Summary
Former Planned Parenthood president on measure to protect abortion winning in red state Kansas helped by a surge in turnout. Kansas Democratic congresswoman on voters backing abortion rights by big margin. The text scandal grows as Trump`s Secret Service, DHS, and Pentagon officials wiped data. Facing bankruptcy, Alex Jones is now accused of perjury at trial.
Transcript
MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC HOST: He will attain his new rank at a ceremony in Washington this weekend.
Thank you for being with us this Wednesday. THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER. Melber. Melber?
(LAUGHTER)
STELLE: Starts right now. Hey, Ari.
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: Hey, Michael, good to see you. We know each other so I know somewhere in there you have my name. That happens to me, too. I`m going to say, on the screen, we have something that on any less busy news day, I would get into with you.
STEELE: See?
MELBER: But it`s too busy. I can`t even get into it. It`s too busy. Good to see you, man. Next time.
STEELE: That`s why I did the name thing because I knew you were going to come with something. So I got something for you.
MELBER: Something for you.
STEELE: I got something for you, scribble dibble. Just keep it clean, jellybean. Later, Ari.
MELBER: I`ll see you, jellybean. My thanks to Michael Steele, as always.
Welcome to THE BEAT. I am Ari Melber and as mentioned, I don`t have time to goof around with him. We have Cecile Richards here live on the policy and political earthquake. We`re going to get into that in just a few moments.
Later tonight, I want to tell you we have an update with stunning developments in the push to punish lives in society and in our broken politics. A twist in the Alex Jones trial that we`ve been covering. You`re going to want to see it and he`s going to wish you didn`t. I can tell you that for sure.
Later tonight, also new subpoenas in the federal criminal probe in the January 6th and the coup conspiracies.
So we have all that, but we begin with one of those seemingly unexpected developments that again I can report tonight, again shows the limits of these beltway pundit predictions that we hear so much. It shows how action and persistence and organizing can beat predictions or cynicism even in today`s politics with everything we all live through and feel about what`s wrong with today`s politics.
Now you probably have some idea of what I`m referring to. But ever since the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade, with Republican appointees shredding their own claims they`d made under oath that it was a super precedent, that it would be protected, the basic question has been, what`s next? What will actually happen when the state governments start acting on that decades long pursued Republican agenda to crack down on human rights?
And, I say this as a matter of objective fact, to push laws that put state power -- police power -- behind policies that factually endanger human lives. Women`s rights. Women`s bodies. That prevent even emergency healthcare for people, that can compel children, people who are of child age under law and reality, compel them or rape victims into forced pregnancy backed by state government power.
As policy, the question is whether that would stand. And as politics, the question is whether people would really back this in practice. But of all the places to test these important questions, few would have said as of yesterday or any other time since Roe fell, that Kansas would be the first place to check. It`s a conservative red state with high church attendance, a penchant for right-wing politics that even led to a popular political science book you might remember called "What`s the Matter with Kansas."
And while some formerly red states like Georgia did turn against Trump in 2020, I want to remind you what you see right here, Kansas doubled down. Voters backing Trump there by 16 points back in 2020. And yet, what you see here is a total shift. A complete change. This is the kind of state where, honestly, had 40 other states mobilized against women`s rights and Roe, politicos would say, well, Kansas might still be different.
But the result that you see on your screen that was reported last night that I think if you followed the news you`ve heard about, is our lead the story. And it is important, and I want to be clear, the political calendar is arbitrary. Kansas` primary date and this referendum happen to make Kansas this place with the first direct vote on these abortion and women`s rights issues since Roe fell. And it is that conservative Trump-backing electorate that decisively still affirms women`s rights.
That`s the news as of last night when we heard the people. That`s the news today and tonight. Some abortion access protection in that state`s constitution will be maintained. And it was not close, it was by 59 percent which does something real. Does something that the Justice Alito apparently didn`t want to have happened. It closes the door on what would have been abortion bans opened by the fall of Roe.
And it suggests, if Kansas, Kansas, Trump`s Kansas doesn`t even want to double down on what the Republican appointees did in the Roe decision, then more moderate and liberal states might soon be joining -- at least some -- of the type of celebrations we saw by women`s rights advocates as this news hit last night.
[18:05:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So grateful and just overjoyed in this moment right now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m really proud that our state came through and decisively won.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m just excited that I know that I and my loved ones can get the healthcare that we need and that we deserve. And it -- I`m astounded.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Cecile Richards is the former president of Planned Parenthood, the co-chair of American Bridge, and a leader on these issues throughout the fight to protect Roe and this recent period since Roe fell.
