Summary
New reporting reveals clips from a Roger Stone documentary will be used at this week`s Jan. 6th public hearing. It comes as former Jan. 6th committee adviser, Denver Riggleman releases his new, unauthorized book about this work while on the panel. Plus, an Arizona judge reinstates an abortion ban from 1864.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC ANCHOR: Antony Blinken gets tonight`s "LAST WORD". THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.
[23:00:13]
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC ANCHOR: Tonight, the January 6 committee is days from a new hearing. And we have new video of a Trump ally calling for violence. He says it was only a joke. Plus, an abortion ban from the 1800s is now the law of the land in Arizona. The chaos and confusion has doctors unsure of how to care for their patients.
Then, in a matter of hours, the head of the radical Oath Keepers is in court facing seditious conspiracy charges. His former spokesman is here with a warning about the danger from extremist groups in this country as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Monday night.
Good evening, once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle. The Breaking News Tonight, new video of Trump ally Roger Stone that is likely to be on display during the January 6 committee`s hearing on Wednesday. The Washington Post reports the panel plans to show video of Stone from a Danish made documentary. In one specific clip, Stone speaks out about violence before the 2020 election.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ROGER STONE, TRUMP ALLY: Excellent. Violent, promoting let`s get right to violence. Shoots kill, CNN and Antifa shoot to kill. Done with this.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
RUHLE: The Washington Post reports stone went on to say he was kidding and renounced his violence completely. The 1/6 Committee only obtained that video after the filmmakers complied with a subpoena. Stone responded to the video in a statement saying in part this, I challenged the accuracy and authenticity of these videos and believe they have been manipulated and selectively edited.
Wednesday`s hearing will be the committee`s first in more than two months. And it could be the final one before lawmakers issued their report.
Now, a former committee advisor Denver Riggleman has written a book about his work for the panel. It includes new information about a call placed from the White House to a rioter who was at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DENVER RIGGLEMAN, FORMER JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE ADVISER: You get a real aha moment when you see that the White House switchboard had connected to a writer`s phone while it`s happening. That`s a big, pretty big aha moment. You get to aha wait a bit.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Someone in the White House was calling one of the rioters while the riot was going on?
RIGGLEMAN: On January 6. Absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Riggleman talked about that discovery earlier on this network.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUGGLEMAN: How in the world in any way would you have somebody on a White House desk calling a rioter on January 6. The committee is pursuing this. They wanted to see the White House numbers they couldn`t get them. There`s hundreds of them. So there`s so much more here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Jan. 6 committee member Jamie Raskin says they are aware of that call. Today they issued this statement quote, Mr. Riggleman had limited knowledge of the committee`s investigation. He departed from the staff in April prior to our hearings, and much of our important investigative work. Since his departure, the committee has rundown all the leads and digested and analyzed all the information that arose from his work.
With that let`s get smarter with the help of our leadoff panel tonight. Luke Broadwater, Pulitzer Prize winning congressional reporter for the New York Times, Andrew Weissmann, former FBI general counsel and former senior member of the Mueller probe. Now he is a professor at NYU, and A.B. Stoddard joins us, veteran Washington journalist and associate editor and columnist for Real Clear Politics.
Andrew, since I know how much you love visiting the crew over at last word, I`m going to let you start us off this evening. Maybe getting the pole position will make you like it here as much. Let`s talk about Denver Riggleman had a lot to say about Roger Stone earlier tonight watch a little bit of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RIGGLEMAN: Roger Stone is one of the most important factors of what happened on January 6, it`s just -- it`s not just in what he has said himself, but it`s really in the link connections in the data. And in the people that work for him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: You are very, very familiar with the way Roger Stone operates. Anything surprised you here?
ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER SENIOR MEMBER OF MUELLER PROBE: Yes. So you know, it`s really hard not to look at this through the lens of the Mueller investigation, because Roger Stone, if people remember was charged with seven counts. He was convicted of all seven counts, and what was it for? He was the connective tissue between Julian Assange and the hacked e-mails from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Trump campaign and releasing those in October.
And he at the time, by the way, was said oh, when he was caught, said, Oh, it was it`s just a joke. I was just, you know, bloviating while we said you know what take that to a jury and the jury obviously thought that he wasn`t just joking and convicted him. He was then pardoned.
