IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

Transcript: The Rachel Maddow Show, 7/11/22

Guests: Barry Berke, Meg Autry


The next January 6 hearing will focus on links between Trump allies and the groups who stormed the U.S. Capitol. Doctors look for workarounds to state abortion bans.


KATHLEEN SEBELIUS (D), FORMER KANSAS GOVERNOR: You see primaries as a partisan choice. And frankly, Democrats don`t have very many primaries. So, primaries are typically Republicans choosing among multiple candidates.

Our real challenge, those of us who strongly believe that a no vote is the appropriate way for Kansas to go forward, it`s to make sure people know.


SEBELIUS: Make sure people register and vote in August. If we can do that, I think the no votes will prevail.

HAYES: All right. Kathleen Sebelius, thank you so much for your time tonight.

SEBELIUS: Thanks for having me.

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. Much appreciated.

And thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. Happy to have you here.

We had initially expected there would be two hearings from the January 6 investigation this week. Now, Thursday hearing, the one we thought was going to be Thursday in primetime is not going to happen. At least it`s not going to happen yet, they`re putting that off until some later date. We have no idea when.

But the hearing tomorrow on Tuesday is still on. It will be live starting at 1:00 p.m. Eastern. And because we know a big important hearing in the middle of a school day, in the middle of the work day is not the most convenient thing for everyone, we here at MSNBC will have a prime recap of tomorrow`s hearing, right here tomorrow night starting at 8:00 p.m. Eastern.

I`ll be hosting that tomorrow night along with my dear friend, Chris Hayes and Joy Reid, Nicolle Wallace and Lawrence O`Donnell, the whole team. Again, that`s 1:00 p.m. is when the live hearing starts, 8:00 p.m. night is when we will start our prime time recap.

But I can tell you one thing in advance of tomorrow`s hearing. I can tell you for sure that the tattoo quotient among the witnesses is about to go way, way up. I don`t want to speculate about any of these folks might have lurking under their collars. It is totally possible, of course, that Rusty Bowers has an amazing torso full of tattoos, who knows? Perhaps Judge Michael Luttig has similar jerry stifle sleeve tattoos lurking under his very sober suit.

But in terms of visible tattoos, visible even in business where, and terms of fast tattoos, neck taxes, had tattoos hand tattoos, tomorrow will up the numbers in terms of what we`ve seen yet from live witnesses at the January 6th hearings.

Tomorrow`s hearing we have been advised is going to focus a least in part on the relationship between former President Trump, the Trump White House and the pro Trump fascist paramilitary groups that spearheaded the violent breach of the U.S. Capitol building on January 6th.

One of the live witnesses tomorrow we are told is going to be a man Jason Van Tatenhove. He used to be a spokesman for one of those groups, the Oath Keepers. Mr. Van Tatenhove was a tattoo shop owner, also an artist, a very accomplished artist. He ran a podcast radio show for a while it was called Revolution Radio.

And when he was doing Revolution Radio, he was sympathetic to these far right militia type groups that were claiming that the government was out to get you, the government needed to be resisted by force. This was during the Obama administration.

And so, when there was the Bundy ranch armed standoff in Nevada in 2014, where far right armed extremists anti-government groups aimed guns at federal agents and got away with it. The gentleman who you are going to see testify tomorrow, Mr. Van Tatenhove, he went off to cover it as a sort of journalist. He covered it for his revolution radio podcast thing.

And at that standoff, Mr. Van Tatenhove met the head of the Oath Keepers group and then he started attending and covering more of the events, standoffs and stunts were the Oath Keepers showed up.

And eventually, the leader of the Oath Keepers and the other members of that group decided he liked that enough, he liked his way of talking about them enough, he seem like a fellow traveler that they put them him on their payroll as the Oath Keepers spokesman.

And in that role, he produced lots and lots of videos and online content for them. The videos online content have been key to their ability to promote themselves in recruiting members. He spoke to the press on behalf of the group. He made all these public statements, he lionized their actions.

He says that at the time he thought he was sort of pulling a Hunter S. Thompson and the hells angels. He said he was -- in his mind, he was embedding with the Oath Keepers. And he, as a journalist, doing that sort of embedding with the group, he would ultimately produce a great work of journalism or great novel about his time riding with the Oath Keepers. That`s what he says he thought at the time, but he now realizes he was just believing is their propagandist.


