Summary
The panel is set to focus on former President Donald Trump`s attempts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence into changing the results of the 2020 election. The January 6 committee will seek testimony from Ginni Thomas about her efforts to persuade Trump officials to participate in the attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, a staunch conservative long admired by many Republicans, will testify before the House`s Jan. 6 committee. Bush-appointed circuit judge, debunked the theory that Vice President Mike Pence had the power to recognize alternative electors.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: We`re a few seconds over out of time THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.
[23:00:26]
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, the bombshell hearing highlighting the coordinated bully campaign after Mike Pence stood up to the former president, the danger that was 40 feet away and a current and continuing threat to our democracy.
Then, even the guy who wrote the memo for overturning the election knew it was against the law, and then asked for a pardon.
Plus, she insists she wants to clear the air. So when will Ginni Thomas tell the committee all she knows about the insurrection as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Thursday night.
Good evening, once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. Today, the January 6 committee made a powerful case about the relentless pressure Donald Trump and his allies put on Mike Pence to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election results.
This afternoon, the committee presented detailed evidence revealing the intensity of that effort and the real danger Pence was in on the day of the insurrection.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Mike Pence I hope you`re going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you`re not I`m going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m telling you what I`m hearing to Pence. I heard that Pence just caved.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that true? I`m hearing reports the Pence caved. I`m telling you, if Pence caved, we`re going to drag through the streets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Hang Mike Pence. That`s what they were chanting. Today star witnesses to key Republicans, Pence`s former White House Counsel Greg Jacob and former federal judge J. Michael Luttig. Their testimony focused on Trump`s lawyer John Eastman and his scheme to defy the Electoral Count Act and reverse Joe Biden`s victory.
Trump was apparently 100 percent behind Eastman`s plan, despite being informed over and over that the plan was illegal. And Greg Jacob went on to testify that even Eastman himself admitted the plot was against the law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREG JACOB, FMR. COUNSEL TO VP PENCE: When I pressed him on the point I said, John, if the vice president did what you were asking him to do, we would lose nine to nothing and the Supreme Court, wouldn`t we? And he initially started it. Well, I think maybe he would lose only seven to two. And after some further discussion acknowledged, well, yes, you`re right, we would lose not nothing.
REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): The doctor is going to admit in front of the President, that his proposal would violate the Electoral Count Act?
JACOB: Mr. Eastman acknowledged that that was the case that even what he viewed as the more politically palatable option would violate several provisions. But he thought that we could do so because in his view, the electoral can act was unconstitutional.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Not a lot of cases that could go nine zip. John Eastman also warned that his scheme could lead to violence. Here`s what one White House lawyer told the committee about his conversation with Eastman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC HERSCHMANN, FMR. TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: I said, you`re going to turn around and tell 78 plus million people in this country that your theory is this is how you`re going to invalidate their votes. Because you think election was stolen, said you`re going to cause riots in the streets. And he said, words to the effect of there`s been violence in the history of our country, Eric, to protect the democracy or protect the Republic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: As for Pence himself, he clearly had doubts about whether a vice president even had the power to overturn an election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACOB: Our review of text history, and frankly, just common sense all confirmed. The Vice President`s first instinct on that point, there is no justifiable basis to conclude that the Vice President has that kind of authority.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: The very conservative retired Republican Judge Luttig, he advised Mike Pence leading up to January 6, and his testimony today he left absolutely no doubt about where he stood on Eastman`s plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J. MICHAEL LUTTIG, RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGE: There was no basis in the Constitution or laws of the United States at all for the theory espoused by Mr. Eastman at all. Non.
[23:05:15]
I would have laid my body across the road before I would have let the vice president overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: And as we`ll hear later in the hour, Judge Luttig warned that the danger to our democracy is far, far from over, the scariest thing he said today/ The committee also released new photos of Trump on the phone talking to pence from the Oval Office on the morning of January 6, and witnesses testified that that conversation did not go well.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
IVANKA TRUMP, FORMER TRUMP SENIOR ADVISER: The conversation was pretty heated.
HERSCHMANN: I think till it became somewhat in a latter tone. I don`t think it was paying attention to it initially.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you hear any part of the phone call even if just this the end that the President was speaking from?
NICHOLAS LUNA, FMR. TRUMP PERSONAL ASSISTANT: I did, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. And what do you hear?