[23:05:11]
Well, here, I think the one thing that I agree with Riggleman is that, you know, Roger Stone could provide very interesting connective tissue because although you have Donald Trump, fomenting the riots and insurrection on January 6, you wanted to see was there any connection with the actual groups with the Oath Keepers, for instance, and, you know, if you remember, Cassidy Hutchinson said that on January 5th, she heard Donald Trump tell Mark Meadows to call Roger Stone, and Mike Flynn.
So if you have Roger Stone involved with the Oath Keepers, and communicating with them, that is the connective tissue. And you know, it is finally I`d say Donald Trump is smart to rely on Roger Stone as that intermediary, because he knows he does not flip. He is a guy who is willing to go to trial, be convicted, and he keeps the oath of America. So if you`re looking for that intermediary to pull something like this off, Roger Stone is the go to guy.
RUHLE: He`s also believed to be the architect behind stop the steel. Luke, how helpful do you believe this information about stone can be?
LUKE BROADWATER, THE NEW YORK TIMES CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Right. Well, the January 6 committee sent some of their top investigators to Denmark to get this footage. It`s about 170 hours of documentary footage of Roger stones actions, and we do expect some of it to be played Wednesday. I knew the filmmakers are coming down from New York for the hearing.
You know, as Andrew rightly points out, you know, Roger Stone had the Oath Keepers as his bodyguards on January 6, several of the Oath Keepers are charged criminally with seditious conspiracy. So you don`t really have to look that hard to see that he is a link between Trump. You know, he`s Trump`s longest serving political adviser, and the extremist groups.
And I think that`s what Denver Riggleman was really trying to investigate here with his time on the committee. That said, you know, the committee has is displeased with some of the things Denver Riggleman is doing. They think he`s putting out some evidence before it`s fully run to ground fully, you know, fully cooked and ready for public consumption. So, you know, we`ll wait to see on Wednesday what they have, but the, you know, this -- the Roger Stone stuff is a very high importance. I agree.
RUHLE: A.B., what do you think about that? Right, this committee has spent thousands and thousands of hours researching, investigating, doing work, all in the name of protecting our democracy. Denver Riggleman, who left his work there back in April, has now turned around and written a book, but he`s making money off of how does that look in the world of politics and democracy?
A.B. STODDARD, REAL CLEAR POLITICS ASSOC. EDITOR AND COLUMNIST: Well, I mean, in listening to Denver Riggleman interviews, he repeatedly says he`s not going after the committee, he applauds their work. He got to work on this book before the hearings were underway. He`s very pleased with, you know, how they`ve tackled all of the organization of the presentation of the evidence that we`ve seen in the hearings. He`s very intent on not criticizing the committee. And he focuses a lot, obviously, on how much data there is.
And I saw an interview did months ago, where he said, we have enough data that if we put our noses down, essentially, in so many words will take us a year to get through it. So he, we know, wanted more of a budget to get through all this data. And he got some money, but not what he wanted.
And he seems in all these interviews, including the one site per se, is to circle back repeatedly, to how all of these leads that need to be tracked down. And as you said, they have a million roads they have to put down and details they`re pursuing.
And that, you know, I think there`s some subtle disagreements on how they`ve gone about that between him and the committee. But again, he`s making many repeats that he`s not trying to criticize them and they`re doing a great job. And it`s the case that they do have a deadline. They cannot go through everything they have and we know that. They cannot track down recalcitrant witnesses. They cannot go through all the data. They have a deadline of November 8 when should the Republicans take back the House majority that committee will be dissolved.
So we`ll see what, you know, Tthey said they pursued what Riggleman is talking about but I don`t know that it`s a huge conflict in terms of what they`re going to uncover and, and what they`re not pursuing.
[23:10:09]
RUHLE: Andrew, back to Roger Stone, a problematic figure, you bring it up. He was involved back in the Muller investigation here. He is now potentially being the connective tissue. But he`s also done like a fox, what do you think about stone adding just kidding about the violence?
WEISSMANN: Well, there`s no way that Roger Stone is going to flip. I mean, that`s something that Donald Trump can be sure of. So in terms of providing the connective tissue, it`s not going to come from Roger Stone unless, you know, health reasons over. So it really has to do with what evidence they have, what hard evidence they have of text messages and emails.