And even though we had broadly supported them and broadly, he had been sympathetic to what they were doing, he eventually got to grossed out by them over there working with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, over the fact that he says at least some of them were Holocaust deniers hires, they like to talk about that amongst themselves. For that and a number of other reasons, he ultimately left. He was recently part of an ABC News documentary about what he did and why he now regrets it.


JASON VAN TATENHOVE, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, OATHKEEPERS.ORG: My day consists of waking up, taking in the news, and writing all day.

Hey, guys, Jason Van Tatenhove of Oath Keepers here.

I did it with the Oath Keepers, but I was doing it before that. It`s something I`ve always done.

I have an important story that we need to get out there. For the first time in our country`s recent history, good American stood up and said, you know what? We`re not going to let this happen on our watch.

We went shoulder to shoulder with some of the best Americans in the country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And over the video?

VAN TATENHOVE: Yeah, I do. I just got to own it. You know what? I was swept up, I was excited. And I was wrong.


MADDOW: And I was wrong.

Jason Tatenhove was the spokesman for the Oath Keepers paramilitary group for about a year and a half, two years. He was involved with a group for longer than that, though, for years. Involved to the point where the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, the guy with the eye patch from the gun handling accident, Stewart Rhodes apparently lived in Mr. Tatenhove`s basement for eight months.

Jason Van Tatenhove now does a podcast about local news and politics in Colorado, where he lives now. It`s kind of amazing to hear him on his podcast straight-up relaying the most recent news about January 6th and the investigation and the criminal charges against these paramilitary groups, and then while he`s just doing his normal news podcast, he has to mention kind of like as a fair disclosure to his listeners that, oh yeah, that news that we`re doing right here, he used to live in my basement.


VAN TATENHOVE: The new indictment now is the second time that a far-right group has been charged, as I said. In January, Stewart Rhodes, leader and founder and previous basement roommate of mine -- he lived in my basement for about eight months -- was arrested and charged along with 10 others in the same crime.


MADDOW: Previous basement roommate of mine.

So this guy has a unique perspective, right? This guy had unique access to these groups which are an important part of what happened our country when we came very close to violently losing the transition of power and violently losing the whole idea that elections ought to determine who is a government is of the United States.

So, tomorrow, we`ll hear from Jason Van Tatenhove off about this paramilitary group he was part of. As he was just describing there in his podcast, members of that group are under federal indictment for seditious conspiracy, for attempt to overthrow the United States government by force. To the extent the Donald Trump White House was trying to use those paramilitary groups to their purpose, trying to use them as a physical force that will be need to physically blocked a finalization of the election results, to physically intimidate the vice president and the Congress from finishing that job -- well, to whatever extent that happened, to whatever extent these groups didn`t just do it on their own but, they were directed, in that effort, tomorrow we`re going to hear the January 6 investigators lay out that case.

And we know to respect life witness testimony from the guy who`s a former spokesman from the Oath Keepers, who`s now quite repentant about his time with the group.

We may also hear from other people who actually were personally involved in the January 6th attack. We may also see more videotape than you might usually expect in part because by the latest count, I think there appear to be not one, up to, not three, but maybe four separate documentary filmmakers who were involved with the main figures in the January 6th attack up to and including the day of the attack, the most recent one being disclose publicly over the weekend. Yet another documentary crew was apparently shooting Roger Stone and his merry band of whatever`s during the lead up to January 6th and on the day of.

So there`s more tape than you might expect from your average criminal conspiracy, because they all hired filmmakers to follow them around and lionized injuring those final days. Now both Roger Stone on the left there and Michael Flynn and right there, both of them were convicted of crimes during the Trump administration and then pardoned by Trump. Both of them are known to have used members from these paramilitary groups, Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, essentially as armed candy at Trump rallies and in Mr. Stone`s case on the day January 6th attack itself.


There`s no crime in decorating your entourage with dressed up fake soldiers because it makes you feel important, but to the extent that the presence of these groups with Roger Stone and with Mike Flynn, up to and on the day of January 6, in a case of the Trump when Hayes was in contact with those groups, and using those groups for the purposes of trying to use force against the government.