LUNA: So as I was dropping off the note, I my memory, I remember hearing the word wimp, either he called him a wimp. I don`t remember if he said you are a wimp. You`ll be a wimp. Wimp is the word I remember.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you remember what she said? Her father called him?
JULIA RADFORD, IVANKA`S FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF: The P word.
AGUILAR: Mr. Jacob, how would you describe the demeanor of the vice president following the call -- following that call with the President?
JACOB: When he came back into the room, I`d say that he was steely, determined.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: That same afternoon, while Pence was still inside the Capitol, Trump went on to send another tweet criticizing pence for not reversing the election.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AGUILAR: We received testimony that the President`s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was notified of the violence at the Capitol by 2:00 p.m. and likely earlier. The testimony further establishes that Mr. Meadows quickly informed the President and that he did so before the President issued his 2:24 p.m. tweet criticizing Vice President Pence for not having, quote, courage to do what needed to be done.
Here`s what the President wrote in his 2:24 p.m. tweet, while the violence at the Capitol was going on. And here`s what the rioters thought.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He deserved to burn with the rest of them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s all escalated after Pence. What happened to Pence? Pence didn`t do what we wanted.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pence voted against Trump.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, and that`s when all this started?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. That`s when we march on the Capitol.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Vice President Pence and his team, ultimately were led to a secure location, where they stayed for the next four and a half hours, barely missing rioters a few feet away.
AGUILAR: Proximately 40 feet. That`s all there was, 40 feet between the Vice President and the mob.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Mike Pence didn`t vote against Trump. Mike Pence did his job. The committee also released previously unseen photos of Pence in an underground location during the riot, including one photo of Pence reading that tweet that Trump wrote that day. He refused to leave the Capitol despite urging from Secret Service.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACOB: The Vice President had said something to the effect of Tim, I know you I trust you. But you`re not the one behind the wheel. And the Vice President did not want to take any chance that the world would see the Vice President of the United States fleeing the United States Capitol.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: As for John Eastman, well, today we learned that after everything that happened before and on January 6, he had one request.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AGUILAR: Dr. Eastman emailed Rudy Giuliani and requested that he be included on a list of potential recipients of a presidential pardon.
Dr. Eastman`s e-mail stated quote, I decided that I should be on the pardon list if that is still in the works.
Dr. Eastman did not receive his presidential pardon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: With that, and there`s a lot to get to let`s get smarter with the help of our lead off panel tonight. Peter Baker, Chief White House correspondent for The New York Times. Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor and Tom LoBianco, politics reporter for Yahoo News and the author of the Mike Pence biography, "Piety and Power."
I don`t even know where to start. Peter, what was your big takeaway today? Because there was a lot.
PETER BAKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, there was a lot. Look, this is the center of this whole post-election January 6, you know, conspiracy is what the committee calls it, to get the vice president basically to do the dirty work, did not know what to get him to overturn an election even though, you know, basically all the legal scholars with the exception of John Eastman say that there was absolutely no basis to do it no constitutionality, no law that would allow him to do it.
[23:10:20]
And the pressure that was put on Pence was enormous. Remember, for three years and 11 months, Mike Pence had been the loyal soldier. He had done everything he could to stay on Trump`s good side. He was the one person perhaps in that administration, who would never once crossed him got on the bad side of a tweet, nothing like that and managed to navigate a very tough environment.
And there he came, finally, to a fork in the road, he could not finesse, he could not find a way to slip past that he had to make a choice left or right up or down. And he made the choice. The choice was in his view abide by the Constitution, not by the orders of the president. And of course, that led to the crowd chanting hang Mike Pence. As we heard the other day, the President states saying back in the Oval Office, well, maybe our supporters have the right idea. Maybe Pence deserves it.
RUHLE: Joyce, John Eastman knew what he had done was wrong. That`s why he picked up the phone and asked for a pardon. But when he was then asked to speak to the committee, he sang a very different tune, watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN EASTMAN, FORMER TRUMP LEGAL ADVISER: I assert my Fifth Amendment right against being compelled to be a witness against myself.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the Trump legal team asked you to prepare a memorandum regarding the Vice President`s role in the counting of electoral votes at the joint session of Congress on January 6th 2021?
EASTMAN: Fifth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Declared that the President had been reelected.
EASTMAN: Fifth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that statement in this memo true?
EASTMAN: Fifth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Trump authorized you to discuss publicly are January 4th 2021 conversation with them?