First of all, welcome.
CECILE RICHARDS, FORMER PRESIDENT, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Thank you, Ari. Good to see you tonight.
MELBER: I mentioned the book. Some may remember, that was called, "What`s the Matter with Kansas." I asked you what happened in Kansas and what, if anything, does it tell us both about women`s rights, what people think in America right now. But also as mentioned, what again pundits or D.C. may have gotten wrong.
RICHARDS: Right. Well, one thing I`m really glad you showed there, Ari, were all the folks in that room because this didn`t happen because of some polling or TV ads. This happened because people at the grassroots level in Kansas went door to door, had conversations with their neighbors, in their churches, you know, in their communities, and that, to me, is what really a democracy is about.
And ironically, as you know, this was scheduled intentionally by the Republicans to try to be at a time with very low turnout election. The middle of the summer. In a primary where there weren`t a lot of important contests. But what happened instead was people turned out almost a presidential level turnout. And I love one of the things that has been reported of course is that after Dobbs decision, there was a flood of people in Kansas beginning the process of registering to vote.
It clearly spurred people to get involved, people to vote that probably wouldn`t have, and 70 percent of them were women. We saw two last night that 20 percent of the people who voted in this election didn`t vote on the other primary contest. They came to vote on this abortion issue. I think it says everything about the fact that abortion, which I know the pundits like to say is a divisive issue, it actually is not.
It`s a deeply personal issue. And most people in this country cannot figure out why politicians want to get in between women and their doctors and their families on making the most personal decisions they can make about pregnancy.
MELBER: Yes, and you bring up turnout. Kansas is of course pretty conservative no matter how you slice it. But turnout as you say was key. An influx of people doubling the primary turnout from 2018, we checked. It almost tripled the off-year turnout in 2014. So that is on this issue. But more widely, Democrats are saying that energy could be a red flag in a red state for the Republican Party. We`re 97 days in the midterms.
Cecile, is this about a single issue or something wider in your view as well, given the turnout surges about enthusiasm?
RICHARDS: Look, I think it`s about freedom. And it`s about personal freedom. And I think that`s something that transcends party lines. It transcends geography. I know that we`ve been hearing from voters that they are afraid that their -- you know, the government is taking away their rights and I think this Kansas referendum -- this was like the first opportunity for voters to vote with their feet and actually show this.
You know what`s interesting, too, Ari, when I was at Planned Parenthood, the Republicans also tried to ban abortion in other very conservative states, but consistently, when it was brought to the ballot in South Dakota, in Mississippi, in Tennessee, places that you would also say very conservative, voters overwhelmingly vote down abortion bans. And again, it`s because the question is not how do you personally feel about abortion.
The question is, who should be making decisions about pregnancies? And overwhelmingly, the American people believe it`s people who are pregnant, or women who need access to the full range of medical care. You also can`t ignore the fact that since these abortion bans in Texas and other states have gone into effect, we are seeing the horrifying and cruel consequences of what it looks like to live in a country or in a state where you can`t have access to full reproductive care, whether it`s the 10-year-old story, you know, in the state of Ohio, whether it`s women in Texas -- it`s really -- this is not what the American people want.
This has got to be wakeup call to the Republican Party. But of course last night, just like we`ve seen in the primary elections, Republicans continue to nominate people who are for total bans on abortion from Michigan to Pennsylvania to Arizona. And so people are going to have a clear choice this November about which direction they want this country to go.
MELBER: Yes. Understood. Given this, we wanted to begin with you and then, Cecile, stay with me.
[18:10:03]
We`re going to bring in Congresswoman Sharice Davids from Kansas. She also knows about winning in that state. A Democrat, she won her first election in the Trump era. We`ll take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Red state of Kansas where Sharice Davids has defeated incumbent Congressman Kevin Yoder.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A historic win for a Democrat in Kansas.
STEVE KORNACKI, NBC NEWS NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Democratic pickup. Here we go again.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The first Native American women. Deb Holland in New Mexico and Sharice Davids in Kansas.
REP. SHARICE DAVIDS (D-KS): Wow. What a night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: And another night. Congresswoman Davids won the primary last night unopposed so no challenge from within the Democratic Party there and a rematch against the Republican opponent that we saw there in that clip. You beat by about 10 points last time.
Welcome. And going to Kansas and to you, what is going on in Kansas? What do you see as the results last night meaning?
