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

Transcript: The Beat with Ari Melber, 6/16/22

Guests: Robert Ray, Jamie Raskin, Michael Hirschorn

Summary

Representative Jamie Raskin joins THE BEAT with Ari Melber to talk about Donald Trump trying to seize the presidency and continue his term in office beyond what the voters had allowed. Michael Hirschorn the President and CEO of Ish Entertainment joins THE BEAT with Ari Melber to talk about the third January 6 House committee hearing that build a criminal case against former President Donald Trump. Latest evidence and testimony revealed former Vice President Mike Pence resisted Trump`s illegal order to not certify the election results on January 6th, 2021. Former Trump impeachment lawyer on criminal heat facing John Eastman who sought pardon from Trump according to evidence presented by the January 6th Committee.

Transcript

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: So it`s a hearing day, which means I will be back in two hours for a special team coverage and recap of today`s hearings, but for now our breaking news coverage continues on THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER who will also be back in two hours.

Hi, Ari.

ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hi, Nicolle. See you soon.

I want to welcome everyone to THE BEAT and I want to begin with the blockbuster. Today`s hearing showing the grave and extreme danger then Vice President Pence faced on January 6th.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nothing but a traitor, and he deserves to burn with the rest of them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mike Pence is not going to reject any fraudulent electoral votes.

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: Boo!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I`m telling you, if Pence caved, we`re going to drag mother (EXPLETIVE DELETED) through the streets. You (EXPLETIVE DELETED) politicians are going to get (EXPLETIVE DELETED) drag to the streets.

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: This was real. This is the evidence. This has nothing to do with partisanship or how one might feel about how Vice President Pence conducted himself in government, his views, his ideology. That sometimes gets lost partly because of right-wing lies. This was about America. A threat to the vice president pushed and organized by the president, and we`re learning new details that people need to understand for our society and future how close these rioters and criminals and would-be indicted insurrectionists came to locating Pence as they plotted his assassination during what you have to remember then, no one knew how it would end, how long it would go, how bad it would get as they got that close to him during that insurrection.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): Approximately 40 feet. That`s all there was. 40 feet between the vice president and the mob.

Mr. Jacob, you were there. Seeing that for the first time. Does that surprise you see how close the mob was to the evacuation route that you took? The 40 feet is the distance from me to you, roughly.

GREG JACOB, FORMER COUNSEL TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: I could hear the din of the rioters in the building while we moved but I don`t think I was aware that they were as close as that.

AGUILAR: Make no mistake about the fact that the vice president`s life was in danger. A recent court filing by the Department of Justice explains that a confidential informant from the Proud Boys told the FBI the Proud Boys would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: The chance may have been a matter of 40 or 50 feet.

Also new evidence of where Pence went and who he was speaking with during this attack on him, on other lawmakers, on the Capitol itself, and how Donald Trump was acting during that time, how Trump was continuing to play the role that the committee seems to be building the case for as felonious, as a crime, even after Trump learned how violent everything had become.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Then President Trump tweeted, Mike Pence didn`t have the courage to do what should have been done.

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: Mike Pence has betrayed this president, and he has betrayed the people of the United States, and we will never, ever forget.

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: Yes!

(CHEERS)

CHRIS HODGSON, FORMER PENCE DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS: Noise from the rioters became audible. The Secret Service couldn`t control the situation and do their job of keeping him safe.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At 2:26 p.m., Secret Service rushed Vice President Pence down the stairs.

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTER: Bring out Pence!

UNIDENTIFIED PROTESTERS: Bring him out!

SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: The Mike Pence tweet was sent out. I remember us saying that that was the last thing that needed to be tweeted at that point. The situation was already bad, and so it felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: We begin with a special guest, my one-on-one interview with former U.S. solicitor general, Neal Katyal.

Neal, there`s so much talk of coup and the Constitution and democracy, and that`s very important and we have more on that tonight. But I want to begin with the attempt to assassinate the vice president, which came through in some ways more starkly today than it may have ever before. Certainly was more the focus than the first two hearings. Your response?

NEAL KATYAL, FORMER ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, no, I agree, Ari. I think it`s worth singling that out as one of the key features of today, and the other was that this was kind of a presentation aimed less at the American public and a little more at the Justice Department.

