Summary
After weeks of mounting pressure, Pat Cipollone has agreed to testify behind closed doors on Friday. Fulton County, Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis won`t rule out a subpoena for Donald Trump. Boris Johnson is hanging on to his job by his fingernails as his own party turns against him after yet another scandal. Right-wing media blames everything like marijuana and nagging women on the recent mass shootings but not guns.
Transcript
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Everything else he did was rhetorical. There is no wall. And Republicans took 50 years and never quit voting until they took down Roe v. Wade. They didn`t take it down in one swath, it took them 50 years. Vote like a Republican. Thank you, David Plouffe. Xochitl Hinojosa, thank you. And that is tonight`s "REIDOUT." ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS HAYES, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on ALL IN.
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): And do you remember which crimes Mr. Cipollone was concerned with?
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, ASSISTANT TO FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS: In the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral account.
HAYES: Donald Trump`s White House Counsel makes a deal.
STEVEN ENGEL, U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL: At that point, Pat Cipollone said, yes, this is a murder-suicide pact.
HAYES: Tonight, what could be the biggest breakthrough yet for the January 6 Committee and what it means for all of the investigations of Trump. Then --
BLAYNE ALEXANDER, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Can we expect to possibly see additional subpoenas from people in former President Trump`s inner circle or Trump associates?
FANI WILLIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA: Yes.
HAYES: An NBC News exclusive.
ALEXANDER: Might we see a subpoena of the former president himself.
WILLIS: Anything is possible.
HAYES: The exclusive interview with Fulton County`s DA on her investigation, and her response to Senator Lindsey Graham. And how Fox and Friends are exploring new depths to excuse gun violence in America.
LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST, FOX NEWS: What can regular pot use trigger women.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, FOX NEWS: Never stops lecturing them.
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): That would sound like a conspiracy theory, right?
HAYES: When ALL IN starts right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Good evening from New York. I`m Chris Hayes. A huge breakthrough for the January 6 Committee. They have secured an interview with their biggest and most important witness yet, Donald Trump`s White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. This comes after the committee spent weeks pressing Cipollone to testify. In fact, last Wednesday, they issued a subpoena and Vice-Chair Liz Cheney even made this direct appeal during a hearing last month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: Our committee is certain that Donald Trump does not want Mr. Cipollone to testify here. Indeed, our evidence shows that Mr. Cipollone and his office tried to do what was right. They tried to stop a number of President Trump`s plans for January 6. But we think the American people deserve to hear from Mr. Cipollone personally. He should appear before this committee and we are working to secure his testimony.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Well, they have it secured. Cipollone now scheduled to testify this Friday just two days from now. The interview will be behind closed doors, but it will be videotaped, so the committee will be able to play portions of it at future hearings as they`ve done for lots of the witnesses they`ve interviewed. Now, part of the reason that Pat Cipollone his testimony is such a big deal is because the role that he played in the White House, White House Counsel. And to understand that role, here`s just some historical context.
During the Watergate hearings, the breakthrough witness was none other than Richard Nixon`s White House Counsel, John Dean. His testimony in June of 1973, cracked open the investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN DEAN, FORMER RICHARD NIXON`S WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I began by telling the President that there was a cancer growing on the presidency. And if the cancer was not removed, the President himself would be killed by it. I also told him that it was important that this cancer be removed immediately because it was growing more deadly every day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Now, that infamous line which echoes down through history about the cancer growing on the presidency, it was a public acknowledgment from Dean that people within the White House, Dean and others and the President, knew what they were doing was wrong, that they were up to no good. They realized what they were doing was criminal. They engaged in a criminal cover-up knowingly.
And I thought about John Dean and that line came from the Presidency as Cassidy Hutchinson testified before the committee last week, because there was that particularly dramatic moment in her testimony when she described how Pat Cipollone was desperate to ensure that Donald Trump did not go leave the mob to storm the Capitol and topple American democracy on January 6.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: That line, that may rank up there with the John Dean line "cancer to the presidency." Pat Cipollone clearly believe that Donald Trump and others in the White House were up to no good on January 6, that they were engaged in criminal activity. They were attempting to pull off a crime and he desperately tried to stop them from "getting charged with every crime imaginable." And on Friday, just two days from now, the committee can actually hear that from Pat Cipollone himself.
Now, to be clear, Cipollone is a conservative right-wing Republican who first worked for President George H.W. Bush in William Barr`s Department of Justice in the 1990s. Cipollone is also a conservative Catholic who co- founded the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, even counseled Fox host Laura Ingram before her conversion to Catholicism.
