Summary
January 6th Committee vice chair Liz Cheney revealed text messages sent to witnesses that might lead them to make criminal referral on witness tampering. Growing numbers of conservative lawyers saying Trump could be indicted after bombshell testimonies on January 6th hearings. Liz Cheney rips GOP in a debate saying that Trump betrayed and lied to Americans. Fernand Amandi a Democratic pollster and strategist joins Katie Phang on THE BEAT to talk about Donald Trump`s loyalists that lays low after a bombshell testimony from January 6 Committee hearing.
Transcript
KATIE PHANG, MSNBC HOST: Potential witness tampering in the January 6th probe following star witness Cassidy Hutchinson`s bombshell testimony in this week`s surprise hearing. NBC News has now confirmed at least one exhibit Liz Cheney read out loud detailing a concerning message in which a Trump ally seems to be coaxing the witness into testifying positively on Trump`s behalf. Well, that was received by Cassidy Hutchinson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): This is a call received by one of our witnesses. Quote, "A person let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he is thinking about you. He knows you`re loyal and you`re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: NBC News has also confirmed that a person referenced in that message, well, it`s Trumps former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. In other words, Mark Meadows, let me know you have your deposition tomorrow is what the slide should read.
Now Hutchinson had been represented by longtime Trump White House lawyer, Stefan Passantino. For the last year and a half, Passantino`s law firm has been receiving payments ranging from $10,000 to $45,000 from Trump`s Save America PAC for legal consulting.
This is all in the public record. The "Washington Post" reporting Hutchison cut ties from Passantino after he suggested that she not testify publicly. "The Post" also pointing out, federal laws cover attempts to tamper with congressional testimony.
In case none of that was not crystal clear to you, tampering with a witness is a crime. So these new details, they`re chilling, they sound a lot like the kind of thing you hear from fictional mob bosses.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: As long as I continue to be a team player, they know I`m on the right team. I`m doing the right thing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know you`d do the right thing.
CHENEY: You have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know he is thinking about you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen, Danny, we just want you to know how glad we are a guy like you was on that jury.
CHENEY: He knows you`re loyal.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are loyal to my father for years.
CHENEY: You know I`ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump world.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They feel safe because they know I`m close. But the people that don`t want to do otherwise, they think twice because they know I`m close.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: Uncanny parallels. But this is real stuff. We`re not talking about fictional mob bosses. We`re talking about the former president of the United States. And the threats, they`re not stopping. Trump slandering Hutchinson in an interview with Newsmax after she gave her public testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: This lady yesterday, there`s something wrong with her. The woman is living in fantasyland. She is a social climber. Some whack job can say this stuff and get away with it? I guess somebody called up numerous people that she is not good, she was not respected by the people in the White House. I hardly know who she is. And then I see this woman getting up and she is making up stories like one after another. She`s been totally discredited. I think the woman is, she`s got serious problems, let me put it that way. Mental problems.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: The former president maybe walking himself into some massive definition litigation there. So some are saying what the former president said about her there, too, could amount to witness tampering.
And before we turn to our guest, a small update on the January 6th Committee`s investigation. NBC News has learned former White House counsel Pat Cipollone will likely agree to a transcribed interview with the committee. Hutchinson of course invoking his name repeatedly in her testimony this week.
Joining me now is former federal prosecutor, Renato Mariotti, and U.S. special correspondent for BBC Studios, Katty Kay.
It`s so great to have you, guys, today. Renato, I want to start with you. You prosecuted mafia cases as a federal prosecutor. Exactly how close of an argument, how strong of an argument could be made that we have reached witness tampering elements for that federal statute?
RENATO MARIOTTI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, it`s interesting. I do think that on its face, it`s worth investigating. And one thing I`ll say, Katie, that`s interesting here. The (INAUDIBLE) that`s done, is done by somebody to protect themselves, right. If you notice, Mark Meadows didn`t contact her himself. Mark Meadows talks to some low-level person who sends her a text. Right, so then there is this -- there`s a distance between Mark Meadows and the person who`s sending the text.
Of course he also has some -- there`s some big language in there, right. It doesn`t say, you better not say this or you better omit this from your testimony. It`s all in sort of vague language. And you know, there`s a reason why criminals, whether they`re a drug cartel kingpin or a mafioso use that sort of language.