DAVIDS: Yes. I mean, look, we heard Cecile a little bit about exactly what you were saying earlier. I mean, we saw a broad diverse coalition of people come together and do the boots on the ground work to push back against these extreme policies, and you know, I`ve heard it time and time again today and last night that, you know, Kansas is a conservative state. But I think it`s really important to remember that there is a difference between being conservative and being extreme.
And Kansans last night sent a clear message that we do not want politicians making our decisions around reproductive healthcare services. We don`t want government interference in the most personal decisions that we make. And I think that, you know, I think that anybody who is really far out there, I mean, I have an opponent that I did beat last time who is too far out there on this issue, who supports a total ban regardless of, you know, whether somebody has, you know -- in cases of rape and incest. I mean, these positions are too extreme and I think last night, what we saw was a clear message. That`s not OK.
MELBER: Makes sense. Congresswoman, this is how it was playing on FOX News. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY, THE FEDERALIST EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: That Kansas referendum is very interesting. I do think that pro-lifers should understand that so much money was spent by hardcore abortion supporters to make sure that that amendment failed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It`s the return to democracy. The ability to go to the ballot box and decide for themselves where a state wants to stand on abortion policy. And the voters in Kansas did that very thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Congresswoman?
DAVIDS: Well, I think that second part, the voters did go to the ballot box and it was because this, the Dobbs decision overturning of Roe, losing 50 years of precedent that was protecting our rights has -- I mean, people have been scared. People have felt anxiety. And here I can tell you, here in Kansas, we turned all of that emotion into work. You know, people got out there, knocked on doors, made phone calls, and ensured that when people came to the ballot box yesterday, that people understood, no, we don`t want to change our state constitution.
No, we don`t want politicians interfering in our personal reproductive health care decisions. No, we don`t want extreme measures to be put forth in Kansas that are not going to pass.
MELBER: Yes. I think you lay it out.
Cecile, the president is also taking some action on this. At times, he and the administration were criticized for whether they`re really leaning on these issues given what you`ve both discussed. The historic nature of Roe falling. Here was the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I am committed to the American people and we are doing everything in our power to safeguard access to healthcare including the right to choose that women had under Roe v. Wade which was ripped away by this extreme court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: The president speaking about a measure that would try to protect interstate travel for this kind of health decision. The DOJ also suing Idaho over the total ban arguing that it violates the federal law that provides for emergency medical care as a right that cannot be interfered with, Cecile, even if that does include a medically relevant abortion. Your response?
[18:15:06]
RICHARDS: It`s really important what the president did. And I think the actions that they are taking, and I actually think in an interesting way, Ari, the fact that we are having to do this, that the president of the United States is having to say people are able to pass a state border and get medical care that they can`t get in their own state, that Republicans are trying to prevent that is really part and parcel of why I think voters are saying this is not what we want.
We do not want politicians telling people both what they can do with their bodies, what kind of healthcare they can get, and that they can`t even cross state lines to get it. I mean, as the congresswoman said, this is so extreme. And of course, these Republican politicians have been able to talk about banning abortion all these years because it wasn`t going to happen because we had a constitutional protection.
This court just overturned that and now it`s becoming real for people. To me, it`s like that`s what we saw happened in Kansas last night. That`s what we saw record numbers of people registering to vote. Record turnout. Because it`s not theoretical anymore. This is real life impacts.
MELBER: Yes.
RICHARDS: And as the congresswoman said, this is not a law. These are not abortion bans that only impact Democrats. This impacts everybody. And pregnancy and the complications with pregnancy, these transcend party lines. I really do believe this is a wake-up call for this country and incredibly important what the people of Kansas showed last night in turning out to vote and saying we are not going to go backwards.
MELBER: Cecile Richards, Congresswoman Davids, thanks to both of you.
We have our shortest break now after our longest segment of the hour. It`s just one minute. I`ll be back in 60 seconds. Looking at the pressure on a key ring leader of the coup plot and a new subpoena in Trump world.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MELBER: Turning to the criminal federal Justice Department probe into the coup conspiracy and how it`s getting closer to Trump and his top aides. The White House counsel we heard so much about in those hearings, Pat Cipollone, now subpoenaed by the federal grand jury investigating all of this. That is a big deal.
Remember, everything we heard up to this point including Liz Cheney`s pressure on him didn`t mean that he was inside that criminal investigation. He`s the highest ranking White House official known to have been called to testify by the feds. So this is a significant escalation who they`re trying to talk to.