[18:05:09]

To me this was them, the committee, connecting the dots from different things that John Eastman had done, different things Donald Trump had done. You know, Trump is searching for an attorney to try and give him the legal advice that he wants. He finds him it in John Eastman and then Eastman has to search for a legal theory to try and get there. So they`re all just basically trying to get to this end goal of keeping the president in power no matter what the law says.

I mean, it was revealed today that Eastman didn`t even believe his legal theories, but yet he went and, you know, forged ahead anyway, and yes, you know, to me the most kind of public -- look, the thing that grabbed the public today was the threat to Pence`s life and how close we came. Whether or not that becomes part of a legal action or not, I don`t know. But it was, you know, enormously significant, you know, morally and politically.

MELBER: And they also use again the powers of Congress which has gathered all this evidence to offer new and a more complete picture of one of those final communications that these two men, bonded by politics history and now bonded by the insurrection that they ended up on opposing sides of, which is really something. One of their final communications that call detailed. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So then you said at some point there`s a telephone conversation between the president and vice president, is that correct?

HERSCHMANN: Yes. That became heated.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what did you hear?

NICOLAS LUNA, FORMER ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT TRUMP: As I was dropping off the note, 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 wimp. Wimp is the word I remember. You`re not tough enough to make the call.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you remember what she said, her father called him?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The P word.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: A, your view of that. And B, for everyone who`s followed how this could have been a constitutional crisis at the minimum with a different vice president, Donald Trump may want to run for office again. He may want different people around him. We have evidence that shows that if a Mr. Bannon or a Mr. Navarro or a Mr. Eastman were vice president, which again may not be out of the realm of possibility, people have to consider what we`re dealing with, they would have done what he was talking about on that morning on that call.

KATYAL: So I have two reactions, Ari. The first is, thank God for these Pence aides who did the right thing, who advised the vice president to do the right thing, and who are now coming forward before the American people and the congressional committee saying what they did and they`re filling in the details. And that`s my second reaction, which is we`re missing a key person in this whole story in this testimony, which is the vice president himself.

Where`s Waldo? Where`s the vice president? He`s not before the committee? He`s not telling us what he did, what he thought. You know, my hat`s off to him for what he did on January 6th. But how can he not be right now before us telling us what happened, how it happened, and what the president did to try and, you know, coerce him on January 6th to decertifying the election. So that`s on your first question.

On your second about, you know, this all happening again, I think it`s the absolutely the right question, Ari. Apart from all sorts of stuff about criminal indictment and so on, as a future political, you know, survival of this country, as a democracy, there are people who are actively plotting against it who just want power. They don`t care about the democracy piece of this, and it`s not just President Trump.

Remember, you know, even after everything we saw today, and we saw everything that happened on January 6th, remember what happened at the end of January 6th? 139 members of the House of Representatives and eight senators, including Judge Luttig`s former clerk, Ted Cruz, voted to try and decertify the election in the ballots that were coming through.

MELBER: Yes.

KATYAL: You know, so the -- even though everyone knew, and today you get painstaking detail, Ari, on just how obvious this was of a bogus legal theory. You had, you know, 140 plus members of Congress saying, doesn`t matter. We`ll throw it out any way just so we can try and keep our guy in power.

MELBER: Yes. The next thing I want to turn to, because we`ve been tracking so many aspects of this is, is criminal intent and how Trump knew his own coup plotter John Eastman told him the plan was illegal and worried about his own liability. Eastman knew Pence couldn`t just change the result. Duh. Now here`s Pence`s lawyer testifying about what Eastman did.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACOB: We had an extended discussion, an hour and a half to two hours on January 5th. And 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 9-0 in the Supreme Court, wouldn`t we? And he initially started it, well, I think maybe he would lose only 7-2. And after some further discussion acknowledged, well, yes, you`re right, we would lose 9-0.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:10:10]

MELBER: Eastman also admitting in front of Trump the whole thing was illegal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AGUILAR: Did Dr. Eastman 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 we could do so because in his view the Electoral Count Act was unconstitutional.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: And the Trump knowledge about it being illegal is vital. Here is after Trump was already told by his own extreme lawyer who only came into view because so many other lawyers refused to do this work after he told Trump this was illegal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: I hope that our great vice president -- our great vice president comes through for us. He`s a great guy. Of course, if he doesn`t come through, I won`t like him quite as much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: And then as if that wasn`t enough, that he knew, the committee then reveals something that may sound like legal news but is actually huge coup news, Eastman was worried that he committed crimes so Eastman secretly sought a pardon from Trump.