Using force to overthrow or stop the function of the government, that is a crime. That is a very serious crime. That`s sedition, or seditious conspiracy, right?

And if you were part of directing those groups, aiming and -- pointing and aiming those groups that you knew would use force at your suggestion, if you were part of them derived deliberately suggesting that it was go time for them, that would mean that you would appear to have been involved in the crime. You would appear to be in on the conspiracy, members of the Oath Keepers improv keepers are sitting in jail on charges a keep them in jail for decades.

No pressure tomorrow, right? The topic of tomorrow`s hearing is about the fact that there are already a bunch of guys on trial or who are about to be on trial for seditious conspiracy and tomorrow`s question as to whether or not the Trump White House another Trump associates were in on it with them. I should therefore face the potential serious same criminal charges.

Now, I mentioned there might be more videotape tomorrow than we were otherwise expecting for your typical criminal conspiracy. Part of the reason I think we should be ready for that tomorrow is because of this which we recently saw from "The New York Times".


PROUD BOY 1: All right. So what time is the whole political presidential situation happening that day with Pence, that -- I don`t know, I guess we`re just going to have to -- a lot of the questions are coming in about D.C. And if you haven`t formulated plan for D.C. yet because we`ve been trying to --

ENRIQUE TARRIO, PROUD BOYS LEADER: I mean, we somewhat know, we just, we just -- there`s a lot of detailed information that I guess we`ve got to go over, but yes, we will have a plan for D.C.


MADDOW: Why is there a tape of that?

Apparently the Proud Boys, pro-Trump military group, recorded their video conference calls, which is the venue they chose for making their plans for Washington, D.C. on January 6th. The plan for the whole political presidential situation happening that they with Pence.

This is the part where stringer bell says, are you taking notes on a freaking criminal conspiracy? What do you thinking? I mean, I have no advance knowledge with what the January 6 investigators have got what they don`t, but Alan Feuer of "The New York Times" reported last month that the Proud Boys military group not only recorded the video planning sessions for January 6th, but a least one of the recordings was seized from the phone of the group`s leader by the FBI this year in 2022, quote, and a copy was recently obtained by "The Times".

So, these big brains in this pro-Trump fascist group. They first of all decided to do their organizing on videotape conference. Then they made recordings those planning sessions which is him using, then their leader guy kept the recordings for at least a year after the Capitol attack. He then had them seized by the FBI and also, they have made their way to at least one reporter who was published pieces of them at the New York Times.

So, yeah, like I said, I don`t know exactly with the January 6th as investigation has, but it`s got to be help to have guys like this right in the middle of this criminal conspiracy. You pray and all investigations of all kinds for targets like this. Did you literally leave bread crumbs too? That`s why the leadership of both these pro Trump armed fascist groups are about to be put on trial for sedition. Part of the way rebel put someone on trial for a crime that serious is when they lay out and make records of everything they have done.

The question we will get out tomorrow though is not just about what they did but about who else may have been in on what they did. Sedition -- seditious conspiracy is using force to try to stop or overthrow the government. The Justice Department, we know because they have indicted, they believe they have the goods to successfully prosecute multiple members of these paramilitary groups for doing that.

But if other people, you know, people without Bin Laden beards, people without neck tattoos, were knowingly sitting these guys to that call, knowingly triggering them to go do it -- well, those people who aimed and fired these paramilitary groups at the U.S. Capitol, knowing what they were capable of, and knowing what they intended, well, in that case, those people, the people in the suits, would be equally implicated in a seditious conspiracy to use force to overthrow the lawful functions of the U.S. government.


And now we know from the member of the January 6 investigation, who is going to lead tomorrow`s hearing, now we know from him that the January 6 investigators believe they have figured out that in fact someone did that. And tomorrow, they`re going to show the evidence of what he did.


REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Donald Trump was, of course, the central figure who said everything into motion. He was the person, Rob, who identified January 6th as the date for a big protest. And he announced that in his tweet, in the middle of the night on December 19th, after that a crazy meeting, one that has been described as the craziest meeting anytime Trump presidency.