The I`m just kidding, you know, as I mentioned, you know, that`s something that he tried it the last time he was criminally charged. And that didn`t fly, you know. I used to when I was in the government call that a jury issue, meaning, you know, we`re still going to charge you and you can tell the jury that, you know, you didn`t really mean it, when you threatened a witness. And, you know, that`s exactly what he said in the trial. He said he was just joking. And the jury found beyond reasonable doubt that that wasn`t true.
So, you know, to me, it`s really going to be his connections to this violent group. And then whatever the committee has, and whatever the department justice has to connect Donald Trump to him, you know, clearly, if they can get inside the meeting that happened on January 5 at the Willard Hotel, and they get a witness to talk about what happened there, that would be a huge step forward.
But if the committee doesn`t do that, that is what the Department of Justice has to take up. And they have grand jury subpoenas. They have a lot of other tools that that Congress doesn`t have.
RUHLE: That`s my next question. Do you think Roger Stone and I know you have limited information, Andrew, we all do. But do you think he could be criminally charged? Because I`m pretty sure the person living in the White House now won`t pardon him?
WEISSMANN: It`s true. I mean, I hate to give this answer. But it`s just too early to tell. You know, we haven`t seen the evidence that would have him be aider or abettor or a conspirator with the Oath Keepers. But you know, tomorrow, that case, which I really have to applaud the Department of Justice, because that is a terrific domestic terrorism case against the leaders of the Oath Keepers is going to trial in DC. And between that and the hearing on Wednesday, we may learn more evidence that could answer your question, Stephanie.
RUHLE: Luke, what should we expect from the hearing on Wednesday? It could be the last meeting we have or that we see.
BROADWATER: Right, you know, the committee has been keeping their cards close to the vest on this one. But we have heard that it will be perhaps more sprawling than some of the other hearings that they`ll talk a lot about the entirety of the scheme to overturn the election. And we`ve been promised that they`ll fill in some key details and a key piece of the scheme they haven`t really focused on yet.
Obviously, we know there`s going to be some video played of the attack. We understand there`s new video from some of the depositions and also the video from the Danish filmmakers.
So, the other thing I was told today is that there will also be an emphasis on continuing threats to democracy that so not just stopping at January sixth, but the threats to democracy that are ongoing. So, you know, I think it might be a little forward looking. I`m doing a little speculating here, because I don`t really know. But I`m excited like everybody else to see what this new information is. They`ll present on Wednesday, and they do have a track record of delivering new revelations at each hearing.
RUHLE: A.B., we are six weeks away from the midterms. Is there anything the committee could do could reveal that`s going to change voter`s minds or get people excited to turn out?
STODDARD: Well, Stephanie, the centrality of Donald Trump in the midterm campaign is already an energizing factor for Democrats because of independents who can`t stand him who were not pleased with the revelations from the January 6 hearings thus far. And Democrats are motivated the more Trump is in the picture.
He was being banged up by the revelations from the hearings, which is why you saw some Democratic -- Republicans in polling begin to shift away from him. The Mar-a-Lago scandal has brought the faithful back into the fold and embolden him he might be, you know, announcing a third campaign for president before the midterm elections should be a huge problem for Republicans. So, he remains a huge factor and the hearings and what the hearings devolves between now and November 8 will be salient as well.
RUHLE: Andrew, should we assume that the both the DOJ and the committee know everything already that we could have learned from regulations book.
[23:15:08]
WEISSMANN: No. I am very much in the Adam Schiff, Claire McCaskill camp, that when it comes to the January 6 investigation that the January 6 committee is far, far ahead of the Department of Justice. I think that you`re seeing a lot of activity now by the department on the January 6 investigation, but I think, you know, the reason you saw a flurry of I think 40 Grand Jury subpoenas just a couple of weeks ago is a sign that they`re starting to rev up not that they`re towards the end.
So I think that there`s a lot of work that the department has to do, if it`s going to bring a January 6 case. I think it`s different with Mar-a- Lago because that`s just a very simple case. I mean, that`s one where, in my view, if that can`t be done by the end of the year, then they need to change horses in terms of who`s stuffing that because that is just that. It`s a very basic case.