[20:05:16]
When Cipollone took over as the White House Council in 2018, he was a very loyal supporter of Donald Trump. In fact, he led the defense of the ex- president in Trump`s first impeachment trial. However, it appears, I guess, again, from what we know in testimony and reporting that after the 2020 election, when Trump tried to overturn the results and overthrow American democracy, Pat Cipollone to his credit would not go along. He was very firmly in the anti-coup camp.
After the -- over the past six committee hearings, we`ve heard directly from witnesses about how Cipollone rejected Donald Trump`s efforts to use the Justice Department to help push his claims of election fraud. Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel described Cipollone`s reaction when Trump tried to promote loyalist Jeffrey Clark who was prepared to issue a letter falsely claiming the DOJ had found evidence of fraud.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVEN ENGEL, U.S. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL: I said, Mr. President, I`ve been with you through four attorneys general, including two acting Attorney General, but I couldn`t be part of this. The story is not going to be that the Department of Justice has found massive corruption that would have changed the results of the election. It`s going to be the disaster of Jeff Clark. I think at that point, Pat Cipollone said yes, this is a murder-suicide pact, this letter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Cipollone also pushed back against Trump`s lawyer John Eastman`s infamous coup memo laying out the scheme from Mike Pence to overturn the election on January 6.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON MILLER, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP CAMPAIGN: The way it was communicated to me it was that Pat Cipollone thought the idea was nutty and had at one point confronted Eastman basically with the same sentiment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: None other than Donald Trump`s own son in law, Jared Kushner, confirmed again in sworn testimony that Cipollone threatened to resign multiple times during this period as Trump and his allies ignored his protests and continue to plot the coup. And then on January 6, Cipollone was in the White House, desperately trying, according to testimony, to stop the insurrection.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: I see Pat Cipollone barreling down the hallway towards our office and rush right in and looked at me and said, "Is Mark in his office." And I said yes. And I remember Pat saying to him, something to the effect of, the rioters got to the Capitol, Mark, we need to go down and see the president now. And Mark looked up at him and said, he doesn`t want to do anything, Pat. And Pat said something to the effect of -- and very clearly had said this to Mark, something to be effect of, Mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die in the blood is going to be on your effing hands.
HAYES: Pat Cipollone was there. He saw it all up close. He bore witness is Donald Trump attempted, again, to topple American democracy. He was there in the lead-up, saw the planning firsthand, tried to stop some of that planning. He was there that day, when it was all happening. Throughout the whole thing, Cipollone, who was once a loyal Trump supporter warned the ex- president and those around him over and over about the crimes they could be charged with if they went through with their plot.
So, it`s a huge development in this investigation for him to appear under oath and tell his story. If Pat Cipollone speaks the Committee on Friday, he could be the John Dean of this investigation.
David Rohde is an executive editor in NewYorker.com where he`s been covering the January 6 investigation and he joins me now. David, you`ve been covering this closely. How big a development do you see this as?
DAVID ROHDE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I agree with you, it`s a huge breakthrough for the committee. And it`s, as you said, Cipollone saw this from the beginning to the end from November, when the president you know, refuse to admit that he lost through December, through the crazy John Eastman schemes, through the murder-suicide pact at the DOJ, to -- and one of the things Cassie Hutchinson mention was Cipollone trying to change the language in Trump`s speech that he gave on the Ellipse to not, you know, have language in it where he`s inciting this crowd to go storm the Capitol.
And we later learned also from Cassie Hutchinson that, you know, Trump learns that it`s a heavily armed crowd, and he`s eager for them to go, and he`s eager for them to join them. So, he`s a critical witness. And just lastly, he`s a critical witness for Merrick Garland and federal prosecutors. He could possibly be subpoenaed, but he is -- he`s got a first-hand account -- Cassie Hutchins talking about you know, things she heard secondhand of Trump`s motivation, and again, that Donald Trump knew that what he was doing was illegal on January 6.
HAYES: Yes, at that point, I mean, again, Cipollone is a lawyer and by all accounts, a good one, a respected one. I mean, he has -- he has a very good resume, right? And the White House Counsel`s job is, you know, first and foremost, to make sure the White House follows the law. And you know, even lawyers who are loyalists, if they`re good lawyers, they tend to be conservative. They don`t want to break the law. That`s what a good lawyer as you do.
And it does seem like Cipollone was more focused and aware than almost anyone, unlike specifically, not just they were breaking the law in a -- in a broad sense, but like violating criminal statutes. Here, listen to what Cassidy Hutchinson said to your point about why he`s useful for Merrick Garland potentially. Take a listen.
