Summary
GOP Senate Candidate, Eric Greitens, releases a campaign ad encouraging political violence. Michelle Goldberg and Azi Paybarah joins Hayes to discuss the threat of political violence on the American right. According to a new ABC News poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans think Donald Trump should be charged with the crime on January 6. New York Times video investigation finds Proud Boys led major breaches of the Capitol on January 6. The January 6 hearing isolates former President Trump as pioneer of the attempted coup. Partner of fallen Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick speaks out.
Transcript
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TX): On equality rather than dropping equality. And I asked him to look into his heart. What kind of America are we if we can`t fight for equality?
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Amen. And yet the Texas Republican Party is something else. We`re going to have to come -- bring him back on and just talk just about that. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, thank you.
LEE: I just -- I just assume with that platform. It`s atrocious.
REID: It is. Congresswoman, thank you. And happy Juneteenth. That is tonight`s REIDOUT. And "ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): In the future, I`m going to tell you. And until we get a grip on telling people the truth, we can`t expect any differently.
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST (voiceover): The MAGA threat to other Republicans.
CROWD: Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!
HAYES: And Donald Trump`s role in stoking the violence.
REO. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): -- ended to accelerate that violence against the former vice president.
HAYES: Tonight, committee member Zoe Lofgren on the growing danger. Harry Litman on the difficulties of prosecuting the ex-president. And Sandra Garza on Trump`s culpability in the death of her partner, Officer Brian Sicknick, when ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES (on camera): Good evening from New York, I`m Chris Hayes. One of the two Republican members of the January 6 Committee just offered a stark personal warning about the threat of political violence in this country, a topic he knows a thing or two about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KINZINGER: This threat that came in, it was mailed to my house, we got it a couple of days ago and it threatens to execute me as well as my wife and 5- month-old child. I`ve never seen or had anything like that. There are people that -- there is violence in the future, I`m going to tell you. And until we get a grip on telling people the truth, we can`t expect any differently.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That is Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. He has been in Congress for more than a decade. The vast majority of that time he has acted and voted like a conservative Republican, which is what he is. He voted in line with Donald Trump`s position 90 percent of the time. But after the attempted coup on January 6, Kinzinger was one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump. And since then, he has been essentially excommunicated from his party.
Last fall, Kinzinger announced he would not run for reelection vowing to wage a "broader fight against -- nationwide against Trumpism." And that has made some people very, very angry. Yesterday, Congressman Kinzinger posted this letter, the one that he mentioned in that interview. It`s a handwritten death threat. It is addressed to his wife and mailed to their private home.
The letter says that Kinzinger "broke his oath and he sold his soul." Now, Kinzinger knows as well as anyone that violence and the threat of violence are the point for the far-right wing of the Republican Party. They`re not accidental. They`re not ancillary to what`s happening nor what was happening on January 6, as the Committee on which Kinzinger serves has shown in their public hearings.
Likewise, violence is not ancillary or accidental for Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. It has always been part of Trump`s politics plainly right there in front of us from the earliest days of his presidential campaign when protesters were repeatedly assaulted at his rallies and Trump urged his supporters to "knock the crap out of them, promising to pay their legal fees for assault."
This violent thuggish intimidation, this menace, it`s one of the tools the Trump faction of the right-wing in American politics uses to achieve its aims. That`s the picture that has emerged from the January 6 Committee as well as the committee has unearthed more and more evidence. The violence on the day of the sixth was planned. It was intentional, right? It wasn`t just some big collective temper tantrum. That violence was reported to Donald Trump. He knew about it. He refused to do anything about it. In fact, he did the opposite, worse than nothing.
In response to reports of the violence, he sent a tweet condemning his Vice President Mike Pence, and even according to the committee, suggested that Pence might deserve to be hanged. Donald Trump said that knowing a violent mob had built gallows with a noose at the Capitol grounds. He said mob was chanting hang Mike Pence. And again, understand this. Understand what we`ve learned here. The rioters there, you see him here, we play this image all the time, this is not -- again, this is not a spontaneous eruption of can`t take any more anger, right?
Yes, it`s partly that, but the rioters were trying to do something. They were using that threat as a means to an end. They were trying to physically intimidate Mike Pence, either to get him to change his mind about overturning the election results, or to get him out of the building by chasing him out of there, or to get him out of the way one way or another. That was the point. They were very, very clear about this.