RUHLE: Andrew with the reminder, the Mar-a-Lago investigation is different from Jan. 6 and he hasn`t even mentioned the investigation into use of PAC money. Extraordinary. All right guys, thank you so much. LB, AV and AW, starting us off on this Monday night.
Now we have to turn to the latest on the Mississippi welfare scandal involving NFL Hall of Famer Brett Favre you knew I was getting back to this story. We have been covering it for weeks.
Newly released text messages reveal more about how the nation`s poor state spent welfare money on a volleyball Stadium at a school where Brett Favre daughter played the sport, our own Ken Dilanian has more.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT (voiceover): NFL Hall of Famer Brett Favre is under growing pressure tonight. Sirius Radio putting his weekly football show on pause as a new court filing says the former football star ways to campaign to aggressively lobby for millions of dollars from the state welfare agency to finish building a volleyball facility and his alma mater, the University of Southern Mississippi where his daughter played the sport and also a football practice facility.
New Tech show Favre in contact with then Governor Phil Bryant and other state officials as he pushed to secure funding meant for people in poverty. I need your influence somehow to get donations and or sponsorships, Favre texted Bryant in April 2017. Core record show he secured $5 million but needed more.
Even after state auditors began to raise questions, Favre kept lobbying. In September 2019, he texted Bryant that he wanted to name the volleyball complex after the governor. We obviously need your help big time and time is working against us, Favre texted Bryant replied, we`re going to get there but we have to follow the law. I`m too old for federal prison.
The former governor says he did not know officials use millions from the federal welfare program to construct the sports complex. Bryant`s former welfare director pleaded guilty to state and federal crimes last week in the growing scandal. He also agreed to cooperate with the FBI which has been investigating the welfare misspending for two years.
DILANIAN (on camera): Tonight, Favre`s lawyer tells me his client behaved honorably and did not know the state grants he saw it came from federal welfare funds. He noted that former Governor Bryant is not accusing farm of violating any laws. Favre has not been charged.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
RUHLE: Favre has not been charged but he is welcome to join us on this show any night of the week. Our special thanks to Ken Dilanian for that report. And for staying on this important story.
Coming up, a restrictive abortion band that is over 100 years old. It has just been reinstated in Arizona, Dr. Kavita Patel on what that means for patients and the confusion it`s causing for doctors. It is a kind of thing that some Republicans want across the nation.
And later, former Oath Keeper spokesman Jason Van is here on the day before his former bosses January 6 trial begins. We`ll speak to him about the dangers of extremism and why he decided he must leave the group and Ron DeSantis`s stunt to send migrants to Massachusetts may not have been legal, but Pete Buttigieg says it`s something much, much worse. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on a busy Monday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:23:57]
RUHLE: Arizona has become the latest state to impose restrictive and confusing abortion laws. A judge ruled a near total abortion ban that was passed in 1864 could now be enforced. But the New York Times reports on a disagreement among Republicans within the state. Governor Doug Ducey has said that the 15-week ban he signed back in March would supersede the century old ban, but Attorney General Mark Brnovich has argued that the older ban should take precedence.
The confusion around abortion laws is across the nation. And it`s causing serious problems for doctors as states pass different restrictions. Joining us now to discuss Dr. Kavita Patel, clinical physician and former Senior Policy Director during the Obama administration. She is also one of our public health experts.
Kavita, I`m so glad you`re here because this ban predates Arizona statehood. What are the medical consequences of this law?
DR. KAVITA PATEL, CLINICAL PHYSICIAN: Yes, Stephanie. The medical consequences of this law and the repercussions in the states around Arizona are incredible.
[23:25:04]
Just to be clear, a near total ban is essentially a total ban, because the exception they make is for the life of the mother. But when you look and unpack what was passed in 1864, enacted in 1901, Stephanie, just five years after we even had X-ray technology, you see that if I, as a physician wanted to transfer somebody to an abortion provider, because they had an ectopic pregnancy or any number of conditions, that would require that level of special skill, I could face criminal penalties and get put into jail.
And so you`re putting in between that you`re putting the criminal system, the justice system in between a patient and their health care team. That is absolutely the wrong place you want when it`s your life at stake.
RUHLE: What does that mean for patients privacy?