EASTMAN: Fifth.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will not discuss those same conversations with this committee?
EASTMAN: Fifth.
AGUILAR: Dr. Eastman pled the fifth 100 times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: 100 times. Here`s the thing. He didn`t need the pardon. He never got charged with anything. Is he going to now, Joyce?
JOYCE VANCE, FMR. U.S. ATTORNEY: So it`s a good question, Stephanie. It`s hard to understand how Eastman does not end up getting charged. He believes that he was guilty. He wanted a pardon.
When he came to testify, he thought that he could only avoid incriminating himself if he asserted the Fifth Amendment, 100 questions and he believed that if he answered those questions truthfully, it would have incriminated him, it would have made him amenable to prosecution.
You know, those are the facts that John Eastman himself puts on the table. We have a federal judge in California in the lawsuit where John Eastman filed a suit against the committee to try to keep his e-mails out of the committee`s hands. And that Judge reviewed the evidence and not in a criminal context where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
But in the lesser burden in the civil setting where it only needs to be more likely than not, that federal judge evaluated the evidence and said, it`s more likely than not that John Eastman and the President of the United States were committing crimes together.
So for DOJ to look at all of this evidence, it`s clear that Eastman has to be part of their investigation. You know, the smart move the savvy move here, would be for Eastman to decide to be the John Dean in this story to go in and to tell the truth, the full truth and to cooperate. So far, he`s shown no tendency whatsoever to do that. And he`s remained staunchly on the other side of that line. And that`s why I think we heard Judge Luttig say, at least in part that this is a clear and present danger, an ongoing problem, not something that ended on January 6.
RUHLE: Peter, Eastman requested that pardon, he wrote it in an email to Rudy Giuliani, but the person in the White House who was focused who was leading the charge on pardons, was Jared Kushner. Is that not the most Jared Kushner job ever? It`s like the quid pro quo easiest job in any administration where the rich and powerful fraudsters money launderers come at the end of administration and say, Hey, how am I going to hook you up? Can you pardon me? How did Jared end up with that job?
BAKER: Yes. Yes, I mean, look, over the four years Jared had, you know, of course, shown interest in criminal justice reform and had worked on getting pardons for people who didn`t have necessarily political connections who had been put away for long periods verse relatively minor drug crimes, but in those final days, the big list that President Trump approved before leaving office did include all these people with political connections, all these people who had basically been part of his circle in some ways, including Ken Kherson, who is a friend of Jared Kushner has been facing possible charges, I think for stalking.
And I think that you know what you see there is Jared playing the political consigliere who is deserving of these pardons, who deserves to get off the hook and effect in these final days, one of the big fights they had was over Steve Bannon.
[23:15:08]
Remember Steve Bannon was running this War Room as he called it at the Willard Hotel on January 6, he had fallen out with a president that was now back basically, as one of his outside allies. And there was a huge fight leading all the way up to the final night of the presidency over whether, in fact, Steve Bannon should be getting a pardon people like Kellyanne Conway said no, absolutely not. But at 9:00 that night, Bannon talked with the President and the President agreed to put them on the list.
So, it was definitely a situation if you knew a president, if you knew people around the president, there are a lot of people who wish to work for the president were trafficking in, you know, lobbying for pardons. That`s what those last few days were all about.
RUHLE: And of course, Jared pardoned his dad. Tom, let`s talk about the kind of danger that Mike Pence was in. We heard how Trump attacked Pence on a phone call for not agreeing to go along with the plot. But then as the insurrection was underway, this happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AGUILAR: Did Donald Trump ever call the Vice President to check on his safety?
JACOB: He did not.
AGUILAR: Mr. Jacob, how did Vice President Pence and Mrs. Pence react to that?
JACOB: With frustration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: I mean, it`s no secret, Pence and Trump, I mean, they were never blood brothers. They were never homeboys. But describe the relationship between these two men then and now.
TOM LOBIANCO, YAHOO NEWS POLITICAL REPORTER: You know, that, I mean, you know, even again today more evidence of that being the clearest break in that more evidence of the phone call on January 6, that fateful phone call, where Trump calls him the P word at the, you know, the end of it.
And, you know, one of the couple of things I would point out in the hearings, they kind of grabbed me in this, at least this and this goes to the violence and the danger that Pence in particular faced his family here, too and Greg Jacobs testified.