And then, just an hour or two later, Donald Trump sent out the tweet it would be heard around the world, the first time in American history, when the president of the United States, called a protest against his own government. In fact, to try to stop the counting of electoral college votes in a presidential election he had lost. Absolutely unprecedented, nothing like that had ever happened before.

So, people are going to hear the story of that tweet, and then, the explosive effects it had on, in Trump world, and specifically, among the domestic violent extremist groups, the most dangerous political extremists in the country at that point.


MADDOW: Explosive effects that Trump statements had, specifically among the domestic violent extremist groups, the most dangerous political extremist in the country at that point. Again, members of those groups already facing felony criminal charges, for seditious conspiracy. That`s 20 years in prison.

Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy of Florida, they`re going to the two leaders of the hearing tomorrow. Congressman Raskin, this weekend, on CBS, saying, effectively, that President Trump set them off, pulled their trigger.

And you know, we`ve got a lot of show to get to tonight. There`s a lot going on, a lot of news. As we look ahead to the hearing tomorrow night, I will just close by making, making one last point. Because it`s me, it`s a two part point, but it is one point.

And it`s about sort of what`s getting attention out of this hearing tomorrow. I think there is one thing that`s getting way too much attention out of tomorrow`s hearing. It`s sort of a variant of interest, but I really don`t think it`s substantively that important, so if you`re looking to kind of like safe brain space, like which I focus on? And what can I ignore? I think there`s something that`s got that ton of noise in the past day or two, that actually deserves very little attention, and you can wipe that party a hard drive.

There`s also something now that isn`t getting nearly enough attention out of tomorrow`s hearing, just in terms of what we should prep, for what we should be looking out for? What might end up being important here? We`re going to tweet that one in more detail tonight. The less important thing, that perhaps not at all important thing, is named Steve Bannon.

I know that Mr. Bannon has been all over the news for the past day or two. Lots of headlines, lots of pixels, many newsy-ish seeming developments about Mr. Bannon.

So many, in fact, that you might think he matters right now to the January 6th investigation, and indeed, what`s going to happen tomorrow. I honestly think that in this case, you just couldn`t that let the noise about him distract you.

What`s going on with him? Why is getting all this press is actually very simple, it`s not that complicated, it doesn`t take that long to explain. Steve Bannon got a subpoena to testify to the January 6th investigation, a subpoena is a legally binding thing. It`s not an invitation. It`s illegal something, you can`t ignore it. He ignored it. He denounced it. He put on a little red face and yelled about TV cameras.

And I`m sure he enjoyed that, but it`s not, that`s not a legal response. A subpoena is a binding thing. You have to respond to it.

He claimed the reason that he was defying the subpoena was executive privilege. That president Trump had a right to his counsel, as a government employee, and he couldn`t violate the private sanctity of his advisors unofficial adviser to the president.

Legally speaking, that is a pile of corn knots. I mean, first of all, if you want to assert that you can`t answer questions because of some assertion of executive privilege, A, the president, maybe the former president has to assert that executive privilege. It`s not clear that ever happened here. Also, what you`re supposed to do is respond to the subpoena, honor the subpoena, sit down, hear the questions that are going to be asked, and then, on a question by question basis, you assert any relevant privilege you think may apply.

You can`t just say, I cannot be asked anything -- ever.


Also, the time period in question here they wanted to ask him about this 2020 and 2021. In 2020 and 2021, Steve Bannon was a podcaster, not a presidential advisor. He was a podcaster, and nothing against podcasters. Some of them are our best friends, right? But dude did not work in the White House or for the government in any capacity and had not for years, by the time he did this stuff that the investigators wanted to ask him about.

It will be like Bill Clinton getting on board through a JetBlue flight to Denver today, and saying, hey everybody, hey y`all, need to get out of here because I`m on this plane. It`s now Air Force One. And so, you are only going to be here. You have to go.

That`s not how it works, right? You`d be like, hey, that`s Bill Clinton on my JetBlue flight. Nice to meet you, former President Bill Clinton. But also sit down. This is JetBlue, and we`re not leaving.

This isn`t Air Force One, just because you`re on it, the part of your life is over, that`s not how it works.

It`s not how this works, either for former presidents, or for former presidential advisers who now have sat podcasts sponsored by the My Pillow guy.