[20:05:01]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m hearing reports that Pence caved. I`m telling you, if Pence cave, we`re going to drag the mother (BLEEP) through the streets. You (BLEEP) politicians are going to get (BLEEP) to the streets.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring him out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring out Pence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring him out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring out Pence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring him out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring out Pence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mike Pence has betrayed the United States of America. Mike Pence has betrayed this president and he has betrayed the people of the United States. And we will never ever forget.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Of course, the most ferocious targeted violent vitriol we heard on January 6 wasn`t directed to Democrats. It was directed at Mike Pence. And it was directed at Mike Pence because Donald Trump wanted to directed at Mike Pence because Donald Trump convinced the mob that Pence had betrayed the MAGA cause, that he had stabbed them in the back.
In fact, when I confronted Republican Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks about the horrifying violence on the sixth just recently on the show, the violence that began shortly after, remember, he told the crowd at Trump`s rally to "start taking down names and kicking ass," he claimed, well, I was just talking about the Republican establishment, the Pence contingent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MO BROOKS (R-AL): I`m talking about beating Republicans in the 2022 and 2024 election. That`s whose names we`re going to take down and who`s derrieres we`re going to kick, OK. So, anybody who was there who looks at the two sentences and a two-sentence paragraph knows what I`m talking about. It had nothing to do with what occurred at the United States Capitol.
HAYES: What are you --
BROOKS: I`m talking about being the RINOs.
HAYES: Right.
BROOKS: I`m a conservative. We`re fighting with the establishment wing of the Republican Party, the RINOs. That`s what I was talking about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Yes. How can I be urging violence? I`m talking about the RINOs. Well, yes, right, of course, exactly, yes. Mike Pence was the RINO. I mean, not in any real sense, right, just on that day, because he didn`t overturn American constitutional democracy, a Republican in name only, RINO. That is what he was branded on that day in the view of Trump and his supporters. That`s where the anger was directed, the anger that Mo Brooks was stoking. And it was stoked because he then would not overturn the election for them.
And in some ways, the far right faction is now deploying that same thirst for violence as a means of exerting control the broader Republican Party. On the far right, the desire for violence has only intensified in the aftermath of January 6. Just a few days ago, Donald Trump reiterated the same narrative about Mike Pence stabbing him in the back. He told the crowd in Nashville Conference that Pence "did not have the courage to act."
And then today, you may have seen the news of what we`re going to show you next. We sort of wrestled with how we`re going to talk about it. An outrageous threat of violence that comes from Missouri`s disgraced ex- governor, now Republican candidate for Senate, a guy by the name Eric Greitens.
Greitens` name right ring a bell because he was a rising star in the Republican party until 2018 when he resigned in disgrace -- called to resign by other Republicans statewide office. It wasn`t like a Democratic witch hunt. And the reason were allegations he had sexually assaulted and attempted to blackmail a woman with whom he was having an affair, a hairdresser. She says he took pictures of her and wouldn`t give them back.
Criminal charges filed against him were later dropped, and Greitens went on to launch his bid for another statewide office, Senate. And then earlier this year, allegations of abuse from his ex-wife are revealed in a court filing. In a sworn affidavit, his ex-wife claimed that his behavior "included physical violence toward our children, such as the cuffing our then 3-year-old son across the face at dinner table in front of me and yanking him around by his hair."
She also described an incident in 2019, when one of their sons returned from a visit with Greitens "with swollen face, bleeding gums, and loose tooth. He said dad had hit him however, Eric said they were roughhousing and it had been an accident." Greitens denies these allegations.
Regardless of your political ideology, I think it`s fair to say it`s not the kind of person you think voters want representing them. And credit where due to the voters, primary voters, Republican voters of Missouri, Greitens has been flailing. He`s fending off multiple challengers in the primary desperately seeking an endorsement from Donald Trump in that humiliating, abject, cringe-inducing way we`ve all become so familiar with.
But Greitens thinks he has an ace up his sleeve and that ace is the intentionally outrageous performance of fascist violence. And so in that context, today, he put out an ad. It`s a web only ad, right? They`re not putting points on TV. It urges his supporters to "order your RINO hunting permit today." Again, that dumb Silly acronym, right?