We all saw some of the testimony that did come out when he was finally, basically badgered by Liz Cheney in a House subpoena to talk. He`s reportedly spent eight hours behind closed doors. We also got that awkward moment when asked about who was it in all of the White House that didn`t want people to leave the insurrection.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): What about the president?
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): Yes.
PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: She said the staff. So I answered.
CHENEY: No, I said in the White House.
CIPOLLONE: I`m sorry. I apologize. I thought you said who else on the staff. I can`t argue with communications. But obviously, I think, you know. Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Yes. The most charitable thing you can say about that is that he does have some legal rules around what he can say. So if the president said certain things that were privileged and in that forum, he is still trying to protect them. That`s charitable. The bottom line, though, what was so effective in that questioning, is something that even Trump`s most loyal, long-serving aides, the ones who tried not to testify, admit and let everybody else know.
[18:20:03]
Then President Trump wanted the insurrection to continue. He did nothing to stop it. He told reportedly Kevin McCarthy maybe these people are more upset than you are. And, when he knew they were armed and he knew they were criminally breaching the Capitol, he doubled down on the attack and incitement of Mike Pence who was in, we learned, lethal danger.
That`s very bad. Is it a crime? Well, that`s what`s under investigation. And we know this same person Cipollone now about to talk to the feds warned that many things were shaping up to be Trump administration crimes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, FORMER AIDE TO WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF MARK MEADOWS: Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don`t go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We`re going to get charged with every crime imaginable.
CHENEY: So are you aware of any phone call by the president of the United States to the secretary of Defense that day?
CIPOLLONE: Not that I`m aware of, no. Yes, I was pretty clear there needed to be an immediate and forceful response, statement, public statement that people need to leave the Capitol now.
CASSIDY: Mr. Cipollone and I had a brief, private conversation where he said to me, we need to make sure that this doesn`t happen. This would be a legally terrible idea for us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: A member of the committee and one of the Republican members says this about the subpoena.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): This is probably bad for former President Trump. I hope Pat Cipollone actually just tells the truth. I have no doubt that he hasn`t but there`s no reason to protect particularly criminal behavior or what could potentially be criminal behavior.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: What does it mean when the feds go after a lawyer in this kind of case? We turn to former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:26:34]
MELBER: We`re back with former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman.
If they don`t know you`re a lawyer, you got the book case to prove it. Thanks for coming back, sir.
NICK AKERMAN, FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Absolutely. Thank you for having me.
MELBER: I want us to really be clear about what`s happening because there is this thing. It`s a bias in the human mind and certainly in the news media where you get tired of something. You go, I heard about Pat Cipollone, so what? And yet from what I understand, walk us through it, Pat Cipollone`s worst day ever in this whole thing is now because this isn`t just the committee however important that was, this is the federal criminal probe.
For someone who says OK, enough with Pat, can you explain that?
AKERMAN: Well, I think this is actually the worst day for Donald Trump because Pat Cipollone is going to be talking a lot more before the grand jury than he ever did before the January 6th Committee.
MELBER: Right.
AKERMAN: In the January 6th Committee, they were concerned about getting him in there. Getting Pat in there. Having him talk as much as they could get information from him. But they bent over backwards. They allowed him basically to claim executive privilege with any conversations he had with Donald Trump. They allowed him to claim attorney-client privilege.
None of this is going to go anywhere with the feds. He is going to claim certain privileges with respect to individual questions. They`ll take him before a federal district court judge who is going to order him to testify, tell him that there is no privilege. He could appeal it to the Circuit Court, but all of this will go much quicker, will go behind closed doors.
Unlike the committee, the Department of Justice doesn`t have to worry about midterm elections and the fact that they may not be around next year. That`s not going to happen. So I think that the Department of Justice is going to get a lot more information from Pat Cipollone.
MELBER: Right.
AKERMAN: If he thought that was his worst experience going before the committee, he is in for a major surprise when he appears before that grant jury.
MELBER: Yes. And Nick, I don`t know if you know the expression. When you`re close enough with someone, you can finish their --
AKERMAN: You can finish their?
MELBER: Finish their sentences.
AKERMAN: I don`t --
MELBER: Finish their sentences. That`s what I was going for. I`m going to try to finish yours, but you tell me whether I`m off or not. You said there`s no privilege. And I hear that as a lawyer and think, there is no privilege for insurrection. There is no privilege for coup. There is no privilege for any crime being hatched out of the White House.
Contrary, there may be times where valid White House lawyers or National Security staff dealing within the law have things that aren`t just going to pop out. Certainly not on a public forum. Am I finishing your sentence right or not because it`s your sentence? And what does it mean --
AKERMAN: You`re completely finishing my sentence. Absolutely.