There is no executive privilege that it tends to everything, anything Steve Bannon did as a podcaster. It just doesn`t -- even, and a lob look, this wouldn`t even be something that you would be able to look up in the indexed. This is like if somebody asked me if you want your Pepsi, and you say I love a fruit rule up. It`s completely irrelevant.

Steve Bannon defied a legal subpoena in a way that was not illegal. It was not even a close approximation of legal. And so, the U.S. Justice Department is prosecuting him for doing that. The reason he`s been getting all this press the past couple of days, is because this criminal trial is about to start for that. He`s facing up to two years in prison.

As a last-ditch effort to try to screw up that case against him, he came up with this new gambit, in which he says, President Trump has not released him from the bonds of executive privilege, so he now would like to testify, please. You know, right before his trial is supposed to start in federal court. And he`s doing this because it`s trying to derail this trial.

And the reason we know that none of this matters, it`s because today, the federal judge hearing Steve Bannon`s case, laughed it all out of the courtroom. The ban and criminal trial is not derailed. Bannon has not even succeeded in using this tactic to delay the trial. Past its scheduled start date which remains one week from today.

And oh, by the way, rescuers dispose of the court today that the FBI went to interview Trump`s lawyer about all of this. And the lower clarify to them, yeah, Trump never even tried to assert an executive privilege. When it comes to Steve Bannon, they will go, the whole thing was made up.

So, there is no drama around the January 6th investigation and Steve Bannon, other than the fact that Steve Bannon may now go to prison for contempt, for defying their legal subpoena to him. And, you can`t get out of it by belatedly coming up with this publicity stunt, where he agrees to testify to the committee.

Yes, maybe, he will, eventually come in and testify with a, who knows? But, if he does testify, it will reportedly be behind closed doors, just like all the other kids, big guy.

I mean, the press, for whatever reason, may enjoy covering Mr. Bannon`s every stunt. But he doesn`t matter in the largest scheme of this. Nothing he is saying or doing means anything in substance. And also, he should maybe be focused on, you know, other stuff, pack a toothbrush, big guy.

While the Steve Bannon red faced breath holding tantrum, over these past couple of days, has gotten way more attention than it substantively deserves, I think the thing that does deserve more attention ahead of tomorrow`s hearing is the grenades, the military ordnance grenades, and explosives, and the many, many, many guns that we are only just now learning about, mostly from Justice Department filings, but also from brand-new open source reporting. That stuff, actually, is important. And that`s next.



MADDOW: AR-15s, shot guns, tons of pistols, semi automatic handguns, also bear spray, chemical spray, stun guns, flagpoles, spears, flagpoles made in the spears, clubs, collapsible batons, bulletproof vests, crossbows, machetes, smoke grenades, thousands of rounds of ammunition, ranging from shotgun shells to hollow point bullets.

Plus, the nightmare homemade stuff, like these mace jars filled with gasoline and Styrofoam. Do it yourself napalm. They pack them altogether enough tight space. It any speed bumps on the way?

On Friday, just a few days ago, "The Washington Post" did a public service. They sent several reporters to pull from public funds in public reporting all with all of the different weapons we now know or at the Capitol on January 6th in the hands of the pro Trump mob. "The Post" reported 121 people ultimately charged with using or carrying dangerous weapons that day.


That reporting, of course, follows testimony from White House staffer Cassidy Hutchison that not only was President Trump warned earlier than January 6th the crowds near the Capitol were quite heavily armed, but the people choosing to go through the metal detectors that had tons of weapons confiscated from him already. That he was warned that the people choosing to go through the metal detectors were choosing to avoid them, choosing to avoid going through magnetometer`s in part because they wanted to keep their weapons on them. Trump responded to that information allegedly by saying that he wanted the metal detectors for his rally taken down so the crowd wouldn`t have to have their guns taken away for them to be able to attend. Whoever wanted to use those weapons against, he figured it wasn`t him.


CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE AIDE: I heard the president say something of the effect of, you know, I don`t f`ing care that they have weapons. They`re not here to hurt me. Take the f`ing mags away. Let my people in.


MADDOW: They`re not here to hurt me. Let the people in with weapons, and then we`ll go to the capital.