[20:10:01]
So, it`s a dumb play on words, right? You`re hunting a rhino right, rhino. It uses the same term as Mo Brooks. But Greitens is not going on a Safari here in terms of the direction this ad goes with the metaphor. We`re not going to show you this ad because it`s essentially tantamount to violent incitement. But these are still images from it, so you get a sense of what it portrays, right?
Greitens rolls up to an average-looking house with what looks like a SWAT team, although in this case, a right-wing death squad. They break into the house carrying long guns and great and says to the camera, "join the Margaret crew. Get a RINO hunting permit." They are looking for Republicans In Name Only to murder in their homes is the point of the ad.
Now, he knows what he`s doing. They`ll know they`re doing, right? As many people pointed out, the ad was designed to provoke attention. Again, Greitens is desperate for it, especially from Donald Trump, desperate from members of the Republican base who might vote for him. His campaign manager claims "the response from our America-first voters to our groundbreaking ad has been overwhelming and supportive." They say anyone who has a problem with it is either -- "either lying or dumb."
So, again, write clearly calculated attention grab from a desperate candidate who`s facing all sorts of allegations of some of the worst kind of behavior you could expect from a man. But also, like Eric Greitens, might be a U.S. senator, I hate to break it to you. This is a major candidate who may very well get the nomination. And if he does, has a really good shot at becoming a United States Senator. And in the ad that he put together and put out which he thinks is calculated to get him support, he is explicitly inciting murder against his political foes within his own party. Like, let`s break down the door of Republicans who differ from me and put a bullet in their heads. That`s the end.
So, this is where we are right now in 2022 in American political culture. The hang Mike Pence chant, if it`s echoing in your ears, you`re not wrong, it hasn`t gone away.
Michelle Goldberg is an op-ed columnist for the New York Times who`s written about the rise of violence in the right and how it`s been encouraged by Donald Trump. Azi Paybarah is a Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times reporter. His latest piece takes a look at the state of the Republican Party and its embrace to the big lie from Michigan and Texas. And they both join me now. It`s good to have you here.
Michelle, just -- I guess, again, I don`t want to -- the reason we`ve wrestled with this is precisely because this is such a calculated provocation. But again, this isn`t some random troll. Like, this guy who`s going to maybe go the U.S. Senate and serve with people.
MICHELLE GOLDBERG, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Right. And it`s pretty clear by now that kind of credible domestic violence allegations are not an impediment to getting the Republican nomination for Senate as we`ve seen in some other races. So, yes, he might well win. And I think what`s so frightening is that an ad like this might help him win, right? He`s counting on the outrage of people like us to polarize the electorate so that he can get a plurality of people who say that, you know, if the New York Times and MSNBC is appalled, then we must -- then he must be on our side.
I think it`s been interesting to see some right-wingers including not, you know, pretty conservative people twitchy in the like, red state distancing themselves from this ad. But I think what you`ve seen with Trump is this kind of constant escalation. And often there`s a push back until it works, or until the next -- the next escalation makes the previous kind of radicalism seem more normal.
HAYES: Yes. And I think you made a point there. I think that relates to something that you`ve reported on. You had a really good piece about guns in midterm ads, right, that it does become harder and harder to shock, because the sort of level setting.
(INAUDIBLE)
HAYES: Yes, like what political -- what you show in ads has gotten so sort of shocking and it`s all right, that this is the kind of thing that then breaks above.
AZI PAYBARAH, REPORTER, NEW YORK TIMES: I mean -- I mean, if you just go back to those ads showing guns, you see Republicans showing guns as a demonstration of strength and as a symbol as to who they are. It`s a signifier. It`s a flag. You know who I am, because I`m holding a gun, and you know who I am by who I`m pointing my gun at. With Democrats in those ads, if you look at them, they are often saying I`m a victim of gun violence.
HAYES: Right.
PAYBARAH: They say, I understand. I was motivated into politics to solve gun violence. And on the other side, you see a very different message.
HAYES: Well, just to take that -- make your point, yes.
GOLDBERG: Well, I was just going to say, who you pointing the gun at is important because I think that they`re increasingly explicit that, you know, this isn`t about hunting, this isn`t even about self defense. This is about that we hold in reserve the right to political insurrection if we feel like the government becomes tyrannical.
PAYBARAH: And as my colleagues reporting --
HAYES: Explicitly.