[18:05:02]
And that`s because of course it makes it, you know, a little bit harder to prove. It gives them an argument. And I expect that they`ve done this in part to give themselves some wiggle room. And so I do think it deserves some investigation. And I think my take is, Katie, I think that Liz Cheney put this out there as a shot across the bow. She was letting them know and putting them on notice, we know what you`re up to, we`re looking at your text. We`re going to get those messages and if you keep this up, there may be some trouble for you in the future.
PHANG: Yes, but, Renato, before I move on to Katty, let`s be very clear, though. You`re never going to have the explicit threat. It`s always going to be the circumstantial evidence that`s going to come from the insinuation. So you`re never going to have that direct threat to do harm, but this is typical for Donald Trump, right? I mean, this is definitely something new that we`ve seen from him in the event that he actually is implicated in this.
MARIOTTI: Well, 100 percent. I mean, Michael Cohen, if you remember, he testified that he never had conversations with Trump. He knew what Trump -- you know, Trump would sort of make these statements out in public and he knew what he was supposed to say. And so I think, you know, what this person is, the person that Meadows was directing to contact her, he was essentially saying you know what the party line is, you know what Trump world wants you to say, and you need to stick to the party line.
And, of course, she had a lawyer who was being provided to her for a period of time who was also going to help her stay with the party line. It really wasn`t until she got her own attorney that she felt the freedom to go to a different path.
PHANG: Katty, along that vein, we actually have some sound of Michael Cohen I want to play for you quickly and I`ll ask you some questions on the other side of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER TRUMP LAWYER: I was looking at the text messages and the communications that Liz Cheney put up, and the words are all the same. You are loved, right, you are in our corner, remain in our corner, we will take care of you.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: What is he saying when he says he is on you, thinking about you, looking at you?
COHEN: Yes, he`s trying to be like a mob boss. He`s throwing his arms around you, and telling you you`re protected, I`m the president of the United States of America. I`m the most powerful man on the planet. Either you stay on my side or you will suffer from my ire. And that`s exactly what happened to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: So, Katty, as you`ll recall, this happened after Michael Cohen had had the raid happen and all the stuff had been seized by the feds. It sounds like if you stay in his good graces, like any good mob boss, you`re fine. But if you dare to cross him, tell the truth, cooperate with the government, you`re going to be facing the ire of Donald Trump and a whole army of MAGA acolytes.
So Katty, did Cassidy Hutchinson, by getting new counsel, make a decision, make this calculated move to say, you know what, I have to come forward and I have to honor the truth?
KATTY KAY, BBC STUDIOS U.S. SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, which came first, did she make the decision to get the counsel because she had something else that she wanted to say, or did she get the new counsel and then the counsel advised her that there was more she could say to the committee? It seems from the reporting like it was the former. She had to counsel who had been close to Donald Trump, had been perhaps paid for by people close to Donald Trump. And that counsel was limiting the answers that she gave to the committee.
You go into the committee deposition, and you only answer what they tell you. You don`t answer any more than what you`re asked, right? And then she came away from those early depositions and thought to herself, well, actually there is more that I would like to say but I perhaps don`t want to say it in front of that counsel or that counsel is not advising me to answer that. So I`m going to change my counsel, which, you know, for a 24- year-old young woman who potentially is facing the rough of MAGA world, that`s a pretty bold thing to do, to fire her counsel because she felt there was more that the committee needed to know.
So she gets rid of that counsel, she gets her new counsel, and that`s when the contact is made with Liz Cheney, when she goes back and tells them more of the things that we`ve heard now in that hearing earlier this week.
The parallels with Michael Cohen are really uncanny. It`s that mixture of we are going to protect you sort of flattery, we love you, the boss loves you. We will put our arms around you. And then as Michael Cohen also describes, the kind of incredible sort of kickback from the president after Cassidy Hutchinson had made her that public deposition being interrogated in the January 6th hearing this week.
And he just comes down on her like a ton of bricks in the way that Donald Trump often does. She`s a whack job, she has serious mental problems, the kinds of things that he`s saying about her. And Michael Cohen said exactly the same thing, that when you`re in the crossfires of the president or in this case, the former president, it`s a pretty terrifying position to be in.
[18:10:05]
PHANG: Renato, though, think about this, this change in counsel, it clearly was a line of demarcation, almost like that line in the sand of saying I am actually going to now come forward and publicly speak, not behind those closed-door depos, but Renato, we know that Donald Trump through his PAC, his political organization and through his allies, he`s been funding legal fees, not only for somebody like Cassidy Hutchinson but for several other people that have been witnesses before the 1/6 Committee.