[20:10:31]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUTCHINSON: Having a private conversation, Pat, late in the afternoon of third or fourth, that Pat was concerned it would look like we were obstructing justice or obstructing the Electoral College count. And I apologize for probably not being very -- with my legal terms here, but that it would look like we`re obstructing what`s happening on Capitol Hill. And he was also worried that it would look like we were inciting a riot or encouraging a riot on the Capitol -- at the Capitol.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I mean, those are two specific crimes, right, inciting a riot, obstructing an official proceeding -- congressional proceeding which people are charge with. Like, he was -- he was worried enough that he wasn`t just hand waving that this is wrong. He was he was quite clear about what the legal peril was here.
ROHDE: He was doing his job and he deserves praise for that. Don McGahn very much of the same thing. Remember, Don McGahn was ordered, you know, to fire -- you know, to get to have Robert Mueller fired and he refused to do it. So, you have these lawyers? And yes, they`re conservatives, but I give them credit. Many of them are Justice Department veterans like Cipollone and Bill Barr, you know, who I`ve criticized before.
But Bill Barr said, you know, the election wasn`t stolen. Pat Cipollone said, you know, this is a crime. And the exact crime is obstructing an official proceeding. More than 200 of the several 100 defendants who have been charged were, you know, have been indicted on that charge. So, that I think, and Liz Cheney`s highlighted this, that is the charge that it seems is would be most applicable to Donald Trump.
We don`t know what Cipollone was going to say. He could contradict. You know, what Cassie Hutchinson has said, but it`s great that he is testifying under oath. The Committee has used -- it`s just -- it`s the right thing to do. It`s a public service. And so, people might have political differences with Pat Cipollone, but I`m hoping, you know, he will stand up for the rule of law.
There is attorney-client privilege and executive privilege. That`s to talk about policies, the policies of the U.S. government, and what should be followed. It`s not a lawyer`s job to cover up a crime or participate in a crime. So, it`ll be an extraordinary day on Friday night, I think a historic day.
HAYES: Do you have either reporting or just insight from sort of context in following this about how this came about? I mean, I was so struck, you know, several weeks ago, I think was about a month ago, and Liz Cheney, like look straight into the camera and basically says, Pat Cipollone, time to -- time to come in, and then the issued the subpoena. What led to this moment?
ROHDE: I think this is a strategy. The prosecutors who were hired by the January 6 Committee have followed where they were flipping younger aides and witnesses, and using their testimony to pressure more senior people. And to be blunt, this is what`s used in organized crime trials. You get lower-level members of organized crime groups, and once they testify, it puts pressures on the higher-level people.
So, I think Cassidy Hutchinson, you know, her testimony played a key role in putting this kind of pressure on Cipollone. And again, I just -- I credit him for making this agreement. You know, whatever people`s politics are, this is -- this is a good thing. And the American public deserves to hear what Pat Cipollone, you know, said and heard, and tried to stop.
HAYES: All right, David Rohde who`s been following us very closely, I`ve been reading what you`re writing about this, thanks for joining us tonight.
ROHDE: Thanks, Chris.
HAYES: Just one day after sending subpoenas to Trump`s lawyers and to U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, New details tonight from the Fulton County district attorney about who is next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER: Can we expect to possibly see additional subpoenas from people in former President Trump`s inner circle or Trump associates?
WILLIS: Yes.
ALEXANDER: Might we see a subpoena of the former president himself?
WILLIS: Anything is possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: The latest on the investigation into Trump`s attempt to interfere in the election in Georgia next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:15:00]
HAYES: It is not every day that a district attorney pursuing a criminal case election interference decides to sit down and discuss the investigation with a reporter, nevermind one who`s just issued subpoenas for the former president`s legal team, as well as a sitting United States Senator. But in an excellent and exclusive new interview with NBC News Correspondent Blayne Alexander, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is providing new insight into our investigation, those explosive new subpoenas for Rudy Giuliani, coup plotter John Eastman, Senator Lindsey Graham, and others, and why they likely won`t be the last.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER: Big splash with the subpoenas that came out yesterday. Certainly, that`s something that a lot of people are looking at, Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham. Why is it important to hear from those individuals?
WILLIS: Well, I`m not going to get into the details of the investigation but this is what I will tell you. Election interference is a very important subject. We have been granted a special purpose grand jury by the judges here. I think it`s an important investigation. And what is important is that the grand jurors hear from anyone that may have impacted this election.