Again, we have known that information for a couple of weeks because of testimony from White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson. But that information we cannot put in the context of a whole burst of new news about just how armed the crowd was on January 6th.

First, we learned from her that Trump knew they were armed. Now, we`re learning a lot more about how exactly they were armed, and how alarmed they were. I mean, in addition to that "Washington Post" reporting, which is a real public service, on Friday from the Justice Department, we also got an update on the seditious conspiracy case against the leaders of the Oath Keepers and alleged members of that group.

U.S. prosecutors laid out a series of revelations about what charges what weapons those individuals are brought with them to D.C. on January 6th. Quote: The government has evidence that members of the group from Florida and Arizona allegedly staged semiautomatic rifles and other weapons in a suburban Washington hotel while a third team from North Carolina kept their firearms ready to go. In a vehicle in a the parking lot, quote, another Florida member of the group came to Washington, with explosives in his recreational vehicle, which he left parked in College Park, Maryland.

The government later seized from that V.R., quote, military grenades. He had them in his R.V. which he had used to travel to Washington, D.C. on January 6.

All of that information that is all information worth noting that we did not have the first time anybody tried to hold Trump accountable for what he set off on January 6th. During his second impeachment trial right after January 6th, one of the key pieces we now know was missing was just how armed that crowd was when they start stormed the Capitol.

That makes this kind of fresh new ground. How does it change the job of the investigators? How does it change the stakes?

Well, joining us now is somebody in a unique position to be able to talk about that. Barry Berke was counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment counsel, the one about Ukraine. And he was a lead counsel and President Trump`s second impeachment, which is the one about January 6.

Mr. Berke, it`s a real pleasure to have you here with us tonight. Thank you for the time.

BARRY BERKE, FORMER HOUSE CHIEF IMPEACHMENT COUNSEL: Thank you, Rachel. Great Rachel to be here.

MADDOW: Is it safe to say that when Trump was impeached for the January 6th attack, again for which you are lead counsel, is it fair to say that it wasn`t yet clear at the time just time any weapons were women in the mob that day, how many weapons, how many types of weapons they brought to D.C., let alone that Trump was aware of how armed they were?

BERKE: That is all true. There is so much more direct evidence that supports everything we were saying during the impeachment proceedings, and all the circumstantial evidence that we thought proved, it shows the lies to Trump`s defenses.

You remember during the impeachment, we had him saying to the Proud Boys, stand back and stand boy. We had him sending out on December 19 the tweet, you know, big protests at Washington, D.C. on January 6, at Washington, D.C., it will be wild. We have all the evidence.

What this shows this is that everything we were saying and showing was true and then some. Of course, he was summoning these domestic violent extremist groups, and he would`ve known that they were violent. When he stood there he, knew that the crowd was armed, he had received those warnings.

Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony was so great because a shoulder proceeded it and what followed it. He knew they had guns but didn`t care if they were shoot you knew there were not going to shoot him. All these folks came prepared, and there`s even more evidence of that because they were told the elections being stolen and they were summoned there.

I remember from the second impeachment one of the most chilling pieces of film we saw was the people who raided told the police, we are here because the president told us to come here and invite us. That`s what they believe, and that`s why he`s singularly responsible.

So, it is new evidence and it`s powerful, further proof of his responsibility for everything that happened and that January 6th was a culmination of his attempt to interfere with peaceful power, after all those other efforts had failed.


MADDOW: Now in terms of the relationship between these pro Trump fascist paramilitary groups, members of which have been charged with seditious conspiracy and the culpability of the president, Congressman Raskin, who`s going to co-lead tomorrow`s hearing. I know you worked closely with him on Trump`s second impeachment. He has said the tomorrow`s hearing is not going to be about showing explicit evidence that Trump, you know, approved directly of these paramilitary groups plans or that he told them to draw up plans like that.

He said that`s not what they`re setting it to prove. They`re setting out to prove what he described as a convergence of Trump`s efforts and what the paramilitary groups were willing to do with weapons and with violence. Can you help us understand what that means? He`s not talking about there being cars went similarly for pursuing the same idea, he`s talking about there being converged efforts.