PAYBARAH: it is also about from gun manufacturers language about masculinity, identity, protecting your family from others. It is very much baked into how they are marketing these weapons and how politicians over you reacting to it and trying to gain favor with it.
[20:15:02]
HAYES: But there`s three levels here, right? There`s this sort of like oh, I like to hunt clay pigeons, fine whatever. Then there`s the like, I`m protecting my home. And then there`s like, this is a good tool to use for political violence. Again, we have seen that. And, you know, just to -- like, think of the thought experiment. You guys are about to come onset, and I say, hey, just so you know, Azi, before you come on, we think will be a fun bit. I`m going to have an unloaded gun and I`m going to point it at you while we debate. Like, wouldn`t that be a -- like, it`s not a loaded gun. Wouldn`t that be like a funny bit? And it`s like --
PAYBARAH: That would be the -- that would the shortest segment in this world.
HAYES: No, but your response is like, no, that would be sociopathic and I would leave. And it`s like --
PAYBARAH: Yes.
HAYES: -- that level of use of the gun in that kind of way is part of like, a lot of political ads now, not just Greitens.
GOLDBERG: Well, not just political ads. It`s part of the culture of the MAGA wing of the Republican Party, which is the mainstream of the Republican Party.
HAYES: And that`s -- and that`s where I think it comes back to Kinzinger, which is that I do think it`s an unarticulated and some of your colleagues -- there`s a great piece back in 2021 called A Menace Enters In The Republican Mainstream, which I think just won a Pulitzer if I`m not mistaken, and was worthy of it, which is basically just about violent talk is tipped over and actual violence in ways big and small, school board members, public health officials have faced a wave of threats prompting Congress to leave their post.
This kind of silent shadow, that the threat of like, if I take this position, if I come out against for impeachment or even for gun safety, like my family is probably going to get a ton of death threats.
PAYBARAH: That`s wild for public servants. I mean, maybe this is a very naive position. But there are people who go into government, who go into politics to do very specific jobs, to administer things that I don`t want to spend a minute thinking about.
HAYES: Right, yes.
PAYBARAH: And when people disagree with that, that`s when this rhetoric get escalated to the point where some people actually act on it, or they`re in reasonable fear that they are in danger. That is a wild place to be. We live in New York City. You encounter people you don`t always agree with all the time.
HAYES: Yes.
PAYBARAH: And for other people to respond to that with this idea of violence, not even as just a metaphor, but some people are acting on it, like, that Kinzinger letter is just -- it just tells you where they are right now. And in Texas with that -- with the party platform that they just adopted at the convention, if you watch videos of that platform committee where they adopted language saying homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle or choice. In that room, was an openly gay member of that platform committee who had been there for years who like, everyone else was surprised when that position came up. And he spoke passionately, and he said, I know you guys. I don`t agree with so many of the positions we have. This one goes too far. And he works at it intensely.
And one of the last things he says in the video when he`s debating this one was striking. It said -- he said, this doesn`t help grow the party. This doesn`t help us gain more voters. And this language about defining other people being abnormal --
HAYES: But that`s the --
GOLDBERG: But you don`t have to grow the party if you stop people from voting. And that`s the other part of the Texas -- right, the Texas -- the platform also comes out against the Voting Rights Act, it comes against these new electoral systems that would curtail the electoral power of big cities. So --
HAYES: They want the Electoral College (INAUDIBLE). Or the other thing you don`t have to do or worry about voters, right, is if you`re just trying to win a factional fight. So, it`s like the Greitens` case, it`s like Missouri is like a plus-8, plus-10 Republican state. Like, he`s just trying to win a factional fight. So, if like, hey, who knows maybe the death squad shows up your door, and if that helps him win that factional fight and he`s the nominee, he`s got a good shot of being U.S. senator.
And that`s -- and that is that the issue, right, because like he doesn`t have to worry that much about afterwards because the structural factors take over after that. Michelle Goldberg, Azi Paybarah, thank you for being here in person.
GOLDBERG: Thank you.
PAYBARAH: Thanks.
HAYES: That was great. I appreciate it. While, the January 6 Committee presents its case against Donald Trump to the nation. It`s ultimately up to Attorney General Merrick Garland whether the former president will face federal charges. A great piece in New York Times outlines three questions Garland needs to answer before deciding whether or not to prosecute Trump. We have Harry Litman with us tonight to break it all down after this.