[20:20:18]
I think that they deserve to get a full picture. And so, what we are trying to do is give them a full picture. Those citizens are -- you know, they have a very important job. Their job is to write a report for the district attorney to advise on what they think is appropriate for us to do, which means I have to make a decision, are we going to bring forth an indictment or will we have conducted an investigation and closed this matter?
And so, for them to be able to give that advice, I think it`s important that they hear from people that may have had something to do with an election interference.
ALEXANDER: Can we expect to possibly see additional subpoenas from people in former President Trump`s inner circle or Trump associates?
WILLIS: Yes.
ALEXANDER: Are we talking about family members? Are we talking about former White House officials?
WILLIS: I mean, we`ll just have to see where the investigation leads us. But I think that people thought that we came into this as some kind of game. This is not a game at all. What I am doing is very serious.
ALEXANDER: Might we see a subpoena of the former president himself.
WILLIS: Anything`s possible.
ALEXANDER: So, we`re not ruling out and it`s possible?
WILLIS: Absolutely.
ALEXANDER: If you are met with resistance, how would you respond to that? If you`re met with resistance, people who say they don`t want to come testify?
WILLIS: Nobody wants to come to the prosecutors party. That`s just kind of part of the work that we do. We`ll take it before the judge, and the judge will make a ruling if we have a legal right to bring them before the court. But I mean, I`ve been a trial lawyer a long time. Most times people don`t want to come. But that`s why you have the power of the state and the power to subpoena people and bring them here.
My job is not to bring you here because you want to come. My job is to make sure that the grand jurors get all of the evidence they want.
ALEXANDER: What can you tell me about the timeline here. We saw yesterday and subpoenas July 2 -- or July 12, rather, through August 31? Is that when you`re expecting it to wrap up? Or just what can you tell me about the timeline?
WILLIS: I know I have a deadline that I have to get finished within a year. I`m very hopeful that we`ll finish long before that year is up. But it will depend on how much resistance, how many times do I have to go to a court and mandate that someone come here. But we continue -- we`re going to continue to do our work.
ALEXANDER: I know in an interview recently, maybe a few weeks ago, you estimated that it could wrap up by the end of the summer and that could bring the decision on indictment sometime in the fall. Is that still accurate that timeline?
WILLIS: I think that`s still a realistic goal with the progress that we`re making.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: So, the subpoenas will continue. We got a little bit of a timeline as well. D.A. Willis says she`s ready to subpoena Donald Trump if needed. That context about the timeline. Then there was what Fani Willis had to say about our subpoena to a sitting Senator Lindsey Graham. I recall that in November of 2020, Graham called Georgia Secretary of State to allegedly workshop ideas to see about how you might go about throwing out votes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGIA: During our discussion, he has the ballots to be match back to the envelope, the absentee ballots be match back to the envelope. Then-Senator Graham applied for us to audit the envelopes, and then throw out the ballots for counties who had the highest frequency error of signatures.
And that -- I tried to, you know, help explain the debts because we did signature match, you couldn`t tie the signatures back anymore, you know, to those ballots.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: In a statement today, lawyers for Senator Graham called the Georgia grand jury investigation a political fishing expedition. Willis responded to Graham`s charge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEXANDER: Lindsey Graham actually put out a statement, just since we`ve been sitting here really, essentially saying that this is all politics. Fulton County has engaged in a fishing expedition and working in concert with the January 6 Committee in Washington. Do you want to respond to that him calling it a fishing expedition, saying that this is nothing but politics?
WILLIS: What do I have to gain from these politics? It`s some inaccurate estimation. It`s someone that doesn`t understand the seriousness of what we`re doing. I hope that he`ll come and testify truthfully before the grand jury.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I`m going to talk with two experts about Graham stonewalling, along with the potential subpoena for Trump and what this investigation could mean for the January 6 Committee and the DOJ ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIS: If you are a member of a gang and you`re committing a crime in my community, I am going to make sure that you are held responsible to the full extent of the law. That is brought ire. People are angry about that. And as a result, they -- there have been threats. It`s just part of the job.
People also seem to think that in society that there are certain people that are immune from prosecution if you are a celebrity, if you are a high ranking public official. I guess that there is something strange with me. Lady Justice is actually blind. This is the reality.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: In a rare exclusive interview with NBC News, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis says that she believes no one is immune from prosecution. A grand jury in her investigation into election interference by the Trump campaign in Georgia subpoenaed sitting Republican Senator Lindsey Graham yesterday along with a number of other close Trump associates. She has said a subpoena for Donald Trump himself is a possibility as well.