Ethically it`s OK, you can have a third party pay your legal fees, you know that as a lawyer, Renato, but don`t you think somebody paying your legal fees in and of itself gets you so dangerously closest to the idea that you have to remain loyal to them? So isn`t that this idea that maybe she owed it to him because she was getting her fees paid by Donald Trump?
MARIOTTI: Well, here`s what I would say. I mean, look, as you pointed out, Katie, it is ethical to have someone else pay for your legal fees. Obviously when somebody is paying, let`s say, hundreds of thousands of dollars` worth of legal fees on your behalf, there`s an element of gratitude or potentially an implicit obligation that you feel. Obviously I can`t speak for Miss Hutchinson, but I think that there can be this element where you feel like there is an incentive or you`d feel wrong going against that person.
I think it`s also fair to say that while it is certainly ethical and very routine for attorney`s fees to be paid in investigations of all sorts, it is the case that when counsel is, let`s say, connected with or coordinated with other counsel, and whether it`s a joint defense or some other sort of arrangement, there`s a lot of communication that takes place. And I`m sure Miss Hutchins had the inkling or the feeling that her attorney was probably coordinating with other attorneys who are representing other witnesses that are a part of Trump world.
And anything she said would get passed, you know, to those other, you know, powers that be potentially before she had a chance to say something publicly. So I suspect she did not feel comfortable testifying and that`s why she did what she did.
PHANG: You know, Katty, quickly, before we go to break, it seems like Donald Trump loves, though, to go after the women that he thinks have wronged him. He hasn`t been going after any of the other Republican witnesses that have come before this 1/6 Committee. I have the pleasure of interviewing Olivia Troye a couple of days ago for my show. She had the same thing happened to her when she stood up to Trump in the administration.
It feels like an incredibly sexist, misogynistic move by Donald Trump to go after Cassidy Hutchinson, at 25 years old, like you mentioned, when all these other people are not even having the bravery to come forward and to call her crazy, mental. She`s been called like a gossipy hen on FOX News.
Do you agree, Katty, that there seems to be this kind of more sexist, targeted attack of character that comes from Trump when people allegedly wronged him?
KAY: It`s not unusual for Donald Trump to use sexist language when it comes to attacks against women. I mean, he`s attacked men, too, he`s attacked, you know, Michael Cohen. We were just talking about it. But there is a particular type of language that he uses, and it`s often to do with looks or with mental health. There`s a history of that happening. I remember at one point when he attacked, you know, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and said she`d got on her knees to ask for anything, you know, when it came to campaign financing.
And it was just -- there is a tone to the language that he uses when it comes to women that is particularly pejorative. He attacks men, too, but when it comes to women, it does seem that it`s even more pejorative.
PHANG: Yes, funny how he doesn`t attack the facts or the evidence, he always makes it ad hominem.
Renato Mariotti and Katty Kay, thank you so much for being here this evening. I appreciate it.
Coming up, our special breakdown on how even conservative legal experts, and if Donald Trump is facing a lot of criminal exposure. Plus, Liz Cheney delivered a smackdown to January 6th conspiracy believers. We`ll tell you what it was all about. And we`ll talk to a prosecutor who is vowing not to pursue abortion cases even after a statewide ban.
Big show tonight, stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:18:26]
PHANG: Trumps legal exposure growing. Trump world reportedly anxious and prepping for the worst case, as more star GOP lawyers admit that Trump will be indicted. A George W. Bush appointed attorney general and longtime conservative legal voice now saying this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think one might make the argument that there`s certainly the beginnings of a case for seditious conspiracy, obstruction of Congress. I have to believe that folks in Trump world are very concerned and very nervous right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: Very nervous right now, as he says. The Bush AG calling out Trump for possible charges of seditious conspiracy and obstruction of Congress. And then there is hardcore conservative lawyer Andrew McCarthy, a FOX News legal analyst, who was appointed to a job at SDNY by Rudy Giuliani. Keep in mind, McCarthy wrote a book defending Donald Trump in the Mueller probe. Now this in an interview with Mediate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW MCCARTHY, FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: He is very aware that you have a mob that`s armed to the teeth, that he is planning to encourage to march on the Capitol. That knowledge opens up the possibility that you could prosecute for aiding and abetting the intimidation of federal officials, which is a pretty serious crime.