BERKE: Absolutely and I think I can`t help but look at this as a trial lawyer because it`s so effective to have Cassidy Hutchinson come in as the last witness saying she heard Proud Boys, Oath Keepers mentioned in connection with January 6th. They knew they were warned there was going to be violence. They knew he was warned not to use the words, to encourage the crowd to fight, and yet he sent out, you know, that December 19th tweet to be there in the wild.

He knew they were coming. He`s not going to say they had direct conversations with the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys, but it is all happening in real time, at the same time, he was trying to influence state officials, telling them to find the exact amount of votes he needed to win, trying to get his senior DOJ officials just to say, say there`s fraud and he`ll take care of the rest.

It was clear that these efforts were try part of that broader skin. I think Jamie who`s the best was trying to say is, they may not need to show and they won`t show direct communication, but they don`t need to, because the proof is overwhelming that these were all part of the same effort to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, to interfere with the work of Congress and it should`ve been surprised that when you`re reaching out telling the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by, when you know these folks are hearing your messages that they will be armed and heavily armed. He just didn`t care because they weren`t there to harm him.

MADDOW: Yeah, it was a unified holistic effort where everybody was aware of the other elements of the effort and one of the elements of the effort were heavily armed paramilitary trained fascist groups. You know, just another day at the office.

Barry Berke --


MADDOW: Sorry --

BERKE: I think it`s so important because they had the violence to it that they knew, and that`s something the American people can understand, the violent overthrow of government is something we`ve never seen let alone directed by a president of the United States. So, to see those efforts I think really speaks volumes and a little be a continuation of that tomorrow at the hearings.

MADDOW: Barry Berke was lead counsel for Trump`s second impeachment on these matters.

Barry, thank you for helping us set the stage for that tomorrow. It`s really great to have you here.

BERKE: Thanks.

MADDOW: All right. We`ve got much more, much more to come here tonight. Stay with us.



MADDOW: A couple of weeks ago here, just after the Supreme Court overturned the right to an abortion in this country, we talked here on this show about one of the ways that abortion providers are trying to keep abortion services accessible to Americans who now live in states where abortion is banned. We talked about mobile abortion clinics.

An abortion access group called just the pill, announced they would be announcing a fleet of mobile clinics to park just over the border from states with abortion bans, and from those mobile clinics, they would have providers do consultations for medication abortions, dispensing pills, as well as providing surgical abortions for patients who need that, or prefer that, or who were too far along in their pregnancy for a medication abortion.

Just the Pill tells us tonight that they have now deployed their first medication abortion mobile clinic in a pilot program. A second, larger mobile clinic providing that, and also surgical abortions will deploy later this summer. Just the Pill medical director tells ABC News that the vans are both completely unmarked, and bulletproof.

These vehicles, the mobiles clinics thus equipped take eight months to build, that`s the main thing slowing their expansion to other states so far, but that`s what they`re planning to do. So that is one on the ground response to the overturning of Roe versus Wade, put abortion clinics on wheels and drive them to state borders to be as close as possible to women in the states where abortion is now banned.

But, now there is another doctor who looked at a map and realized that, for women in certain places like the Deep South and South Texas, there is a place that is much closer than the near state where abortion could still be illegal. And that nearest place would be the sea, the ocean, the Gulf of Mexico.

Dr. Meg Autry is an OB/GYN, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, she plans to launch a floating abortion and reproductive health clinic in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, a few miles off the coast and therefore a few miles out of reach of oppressive state laws.

The idea is that for many women in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, it might be closer and easier, and cheaper, to get to a boat, to get to a floating clinic a few miles off the coast, rather than trying to fly or drive to the nearest state where abortion is legal.


This project is still in the fundraising stage. For starters, Dr. Autry needs a boat to be able to make this happen. But as sort of pie in the sky and crazy as this idea might sound at first blush, there is really salient and extensive experience of doing this sort of thing for women who are seeking abortions.

A couple of weeks ago, we spoke here on the show with Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, a Dutch doctor who spent decades figure out innovative ways to get abortion services to places where abortion is illegal. Her organization, Women on Waves, has spent years providing abortions on ships, floating in international waters. And the work that Dr. Gomperts has been doing globally, figure out how to get women abortion services for the countries where they have made it illegal, that is now work that needs to be done here inside the United States as well, figuring out how to get abortion services to women in states where it is illegal.