Pardons are for criminals. People have the right to use the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incriminations so as a legal matter that is not something they should face discrimination for in court. But we are not yet in court when you look at an investigative hearing about whether our democracy will survive.

And it is here that the committee offers evidence for the country, for people making policy, for people deciding whether the John Eastmans of the world should have control over your life. Do you want this person, a proven liar and coup plotter, to be back in government wielding power? And it`s that point which is as serious as a heart attack where the committee offers evidence about how this individual did plead the Fifth when subpoenaed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN EASTMAN, LAWYER: I assert my Fifth Amendment right against being compelled to be a witness against myself.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the Trump legal team ask 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: Had been realized?

EASTMAN: Fifth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that statement in this memo true?

EASTMAN: Fifth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did President Trump authorized you to discuss publicly your January 4th, 2021 conversation with him?

EASTMAN: Fifth.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You will not discuss those same conversation with this committee?

EASTMAN: Fifth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Fifth. Fifth. Fifth. Neal, I take great care to point out that this is a constitutional right. I think viewers know that you`re a serious thoughtful attorney, and you also care about that, so in no way am I casting aspersions based on their right, but I am curious your wider analysis of the points raised and why the committee thinks the public should know about all of that?

KATYAL: I love this question, Ari, because criminal intent is something I teach at Georgetown. And there`s -- the criminal intent of two people is relevant here, Eastman and Trump. With respect to Eastman, the committee did a fabulous job not on this Fifth Amendment stuff, which barely got a mention but just in terms of documenting Eastman`s state of mind that he knew the theory was bogus, that it would lose 7-2 to 9-0 at the Supreme Court.

He pushed it any way even after he admitted to people that he thought it didn`t have viability, and yes, Eastman has been acting like a criminal ever since in terms of trying to seek a pardon. And so even if, you know, you have a right to the Fifth Amendment, I`m not sure, you know, you have the right to seek a pardon in quite the way that it comes out.

MELBER: No.

KATYAL: It does demonstrate some consciousness of guilt. And then with respect to Donald Trump`s criminal intent, I think the committee has done a really good job today in showing that Trump was told this stuff about how cockamamie Eastman`s legal theories was and did it anyway. And in addition, Ari, you have the fact that Donald Trump knew that 62 different courts had ruled against him on these bogus election claims, and he still managed to - - you know, still kept pushing it.

The first hearing talked all about how he was told repeatedly by his own data elections people, by all sorts of people around him, look, dude, you lost. And he couldn`t -- you know, he still forged ahead. That to me demonstrates the kind of criminal intent necessary for a conspiracy prosecution. So I really do think, you know, that a prosecution here has been -- the case for prosecution has been made really, really well by the congressional committee, and we`re only three of seven hearings in.

MELBER: Exactly, we`re only approaching halftime, if you will, and as you say, there is a lot of stacked evidence.

[18:15:05]

Neal Katyal, thank you. We wanted to get your wisdom at the top of this broadcast.

Coming up, we actually have Congressman Jamie Raskin live, a member of this committee of course. And a special guest on the criminal case against Trump. You won`t see this anywhere else. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: Donald Trump`s many problems with the law have created a whole cascade of legal spectacles that we have lived through. Our next guest actually brings quite unique and direct legal experience from really decades of litigation. He was special counsel investigating then President Clinton also represented Donald Trump in the first impeachment trial.

[18:20:03]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRIAN WILLIAMS, FORMER NBC`S NIGHTLY NEWS ANCHOR: Kenneth Starr can be now officially called the former independent counsel. His replacement, Robert Ray, was sworn in to finish the five-year-old continuing investigation of the Clintons.

ROBERT RAY, FORMER TRUMP DEFENSE LAWYER: The nation`s interests have been served, and therefore I decline prosecution.

MELBER: You`re defending the president calling it a witch hunt and harassment. Are you?

RAY: You know, I didn`t start this conversation.

MELBER: My viewers are too smart for the game you`re playing.

RAY: There`s no game here.

WILLIAMS: Tonight we learn the makeup of Trump`s defense team. It`s back to the Clinton impeachment with former independent counsel Ken Starr and his successor Robert Ray.

RAY: We have witnessed the endless procession of legal theories used to sustain this partisan impeachment.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: Our special guest on THE BEAT on this momentous hearing day is Robert Ray.