You know, what we`re seeing here, the committee put together is a chronology. And they`re really put together many different pieces of this in, you know, it kind of in real time, almost as it`s happening. And, you know, the 2:24 p.m. tweet from Trump sticks out to me in particular, because it`s 2:26 p.m., just a few minutes later, when the mob of rioters comes within 40 feet of him.
And you`re seeing a lot of that, you know, you see a lot of this where, you know, the rioters themselves are, you know, talking about hearing the reports that Pence quote, has caved, and they`re getting angry, they`re getting riled up, we testimony to that effect today.
And, you know, it`s sometimes I think it`s not even so much, you know, each individual new piece of information, it`s more of the totality of information that we`re getting, and kind of the completeness of the story here. And, you know, obviously, there`s still huge missing pieces, but being really harrowing, it`s just really, I find it hard to be stunned by anything anymore. And I`m still stunned by these. It`s just really astounding.
RUHLE: Peter, over the last six years, we have really seen very few people in the Trump inner circle face any consequences. And when there`s been subpoenas and requests, they`ve laughed at them. They said, Oh, these hearings are going to be hyper partisan, we can ignore the subpoenas.
But today, Chairman Bennie Thompson suggested now is the time for previously reluctant witnesses to step up and spill. How likely do you think that is? Because almost all the witnesses we`ve seen so far are Republicans.
BAKER: Yes, they have been there. One thing that committee has really tried to do is show that the people around Trump knew that this election was not stolen, knew that this claim that the President was making was not true. They understood what was going on. Some of them told him, some of they didn`t. Some of them fought him, some of them didn`t.
But basically, what`s striking is how many of the people who consider themselves loyalists to President Trump and who he, in fact, welcome into his orbit didn`t buy into this, you know, this farcical fantasy that he was peddling to the American public. And I think that that`s an important point. I think it really, you know, we shouldn`t leave that.
RUHLE: Yes. But all these people who are saying, you know, we`re doing the right thing, we`re the ones on Team normal. Peter, isn`t that a little tough to swallow? Because if any of them, Jason Miller, Mark Short, take your pick. If they really saw that Trump was doing the wrong thing, they`ve had months and months and months to come out and share those statements, those experiences. They only spoke when they were called by the committee and under oath.
BAKER: Yes, you`re absolutely right about that they didn`t bite him or didn`t fight him publicly, anyway, with a few with a few exceptions. Bill Barr wanted to be -- one of the few exceptions on December 1st 2020. He had an interview with the Associated Press that said flatly, there is no evidence of widespread fraud and basically stood up to the president publicly, but most of them didn`t. You`re right.
Most of them just, you know, just kind of either quietly went away or stayed in his orbit still or some cases are in his orbit and didn`t tell the public what they knew or what they believe.
[23:20:04]
They allow this to go forward, they humor the president, they enable the president in some ways by not contradicting him in public and leaving the idea that there may be something they`re there when they knew that they didn`t think there was.
RUHLE: Joyce, Judge Luttig is a very well respected, very conservative former judge. He was once considered for the Supreme Court. The fact that he is making this powerful case to save the American democracy, do you believe any of this is getting through specifically to Republicans to Trump Republicans? You`re from Alabama.
VANCE: Well, this has to be. This has to be the hope with Judge Luttig`s testimony, perhaps more relevant than the fact that I`m in Alabama is the fact that in 1981, Judge Luttig graduated from the University of Virginia Law School, I matriculated there the following year in 1982. And UVA is a deeply conservative and a wonderful law school. At that time it was, I think, more conservative than it is today.
Judge Luttig had this sort of storied career, he had worked at the Supreme Court before he went to law school. He left and went to the White House. He worked in the Justice Department. He became the youngest federal judge in the country. And when he speaks people in Federalist Society and conservative legal circles, they listen. He has a brilliant mind, and a forceful way of articulating his analysis. And he is highly influential.
The hope here has to be that his testimony can break through to those people, the people who will be listening to him, those people will be influential in their own communities. And the hope has to be that this is one way to reach Republicans, maybe not quickly, maybe not immediately, but his word of his testimony and his argument leeches out into communities.
You know, just this one simple legal idea, the notion that the Founding Fathers could not have intended that one man, the outgoing vice president, determine the outcome of our elections that that can`t be what the 12th Amendment means. That`s a powerful idea. A seed that is planted could take root.
RUHLE: Peter Baker, Joyce Vance, Tom LoBianco, thank you for starting us off tonight.