PATEL: Yes, so this is an area that I think has been active discussion, not just in Arizona. But as you know, it`s almost easier, Stephanie, to point out the states where we have protections 13 states in the United States, where we at least have protections for reproductive services, all the other states, including Arizona, for patients, this means that they`re not even sure if they can make any sort of query to get an appointment to even talk to a doctor about what they should do, or what they could do.
So this has created all sorts of concerns about privacy. Healthcare institutions have reinforced that they absolutely protect the patient`s privacy, but Stephanie, many states have on the books, laws that require notification, in order to get those exceptions, literally a physician in Arizona, for example, would have to be able to -- can basically consult with law enforcement, and be able to discuss why they think this is somebody that determines the exception, and have a committee of people or an individual.
So, if you want to tell me that that promises privacy, or for that matter, any sort of dignity for anybody in that process, I beg you to show me that, it`s unconscionable. And honestly, it actually goes beyond reproductive care. There`s so many things that now could be brought up as suspect to, you know, any sort of judicial involvement, and it`s caused doctors, we are not risk.
I went into medicine, because it is evidence based scientific. There are facts. And what you have done is now created an entire culture amongst a profession, where we have to fear something about our science, our facts, and what we`ve been trained in, before we can act in the best interest of a patient that is going in the wrong direction.
RUHLE: How dangerous is that? Right now you`re going to have doctors and patients confused about the law.
PATEL: Right. When and where there is confusion there are numerous errors. We know that medicine is a profession where we take pride in understanding what we do wrong, when we have so much confusion, and you have so many processes in place. You know, I need to consult a lawyer, I need to talk to our administration at a hospital. I need to find out what the law is today, when even judges do not agree on the interpretation of a law that delays the care that somebody needs, not just in an emergency, Stephanie, but in any process of what your body is doing.
You need to be able to have timely access to care. This absolutely prevents it. And it`s a redefining people are literally redefining the very textbooks that we have learned from and actually defining abortion, inaccurately. And that`s even more concerning for patients.
RUHLE: Could this impact the future of medicine? I`m thinking could it limit what medical schools are teaching?
PATEL: Yes, so there are requirements for medical schools and residencies and all these training programs. Not only will it be difficult for someone, for example, Arizona or Texas or Louisiana to find these opportunities for education. But if you`ve never seen something, Stephanie, you won`t recognize it when it comes in front of you.
So even in the event, that someone does have something that could be threatening their life, you might be dealing with a medical team that has never seen that condition because the entire state, half the country, about two-thirds of the country no longer is able to teach that in person in real time. And that`s just devastating.
And it`s not just Obstetricians and Gynecologists, we have a number of medical specialties where we rely on recognizing that these conditions early, often and being able to treat them accurately and all of that is in jeopardy.
RUHLE: Dr. Kavita Patel, thank you for joining us tonight. You always make us smarter, you always make us safer. I appreciate you joining us.
When we come back, well, Ron DeSantis put the people of Florida ahead of political stunts as Hurricane Ian is getting closer and closer to Florida`s west coast. He might have to ask the Biden White House for help when the 11th hour continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:34:26]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. RON DESANTIS (R) FLORIDA: Folks should be prepared if you`re in this region, that there is going to be an interruption of power. So just plan on that. Understand that that that will happen. Even if the storm, the eye of the storm doesn`t hit your region, you`re going to have really significant winds. It`s going to knock over trees, it`s going to cause interruptions and so that`s just the name of the game.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Hurricane and could also prove to be a big political test for Florida`s controversial governor. He`s already under fire for flying on 50 migrants from Texas to Massachusetts using Florida taxpayer money and resources.
[23:35:04]
Over the weekend, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was asked about that very move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE BUTTIGIEG, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: Obviously, there are issues with the border and with migration. But these are the kinds of stunts you see from people who don`t have a solution. Where have you recently Governor DeSantis was in Congress? Where was he when they were debating immigration reform? What have any of these people done to be part of the solution?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Let`s discuss with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post. But you know him here as anchor of the Sunday show on MSNBC and our dear friend, Tim Miller, contributor to The Bulwark and former communications director for Jeb Bush, author of the new book "Why We Did It."
Mr. Capehart, a natural disaster like a hurricane could have DeSantis asking Joe Biden`s White House for help. How`s that going to go?