Considerable experience. Thanks for coming back.

RAY: Nice to be with you as always. A real pleasure.

MELBER: Let`s start with the quick stuff. Have you in your service for Donald Trump ever requested a pardon for anything in your life?

RAY: No.

MELBER: Have you ever witnessed another Trump lawyer do so?

RAY: No.

MELBER: Is it bad that John Eastman secretly did so?

RAY: I think that as a lawyer you try to navigate along the lines of never doing anything that would get you disbarred, never have to take the Fifth Amendment, and I think probably the parallel in something like this is never do anything for which you would have to seek a pardon.

MELBER: Mister --

RAY: Maybe that`s a pretty low bar, but it`s something that you think about. I mean, you think about, whenever you render advice, don`t do anything that breaks the law, don`t do anything that would cause you to lose your law license, don`t do anything in which you`d have to take Fifth Amendment and in this context don`t do anything for which you would have to seek a pardon.

MELBER: You put it plainly, and it`s very interesting coming from you, sir. Mr. Giuliani has done one of those three things. His law practice license suspended. Mr. Eastman, at least two those things. So when you see that he requests a pardon as a matter of evidence, does that in your view show that he was worried he committed crimes while trying to impact the election?

RAY: I think you have to be very careful about that, Ari. I mean, I think that`s equivalent to sort of the notion that you don`t infer from the fact that somebody takes the Fifth Amendment that they have guilty knowledge. And I don`t know a circumstance under which the fact that he was trying to seek a pardon would be admissible in evidence. I mean, call me skeptical about that but I have a hard time seeing --

MELBER: Do you want me to call you skeptical right now?

RAY: Sure.

MELBER: I`ll do it. You sound skeptical. Let me build the follow-up question, sir.

RAY: Go ahead.

MELBER: This is by the way the evidence. He says, I should be on the pardon list if that`s still in the works. That was secret. He didn`t know that was going to come out.

RAY: Right.

MELBER: You mentioned Fifth Amendment. Earlier in the show we were very careful to note in fairness to these individuals that we don`t legally infer based on the Fifth because it`s a constitutional right.

RAY: Right.

MELBER: There`s no right to get a pardon. As you know, the vast majority of people living in America watching this have no shot at that kind of thing.

RAY: Right.

MELBER: He`s using his access and his privilege to get a pardon. The committee is suggesting you can infer that he thought he was guilty there.

RAY: No, I hear that, but I think there are also reasons why people might seek pardons that don`t necessarily go to the question of guilt or innocence. Just like, you know, in the Fifth Amendment context, somebody might assert their Fifth Amendment privilege not with guilty knowledge but for other reasons. So, you know, I think it -- I just say be careful about that.

I hear what the committee is saying and I respect their view, which may be different from my own, and I`m not sure that my opinion is necessarily the right one. All I`m suggesting is just be careful about that. And I`m not sure whether, you know, unlike in the context of a congressional hearing where the audience is the American people, I`m not so sure that the fact that one sought a pardon would be admissible in evidence against a defendant in a trial in a criminal case.

MELBER: Respectfully, you sound lawyerly.

RAY: Well, that`s part of your show. I mean, that`s not -- I`m not saying that the be all and end all. And I think Americans can make their own judgments about that, as they should, and that`s why there`s a proper place for a congressional hearing. I`m just saying it might be a little different in a criminal context if you`re asking me what that would look like in a criminal case at trial.

MELBER: Let me ask you differently, because this is an important conversation.

RAY: Sure.

MELBER: leaving the criminal context.

RAY: Right.

MELBER: Based on what he learned today about Eastman plus what is out there.

RAY: Right.

MELBER: Was his lawyering a disservice to A, the United States, and/or B, Donald Trump?

RAY: Look, Eric Herschmann I think, a witness also at these hearings, and a friend of mine, is somebody that I worked closely with in connection with the defense of the former president in the first impeachment trial, I think had it about right, and I think, you know, his warning to Eastman to the effect, you better get yourself a criminal defense lawyer, is the kind of warning, if I got, that would be a significant brushback pitch and would have caused me more than just a little pause.

MELBER: Chilling.

RAY: Right.

MELBER: Yes. OK.

RAY: And that`s my reaction to it.

MELBER: Did Donald Trump lose the election?

RAY: Look, the -- Joe Biden is the president of the United States.

