Boys, they have been relatively friendly with law enforcement, or treated in a friendly way by law enforcement.
Was there something of a shock, do you think, by the department, by your leadership that people who are perceived to, as you say, back the blue or to be pro-police, became violent against the police? Do you think that was part of the disconnect in the response time by your leadership?
DUNN: Yes, I`m not sure. I can`t really speak on what our leadership was thinking or doing or the reasons why.
I do — you`re 100 percent right that a lot of those individuals there were former military, were former law enforcement. They told us that — the words out of their own mouth, they stand with us. Daniel Hodges testified that they were trying to recruit him to actually join him — put down his shield and stand on the side with them. Like, they were actively trying to recruit them.
One of the — in the testimony — I mean, excuse me — during the hearing yesterday, there was a — they played Oath Keepers audio. And they said that Trump said, hey, the Capitol Police, leave them alone. And they were like, OK, but didn`t say anything about the congressmen.
REID: Right.
DUNN: Like, so they were trying to be — I guess be nice to us. That`s the way they put it.
But that didn`t happen.
REID: Yes.
DUNN: But it doesn`t surprise me, though.
They — the guy said they were here to help us, they were there to support us as they`re beating our ass, to put in frankly.
REID: Yes.
DUNN: How does that work?
REID: I mean, you mentioned lawmakers. Josh Hawley has — who was getting the business pretty much all last night and today, for putting a fist up to the insurrectionists and then running from them, what do you make of him and other members of the House and Senate who at this point are defending what happened, defending the insurrection?
He`s still defending his actions.
DUNN: I can appreciate — yes, yes, I can appreciate a good meme. And they had some pretty funny sound clips that were attached to it.
But, as far as his actions and everything like that, people are entitled to their opinion. And I`m not going to speak too much about the senator. However, I will — he`s a senator. He`s — he represents a population of a state.
And we just have to look at that. That`s what he represents. People are out there that are lying about it. It`s just frankly — I would say call a spade a spade. It`s a lie. And if you`re defending that in other words, and you just — people create other alternative narratives, instead of addressing the facts that are right in front of your face.
There`s no getting around that Donald Trump incited it. There`s no getting around that it was violent. There`s no getting around that they were armed, and people knew about it, and they were there with the purpose of stopping the certification of the election.
That`s it. You can`t debate that with me.
REID: Yes.
And, lastly, you still work as a Capitol Police officer. Do these members apologize? Did they say anything to you, those who were on the insurrectionists` side? Do they address it ever?
DUNN: I — when I do my job, I really just do it as just I`m doing my job. I`m — it`s business as usual.
REID: Yes.
DUNN: I don`t get into it. A lot of the things that I`m doing now, I do in my spare time, my personal time. When I`m on the job, it`s about defending these members.
I had a member come up to me yesterday — middle of the week. I didn`t know if it was a Democrat, Republican. And they just said: “Hey, I thank you for your service. You`re amazing.”
I don`t know. I didn`t really ask. But I just — I appreciate it. I`m not doing anything for any recognition. I`m doing my speaking out and doing my job, one, because it`s the right thing to do, and the speaking to get accountability and justice.
Anybody who has anything to do with the failures of that day, including the president, needs to be held accountable, period.
REID: Well, I thank you. And I think everybody who`s watching right now thanks you for your service and what you did. You all saved our Capitol, and you saved our democracy that day, and put your bodies on the line for us.
So, thank you. We appreciate you. And, Officer Harry Dunn. We appreciate you. Thanks.
And up next: Remember when Watergate was the biggest scandal in White House history? Former Watergate assistant special prosecutor Nick Akerman joins me next with his thoughts on these riveting January 6 hearings.
We`re back after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:53:41]
REID: Now, normally at about this time on Friday, I would ask, who won the week?
But, this week, I think it is clear. The January 6 Committee won, closing out their first season, if you will, of these very important, very well- produced hearings, spelling out a narrative of the former president`s plot to hold onto power, even enlisting the help of James Goldston, the former president of ABC News, to present a compelling and easy-to-follow structure.
Millions have tuned in. Nearly 20 million watched the first of eight hearings last month. Of course, this is not unprecedented. The Senate Watergate hearings were broadcast for more than 50 days over six months in 1973, presenting a damning portrait with testimony from inside President Nixon`s inner circle, folks like former White House counsel John Dean, former Attorney General John Mitchell, and Chief of Staff Bob Haldeman, people who not only witnessed, but played a part in Nixon`s scheme to hold on to power.
Joining me now is Nick Akerman, former assistant special Watergate prosecutor and a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Nick, it is great to see you in person.
NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Good to see you, as always.
REID: Yes, to be live in person.
So, let`s go back, because I want to show a little bit of a clip of the 1973 hearings. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FMR. SEN. HOWARD BAKER (R-TN): The one thing I have tried to put to every witness that has unique information, in addition to their own personal information and knowledge, is, what did the president know and when did he first know it?
CHENEY: On this point, there is no room for debate.
[19:55:01]
President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: And I played that because that was Senator Howard Baker in the 1973 clip, but ended it with Liz Cheney, because, in both cases, there`s sort of a theme that`s laid out by one person, and that seemed to be it for both.
AKERMAN: I think that`s right.
I mean, the question is, what did Trump know and when did he know it? And I think what the committee has done is made an extremely compelling case that Trump knew about this entire scheme. I mean, they went through seven aspects of it. And they basically put out evidence that showed Trump had personal knowledge on each and every piece of it, which was astounding.