[20:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: For the past two weeks, the January 6 Committee has been holding hearings and making the case against Donald Trump, against others as well, but quite clearly against Donald Trump. Tomorrow, they will do the same in their fourth hearing. One of the lingering questions has been whether or not the Department of Justice is watching this and what they make of it and whether in the end they will prosecute the ex-president.
According to a new ABC News poll, nearly 60 percent of Americans think Trump should be charged with the crime, which I have to say is honestly a surprisingly high number. As for whether or not to charge, today, a former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration, a man by the name of Jack Goldsmith, wrote an op-ed for the New York Times laying out three important questions Attorney General Merrick Garland has to consider.
"First, you must determine whether the decision to indict Trump is his to make." If it is, then Garland needs to decide, "Whether he has adequate evidence to indict Trump." And finally, "If Garland concludes that Trump has committed indictable crimes, he would face a third and hardest decision, whether the national interest would be served by prosecuting Trump. A failure to indict Trump in these circumstances would imply that a president who cannot be indicted while in office is literally above the law in defiance of the very notion of constitutional government. It would encourage lawlessness by future presidents none more so than Trump himself who should he win the next election."
Joining me now is Harry Litman who serves as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He has been in different parts of the Department of Justice throughout his career.
You know, Jack Goldsmith is a very respected individual, I think knows the institutional culture of the Department of Justice very well. And this piece stirred up a lot of controversy. I think some people feel like there`s a lot of special pleading in it. I found it interesting insofar as it adopts a kind of very institutionalist Garland eye to view on the problem. And so, I thought maybe we would go through it. But first, your sort of top line response to the piece.
HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, so I agree. Look, he is -- let`s stipulate. He`s an intelligent, thoughtful, experienced guy and a patriot and all the best senses of the term. My top line, I think he does identify that each of these questions is in play. I think the second one, is there evidence less so than he suggests? The third one is where the difficult considerations are and always have been, but they in my view, have begun to cut more and more strongly in favor of prosecution, but let`s discuss.
HAYES: Yes. So, first is the question of do you put it -- appoint a special prosecutor? What do you think of that?
LITMAN: So, I think Garland in particular will -- he`s -- he is at DOJ institutionalist. He`ll chafe at the idea that DOJ can`t make a solid call on the merits. Moreover, they are already down the road on an investigation that you just can`t cleave off only for a Trump. I think he`s already decided that it`s his lonely decision to make. It`s not as if he`s eager to do it, but it`s his to make. And he rejects the idea that the department cannot make it. I think that`s one has been decided.
HAYES: Then, the second one is can you basically -- is there enough evidence that you have a pretty good chance -- you know, you are confident that you can obtain and sustain a conviction, right? Can you can you get a jury to convict? Can you show them evidence? Do you believe he committed crime? Can you get a jury convict? And then can you withstand appeal?
And here, you know, Goldsmith relies a lot on the -- on the kind of mens rea issue, right, that basically, that Trump is going to say, hey, look, I sincerely believe it was stolen. And so, to do that -- and what what`s your response to that as a defense?
LITMAN: Yes. So, everyone does. I`ve come to call it the Kool Aid defense. I think it doesn`t wash in three different ways. The first is you can just disbelieve. We have more and more snippets of evidence coming out, for instance, just today, that he told that he turned to someone and said, can you believe I lost to this guy. So, you can -- you cannot believe him. Second, you can employ the illegal concept of willful blindness, where he`s purposely hiding his head in the sand. That`s a kind of knowledge.
But third, I think people are missing this. Mens rea as a matter -- this is first-year law school stuff of you know, a conjunction with a particular act. The Act here when he`s flaming -- enflaming the crowd, does he trot, does he want to delay this certification? Absolutely. And that doesn`t matter if he thinks he won when he is trying to strong-arm Raffensperger. Is he trying to do a fraud? Absolutely. He could go to court if he wanted.
But even if he truly believes he won, I don`t think it helps him. So, I think here, and most people have come to agree, Jack`s portrayal of this is a very difficult decision. I think it`s probably against the grain. I think they`ve got intent on him. And everything else is transparent, al the acts, etcetera. So, I think the evidence is there under the standard inquiry that you laid out.