[18:25:01]

MELBER: That`s not what I asked.

RAY: He lost the election.

MELBER: I know who`s president.

RAY: Right. He lost --

MELBER: I`m just asking you, though. Let`s --

RAY: Yes, let`s play it on the table.

MELBER: You sounded very reasonable up to this point.

RAY: Sure. Look.

MELBER: The question is, did Donald Trump lose the election?

RAY: The answer is that Joe Biden was elected president of the United States.

MELBER: Is that a yes, Donald Trump lost the election?

RAY: Well, you know --

MELBER: When did this become so hard? I mean, you`re a very serious person.

RAY: It`s not -- it`s not hard. I have serious concerns about what happened during the course of that election that I think should be corrected for the next time.

MELBER: That`s great.

RAY: I`m not interested in rehashing --

MELBER: But did -- did Donald Trump lose the election, is the question.

RAY: We`re done with that. Joe Biden had an electoral college majority and was elected president of the United States.

MELBER: So Donald Trump lost because Joe Biden won?

RAY: Yes, there`s a winner and a loser.

MELBER: OK.

RAY: There`s a winner and a loser.

MELBER: Did Donald Trump --

RAY: Live to fight another day.

MELBER: Did Donald Trump according to this evidence know he lost?

RAY: I think that -- I think he had a legitimate question in his mind about whether or not there was a fair election, which is a view that he`s entitled to have. I think he`s entitled to seek legal advice about whether or not there`s any recourse about that. But at the end of the day, he left office voluntarily, and Joe Biden was elected and was inaugurated president of the United States. That`s the end -- that`s our system working.

MELBER: OK. Let`s look at the evidence because this is also interesting.

RAY: Sure.

MELBER: And you of course are one of the few people who`s been a recent legal counsel in some capacity to Donald Trump, as mentioned the impeachment. They did show a lot of evidence that other people in those kind of posts.

RAY: Right.

MELBER: Aides, advisers, lawyers, repeatedly told him they`re loyal to him, they like him, they wish he won, but they told him he lost. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I essentially said, look, we looked at that allegation, but that allegation was not supported by the evidence.

DEREK LYONS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE STAFF SECRETARY: Eric and Pat didn`t -- you know, told the group, president included, that none of those allegations had been substantiated.

DONOGHUE: I said, OK, well with regard to Georgia, we looked at the tape, we interviewed the witnesses. There is no suitcase.

BILL BARR, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: I told him that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public was (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: From Bill Barr on down, we see these Trump lawyers, appointees and staff say, you lost. This plan for the 6th is illegal. Are they all lying? Are they all wrong?

RAY: I don`t know about the plan for the 6th being illegal, but, you know. did he get advice from people that were close to him, who were lawyers, who were telling him that you didn`t have the evidence to be able for us to do anything about it? Sure, he got that advice. He got advice from other people, whether you think it`s well or ill-founded that he might have recourse, and he`s entitled to decide that he doesn`t want to accept the advice of his lawyers, which clients do all the time.

I`m well familiar with that little problem. So, you know, I understand why the committee is doing what it is doing to try to set up the notion that essentially he`s proceeding on a notion that he knows that his efforts to try to overturn the election are ill-founded and illegal. You know, look, I think they`re -- one of the things that`s come out of this thing that nobody really wants to pay too much attention to is that there are problems with the 12th Amendment and the Electoral College Act that need to be addressed.

Donald Trump happened to make an effort to try to exploit them, including through John Eastman. That only goes to serve, it seems to me, for the future that we need to tighten up at least the electoral college.

MELBER: Sure, and that`s a policy discussion.

RAY: And I think that`s going to happen, by the way, and I think it`s going to happen on a bipartisan basis.

MELBER: OK.

RAY: And that`s useful. And by the way, that was not something that was recognized as a problem exclusively post January 6th, 2020. That was something that people have recognized for some time.

MELBER: Well --

RAY: And it needs correction.

MELBER: Sure.

RAY: And it will be.

MELBER: And apparently it took a violent insurrection to get people focused on that, but final question here, just doubling back to it. Are those people right and telling the truth? Because that`s considerable evidence marshalled now in public that they told Trump, they did tell him he lost, and they did tell him the plan was illegal. You just questioned that in your answer, but Eastman himself concedes that and Giuliani by the morning of the 6th conceded that then went out and publicly said the opposite to the people who risked themselves and their lives in some ways on the Capitol steps.