[20:30:12]
Now the Fulton County investigation is heating up, what does it mean for the January 6 Committee`s investigation and Attorney General Merrick Garland`s federal investigation into the attempted coup.
Tanya Miller is a former Fulton County assistant district attorney and a former federal prosecutor. She`s currently running unopposed for the Georgia State House and Asha Rangappa is a former FBI special agent and an attorney and senior lecturer at Yale University. And both join me now. Great to have you both.
Tanya, let me start with you because you worked in this office. I don`t know if you worked for Ms. Willis or not, but I have to say she is serious as a heart attack here. Like, I think there`s part of me that`s thought this is a enormous shot to take, right? Like, if you were to indict the President or his associates, it would be the most notable criminal indictment in American history.
And to do it as the DEA of, you know, any county -- not Fulton County, but anywhere even if you were the Manhattan prosecutor, would be huge thing. But she really seems like she`s pretty serious about this.
TANYA MILLER, FORMER ASSISTANT DA, FULTON COUNTY: Yes. Well, I will tell you this. I know Fani Willis very well. I do not work for her. I worked with her in the Fulton County District Attorney`s office. We were both homicide prosecutors in the major case division. I was there for eight years. She was there for probably about five years more than me.
But listen, Fani Willis is a prosecutor`s prosecutor. She is 90 percent prosecutor and probably about 10 percent politician. She is a newly elected district attorney. And I think she views this case the way most prosecutors view it. She is looking at the facts. She`s looking at the evidence. She`s going after it. And the question is whether or not the facts support a charge. And I think that`s our focus.
So, I think anybody who thinks that Fani Willis is playing around with this special purpose grand jury absolutely does not understand Fani Willis, does not understand the tradition of the Fulton County District Attorney`s Office, and doesn`t understand Fulton County jurors.
HAYES: That`s -- I think that`s well said. Asha, obviously, the subpoenas are, you know, as you said, I thought that was a very funny quote. Like, yes, no one wants to come talk to a prosecutor. That`s why we have the power of the state to compel it. You`ve got Lindsey Graham saying this, Asha, this is all politics, Fulton County is engaged in a fishing expedition, working in concert with the January 6 Committee in Washington. Any information from an interview or deposition with Senator Graham would immediately be shared with the January 6 Committee.
I don`t even know what he means there, but does he have legal grounds to object to this?
ASHA RANGAPPA, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, Chris, I`m really not sure what his legal theory is in resisting that subpoena. But I`ll say something with regard to the relationship between a potential Georgia prosecution and DOJ which is that Georgia is a separate sovereign. Attorney Willis, I think, is right when she says What does she have to gain from this?
And I think DOJ has other considerations because they are a part of the same sovereign. Merrick Garland is under a Democratic president and potentially contemplating prosecuting a person who has an intention to be an opposing candidate for the president he works for. So, he has many considerations that Fani Willis doesn`t And I think that a Georgia prosecution could potentially shape and narrow the charges that Merrick Garland decides to bring, because he wants to bring something that, especially if Georgia is picking up the baton on, say, election fraud, charges that the federal government is uniquely positioned to prosecute with regard to Trump and the attempted coup.
HAYES: Let me just follow up on that, because it`s an interesting point and it`s one I`ve been trying to get my head around, and then I`m going to come back to you, Tanya. So, you know, there`s the law, right? And then there`s institutional considerations, political considerations. And it`s not like, you can just completely block those out if you`re going to prosecute an ex- president of the United States.
And I think my thinking has always been, should a prosecution happen, whether it`s, you know, if it`s justified by the facts and law, it`s going to -- if it`s going to happen for anywhere, it`s going to happen to DOJ, because like, that`s the sort of pinnacle of state power, right? And what you`re saying is that, in an institutional sense, it`s actually less conflicted for the Fulton County D.A. who says, hey, you came into my jurisdiction and tried to overturn an election than it would be for Merrick Garland. Is that what you`re saying -- than it would be for Merrick Garland?
RANGAPPA: That`s exactly what I`m saying, Chris. You know, the President is a singularly unique defendant, and Merrick Garland, just the reality is that he has to take into account especially as you just mentioned, the institutional considerations in terms of the public`s faith in the Justice Department`s impartiality has to be reinforced, not weakened by any prosecution.
And I think that in this regard -- I`ve been thinking about this a lot -- that there`s a crime 18 USC 2383 incitement to insurrection which would really be the charge that I think Merrick Garland would be right in bringing for three reasons. First, it creates a bright line. If you send an armed lunatic mob to attack a co-equal branch of government, that is wrong. Everybody knows that, Merrick Garland, Sean Hannity, they all texted him that day.