AIDAN MCLAUGHLIN, MEDIAITE: Do you expect we are going to see Trump prosecuted by the Justice Department on any of these charges?
MCCARTHY: I do now, yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP) [18:20:05]
PHANG: I do now. He thinks Trump will be prosecuted, and that would come from the Department of Justice. One NYU Law professor telling the "New Yorker," quote, "The attorney general had said he will follow the evidence. I believe him, and I believe there will be an indictment."
A former federal prosecutor also saying the testimony we saw this week is a, quote, "game changer," and could be the, quote, "smoking gun."
Trump is now on the defense. With the committee alluding to more bombshells coming up, and the American public is reacting. A new poll showing nearly half of Americans, 48 percent, want to see Trump prosecuted.
I have the perfect guest to break this all down with. Former prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks and "Guardian" reporter Hugo Lowell join me when we`re back in just one minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHANG: Joining me now is former Watergate prosecutor, Jill Wine-Banks, and the "Guardian" reporter, Hugo Lowell, who has been all over this story from the start.
I`m grateful to have such good friends with me tonight, couldn`t have thought of better people to be able to kind of break this down.
Jill, I want to start with you. Putting aside maybe how some of us personally feel about whether or not he should be indicted, do you think based upon what you`ve heard so far through the course of these 1/6 public hearings, that there will be an indictment of Donald Trump for at least obstruction?
JILL WINE-BANKS, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: I will try to put aside what I think should be the case, and just talk about what I think are the best crimes to indict him for and whether he should or shouldn`t, I`ll leave to other people. But I think it would be horrible not to act on what is now blatantly obvious to anyone who has watched the hearings. My favorite crime would be 2383. Not the seditious conspiracy which is 2384. And the reason is that the penalty for 2383 is not just jail, it is being barred from ever holding federal office again. And for me, that would be a more important goal than jailing the former president.
But there is, of course, as you mentioned, obstruction of Congress, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, so many things just based on Cassidy Hutchinson testimony, just hers, for those few hours laid out all of those crimes. And then you have many more besides that.
PHANG: Hugo, you`ve been, as I`ve said before, tip of sphere on this. Your reporting has been in front of what eventually ends up happening. What are you hearing from your sources about the fallout from Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony from this past week? It was a surprise testimony, it was that last minute hearing that the 1/6 Committee called. Have you heard whether or not there is actually some real quaking by the Republicans that there could be a potential prosecution of Donald Trump?
HUGO LOWELL, THE GUARDIAN CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Well, I don`t think any Republican is going to say that in as many words, but I`ve certainly seen an uptick in messages and text messages in the last few days, especially in the wake of Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony. I`ve got a lot of people trying to discredit Cassidy Hutchinson`s account and her recollections, you know, trying to chip away at her credibility to try and undermine her overall account and recollections of what happened in the West Wing leading up to January 6th and then of course on January 6th.
It`s clear that it`s working. I mean, again, they`re not going away at the facts, they`re going at ad hominem remarks, as you said previously. And so I think the select committee is very confident in what Cassidy testified, and they think it only bolsters their case, and of course, they`ve previously said they believe Trump conspired to defraud the United States and obstructed an official proceeding.
PHANG: Jill, there`s been a lot of focus on Trump`s intent. As we know, as former prosecutors, intent is important to be able to prosecute a defendant.
[18:25:05]
George Conway, who has been known as, you know, maybe a conservative legal expert, who we know is also married to Kellyanne Conway, he said earlier this week, and here is the quote from him, "Even if Trump truly believed there had been election fraud, he wasn`t entitled to unleash a mob on the Capitol or to intimidate his vice president or Congress into violating the legal duties or to have phony electoral certificates sent to Washington. His irrational belief that the election outcome was wrong would not negate his criminal intent."
Do you agree, Jill, with that assessment by George Conway? Because, again, intent is a critical part of any prosecution by the DOJ.
WINE-BANKS: Intent is important, but I agree with George Conway. First of all, I think intent has been proven now beyond a reasonable doubt. There is also the willful ignorance standard, which is clearly satisfied here. You cannot just bury your head in the sand and say I don`t like what I`m hearing so I`m going to ignore it. But I think just, again, Cassidy Hutchinson laid out that he knew the crowd was armed, he knew they were dangerous, but he knew they wouldn`t hurt him.