RAY: I hear you, but I`m not quite sure it`s that absolute. I mean, I listened to Eric Herschmann`s testimony carefully. I don`t think in his mind that he was certain that Eastman concluded that that advice was illegal. I don`t think he would have offered it if he thought it was decidedly illegal. I think he recognized that there were problems with it. I think he recognized that if they pushed it they would lose in the Supreme Court, 9-0 or 7-2, whatever you said. By the way --

MELBER: Briefly, because we`re running over on time. And I`ll give you the last word.

RAY: Sure.

MELBER: As is courtesy. Quote, "Mr. Eastman acknowledged it would violate several statutes," end quote.

[18:30:00]

RAY: Well, but I think Herschmann also said that it wasn`t entirely clear to him that Eastman understood that the advice was illegal under the law. Now I understand he thinks that it might have violated statutes. I think Eastman had some question about whether or not those statutes were constitutional. So --

MELBER: All right. Mr. Ray, I`m over. I ran over, but I really appreciate you coming back because it`s important to discuss and people can hear your views.

RAY: Thank you for having me.

MELBER: Thank you, sir. Absolutely. We have just our shortest break, one minute, and then we return with Congressman Jamie Raskin to respond and tell us why this all matters. One minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: We just heard from former Trump impeachment lawyer Robert Ray. Now we turn to a January 6 committee investigator Congressman Jamie Raskin. A busy time. Thanks for joining us. First, any response you might have to what you heard from Mr. Ray?

JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD), JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE: Well, first of all, I don`t think Donald Trump was trying to reform the Electoral College, he was trying to seize the presidency and continue his term in office beyond what the voters had allowed. He is one of the five popular vote losers who`s been able to succeed in the electoral college.

It`s interesting, he used to denounce the Electoral College and said it made us the laughingstock of the world. And then after 2016, he discovered some new virtues in the Electoral College and he was clearly trying to exploit the Electoral College not trying to reform it. In any event, what did we learn today, we learned that not only did Donald Trump and his team proceed on the basis of a lie that they knew was a big lie.

But they also proceeded on a legal theory, that was a big joke. And they knew it was a big joke. And all of their legal advisors and the vice president of United States were telling him that there was nothing behind it. It was devoid of content, it was empty. I mean, it`s not as if we could get through the more than two centuries of American history without someone saying, oh, the vice president has the unilateral authority to reject Electoral College votes, if that`s what the system is.

And obviously, that`s not what the system is. So, this was an organized hit on a presidential election attempt to overthrow our constitutional order. And we need to call it by what it is and, you know, Judge Luttig, for as much as he got into the weeds in the first part of the proceeding. He did the public a great service and a great favor at the end when he said this is about 2024 because the democracy is in danger. With these people still at large.

MELBER: A lot of what we`ve seen is evidence that it`s important for the public and that`s part of Congress`s role, but also potentially for the Justice Department. Then today, they have built on what they previously requested and saying they want the interviews that you`ve conducted.

They think that relevant quote, to specific prosecutions that have, quote, already commenced. That is to say people who`ve been indicted, in addition to potentially evidence that they may weigh in whether or not to indict others. As a member of the committee, will you support giving that over now?

RASKIN: Speaking as just one member of the committee for myself, we have every interest in seeing that individual criminal accountability takes place, as well as our collective social and political accountability for fortifying democratic institutions going forward against coups, insurrections, political violence, and instability.

So, I -- yes, of course, I want us to go forward and make sure that all of this evidence is available to the whole country. That`s what we`re doing. And obviously, it`s an intense some busy period for us, but I`m sure it can be worked out.

MELBER: OK. And that`s kind of newsy, so interesting to get your response. To some committee members, you know, have been sort of waiting that out which is why I think the DOJ has escalated the request. Final question you sir, Rudy Giuliani responding. Take a listen.

[18:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER TRUMP PERSONAL ATTORNEY: The set of rules that I had with the committee was that my answering question would be confidential. Now the committee leaks because the committee is an irresponsible group. The committee is a witch-hunt.

I`m going to tell you that the committee is an extension of Russian collusion. If they were a legitimate committee, interested in anything else, but hanging President Trump, they wouldn`t be leaking information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: That is an allegation, your response?