Coming up, the invitation has been sent. And Genni Thomas insists she wants to clear up any misconceptions. We`ll ask a former adviser to the January 6 committee about where all of this could go.
And later, the ominous warning from a retired Republican judge, you heard it right there, that the former president and his allies are still a clear present danger to our democracy. So what are we going to do about it? The 11th Hour just getting underway on Thursday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:26:50]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AGUILAR: We`re talking about protecting democracy and the threat we faced leading up to January 6, and it wasn`t just about one day, it was about this concerted effort that we have continued to talk about building up to January 6, and so individuals who have knowledge should come forward, whether that`s Kevin McCarthy or Barry Loudermilk or Ginni Thomas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: And on that note, the January 6 committee has now sent Ginni Thomas a letter asking her to come on down and talk to the panel. Regarding that new reporting that she exchanged e-mails with John Eastman, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told The Daily Caller this, I can`t wait to clear up misconceptions.
So let`s welcome Denver Riggleman, former Republican congressman from Virginia. He was also an adviser to the January 6 committee and I want to make a quick side note, GinniThomas, if you`re watching, you`re welcome to join me any night of the week and we can clear up those misconceptions.
I`m so glad you`re here tonight. You were a committee insider, you have said before that the text messages you`ve seen from Mark Meadows were so horrible, you would walk away from your computer. What can you tell us about Ginni Thomas`s communications?
FMR. REP. DENVER RIGGLEMAN, (R-VA): Yes, I mean, you had the beginning of that I was fortunate being the Senior Technical Advisor, Stephanie. And you know, I, you probably know this. It`s one of the first to see the text with the link to the name, it was up to us to validate those text messages.
So when I saw him, I think of the five words that showed me the most was I hope this is true, which is at the bottom of one of the first texts when she talks about Democrats going to get MO, she talks about what are marked ballots. She actually sort of sprinkles in a lot of the QAnon conspiracy theories and that`s, you know, and reading all those 29 text messages, there seem to be a break from reality.
And also her access is what bothered me the most and it does some of the things you like, well, that`s pretty funny. You laugh at some of these things. But it looks like the QAnon conspiracy theories had infiltrated every part of the Republican Party and looking at the wife of Supreme Court Justice setting this type of almost deranged type of text messages. It really struck me when I went through all the text messages how that thread was sort of interwoven between all of them.
You also had her forerunning and text messages from Connie Hair, who is a Louie Gohmert, Chief of Staff. And you know, it`s really interesting when you see a text message like that, when you have Ginni Thomas, the wife of Clarence Thomas, fording a text from the Chief of Staff of Louie Gohmert to Mark Meadows, you know, people either very close or right on the cusp of all three branches of government involved. And that`s when I called attention to the committee. And that`s, that was a while ago, so I was very glad to see that they sent a letter to Ginni Thomas, after all the things that we saw today.
RUHLE: OK, but why now, to your point, we`ve known this for a while. It`s old news, what is it about her exchange with Eastman that got the committee to act?
RIGGLEMAN: I think it`s because you also saw the 29 e-mails, or the 29 Arizona legislators that she reached out to which is a coincidence, you know, that 29 texts to 29 legislators, legislatures, now you see emails directly with Eastman. I do wish it was a little bit earlier that they had sent a letter to Ginni Thomas, but they`re doing the right thing now.
And I think what`s I think what`s important about this, as we look at it, is that there is a pattern of an individual who has that type of access, who is close to a Supreme Court justice, that`s going to all levels of this sort of conspiracy.
[23:30:08]
If you look at it, right, she`s talking to state legislators, she`s talking to congressional representatives. She`s talking to the executive branch. And your imagination, you know, you don`t always have to be willfully obtuse or deliberately obtuse to think that, you know, the Supreme Court Justice wasn`t aware of some of the things that were happening. And that`s why I think that Ginni Thomas needs to be questioned.
However, if you look at her documents, or e-mails and text messages are pretty damning. And again, as far as the United States institutions that we have, and, you know, serve our republic, I think we`re at a time that we need to get answers on, you know, what the hell was going on here.
RUHLE: How about answers on financial fraud, $250 million raised for a Stop the Steal defense fund, a fund that didn`t even exist, how much of what the committee is revealing is an attempt to prove financial fraud can`t just be Kimberly Guilfoyle who got paid 60 grand to talk for two minutes.