They knew he might hurt someone, but he didn`t care, and he said to them, go to the Capitol, march and fight like hell. That is enough for me to be in violation of the elements of 2383 to bar him from office. So I think he should be indicted for that. I think that he could be. I think it would be very hard for the Department of Justice, having loved my tenure there, I know that we looked at the facts, we looked at the law, and we would then act on it.
And it would be very hard to not take action based on what we`ve seen publicly, and I have to assume that the Department of Justice has more than that, and that if they don`t already, they will get it very soon as the hearings wrap up and they give them all of the testimony that they already have it, so I think that they will have to act on it. And that it`s not just wishful thinking anymore, that it is accountability, that it`s necessary to prevent a future recurrence of this, either by, if he is renominated by him doing it again, or by someone else who thinks that he is doing a great job and gets nominated instead of him doing the same thing.
We can`t afford it in a democracy. Our vote has to count, and it has to be counted as we cast it. So the kind of obstructions he engaged in needs to be stopped. And that`s why we need an indictment.
PHANG: Hugo, there was a lot of noise after Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony about whether or not Donald Trump with his little hands could reach in the SUV, and the Beast, to, you know, attack a Secret Service agent. It`s all noise, right? Because the issue, as we heard from Jill, is he knew these were armed supporters. They were marching in the Capitol. He told them to go. He didn`t make them stand down even when they were also threatening Mike Pence.
We are supposed to hear in the upcoming public hearings that are maybe starting in July, Hugo, about the Oath Keepers, about the Proud Boys, and the connection. We also heard from Cassidy Hutchinson`s testimony that Mark Meadows was going to go to the Willard Hotel, to the War Room for Steve Bannon on January 5th, the day before the insurrection, to meet with Roger Stone and to meet with Mike Flynn.
So, Hugo, again, what are you hearing about what we are going to be learning from the 1/6 Committee as these hearings resume mid-July and how that could possibly tie in Donald Trump and his knowledge about the fact these are going to be armed insurrectionists?
LOWELL: I mean, I can tell you that the select committee was surprised when they learned that Trump told Meadows to call up Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. That was information that they had not previously had. And the other point was of course that Meadows wanted to go to the Willard himself and, you know, discuss strategies for January 6th in person at the Trump War Room. But the interesting element here is definitely the Mike Flynn and the Roger Stone connections.
Roger Stone, of course, you know, has ties to the Proud Boys. Mike Flynn has ties to the Oath Keepers, when they move together, his Praetorian guard, his First Amendment Praetorian security detail, worked with the Oath Keepers. There`s a lot of crossover connections here. And what Cassidy Hutchinson revealed, and I expect the select committee to build upon, is that there is now a connection from the White House, through the president, to these groups. And that is something that we have not heard before, and I think it`s a very significant point that Jamie Raskin, when he convenes this hearing is going to get into.
PHANG: Jill Wine-Banks and Hugo Lowell, my friend, thank you for being here this evening. I appreciate it.
Coming up ahead, Hannity is still with Trump, but we are seeing real breaks from major conservatives. New political fallout amid the coup bombshell, we have that news for you coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): The tragedy is that there are politicians in this country beginning with Donald Trump, who have lied to the American people. If we embrace the lies of Donald Trump, if we tell the people of Wyoming something that is not true, we will soon find ourselves without the structure and the basis and the framework of our constitutional republic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: Liz Cheney and last night`s primary debate calling out Republicans for betraying voters with their false claims of election fraud. The GOP Accountability Project putting together this video of her opponent in that debate showing the MAGA derangement that has taken over parts of the Republican base.
[18:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBYN BELINSKEY, ACTIVIST: Was a setup from the beginning. There was a small, small portion of voter fraud in this state, but that is alarming.
HARRIET HAGEMAN, ATTORNEY: The 2000 Mules movie is something that I think we have great concern about --
DENTON KNAPP, ARMY VETERAN: Voting machines that you know, are suspected fraud.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: Hmm. But there are some signs that the January 6th hearings are moving the needle. 13 million watched on Tuesday`s testimony, the most watched of the committee`s daytime hearings so far. In real time, on Fox News anchor Bret Baier reacted to the testimony in a moment that literally stunned his co-anchors into silence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, HOST, FOX NEWS: Cassie Hutchinson is under oath on Capitol Hill. The President is on truth social, the testimony in and of itself is really, really powerful.