RASKIN: Maybe, I don`t know what Mr. Giuliani is referring to all of the witness interviews that we do become the property of our committee. And for the purposes of this investigation. The kinds of --

MELBER: But you`re not aware of some side secret -- some side secret deals for him?

RASKIN: No, I`ve no -- I`ve no idea what he`s referring to there. And, you know, the truth of the matter is that, you know, we have an interest in just getting to the facts and the evidence, and, you know we will -- we`re -- I would love to see everything that he testified to be made public. All of the fairy tales he`s been spreading about the 2020 presidential election.

MELBER: Yes. Well, we tried to go to the source, as you know, you`re one of the sources, so wanted to get your response on record. And I know it`s a busy time. Congressman Raskin. Thank you so much for coming on THE BEAT, sir.

RASKIN: You bet.

MELBER: Appreciate it. We have a lot more cooking tonight. How some of the most damning evidence against the president`s history is playing out. Not only here in the rooms of Congress, but across America. A special guest as 10s of millions of people process what we`re learning. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:41:17]

MELBER: Now with today`s hearing, this insurrection probe basically reaches its halfway mark for presentation. 10s of millions of Americans watching an often effective, sometimes riveting set of facts about the criminal mob that stormed the Capitol in a failed effort to stop the certification of Trump`s loss. That was the subject of the first hearing.

And how Trump then knew he lost and was told by his most senior and loyal aides that he lost, the second hearing. And then today`s hearing. Trump knew his January 6 plan was illegal and attempted it anyway. Take that evidence together premeditation criminal mindset and criminal act. We have the case for a felony. The case for indicting Trump.

Now in our coverage tonight, we`ve heard from legal experts, a committee member, a former impeachment defense lawyer for Donald Trump to report out and analyze these very findings. Now, we turn to some of the possible difficulties or shortcomings in this hearing today, which may have been obvious to millions of viewers and go beyond presentation to the substance and the crimes at the heart of the failed coup.

Why did parts of the hearing, take something simple in stark, Trump ordered an illegal coup. Make it sound like a legalistic, bureaucratic, or possibly debatable matter.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It would be a digression. That single sentence is not in artfully written. Statutorily prescribed a four counting the Electoral College votes, not merely procedural. Authority officially certified to the Congress or student to the Electoral Count Act of 1887. That was long- winded. I understand.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: The point here is not whether some witnesses were dry, that can be fine. The point is with 1,000 witnesses interviewed, much incriminating evidence to choose from. With all of that, today`s hearing spent a lot of energy dissecting Trump`s illegal order as some kind of history seminar. Now pause, I always try to keep it real with you. There are some complexities here.

But today with this evidence, you don`t need a history book, let alone the Electoral Count Act, let alone footnotes about the 12th amendment to prove this part of the case. It went down in public. Trump issued an illegal order to Pence to steal the election on the 6th. People know about that. People know Pence refused. Indeed, while there are basic facts that are debated on this very insurrection topic.

This is one that everyone agrees on Trump fans were mad at Pence because he resisted the order. That`s why some wanted to literally assassinate and hang him. And these committee leaders agree with that fact but commend Pence for following the law defending democracy resisting the order.

Unlike some cool plots abroad, which start in secret, as the committee pointed out, Trump tucked up this very illegal order in public and in advance.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE AGUILAR, FORMER MAYOR OF REDLANDS: Despite the fact that the vice president consistently told the president that he did not have and would not want the power to decide the outcome of the presidential election. Donald Trump continued to pressure the vice president, both publicly and privately.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states. So, people don`t know who won. So, they might find a way to claim otherwise or stay in office despite losing. Everyone knows the election is not decided that way. It`s decided by the voters. The losing White House participants and incumbents don`t decide it nor the vice president in the losing administration.

[18:45:00]

Mike Pence was in the same spot, as then-Vice President Gore and then-Vice President Nixon when they were candidates for the highest office and lost. Obviously, if they could cancel elections and stay in office, there would be no peaceful transition of power. It would be no democracy, there would only be a dictatorship.

And so, as America takes this in as a public presentation, with the highlights the committee`s choosing to show. We want to turn again to someone who knows all about this world, an Emmy award-winning T.V. producer, writer, and progressive advocate, Michael Hirschorn, welcome back.

MICHAEL HIRSCHORN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ISH ENTERTAINMENT: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

MELBER: Absolutely. It`s common in life, that when people agree with something they start to cheer it on, regardless of how it`s going. And so, there`s a certain number of people who say that the January 6 committee is going to help defend democracy.