HAYES: And then the final question is national interest question. You know, Goldsmith is right. The prosecution take many years to conclude with last through and deeply impact the next election, would lead Mr. Trump`s ultimate fate to the next administration which could be headed by Mr. Trump, which I think is actually an interesting and quite important practical consideration. But how do you -- I mean, there`s no rule. There`s no like guidebook for the like, national interest question.
LITMAN: There really isn`t. There`s one sort of canonical precedent. That`s Nixon and Ford. And Ford pardons him for, you know, sort of national nightmare ends, and I think history vindicate them, But Trump has become the anti-Nixon here. Nixon had some sense of shame and respect for institutions. Trump every week, twice a week, revs up and redoubles and doubles down again, saying, you know, January 6 was love and saying that all the evidence is phony, in other words, really inflaming the notion and making it worse.
If he is not indicted here, and I`ve come to the view that it`s the only thing worse than indicting him would be not indicting him, I think the points that Jack makes really trump, if you will, which is that the disrespect for the law, the absence of any accountability and the fact that Trump is really rubbing his nose in it, I think, counts strongly in favor of indictment, notwithstanding that he`s right. It`s not as if that alone solves our problems.
And one thing that`s important, a point he made that people don`t realize, it`s going to take a long time. It might go into the next administration.
[20:30:10]
HAYES: Yes, it`s a very, very important point. Harry Litman, thank you for your time tonight. Still to come, committee member Zoe Lofgren says Donald Trump tried to accelerate the violence against his own vice president during the attack on the Capitol. She joins me ahead. And later on talk to Sandra Garza who holds Donald Trump responsible for the death of her partner, Officer Brian Sicknick. Don`t go anywhere. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:35:00]
HAYES: We`re still learning a ton about the role that the right-wing gang known as the Proud Boys played in the January 6 insurrection. We heard from the Select Committee how the Proud Boys marched to the Capitol before Donald Trump spoke at the Ellipse to kind of scout things out. We found out from court filings last week, they wrote down a plan for January 6 to "fill the buildings with patriots and communicate our demands."
And now, thanks to an extraordinary digital investigation for the New York Times, we can actually see how the Proud Boys dressed to blend in with the crowd and break into the Capitol building. New York Times spent months poring over video footage, court documents, and internal Proud Boy messages and found the group "again and again instigated critical breakthroughs around the Capitol."
Here they are instigating the very first attack on a police barricade in the exact location they had scouted earlier that day. Here they are then riling up the crowd, then strategically pulling police barricades out of the way to let the mob surge forward. Here they are strategically targeting a lightly guarded scaffolding brawling with police and clearing the way to the first breach to the building with Proud Boy leader Joe Biggs right there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When the rioters finally win the scaffolding, Biggs follows up the stairs after them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is exactly what was fierce.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Proud Boy Dominic Pezzola is one of the first writers to breach the building. And just as he does throughout the day, Biggs follows just a minute behind. At this point, the Proud Boys have been critical players in five major advances. But they aren`t done.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Biggs, what do you got to say?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: It`s becoming clear by the day that there was a plan. This was coordinated. A mob that stormed the Capitol was deliberately aided and encouraged by the Proud Boys. And the Proud Boys had violent intentions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): A recent court filing by the Department of Justice explains that a confidential informant from the Proud Boys told the FBI, the Proud Boys would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: FBI says the Proud Boys wanted to kill Mike Pence. The crown at the Capitol was chanting hang Mike Pence. Donald Trump knew Mike Pence was in danger. And he sent a tweet condemning him anyway. As one member of the January 6 committee put it, "The only conclusion you can reach is that Trump intended to accelerate the violence against the former vice president." That member joins me next.
[20:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: One of the dark realities emerging from the January 6 hearings is that Donald Trump`s actions during the insurrection on that day aimed at the very least to physically intimidate his own vice president, and at the worst to get them killed. Listen to how committee member congressman -- Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California put it over the weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LOFGREN: When he sent out the tweet attacking his vice president, he already knew that the violence was underway. The only conclusion you can reach is that he ended to accelerate that violence against the former vice president. So, we`re in a very rough time in America right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Trump sent a message to the angry mob chanting hang Mike Pence after he knew they had stormed the Capitol, that Pence lack political courage, that the country "demands truth." One of the most haunting questions of that day remains. What if the crowd, which was at one point just 40 feet away from the Vice President, had found him?