JOHN ROBERTS, HOST, FOX NEWS: Sandra, are you still here?
SANDRA SMITH, HOST, FOX NEWS: Indeed, yes, I am here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: Sandra, are you still there? That was awkward. So, in just today, the GOP governor in Arkansas saying he will not support Trump in 2024.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR): I would not be supporting him for 2024. He acted irresponsibly. During that time, he was a risk to the nation, absolutely. So that`s -- that`s my statement on it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: Joining me now is Fernand Amandi, Democratic strategist and pollster. Fernand, thanks for being here tonight. I don`t know if I would use the adverb irresponsibly. I think there`s probably some stronger adverbs to use describing Donald Trump`s conduct.
But let`s be frank, this is a Republican governor flat out stating publicly, right? I`m not going to support Donald Trump in 2024. What are the chances Fernand that other Republican leaders are going to have what we call a come to Jesus moment and maybe realize that Trump should not be supported for 2024?
FERNAND AMANDI, DEMOCRATIC POLLSTER AND STRATEGIST: OK. That governor that you just played the clip of is not on a ballot in 2022. And likely is not going to be on a ballot in 2024. So, it`s very easy for them to grow a spine the moment they don`t have to face Republican primary voters. But the truth of the matter is, Katie, we have seen now for five years, with very few exceptions, of course, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and others.
The Republican Party, as it currently stands today is a party of cowards, full of the cowardice that comes with fearing the cult leader or the bully in this case and Donald Trump. And frankly, I don`t even believe that if the Justice Department does finally indict Trump and lead him away in handcuffs that that will break the spell. What I do think, however, will cause Republicans to formally break with Trump is when the polls start moving, as we`re starting to see them move now.
For the first time you now see a legitimate contender to Trump`s title as the Grand Kuba (PH) of the MAGA party. With Ron DeSantis now, matching him almost within single digits in some of the presidential head-to-head matchups. When you start to see that type of movement, where Trump no longer is the titular avuncular leader of the party who can in essence end a Republican campaign or officeholder with an endorsement or truth social tweet, I don`t think you`re going to start to see that movement happen, Katie.
PHANG: For now, I`m going to push it out for a second, though, because you don`t think that if Trump gets indicted by a Democratic DOJ A.G. like Merrick Garland, that he`s not going to reach some martyrdom status by the fact that he`s has this the biggest witch hunts of all with him getting indicted for his role and trying to right the wrong, which was Biden`s false win in the 2020 election. You don`t think that that`s actually going to galvanize people?
AMANDI: Oh, no, I do. That`s why I`m saying until you start to see the effects of that within Republican primary polls, where Trump`s unfavourability rises, or when you can start to see folks like Ron DeSantis, who`s now becoming a little bit more open and defined Trump. Kind of asserting himself as a potential presidential candidate behind the scenes, or instances like Liz Cheney who survives taking on Trump.
Unfortunately, I don`t think Liz Cheney is going to make it out of that primary. When you look at what`s happening in a couple of months. So, to this day, at least in Republican primary circles, Trump continues to be strong. So, to your point, that`s why I`m not sure an indictment or leading away in handcuffs will break the spell with Republicans.
Will break that spell whoever is when in the Republican polling, you start to see Trump lose ground, lose altitude, and that is actually starting to happen a little bit now. Again, citing the DeSantis example.
[18:40:00]
PHANG: Quickly, Fernand, I have to let you go. I wanted to ask you, DeSantis being perhaps more palatable, Lamy like a leaner meaner Donald Trump though. The Republicans in general though have a little bit of a battle in the midterms because of the recent surge of really bad decisions that have come out of the Supreme Court on abortion, gun rights, et cetera.
Do you think that Democrats are prepared to be, quote, one-issue voters? Because frankly, there was some evangelicals that kind of turned their nose at Donald Trump but voted because he promised to deliver a conservative Supreme Court and he did. Do you think Democrats are prepared to be one issue voters in November?
AMANDI: Well, if they`re not, they`re never going to be because what happened now with the overturning of the Roe versus Wade decision is it ceased for 50 years to be a theoretical issue. It is now an issue that is affecting really every American. Every American has a daughter, a wife, a granddaughter, a niece, a mom, that this is going to impact directly because what the Supreme Court what I think is an illegitimate Supreme Court has now done.