RIGGLEMAN: Well, I would love to make that kind of money. And you know, I think another thing we have here is that when you look at the $250 million, I`ve said this before, Stephanie, that`s the floor. You know, Stop the Steal just isn`t a conspiracy theory. It`s a brand. So you have individuals, you know, members that are raising money on that type of hyperbole and outrage, you know, the RNC, the NSRC, the NRCC, you have individuals that are using Stop the Steal outrageous language and hyperbole to raise money.
So when you`re talking about $250 million, I do believe that`s the floor. I think follow the money might be the most important, I guess, part of the investigation for the committee. They have a very talented team there.
And when you see at the end of this, whether it`s the report where they get to the hearing, Stephanie, I think just the amount of money that`s -- that flows through this grift I think it`s the largest conspiratorial grift in the history of United States. When you see the money that flows through this grift, when you see the team`s investigation, how the committee puts it together.
I think the country will realize right that, you know, you`re on the edge of a very big fraud here, the American people and when they pass around that digital collection plate, whether it`s through e-mail, fundraising, whether it`s through hard mailers, whether it`s through digital, you know, all of this is really based on some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories we`ve ever seen with foreign interference. And, again, that should concern the American public.
RUHLE: We`re out of time, but I can`t let you go without asking, you know a lot more information about the evidence than we do. And I know there`s more coming out real time, but is the best yet to come? What`s coming?
RIGGLEMAN: I believe so. There`s so much data, Stephanie, the best is yet to come. They have really set up the case for the next three hearings. And I think the American people need to be glued. I think the committee has done a wonderful job. Very proud of them.
And you have some incredibly talented, nonpartisan people on there. And I know people like well, Denver, you`re going to say that because you have to know. The people that you have or a USAA (ph), you have investigators, you have people who have never involved in politics, they`re trying to do the right thing for America. The staff that have done the work, they really are the real heroes of this investigation.
RUHLE: All right then, Denver Riggleman thank you for joining us tonight. I appreciate it.
Coming up, you heard it before we`re going to dig into it, our democracy still very much in danger. That`s according to Republicans who have finally decided to talk. So the big question, what are they going to do about it? When THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:37:53]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LUTTIG: Today almost two years after that fateful day, in January 2021, that`s still Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Conservative Judge Michael Luttig did not mince any words in his testimony about the ongoing threat to our democracy. Let`s discuss, with us tonight, Juanita Tolliver, a veteran political strategist to progressive candidates and causes. Charlie Sykes is here, editor-at-large of The Bulwark and an MSNBC political analyst.
Juanita, did today`s hearing get Americans any closer to understanding not just what happened on the sixth, but what`s at stake today?
JUANITA TOLLIVER, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely, it did. And I don`t think Judge Luttig or Chairman Thompson is exaggerating when they make those statements. It is a clear and present danger. And I think, look at the way that Trump has behaved ever since January 6, taking this on essentially a roadshow where he`s recruiting election denier candidates and endorsing them like Mastriano in Pennsylvania, where he`s using this election lie to work with Republican controlled state legislatures to pass voter suppression laws, right.
Like, I think that laying it out like that and emphasizing that 2022 might be the last election we recognize because Trump and Republicans have committed themselves to trying this again, no matter the outcome and 2024 is critical. And it absolutely did capture the attention of the nation and we still have a whole lot more to cover as your last guest emphasize.
RUHLE: Charlie, Luttig hugely influential voice in conservative circles. But is that still the case now that it`s the party of Trump?
CHARLIE SYKES, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, things have changed but it is extraordinary to hear those words coming out or somebody like Michael Luttig.
[23:40:02]
And as you`ve emphasized, everybody that we`ve heard from has been a Republican, a conservative, a member of the Trump administration, these calls are coming from inside the house, which makes it so much more extraordinary.
Look, I don`t mean any disrespect, but you know, we are hearing those words. They`re not coming from an MSNBC host. They`re not coming from people on Twitter with their hair on fire. It`s not coming from the DNC. This is coming from somebody that was once on a Republican president shortlist to be a Supreme Court justice. This is somebody who was a giant in conservative legal circles.
So that`s got to make a difference. I don`t know whether it`s going to make a difference, because I don`t know who is watching.