JONATHAN CAPEHART, THE WASHINGTON POST ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Well, we shall see. The last Florida governor, I remember Republican governor, I remember asking a Democratic president for help, and also giving that Democratic president a hug, ended up being run out of the party. And I`m talking to you and I`m talking about now democratic congressman and candidate for governor. Charlie Crist.
So the pickle that Governor DeSantis is in is he`s playing around with the lives of human beings with migrants, in defiance of human decency, and the administration. But then it`s going to ask that same administration for help when the citizens of Florida get hit by Hurricane Ian.
Governor DeSantis we now know has no shame. So I don`t think it`ll bother him one bit to ask the President of the United States for help.
RUHLE: Shamelessness is one thing, but he might himself have himself in a legal bind. Tim, The New York Times reported that DeSantis once complained that the governor of Texas had the good political fortune to share a border with Mexico, he could dig into all those migrant issues. Is what DeSantis did this flight to Martha`s Vineyard beyond it being inhumane? Could he be, you know, bordering on Bridge Gate (ph) territory and possibly breaking the law?
TIM MILLER, THE BULWARK CONTRIBUTOR: Well, certainly I think that if at non-governor if it was just a private citizen had tricked 50 people into putting them onto a plane to troll them. You`re dealing with interstate issues during the human trafficking type issues. He had no reason to move these folks.
And I appreciate the brunt of that Bridge Gate (ph). I thought that`s what Jonathan was going when he`s talking about a Republican governor embracing or they didn`t quite hug a Democratic president. And I was thinking about Chris Christie with Hurricane Sandy.
RUHLE: Hurricane Sandy (INAUDIBLE) hug.
MILLER: Yes, was there a hug? Yes. There was at least a beach walk.
RUHLE: Yes.
MILLER: Huggish, a bro hug. But I think that there`s a lot of similarities to Bridge Gate. Right. It was the type of thing that was a very petty political maneuver. At first, you know, it might have seemed that it wasn`t going to be a big deal. You know, Chris Christie was a rising star in the party at the time. But then there`s this drip, drip, drip, you start learning about emails, this there`s this Washington Post story over the weekend, where they`re interviewing the migrants. There was one magazine that really stood out to me, his name is Jose he was talking about how he was terrified and frightened how he was lied to.
There`s the Miami Herald story about how they`re going to be more flights, looks like one to Delaware to try to troll the President Biden, the person he`s about to ask for help for hurricane Ian. But that kind of didn`t happen, I think, which is maybe signaling that they realized that they were in a little bit of hot water down there in Florida.
So I don`t know, I think there`s a lot of these performative Republican guys who think that because Trump got away with everything, they could get away with it. And that really just isn`t how it works. And I think that it`s possible that Ron DeSantis is getting himself in both legal and political trouble here.
RUHLE: All right, I need you to explain how this one works. I want to ask you about Arizona Democratic senator Kyrsten Sinema. She left Arizona, flew to Kentucky today, where she spoke at an event with none other than Mitch McConnell. At that event, McConnell called her the most effective first term Senator he has seen during his 37 years in the Senate. Jonathan to you first, can you explain this woman`s political strategy?
CAPEHART: Sinema`s political strategy? I have no idea that I do understand why Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell invited her to Kentucky one to troll -- to try to well I don`t know if he`s trying to own the libs, but he`s certainly trolling the libs, but also to call her the most effective first term senator.
I mean, that`s kind of -- it wasn`t damning with faint praise, but of course he thinks she`s the most effective first term senator.
[23:40:02]
She blocked a lot of the stuff that he couldn`t do as minority leader by insisting that the filibuster not be reformed, let`s say voting rights can happen -- voting rights reform can happen that other bills could be passed to codifying Roe standing in the way of the agenda of the Democratic president.
RUHLE: Yes. I get why Mitch McConnell is waking up to this.
CAPEHART: Go ahead. Yes.
RUHLE: But why would Kyrsten Sinema be, Tim?
MILLER: She -- I think she`s the most inscrutable politician around for me right now. The best answer I have to that is that she thinks that she`s doing kind of this John McCain Maverick imitation in reverse. But there`s a lot of ways that that`s not working.