Hold that thought. We`ll be right back with more.



MADDOW: It`s a sort of thing that would be almost unthinkable before a couple of weeks ago. I would least sound a little crazy. But here`s the headline. California doctor proposes floating abortion clinic in Gulf of Mexico.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, overturning Roe versus Wade, overturning the right to get an abortion in this country, different times call for desperate measures. This is one of them.

One doctor in California is making a pretty well-rounded geographical agreement at least that the Gulf of Mexico, the federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico outside the reach of Republican controlled states that have abortion bans, those waters may be the closest place for many American women in the Deep South and South Texas who need access to abortion care.

Joining us now is Dr. Meg Autry. She`s a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco.

Dr. Autry, I really appreciate you making time to be with us tonight. Thank you.

DR. MEG AUTRY. OB/GYN: Thank you so much for having me.

MADDOW: Am I explaining this -- the basics of it correctly, and is there any important nuance here that I`m missing in terms of conveying this to our audience?

AUTRY: No, I think you pretty much have gotten it. One of the really important things to remember is that wealthy individuals in our country will be able to get the care that they want and how they want it, whenever and however they want to, and this is serving a portion of our population that in these restricted states that are virtually unable to access those resources.

MADDOW: How daunting are the logistics of what you are proposing? Obviously, there is the matter of acquiring a boat, getting it properly equipped and staffed and all that. It seems to me as somebody totally ignorant is how something like this would work, that this also the very serious challenge of how you would get the women out to the facility that you`re going to have to have several miles offshore, how you handle follow- up care and things like that to the extent that that`s needed.

Can you talk to us a little bit about what is most daunting and what feels most doable about those logistics?

AUTRY: So the most daunting part is all aspects of this are incredibly daunting. So, although we are just going public, we have done an extensive amount of research in detail looking at this option and what seems to be the best way to go about it, both logistically, and from a security standpoint, from a legal standpoint.

What is most doable is that -- we know the majority of our country doesn`t believe in what is happening. We must have bodily autonomy, and because of that we have an amazing amount of incredible people who you`ve already talked about her new show who are determined to improve or create access to individuals who don`t have it.

MADDOW: This plan, is this project based at all of the similar kind of work that has happen internationally? We had Dr. Rebecca Gomperts here on the show talking about her international experience in other countries where abortion has been illegal. Have you -- is this consciously formed on the, are you aware of other doctors experience in other countries?

AUTRY: So, I came up with the idea completely separately but was quickly alerted to Dr. Gomperts` efforts and have spoken to her. So, it`s a little bit different. She, as you know, had women with waves which were on international waters off the coast of Ireland. My understanding focused mostly on medical abortions. This is federal waters in the U.S. and different legal and different security issues, but she is a visionary, a pioneer and she is incredibly helpful and giving me advice moving forward.

MADDOW: Dr. Meg Autry, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at USF, this is obviously an intriguing -- extreme and also extremely necessary idea. I think it`s called a lot of people`s imagination because it is so mind- blowing that this is a sort of thing that might be needed. But you were working to do it practically. We`d be interested in hearing from you as you start putting together both the funds and the logistics to make it happen.


Please come back.

AUTRY: Thank you very much.

MADDOW: All right. Thanks for your time tonight. We`ll be right back. Stay with us.


MADDOW: For the past six and a half months, the most powerful telescope in the history of the world has been on its 1 million mile mission to look at the very first galaxies and stars ever formed.

Tonight, we finally got to see the first full, colorful resolution images, our first image from that telescope. It is the deepest look into the universe, ever, from the most powerful telescope ever made. Some of the biggest, brightest lights in this image took 4.6 billion years to get to the telescope. So, looking at those lights on this image is like looking that far back in time.

NASA says, actually, some of the faintest lights in this image are almost as old as universities self, they`re over 13 billion years old.

Tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. Eastern, NASA is going to unveil more photos from the Webb telescope, but that`s the first one. Watch this space -- sorry.

I`ll see you back here again tomorrow, 8:00 Eastern, for our primetime recap of tomorrow`s January 6th inning.


Good evening, Lawrence.