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat of California, member of the January 6 Committee, joins me now. I was struck by your formulation there, Congresswoman, because I found it to be the inescapable conclusion of the evidence as the committee has introduced. But do you feel that on the committee, there`s consensus about this, that fundamentally, this wasn`t an oversight or a mistake, that he viewed the crowd as essentially furthering his goals and the targeting of Pence was intentional?
LOFGREN: Well, we haven`t had a committee discussion to reach to have a vote on that conclusion. But I think if you just look at the evidence, his own staff noted that that tweet, after you already knew about the violence was like throwing gasoline on a fire. And the violence did accelerate. You could see in the video that we had the mob, reacting to the tweet and going even more angry. And we know from the filings today, actually, late last week, that they were prepared to kill the vice -- the Vice President and anyone else they found. So, we`re lucky that he was separated by 40 feet and he was evacuated. But we came very close.
HAYES: You know, we`re you know, a year and a half past this, and the former president, again, twice-impeached, you know, is basically still saying the same thing. This is what he had to say this weekend. Again, toeing the exact same line about the vice president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Mike was afraid of whatever he was afraid of. But as you heard a year and a half ago, Mike Pence had absolutely no choice but to be a human conveyor belt. He`s a human conveyor belt. Even if the votes were fraudulent, they said he had to send the votes. He couldn`t do anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[20:45:09]
HAYES: I guess like, as you`re engaged in this project, right, laying out these very damning facts, how do you -- what do you make of the fact that the same incendiary call are just completely unabated from the same individual?
LOFGREN: Well, it`s concerning. I mean, it`s very obvious, and we have the evidence laid out that he -- the election was not fraudulent. He knew it wasn`t fraudulent. He kept saying at any still saying it, that we`ll see tomorrow and later in the week, his efforts to subvert state election processes. And, you know, he`s still clinging to these falsehoods.
And the question is why? Is it to further undercut a confidence in the electoral system so that he has a chance to prevail in some future election? That`s basically what one of the -- Judge Luttig referred to in our hearing last week, that he`s a clear and present danger, according to Judge Luttig, one of the most conservative federal judges on the bench for so many years. So, it`s a -- it`s a grave concern.
HAYES: We`re going to have a hearing tomorrow. The witnesses have been announced. Two witnesses, Brad Raffensperger and Gabe Sterling, both the Secretary of State`s office who were quite outspoken at the time about the President`s attempts to overturn the elections. Rusty Bowers who`s a Republican official in Arizona who we have not heard from --
LOFGREN: Right.
HAYES: As far as I can tell, has not really spoken publicly about what went down in Arizona. What can you tell us about him?
LOFGREN: Well, I would say, why don`t you watch the hearings tomorrow? Mr. Bowers is, you know, a lifelong Republican. He was a Trump voter and a Trump supporter, but he wouldn`t violate the law.
HAYES: Yes, that seems to be the theme here in terms of the witnesses. These are people with obviously a wide degree of different political beliefs, most of them conservative Republicans. What do you find -- the final question on this sort of your understanding of the mens rea here. And I know that you`re not -- this is not a criminal proceeding. This is a legislative committee. But just at a sort of, I guess, almost at a non- technical level, like the evidence as presented by the committee that you have done a very good job presenting, what it says about the corruptness of intent or absence thereof in the man who is the center of this entire enterprise which is Donald Trump.?
LOFGREN: Well, I guess the question is, did he intend to do what he tried to do? And I think there`s overwhelming evidence that he did. You know, we`ve had a lot of, I think, probably useless speculation on what the committee will vote to do by way of referral to the Justice Department after all our hearings are done. We haven`t had that discussion. But that committee has already taken the stand in the Eastman evidentiary case.
We did file pleading saying that was our belief that the President and Mr. Eastman had engaged in fraud and criminal conduct and therefore we`re not entitled to the attorney-client privilege that he was asserting and the judge found that that was true, that was more likely than not that fraud and crime had been committed.
HAYES: Yes, that`s a good -- that`s a good point. That`s already on the record from the committee there. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, thank you very much.
LOFGREN: Anytime.
HAYES: Still to come my interview with Sandra Garza, the partner of fallen Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. Her response to revelations in the hearing so far after this.
[20:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HAYES: In many ways, every member of the entire American nation is a victim in some sense of January 6, the violent attack on our government and fundamentally the peaceful transfer of power has had an impact on our democracy, what it means for future generations. But of course, there were literal victims as well. People who sustained life altering injuries during the attack or who tragically lost their lives.