Number one, John McCain had some very clear issues that he was different with the party on. He was pretty loyal to the party and a lot of stuff and then he had a few things that matter to him torture, campaign finance reform immigration that he bucks the party on. That was his mantra and the voters understood. That`s where he was.
What exactly is Kysten Sinema`s position besides just wanting to be obstructionist, wanting to make Mitch McConnell happy, like having some very weird, you know, particular complaints about the way that the Senate works, wanted to help out the hedge fund guys. Like it`s not a maverick. It`s not like a populist maverick style that I think has any appeal.
And so, look, I`ve been the number one Joe Manchin stand on MSNBC. I think what he`s doing makes a lot of sense. He`s in a deep red state. It makes sense for him to buck the party on certain things. Kyrsten Sinema isn`t a state Joe Biden won. And she hasn`t made clear what her policy agenda is or what her vision is and why she would like the party. So I think that she thinks she`s being a maverick, but it really ain`t working.
RUHLE: I want to ask Joe Manchin, hey, you`re going to do this. Mitch McConnell really wants you to change parties. Joe Manchin laughed at me and said, Why on earth would I do that and reminded me the political power he has in his position.
What I wonder about Kyrsten Sinema is who exactly is her base. Not too many private equity executives or hedge fund managers vote in the state of Arizona. Jonathan Capehart, Tim Miller, always great to have you both here. When we come back with the leader of the Oath Keepers about to stand trial, his former spokesperson is here to update his warning to the January 6 committee about the very possibility of a civil war. That`s when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:47:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JASON VAN TATENHOVE, FORMER OATH KEEPERS SPOKESMAN: I think we saw a glimpse of what the vision of the Oath Keepers is on January 6. It doesn`t necessarily include the rule of law.
(END VIDEO LCIP)
RUHLE: The former spokesman for the Oath Keepers delivered that testimony barely two months ago. Tomorrow, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes will stand trial alongside for other members of his militia group. They are the first January 6 rioters to face rare seditious conspiracy charges.
Then on Wednesday, the Jan. 6 Committee convenes for what may be its final public hearing.
With me now former Oath Keeper spokesperson, Jason Van Tatenhove. His book "The Perils of Extremism, How I Left the Oath Keepers and Why We Should be Concerned about a Future Civil War" due out early next year. Your former boss, I`m so glad you`re back with us. His trial begins tomorrow. This guy was once a Yale Law student. How did he go from there to here?
VAN TATENHOVE: You know, I think it has to do with disenfranchisement. I think if we look at some of his co-workers back when he was working for the Arizona Supreme Court, they talk about how he really kind of became more angry with his rhetoric and how he was talking just with fellow clerks. You know, I think it has all of this has to do with people being disenfranchised with where their lives are at the moment. Things may not be going so well. And they latch on to movements like this.
RUHLE: The disenfranchised Yale law alumni, a sad, sad group. We`re also hearing more about Roger Stone his ties to the group. Andrew Giuliani possibly texting with members of the group. Does any of that surprise you? That doesn`t sound like a fringe group. That sounds like they are right in the middle of it all.
VAN TATENHOVE: Yes, no, I think they -- it does not surprise me at all. And I think we`re going to see a lot of revelations coming out during the trial about connections with specifically Roger Stone. Giuliani, I`m sure. But I think it was really kind of Stone that was probably the one that was taking lead and opening lines of communication between in the campaign. And then the administration and leaders of these different militia groups.
RUHLE: Seditious conspiracy, those are serious charges. Do you think any of this is sort of making current members of the Oath Keepers sort of wake up to how serious this is and the trouble they could all be in?
VAN TATENHOVE: I sure your hope so but I think it really depends on whether or not there`s any account held, whether or not there are repercussions for the events we saw the violent insurrection that happened on January 6, because thus far, there has not really been any real account held to these leaders.
[23:50:00]
There has been and sometimes served but cases dismissed and just the only people that have paid any sort of price for any of these actions from Bundy Ranch (ph) moving forward has been lower level people that were used, really and then abandoned by Stewart.
RUHLE: What happens if Stewart and some of these other top guys are in real trouble? Is there a group right beneath them ready to take the helm?
VAN TATENHOVE: I don`t think so now. I think that that will happen. I mean, certainly Stewart has given a blueprint to future leaders of these types of organizations. He showed them how to, you know, have a national organization, how to break that down into state chapters, and hyper local county chapters, and be autonomous.