Great, they`re cheering it on. I`m curious, your analysis of both its overall impact here approaching halfway, but also specifically the way that today seem to at times muddy, what could have been very simple. Voters decide the election, not the losers of the election.

HIRSCHORN: I totally agree with that analysis. I thought that some of it was meandering. I think Luttig was not the most exciting witness, certainly. But I will take a slightly different point of view, being a dumb T.V. guy. The fact that it exists at all is the point.

The fact that a boring-looking gentleman of a certain age looks a little bit like William Shatner, mumbling through points, asserting his conservative credentials, and talking about the imminent threat to the Republic is an absolutely new and I think transformative thing. And so, I think the longer that these hearings go on, the content of the matter, much less than the fact that they exist at all.

MELBER: Very interesting when you put it that way, sort of postmodern persuasion, if you will. The hearings existing and creating a wider set of conversation backed by evidence about the fact that they all knew they were breaking the law. That change is what, in your view for the audience.

HIRSCHORN: So, the ground is being slowly changed under our feet. And I think some of the MAGA types are not seeing it. I think some progressives are not seeing it either. Right? So, what happens is the same people are going to keep saying the same things, but they`re going to matter less, they`re going to start looking more ridiculous, right?

This is the first time in six years that anyone has punched the bully back. And so, content notwithstanding, and I take your points, the punching of the bully and Liz Cheney is the hero in this, beyond any of the other characters. I thought Aguilar was terrific today. Is the thing that is going to subtly but powerfully shift the debate in the favor of pro- democracy forces and start stranding Trump and other MAGA types.

MELBER: Very interesting. And we look at the clarity, I showed some of where they seem to falter. There are other moments today and many such moments in the first two hearings, where you don`t have to be an expert. You watch and you realize, it`s not just whether Rudy Giuliani is radical or extreme. He is a liar, and he lied to the people that he was putting in danger. Let`s look at this moment on Giuliani.

(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 email stated quote, I`ve decided that I should be on the pardoned list if that is still in the works. Dr. Eastman did not receive his presidential pardon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: That I should say was more about Eastman`s criminal liability to finish the Giuliani point, I just want to be clear -- he claimed on the 6th. We`re asking you to do something, quote, perfectly legal. They also showed another point in the hearing, Giuliani saying in secret, well this might be illegal. And when he did that, he put MAGA fans in danger.

HIRSCHORN: Absolutely. And I think the other key here is the entirety of this hearing is Republicans. Right? And it`s a -- it`s Republicans pulling back the screen and admitting what the truth is. And that hasn`t happened up to now, right?

So as a progressive that`s been one of the most frustrating pieces of the past few years, is that you see these Republican politicians and people like Giuliani lying to you. It`s fascinating and powerful to learn that they knew that they were lying to us and that they were doing it in a really clear and premeditated way.

MELBER: And it speaks to a criminal mindset.

[18:50:00]

HIRSCHORN: Precisely.

MELBER: Lawyers with a criminal mindset obviously not immune on, you know, just like anybody else. We come back to you from time to time for this. I appreciate you joining Michael.

HIRSCHORN: Thank you so much.

MELBER: Absolutely. Michael Hirschorn. Coming up, the graphic video showing how rioters responded to Trump`s incitement against Pence. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MELBER: Today`s hearings also offered some of the most disturbing evidence we have ever seen against any president in history. And I say that carefully and literally. How then President Trump incited the threats against his vice president by people who meant business and wanted to assassinate him. Powerful video of the dangerous rhetoric Which led to that situation and its effect on the criminal mob.

[18:55:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: 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 that Pence, I`m hearing that Pence just caved. Is that true? I`m hearing reports that Pence caved. I`m telling you. If Pence cave, we`re going to drag (BLEEP) through the streets. You (BLEEP) politicians are going to get (BLEEP) drugged through the streets.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I guess the hope is that there`s such a show of force here that Pence will decide to just do the right thing according to Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring him out!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring out Pence!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring him out!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring out Pence!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring him out!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring out Pence!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring him out!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring out Pence!

CROWD: Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MELBER: That is more of the damning evidence today and our full team led by Rachel Maddow we`ll be doing special coverage of all of this hearing tonight. We wanted to remind you of that but first "THE REIDOUT" with Joy Reid, also doing special coverage and that begins right after this short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)