Sandra Garza lost her partner, Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick who died following his encounter with insurrectionists on January 6. She now counts herself as one of the nearly 60 percent of Americans who say Donald Trump should face criminal charges for his role in the coup, including inciting the attack.
Sandra Garza is the partner of the late Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick, who has attended two of the last three January 6 hearings, and she joins me now. Sandra, thank you so much for coming on tonight. I really appreciate it. I want to start with a question about just attending the hearings. I imagine it`s something that went -- you thought about. I can imagine it`s profoundly difficult emotionally. Why did you decide to go to the two hearings that you did?
SANDRA GARZA, PARTNER OF BRIAN SICKNICK: Well, first, Chris, I want to thank you for having me on your show again. But there`s a great quote from Buddha that I just love. And it says three things cannot hide for long. And that`s the sun, the moon, and the truth. And these hearings are bringing out the truth and all its beautiful glory. And that`s why it`s so important for I think all of America to watch the hearings, but it also was really important for me to be there.
[20:55:13]
I mean, I had a feeling in my heart just from my own personal experiences that Trump was, you know, responsible for instigating the event. But obviously, I learned some new things there myself. For instance, I did not know that Vice President Pence at the time was pretty much the one who was calling the shots and that President Trump at the time was irritated about that, and was more concerned about the narrative on how that would look versus doing the right thing and protecting the public at the time.
So -- as well as other things. But I mean, we saw new footage that we had not seen before, which was incredibly painful. And to be quite honest, I didn`t want to go to the first hearing. It was actually officer Dunn who called me and said, you know, Sandra, it would really mean a lot to me if you would go. And so, that`s pretty much what, you know, convinced me to go. And after the fact, I`m glad I did even though it was incredibly painful to be there.
HAYES: You said the truth and the fact it can`t hide for long. I mean, is there something to you cathartic as you again, continue to mourn the loss of someone you love very dearly who lost his life the day after this event in the aftermath of it about the truth? Do you have hope that the truth has a kind of power even given how obviously polarized America is?
GARZA: You know, I have been seeing some things online on Twitter, for instance, and I saw -- I forget who posted it, but someone had said that -- someone who is a diehard Trumper actually had been, you know, swayed due to talking to this person. And I guess, being informed of some of the information that was coming out of the hearings and said, you know, I can in good conscience continue to support this man based on what I now know.
So, I think that was very powerful. And I think, you know, there`s been nothing but Republicans who have been testifying, saying that, you know, this is what we told him. We told him that he did not win. And he kept trying to do all these little maneuvers to, you know, make it look like he had won, you know. And so, I think, you know, there`s a lot to be said from that. It`s not been people on the Democratic side that had been giving testimony, it`s been conservatives. And I think that is very powerful.
So, you know, I hope that people will keep an open mind. And if nothing else, even if this clip goes, you know, on Twitter, or on Facebook, or whatever, if nothing else, if they don`t watch the hearings, listen to me. I supported Trump at one time. And Brian was a police officer and supported Trump. I`m a military veteran. And after Brian`s death, he did not reach out to me at all. He does not care that Brian was a cop. He doesn`t care that I`m a military veteran. He does not care.
He did not reach out to me. He still does not reached out to me. He hasn`t reached out to any of the officers that were injured. He will not reach out to us. What does that say? What does that say? He does not care that Michael Fanone almost was murdered. I mean, that right it right there in and of itself says that he does not care. He has his own agenda. He also is responsible, in my opinion, for murdering Ashli Babbitt. He is responsible for her death. He orchestrated January 6. He is responsible for her death, period, end of story. All of those people that died would still be alive today had it not been for Donald Trump.
HAYES: Yes, multiple people in that crowd, including Ashli Babbitt lost their lives that day. And they were there as I think the committee has demonstrated quite definitively. They were there because he put them there, because he wanted them to be there.
GARZA: That`s right.
HAYES: Because he`s called them to be there and called them into harm`s way at some senses for what happened that day in the same way that -- in a different way that Brian Sicknick, your partner, who lost his life was put in harm`s way. Sandra Garza, thank you so much for making little time with us tonight. I really do appreciate it.
GARZA: Thank you, Chris.
HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Monday night. "THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now. Good evening, Rachel.
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Chris. Thanks my friend.