So, unfortunately, he`s given out a blueprint that has been proven to work, and we`ll see who moves forward with it. And we got lucky with Stewart because he was always telling that legal line to a large degree, you know, he talked real tough. But when it came time to enter the Capitol, he was, you know, he was back where he didn`t actually enter. And we saw that at Bundy Ranch, we saw that up in the Pacific Northwest.
So, you know, if a leader were to come up that`s willing to take the, you know, lead that charge, well, then that that`s going to be a scarier place than we are now.
RUHLE: That`s what I want to ask you about before we go when you spoke to the Jan. 6 panel, you said we were very, very close to a civil war. Has that view changed?
VAN TATENHOVE: No, it hasn`t. I think we are close to it. I think I think you know, the words that are out there, you know, those words go on to become actions. And I think we`re so divided as a country right now. We really need to focus on protecting our democracy first and foremost, and really trying to find ways to rebuild some of the unity that we`ve lost as a nation to breach these divides.
RUHLE: Every day, we have a chance to do that. All of us can work to bring us together. Jason, thank you for joining us. And your new book out early next year. The Perils of Extremism, please come back when it`s out.
And a reminder, stay with MSNBC for special coverage of the next January 6 hearing on Wednesday led in the afternoon by Andrea Mitchell, Katie Tur, and Hallie Jackson. Then join us at MSNBC at night, a two-hour recap special beginning at 8:00 pm. I will be joining my colleagues Rachel Maddow, Joy Reid, Nicolle Wallace, Chris Hayes, Lawrence O`Donnell, Ari Melber, and Alex Wagner breaking out down all elements, every word that we hear in that hearing on Wednesday, you do not want to miss it.
But up next, the American military organization that just started marching to a hip new beat, don`t go to bed yet. You`re going to want to hear this when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:22]
RUHLE: Aren`t you glad to set up for that. The last thing before we go tonight, Rappers Delight. Rap music has been part of American culture since the late 1970s from the Sugar Hill gang to Kendrick Lamar. These uniquely American artists have entertained us with a rhythmic takes on current American culture.
So you could say it`s about damn time, if not way past time that the U.S. military get hip to the trend. I was going to say hip hop but then I`d have to walk myself out. Our own Aaron Gilchrist reports on these two new resident rappers now performing with U.S. Army Field Band.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
AARON GILCHRIST, NBC NEWS ANCHOR (voiceover): The United States Army Field Band is no stranger to the world stage. The Field Band has been playing concerts and connecting the public to the army for more than 75 years, honoring soldiers and veterans through music.
The notable Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy has never sounded like this. Rapper is Nicholas Feemster and Lamar Riddick, just over a year ago answered a job posting by the Army Field Band looking to add hip hop artists to its ranks.
GILCHRIST (on camera): How does it feel to be the first?
STAFF SGT. NICHOLAS FEEMSTER, U.S. ARMY FIELD BAND: To be here and to be able to be a part of such a great organization that was forward thinking enough to even bring on rappers is a -- it`s a great blessing.
LAMAR RIDDICK, U.S. ARMY FIELD BAND: I think people get caught up in the first and lose the quality. So we`re going to be focused on making sure we`re doing a good job with that title.
FEEMSTER: You can talk about a multitude of different things with hip hop music.
GILCHRIST (voiceover): After months of basic training, Feemster and Riddick are now full time members of the army and its field band. making their debut in front of a world audience in Scotland at the Edinburgh Military Tattoo last month.
FEEMSTER: When we hit that that walkway, me and him kind of just gave each other like a little. We`re just like, it`s showtime.
RIDDICK: That`s stuff that I pray for when I was younger. So I was glad to be there.
GILCHRIST: The Army striking a new chord with these Trailblazers leading the way.
FEEMSTER: And sometimes things just take time but it`s here now and we`re here to stay.
GILCHRIST: Aaron Gilchrist, NBC News, Fort Meade, Maryland.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
RUHLE: We are here to stay they say and from everybody THE 11TH HOUR we are really glad to hear it.
[00:00:04]
On that note, I wish you all at home a very, very good night. From all of our colleagues across the networks of NBC News, thanks for staying up late with us. I will see you at the end of tomorrow.