[20:35:28]
Second, the public can get their minds around it. It`s exactly what they saw unfolding on television. It`s not something that was happening behind the scenes and, you know, crazy legal theory. And third, and this is really important, Chris, incitement to insurrection carries as a penalty in addition to jail time, a prohibition from running -- from holding public office.
And I think most people don`t realize that being charged with a crime or even going to jail actually doesn`t qualify -- disqualify Trump from running or holding office. And so, the clear and present danger is him being President again, that should be a consideration that Merrick Garland should take into account.
HAYES: That`s a great point I was, I was in living in Providence, Rhode Island, I believe, when the mayor, buddy CNC ran to be reelected, I think, from jail or just out of jail might have been in jail. So it`s a thing that`s happened in America. And, Tanya, to your point about -- you know, I mean, you`re basically saying, look, this is a serious offense and serious people, and Fani Willis is a very serious person. Like, when you think about the institutional considerations, and when you think about just the resources, right, I mean, again, the most difficult prosecution, the most high profile prosecution in American history, literally. Is it -- is it -- what do you think about that office doing that?
MILLER: Well, listen, I think -- I`m a resident of Fulton County. I practice in Fulton County now as a criminal defense lawyer and a civil rights lawyer. It`s not a small thing for us here. But listen, what I think this office is very skilled at doing is understanding why and how it is important to make sure that we take very strong stances on things that affect our communities in big ways. This is the same office, and by the way, the same prosecutor that tried one of the biggest cases in Fulton County history of RICO case against Atlantic -- Atlanta public school teachers about test cheating that was alleged to have been widespread.
So, this is not a person who is unaccustomed to taking on big giant cases, eating the elephant kind of one bite at a time. And really this case, when you think about it, although the President is a very big potential target, the actual facts of the case and what he did in the potential charges are not all that complex.
HAYES: Yes.
MILLER: We have him on tape. And the question is, what does that tape mean? What is what he said on that -- on that tape mean, and what do all these other circumstances surrounding it mean? Does it rise to the level of a crime in Georgia? And I don`t think that`s all that complicated a mission for a prosecutor like Fani Willis to undertake.
HAYES: Yes, and I should just be clear here, as we`re talking about this in a theoretical sense. Like I am not -- I`m not a lawyer, and I`m also not in the prosecutor`s team like looking at the evidence to establish whether there`s a -- you know, whether, in fact, there`s a prosecutable crime. I`m not around the table when that decision is made.
I mean, it certainly seems to me as a layman, from the outside there`s a lot of crime going on. But we`ll see if those decisions get made by these very capable people who I have to say, Fani Willis is very impressive in that interview, and Blayne Alexander did a great job.
Tanya Miller and Asha Rangappa, thank you both for sharing your expertise tonight. That was very illuminating for me.
MILLER: Thanks, Chris.
RANGAPPA: Thank you.
HAYES: Up next, the wild situation in Britain tonight where Boris Johnson is still clinging to power after dozens of members of his government resigned and called him to step down. The latest on that wild story next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did you sleep last night? Rather better, I suspect, than the man who lives here because it has been a whirlwind 24 hours for the Prime Minister.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, there has rarely been a more bizarre day in British politics. A mass exodus from government ranks, ministers and aides quitting almost by the minute.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the big question this morning on everyone`s lips, can Boris Johnson survive? And if so, for how long?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Wild doings across the ocean. Right now, the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, is hanging on to his job by his fingernails as his own party turns against him after yet another scandal. At least 46 members of Johnson`s government have resigned since yesterday, including three Cabinet members. And honestly, they`re coming so quickly it`s hard to keep track. In fact, some news channels in the U.K. like Sky News as you see here have just been keeping a running tally on their screen all day as the numbers went up and up minute by minute.
At this hour, Boris Johnson is still refusing to resign citing "hugely important issues facing the country" which yes, I guess that`s true. One official telling Politico, "he`ll be dragged out on his chair with his heels dug in" while another said, "he has lost it and gone full Hulk." Johnson even fired one cabinet secretary, that would be his Secretary of State for leveling up Housing and Communities who had told him to step down.
And that came at the end of a day filled with calls for his resignation, including on live television as members of the U.K. Parliament, many for Boris Johnson`s own Conservative Party, took turns at the microphone, telling him to his face he needed to go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IAN BLACKFORD, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, U.K.: The Prime Minister is desperately clinging on to his own fantasy, but the public can`t afford to put up with this farce of a government a minute longer.