But as a thought experiment, I was thinking about something you said earlier, Stephanie, what if we were learning all of this information now for the first time? What if it hadn`t dripped out over the last year? What if today, in the last couple of days was the first time we just we discovered the extent of the President`s conspiracy, the extent of the attempt to overturn the election, the fake electors, the pressure on the legislators, the pressure on Mike Pence, the way that the President not only tried to bully Mike Pence, but then unleashed a violent mob against him?
What if this was all new to us right now? We would all be stunned. We would all be blown away. There would be no debate about whether or not this was the closest this country came to a genuine constitutional crisis.
And I wonder for how many millions of Americans, it is new, it`s not new to us. But if you are sitting and watching television, people have to be looking at one another saying, Oh, my God, I`d heard drips and drabs of this, but I had no idea that it played out this way.
And so I think that the committee has done a masterful job in painting a picture of something that does not feel today, like old news. And I say that as somebody that is read and spent a lot of time on this over the last year and a half. It feels like it is very, very vivid. And I think there`s been a lot of oh my god, wow moments that we`ve seen from this committee.
RUHLE: Is the committee, Juanita, ironically doing Mitch McConnell`s work for him. Mitch McConnell is no friend of Donald Trump. He wanted to get rid of him for ages. And right after the insurrection, McConnell had very harsh words, as did Lindsey Graham, and then they changed their tune, or at least went silent. But now that all this is coming out, is that exactly what Mitch McConnell wants?
TOLLIVER: I mean, it`s what McConnell wanted is what McCarthy also wanted, right? Those recordings said that Democrats will get rid of him for us, right. Now this is enough ammo for them to take care of Trump.
But let`s be real Stephanie, the only people who can take care of Trump or the Republican voters who keep supporting him. And if they turn away, that is the key. Sadly, I`m not sure if this a select committee hearings will have any impact on Republican voters, especially Republican primary voters who are casting ballots across the country and in the coming weeks and months.
But I do think that what can get rid of Trump also is some DOJ prosecution. Imagine if federal charges are brought against Trump. Imagine if he`s finally held accountable, and has some type of penalty for this type of behavior, this harmful behavior that was a direct assault on our democracy and every person in that capital at the moment that he unleashed that crowd on them, because that is the only thing that he hasn`t seen.
I think back to his first impeachment trial, he wasn`t held accountable then because he wasn`t convicted. His second impeachment trial wasn`t held accountable and wasn`t convicted. But this is an opportunity where the Department of Justice can use all of this evidence from the Select Committee use all of this footage, use all of this testimony, to finally prosecute him and hold him accountable to make sure that he is not at the helm to try to do this again in 2024.
RUHLE: All right, well, we`re going to take a quick break, but Juanita, Charlie, you`re sticking around and I`m going to give you two minutes to think about it. What if he isn`t held accountable? What if the DOJ doesn`t act? Then what happens in this country? You can actually let it rip now that we`ve seen all of this wrongdoing if there`s no punishment, then what? We`ll be back in two minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:48:56]
RUHLE: Still with us, Juanita Tolliver and Charlie Sykes. Charlie, just before the break, Juanita was saying this is the time for the Department of Justice to act. What if they don`t? What if America what if the globe just saw Trump, his lawyers, Republicans, everybody knew he lost the election and still, they push the big lie? He potentially incited a riot. He raised money off of it. What if nothing happens, then what?
SYKES: Well, deep breath, I want to use a Judge Luttig`s phrase that that would drive a stake through the heart of American democracy. The Trump 2.0 would be exponentially worse than Trump 1.0 because now he knows where the levers of power are. He knows that he has to surround himself with yes men.
We can debate endlessly whether or not Mike Pence was a hero or the other people should have come forward earlier, but they won`t be around in a Trump 2.0. Imagine that, you know, who he will populate that administration with.
[23:50:00]
I`m trying to remember, I think it was David Frum (ph) who came up with the analogy it`s like Jurassic Park but this time the velociraptors had figured out how to open the doors and I think that that`s the scary thing that Donald Trump with no restraints, with nothing to lose, understanding that he can burn it all down would be beyond the nightmare. We thought Trump 1.0 was bad, nothing compared to what would come.
RUHLE: Well, earlier today on this his alternate social media platform, Trump said he wants equal time. Eric Swalwell, put out a tweet and said, Great, come on down and talk to the committee. Juanita, what in the world is Trump talking about? Because if he wants to go through what happened on the sixth, he`s welcome to join us here tomorrow night at 11?