REID: Yes. Yes.
And it was done with this — I mean, I want to show this animation. I mean, they used some really sophisticated stuff that wasn`t available, obviously, in 1973. And this is the White House layout. And it shows — it down to showing FOX News on the TV in the private Dining Room as Trump is in there plotting and scheming.
What do you think the visual element adds to it in terms of being able to make it make sense to a country that is so disunited, and where we don`t have a common culture?
AKERMAN: Oh, it`s huge.
I mean, this is basically what`s done in the courtroom now.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: I mean, this is something that`s developed over the years, using demonstratives, using models.
And they basically effectively put that right on the screen for the public to see.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: I mean, it`s so helpful to actually be able to see it.
And, in the old days, when you take a jury out to the crime scene, you want to show them what it looks like.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: This is where the murder took place.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: But, here, they can actually recreate what happened and what it looked like just by models.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: And it`s very, very effective.
REID: And you know it`s effective because FOX News ignored it.
Like, when FOX News is refusing to play it, that means they know it`s effective. I mean, last night, this is what they were playing. They just ignored it. And they, of course, had Josh Hawley on. Senator Fist Bump was on their on their network while everyone else was watching the hearings.
They`re trying to sort of isolate their people from it. But, I mean, we`re talking about 17 million people across 10 networks just last night. What do you make of the fact that Trump`s home network is ignoring it, trying to?
AKERMAN: I mean, they`re trying to, but you can`t completely ignore it.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: I mean, sure, there`s going to be a number of people who are Republicans, who are die-hard Trumpers…
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: … that aren`t going to watch this.
But you`re not talking about a big margin of people that need to be educated and need to be looking at this. You`re talking — there are more independents now these days than there are party members.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: So, if you can reach the independents, if you can reach the vast majority of the public, it really is having a big impact.
REID: One of the things that`s similar, I mean, Lawrence O`Donnell last night said Donald Trump`s only knowledge of history is the Nixon era. That`s the only — it`s as far back as he probably can go.
But there are some similarities. There are these outside groups that are working with the president to achieve his aims, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, with the Roger Stones, the Mike Flynns…
AKERMAN: Oh.
REID: … very similar to the Nixon…
(CROSSTALK)
AKERMAN: Well, Roger Stone is the common denominator.
REID: And he`s the common denominator.
AKERMAN: Right.
REID: What do you make of these common denominators?
AKERMAN: Well, first of all, I mean, it`s correct. I mean, the committee did a great job of showing what happened inside the White House, bringing in White House employees, people who are really dedicated, like Matthew Pottinger…
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: … who understood what the rule of law is, Pat Cipollone, who understood that, understood what his oath was to the U.S. Constitution.
But there was this whole other group that we really didn`t hear about…
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: … this group — this rogue group of miscreants, and no-goodniks who were hanging out at the Warwick Hotel, and the war room, of all places.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: And if you actually look at who those people were, they have one thing, all of them, in common. They either were pardoned by Donald Trump of crimes they committed or they asked Donald Trump to be pardoned for crimes they were committing.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: You have got the two really ringleaders of this, our friend Steve Bannon, who was convicted today of contempt. I mean, he`s the person who, before the election in October, said that Trump was just going to declare victory on election night.
REID: Yes. Yes.
AKERMAN: I mean, that`s their — that`s their technique.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: It`s the same thing he told his friend in Pennsylvania that he picked for Republican nominee for Senate, the wizard of Oz.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: Declare victory.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: OK. The votes are aren`t in, but declare victory.
REID: And just move on there.
As an expert on these things, what would be your guess as to whether or not Trump winds up getting prosecuted?
AKERMAN: Oh, I think he`s going to get prosecuted. And I think…
REID: You do? Federally?
AKERMAN: And I think it`s going to be in Georgia.
REID: OK.
AKERMAN: Because the chief witness in that case, the star witness, is Donald Trump.
REID: Is Donald Trump.
AKERMAN: Because they have got him on tape.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: And then all of this corroborating evidence that surrounds it that the January 6 Committee has put together, they can either put it in as evidence to show motive, intent, pattern, or they can put it in, in a Georgia RICO case.
And the Georgia RICO statute is actually much more potent than even the federal one. It`s an easier — easier statute to prove than it is if you`re trying to put together a RICO case under the federal system.
REID: Interesting. So, you think Georgia is where he faces the music.
AKERMAN: I thinks that`s where he`s got the real problem, because I think you`re going to be able to put together a case in the federal system.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: You don`t have him on tape.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: You have got witnesses.
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: And, at the end of the day, Merrick Garland is stuck with this choice of…
REID: Yes.
AKERMAN: … I have got a conflict because he`s running against my boss.
REID: Because he`s — absolutely.
AKERMAN: And so he may defer…
REID: Yes. You never know.
AKERMAN: … and not prosecute and let Georgia take the case.
REID: Yes.
All right, well, I…
AKERMAN: Both of them won`t.
REID: I got to go because, there`s a whole `nother show that is supposed to come on.
(LAUGHTER)
REID: Happy birthday, George Clinton. It`s George Clinton`s birthday.
Nick Akerman, thank you very much.
That is tonight`s REIDOUT. “ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES” starts literally right now.
(LAUGHTER)
AKERMAN: Thank you.