SAJID JAVID, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, U.K.: This week again, we have reason to question the truth and integrity of what we`ve all been told. And at some point, we have to conclude that enough is enough. I believe that point is now.
VIRGINIA CROSBIE, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, U.K.: Once again, the prime minister, he puts political survival before public duty.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the Prime Minister think there are any circumstances in which he should resign?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: I mean, again, take a second. Can you imagine, imagine seeing Republicans in Congress talking about Donald Trump like that? And you are forgiven, dear viewer, if you`ve lost track of which scandal this was that precipitated all this because there really have been so many, but the most recent happened because Johnson appointed this guy, his name is Chris Pincher, to be a government deputy chief whip in charge of maintaining party discipline. And then Pincher had to resign after he allegedly got really drunk and groped two men. He wrote an apology letter about it. But then it turned out he`d been accused of this kind of thing before he was even appointed.
Conservative ministers spent days denying that Boris Johnson knew anything about, his history of doing this kind of thing. But then yesterday, Johnson admitted he knew about the previous allegations against Pincher and apologize for hiring him. The first two members of Johnson`s cabinet resigned shortly after.
Now, Johnson has still been shifty about what he specifically said about Pincher and under questioning from Parliament`s Liaison Committee, which publicly monitors the Prime Minister. Johnson still feigned ignorance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you say all the sex pests are supporting me or words to that effect of?
BORIS JOHNSON, PRIME MINISTER, U.K.: People attribute all sorts of things to me? I don`t remember saying those words, but people are ascribed to all sorts of things to me.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That sounds like a yes to me. OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: All the sex pests are supporting me. OK, the pattern of Boris Johnson, which is well established by now, which is that he thinks the rules don`t apply to him. And then he gets caught in lies, and then he tries to bully his way through. It`s been his MO for years. He has -- he is charismatic, I will give him that. But he`s been a charismatic but chaotic wrecking ball that, of course, got Brexit done. And he has survived many less organized calls for his resignation.
But what you`re seeing now is what it looks like when a conservative party decides they have had enough and that a leader is just too much of a menace to be tolerated and they are telling him he has to go. This afternoon, senior Cabinet members went to 10 Downing Street to tell Johnson he has lost control of his party and needs to step down.
That included some of his most loyal allies, like his Home Secretary who he appointed to a position on his first day in power. It is famously an echo of what happened to Richard Nixon in 1974 when Republican members of Congress literally went to the White House and told Nixon if he didn`t resign, he would be convicted in an impeachment trial.
Nixon`s resignation was a long time ago, but this pressure on Boris Johnson is a stark reminder it can still happen. Now, Johnson has said he`s not going anywhere but again, things not looking very good for him. And it could have happened here U.S. if Republicans have wanted it to. It still might, maybe someday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I think yesterday`s shooting is another example of what the problem is. The problem is mental health and these young men who seem to be inspired to commit these atrocities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: There`s a ritual that has set in on the right in the wake of the horrifying and regular spectacle of mass gun violence. In the aftermath, Republicans and right wing media have a series of decisions to make about what to do to take its attention away from the most obvious source of the problem, a country with more gun per capita than any on Earth and the killing machine that fired the bullets, and they are always, I have to give them credit, up for the challenge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREENE: Two shootings on July 4, one in a rich white neighborhood and the other and a fireworks display. It almost sounds like it`s designed to persuade Republicans to go along with more gun control.
INGRAHAM: Now, on the mass shooting in Illinois, indications are that Robert Crimo was a regular pot user. What can regular pot use trigger in young men in particular? Psychosis and other violent personality changes.
CARLSON: There`s a lot of young men in America who suddenly look and act a lot like this guy. It`s not an attack. It`s just true. Like Crimo, they inhabit a solitary fantasy world of social media porn and video games. And yet the authorities in their lives, mostly women, never stops lecturing them about their so-called privilege. You`re male, your privileged.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HAYES: Yes, it`s the nagging women to blame. All that is ridiculous, of course. They blame just about everything on earth except the guy`s easy access to a gun. But maybe it is understandable that Fox News and especially Tucker Carlson will want to distract from the issue. You may recall, it was just a month ago that a mass murderer at a Buffalo grocery store was literally spewing Tucker Carlson`s racist replacement theory before he went and killed 10 people.
So, all sorts of things contribute to the radicalization of these young men. The common thread is that every one of them was able to legally purchase an assault rifle and use it to mow down innocent men, women and children.