TOLLIVER: Literally, any network will have him on the Select Committee, would have him sworn in and would talk to him for hours on end. And so I, of course, don`t believe anything will happen or come from this. And he just says this to taunt people because he knows he`s not going to tell the truth. And he`s knows that he`s not going to sit for hours of questioning.
I mean, look, how he`s obfuscated and tried to avoid every other subpoena, even out of New York being fined what $10,000 a day until he complied with the courts, right. He doesn`t want any of that. He doesn`t want that smoke.
But I also want to extend what Charlie was saying about if there is no prosecution or punishment, I think the nets mob that Trump`s sins, like after its political target, will catch that political target and cause them physical harm. I think that the authoritarian white supremacist push that he advanced to rile up this crowd and get the Proud Boys on the hunt will continue to advance.
I think that we should brace for rigged elections and brace for whoever comes after Trump who`s smarter, who is more strategic and more intentional about this authoritarian push, because that, that is where the long term damage to this nation that will be irreparable harm comes from the next person, not even Trump 2.0. But the next martyr person who has these authoritarian ambitions.
RUHLE: Charlie, where does the big lie go from here? Now that it is playing for all the world to see, we can look back at those what was it 137 Republicans in the House that didn`t vote to certify the election? What did they say now? Are all the people that just want primaries? I mean, David McCormick, he was Treasury Undersecretary. He wouldn`t even answer who won the last election. That guy knew who won. And the whole country just saw him lie while his wife raised money from every Goldman Sachs partner.
SYKES: Yes, well, let me -- first of all, Donald Trump`s all caps statement about equal time. That`s a recognition kind of a tell that he sees this as an effective television show. And he sees it in terms of television broadcasting, and he knows that it might cut through otherwise you would not be demanding equal time. So that`s kind of an admission that he thinks this is working.
But to your question, I mean, we kind of have a split screen. We have the big guy being discredited in Washington and these hearings, and then you look at what`s been happening in the hearings, I mean in the primaries around the country, where you have the truth tellers who are being purged one after another not in Georgia. But in South Carolina, and another place you have election deniers.
RUHLE: Hold on, Charlie, that`s before the hearings.
SYKES: It`s deeply ingrained. And I think that what you`re seeing you mentioned, David McCormick, that when you have someone who you know has a different path can make different choices. And one after another, what they`re doing is they`re falling in line, and they tell themselves their team normal. But they what they do is they enable team coup team crazy, and I don`t see that changing.
And the fact is that once you have internalized and normalized, this level of lying of alternative reality, it`s hard to know how you come back to it whether or not people will ever actually believe in the legitimacy of our elections again, and maybe we`ve already passed the point of no return on that. I don`t know.
RUHLE: Let`s be clear.
SYKES: But the Republican Party, the electorate made it very clear where they`re going on the big ally.
RUHLE: Charlie, it doesn`t matter who you voted for. If you were unwilling to say who won the last election, you ain`t on team normal. Juanita, Charlie, thank you. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:58:29]
RUHLE: The last thing before we go tonight, the elevator. Seven years ago today, Donald Trump took that fateful ride down the elevator -- escalator, excuse me, in Trump Tower and announced his campaign for president. People laughed. They thought it was a sick joke. He said the American dream was dead. He declared that he was going to build a wall and that Mexico would pay for it. It was a day that he would look back on fondly over the next few years. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: It takes guts to run, it really does. And I said to my wife, you know I`m going to do it. And I`ll never forget standing on the famous escalator. And we went down that famous escalator. Right, the famous escalator. I took a deep breath. Let`s go.
Has everyone seen the famous escalator coming down? I was coming down to reporters. It looked like the Academy Awards. It`s the most famous escalator in the world right now. I will say.
That famous escalator ride, Melania, myself. And the place went nuts.
And I made the speech people coming into this country. Everyone said what does he know? What`s he talking about?
That big, big beautiful day when everybody said oh he`s just doing this for fun. He doesn`t really mean it.
[00:00:06]
I`m sure nobody saw this when I came down the escalator with Melania and our waitress. I don`t think anybody saw that.
We came down the escalator, right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: That famous escalator ride led to two campaigns, a chaotic presidency, and not one but two impeachment trials. Now here we are seven years later, and the January 6 Committee is accusing Donald Trump of an attempted coup. Think about it.
And on that note, we wish you all a very good and very safe night. From all of our colleagues across the networks of NBC News, thanks for staying up late with us. I will see you for a very special broadcast tomorrow.