It is taken the agency away from a woman to have control over her body. That`s not a political culture war, a scaring point. It is now the law of the land in many states, and increasingly, and potentially others. So, I think that is the type of issue that can galvanize Democrats.
But Katie, if they do it also in the cloak of Republican extremism, this is a radicalized authoritarian party, not just on the abortion issue, but on a host of others that are taking positions so far outside of the American mainstream. I think Democrats can galvanize an anti-Republican coalition and still hold down to both houses of Congress this coming November.
PHANG: So, the irony is the more divisive it is, perhaps that equals a win for the Democrats in November, Fernand Amandi. Thank you, my friend, for being here. I appreciate it.
AMANDI: Thanks, Katie.
PHANG: Ahead, a prosecutor vowing not to pursue abortion cases even after a statewide ban. She`s going to be with me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:46:16]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHILIP GUNN, MISSISSIPPI HOUSE SPEAKER: I believe life begins at conception and every life is valuable. And that`s -- those are my personal beliefs.
TAYLOR VANCE, REPORTER, DAILY JOURNAL: So, that 12-year-old child molested by her father or uncle (INAUDIBLE) should carry that child to term?
GUNN: That is my personal belief.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: Shocking comments from Mississippi`s Republican House Speaker doubling down that abortion should be illegal, even for young victims, a 12-year-old girl in that example, victim of rape and incest. Mississippi is one of 13 states where a trigger ban took effect immediately after Roe was struck down and anti-choice lawmakers are already thinking about even more severe abortion restrictions.
Republican-led state legislatures now advancing plans to stop people in states where abortion is banned from seeking the procedure elsewhere. Allowing private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion out of state. This sort of threatened legislation is already having a chilling effect. Planned Parenthood of Montana announcing it will stop giving abortion pills to out-of-state women living in places where abortion is banned.
The legal battle over abortion and women`s personal freedom is just beginning. It will be fought state by state and in many cases, county by county. But there are more than 80 democratic prosecutors in conservative or swing states that are now refusing to prosecute abortion cases. One of those prosecutors joins me now.
Carol Siemon is from Ingham County, one of seven Michigan prosecutors that are vowing not to prosecute or pursue abortion cases. She signed an open letter back in April that said, quote, we believe Michigan`s abortion laws are in conflict with the oath we took. We will not support criminalizing reproductive freedom. Carol, thank you so much for being here this evening.
I am a former prosecutor and I knew about prosecutorial discretion. But can you just take a moment explain to our viewers why you`re allowed to do this, why you as a prosecutor can say even though the law says that abortion is illegal, that you can actually make the decision on a case by (INAUDIBLE), excuse me, to not prosecute somebody for this.
CAROL SIEMON, INGHAM COUNTY PROSECUTOR: Thank you for the chance to address this issue. You know, it`s really something that people misunderstand. They assume that if there`s a law (INAUDIBLE) it has to be applied uniformly. Prosecutors every day make decisions to use their discretion. Sometimes it`s because they want to obtain justice in their community.
Sometimes it`s because it`s a relatively minor offense, such as theft, that they may have an alternative way of dealing with it. Like a diversion program. Or it may be a case that`s just outdated, like adultery laws that are on the books in Michigan, but no prosecutor chooses to prosecute that. Because it would be unfair and unjust. The laws on the books, but it doesn`t make sense to actually prosecute that law. And abortion is that kind of law as far as I`m concerned.
PHANG: So, Carol, do you fear retribution in some way professionally, because you`re an elected position in your jurisdiction. So, do you feel some type of retribution or some type of pushback from the community that elected you if you opt not to prosecute these types of cases?
SIEMON: Well, I ran on a platform in 2016, and 2020 is emphatically pro- choice. I ran on a reformed prosecution platform on a number of areas but I was endorsed by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Michigan in 2016 and 2020. In fact, I believe I was told I was the first prosecutor candidate in Michigan to ever request that endorsement. And it was on what I thought then was the off chance that Roe v. Wade will be overturned someday.
[18:50:00]
PHANG: So, there`s some sound that we have that Mitch McConnell shared with us. I want to play it for you and that`ll ask you a question on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MINORITY LEADER: Plessy versus Ferguson. The case in 1896 upheld racial segregation. 58 years later, the Supreme Court in Brown versus Board of Education became nine to nothing. The law of the land, bringing down racial segregation. Precedent is important. But sometimes the precedent is outdated or wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHANG: Some McConnell there trying to compare the reversal of Roe v. Wade to another Supreme Court case. Carol, what do you make about this very tortured Republican logic to justify what just happened in the Dobbs` opinion?