[20:55:18]
Journalist Aaron Rupar has been tracking Fox News in his Substack newsletter Public Notice. And he joins me now. Aaron, it`s always striking to me -- well, there`s two things. One is, there are some stories that the right-wing media will just ignore and then there`s some that they will spin. And they don`t seem to ignore mass shootings. And I`m curious what your sort of research says about, you know, the degree to which they address it and why this is something they don`t just try to like pretend isn`t happening.
AARON RUPAR, JOURNALIST: Yes, well, thanks for having me on, Chris. And you`re right that last night, Fox News did not ignore the shooting. Although, in the moments leading up to me joining you, I was actually watching close tonight to their primetime lineup and see how if at all they talked about the shooting and through about the halfway point of Tucker Carlson show, it had not been mentioned one across both Jesse Watters show and then Tucker`s following it.
So, last night, of course, you know, as your montage there depicted, there was a lot of talk about the shooting, but instead of talking about guns, you know, we had -- in one hour, we had Tucker Carlson talking about how basically nagging women are to blame for shootings of the sort. And then two hours later, we had Laura Ingram talking about marijuana use despite, you know, the idea that marijuana use leads to violent crime being widely debunked.
And so, it seems like they`re interested in engaging with these stories to the extent that it can kind of confirm their priors. And of course, one of the bedrock assumptions on the right at this point, at least, you know, a section of the right, is that guns are never the problem, that the problem is anything but guns. And that could never really acknowledged that guns might be a problem because that`s a concession to libs that just will not be made.
So, yes, you`re right, that, you know, this was not a story that Fox ignored. I think it`d be kind of impossible to pretend to be a news channel and ignore a story like this that obviously had the nation`s attention over the holiday weekend. But, you know, again, notably tonight, it seemed like it was radio silence and kind of on to other topics.
HAYES: There`s also -- you know, there`s just sort of coordination thing that has -- that happens. I mean, you know, I have watched many iterations of this, like, the violent video games, you know, theory which was thrown out. It really does seem like it`s a sort of desperate attempt. The mental health stuff, and particularly, I`ve seen in right-wing chorus like focusing specifically on SSRI which is a form of pharmaceutical for people suffering from anxiety, depression, and other things.
That seems like something they`ve been sort of focusing on, but it does seem also pretty disparate. Like, we saw after Uvalde this insane and almost like, darkly comical fixation with doors, but it also seems like there is a real throwing things against the wall and see what sticks in response.
RUPAR: You know, there absolutely is. And I did a big Q&A on my newsletter today, Public Notice with Mark Follman who`s the national affairs editor for Mother Jones, and is a big proponent of these red flag laws that, you know, we`re incentivized by the by bipartisan gun bill that was recently passed.
But the problem like this Highland Park situation is that despite the fact that there are numerous red flags in the shooter`s background, including threatening to kill his family and having cops called to deal with that situation, his father ended up sponsoring him for a gun permits. And you know, so there was no usage of the Red Flag Law that`s on the books in Illinois any point to intervene and try and get guns out of this guy`s hands.
And so, that`s really the core problem that the right is talking about is that yes, mental health is a problem, but then we should be talking about red flag laws, implementing them and states that don`t have them and encouraging people to utilize them. But instead, you`re right, I mean, it`s absolutely throwing things against the wall. It`s marijuana, it`s violent video games.
You know, at no point do these people question the fact that Iceland consumes the most antidepressants, you know, per capita of any country and they don`t have a gun violence -- gun violence problem there. Canada smokes way more marijuana than, you know, America does and they don`t have gun violence -- gun violence like we do here.
So, you know, you don`t have to be an investigative journalist to debunk these claims. Really, some googling will basically suffice. But again, you know, on Fox it`s all about kind of soaking the priors of viewers and it`s that sort of infotainment mindset especially in primetime that really, you know, ignores the real issues and basically provides red meat to their viewers.
HAYES: That`s an interesting term, soaking the priors. I`m going to think on that. Aaron Rupar, thank you for joining us tonight.
RUPAR: My pleasure.
HAYES: That is ALL IN on this Wednesday night. "MSNBC PRIME" starts now with Ali Velshi. Good evening, Ali.
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST: Chris, good evening to you. You have a great night. Thank you. And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. We had an entirely different show planned for tonight, but a big news story just broke in the New York Times. The former FBI Director James Comey and his former deputy, Andrew McCabe, both of whom President Trump saw as enemies, well, both of them faced rare, supposedly random, but highly intensive IRS audits.