SIEMON: Well, it`s very disingenuous. And frankly, I was really impressed with the analysis that Heather Cox Richardson gave yesterday on her podcast when she indicated that in all instances where long-established precedent which Plessy was at the time are overturned, it`s to expand that the civil rights of people not to contract or reduce those. So, Roe v. Wade is a slippery slope.
And it`s been clear for what Justice Thomas said to erode the civil rights of many people, not just persons who have uteruses and might be find themselves pregnant, but also just to use birth control period to -- if you`re LGBTQ and want to have same-sex marriage, or frankly, if you`re anyone who is not in a marital relationship and has sex. Because they`re saying that they are looking to erode all of those civil rights. So, it`s very disingenuous for him and other people to argue that.
PHANG: Carol, I want you to with us because I`m going to bring in another guest at this time. Tammi Kromenaker is the director of the only abortion clinic in North Dakota, where abortion is about to become illegal. She is now raising money to move the entire clinic across the state line to Minnesota.
Tammi, thank you so much for being here. Tammi, explain to us logistics behind something like this. How do you literally take an entire clinic from North Dakota across state lines to Minnesota to be able to effectively provide services to the patients that are coming to your clinic?
TAMMI KROMENAKER, DIRECTOR, RED RIVER WOMEN`S CLINIC: It`s incredibly daunting, and it`s going to take a lot of work. While we simultaneously provide abortion in North Dakota while we still legally can. While gearing up to provide in Minnesota. But we at Red River Women`s Clinic made a commitment that we wanted to continue to serve the patients of our region who already face enormous restrictions and travel challenges to get to Fargo.
And if we didn`t do this across the river, they would face even longer rides and drives to Minneapolis, St. Paul, which is four hours from Fargo, which could be nine to 10 hours from patients in western North Dakota. So, it`s going to take an a -- it`s an enormous undertaking. And the GoFundMe was set up literally the day before the Dobbs decision came out.
And it`s -- we`re so humbled and grateful for all of the support. The GoFundMe is the most public-facing support and people can watch it. But we`re also receiving offers of, I`ve got to pick up I can help you move. I have these professional skills I would like to donate, how can I escort? So, it`s heartening in these very difficult times.
PHANG: Tammi, did you anticipate having to do this and if so, was there some pre-planning that happened for your clinic seeing how the Dobbs decision was leaked previously a few weeks ago, and we kind of knew sadly, what was going to come down the pipeline.
KROMENAKER: Yes, we actually started planning last fall after S.B. 8 went into effect in Texas. The North Dakota legislators started talking about copycatting that. There was a special session last fall, we feared they would bring it forward in that special session. And then the Supreme Court took up Dobbs and so it just seemed as if the writing has been on the wall. We know that North Dakota is incredibly hostile to abortion.
We`ve been in near-continuous litigation with the state for almost a decade, trying to keep our doors open. The leaks certainly accelerated our process. And we`ve been working night and day and tirelessly to try and pull this off so that there is little to no disruption for the patients who`ve relied on our clinic for the last 20-plus years.
[18:55:00]
PHANG: It sounds like both of you Carol Siemon and Tammi Kromenaker, you guys` kind of read the tea leaves. You guys saw what was coming down the pipeline eventually with the Supreme Court. I thank both of you for being here this evening and for spending your time. Thank you.
KROMENAKER: Thank you.
PHANG: Coming ahead, we`ve got Paul McCartney -- well, my colleague Nicolle Wallace does for a great cause. That`s coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHANG: Finally, this Sunday, be sure to watch "UKRAINE: ANSWERING THE CALL." Produced by our very own Nicolle Wallace. The special will raise funds for those impacted by the ongoing war in Ukraine. Featuring appearances by Alicia Keys, Paul McCartney, and many more. You can watch it Sunday at 7:00 o`clock on M.S. -- excuse me on NBC and at 10:00 p.m. Eastern here on MSNBC.
You can also catch me on "THE KATIE PHANG SHOW," weekend mornings at 7:00 a.m. Eastern right here on MSNBC. And stream new original episodes of the show Thursdays and Fridays on the MSNBC hub on Peacock. Please enjoy safely your holiday weekend. "THE REIDOUT WITH JOY REID" is up next.