MELBER: All right, go ahead.
AKERMAN: Because, traditionally, executive privilege does not apply to talking about criminal activity. I mean, when Pat Cipollone came in, he was basically a fireman. He was putting out fires in the White House. Every time Donald Trump was going to do something, whether it was to fire Jeffrey Rosen and put in Donald Trump`s puppet, or he was working on the fake electors, or he was talking about seizing voting machines, I mean, he wasn`t coming in to talk about national security, about government policy, or anything to do within the power of the presidency.
This was all criminal schemes that Donald Trump was hatching. And Pat Cipollone was there to put out the fire. So, I don`t see how any of that possibly --
MELBER: Right. Well, let me get you -- yes, let me get you on -- let me get you on that point and then I want to go also to this alleged Secret Service cover-up. But final thing here. You have this elector plot under investigation, and we`ve been tracking that as something that is potentially criminal, even if they`re never word insurrection. But also potentially criminal, overlapping with the coup plot of the sixth, because as we showed recently in our coverage, and you know this, Nick, there were people trying to submit fraudulent, potentially criminal material, on the sixth to Mike Pence to execute a coup based on electoral fraud that I count at least two crimes maybe more.
So, given that we know that the DOJ is investigating that part of the plot, and we know that it`s one of those long-running -- we`ve looked at these arrows, it`s one of those long-running pieces. Do you see that is something that they could get to Cipollone on, that they could find out from him? Did Donald Trump know about plan, plot, what to engage on something that at least after December 14 was illegal?
AKERMAN: No, of course. I mean, what Cipollone can do is he puts the intent and knowledge in Trump. He had direct conversations with Donald Trump. He spoke to him. Donald Trump came to him. He went to him when certain matters occurred. Yes, I mean, this is extremely dangerous for Donald Trump. This is not a good day. This is somebody who can be a direct witness against him and who is very credible.
MELBER: Yes. All right, let me get you on the cover-up. You lived and participated in the history of Watergate. Everyone knows the cliche that cover up being worse. They also know that what appeared to be White House directed destruction of evidence during the open probe itself, greatly contributed to the provable crimes into the Congress`s view of Nixon`s culpability. You were a part of that, a part of that team.
Here you have multiple government departments headlined wiping phones, government departments wiping phone messages related to Jan 6. We`re going to show you Secret Service agents, DHS, Department of Defense. Washington Post reporting on this. Walk us through what that means. Are these potential crimes?
AKERMAN: They are potential crimes. The question is whether you can prove it. I mean, what this really makes me harken back to is the discussion in Watergate when people were saying that Richard Nixon should have just taken the tapes out and made them into a big bonfire and burn them so nobody could have listened to him. And if they didn`t have the tapes, no one could have really prosecuted half of the people that we wound up prosecuting. So, somebody --
MELBER: I think Pat Buchanan said that.
AKERMAN: Yes. I mean, somebody could have gone -- taken that sort of advice from way back then and decided, well, better we destroy all this evidence than let it be out there so that people can prove what we did during the insurrection. That`s what concerns me. So, the only question here is, can you get a common denominator of somebody that was involved in the destruction of this information? Was there somebody from the White House that was coordinating this? Was there anybody coordinating this? How is it done?
I mean, that`s what I would be looking at here to try and determine whether there was a plot to do this systematically throughout the government. I mean, there very well could have been because it could have been done even without the knowledge of the people who had the telephones. If someone decided that there were problems -- I mean, we know already that the call log for Donald Trump on the afternoon of January 6, nothing`s there. We know there are no call records. Nothing`s there.
So, we know that certain things are clearly missing and there`s lots of motive to destroy that stuff. The Secret Service, of course, the text messages there. The big question is, did Donald Trump or someone from the White House direct the Secret Service to get Mike Pence out of the Capitol so that the count couldn`t continue? I mean, that is a very plausible hypothesis. And it could be the motivation for somebody destroying those text messages.
That one`s at the Homeland Security. We know that Homeland Security was contacted about seizing voting machines. What was on those? We`re not going to know.
MELBER: Yes.
AKERMAN: I mean, this may be a case where the cover may not only be worse than the crime, but we may not be able to prove what happened. And if we can`t prove what happened, then the cover up succeeds. So, the question is can you get in there? Usually, with evidence like electronic evidence, there`s usually some traces of it if you can get there in time, and they can`t completely wipe it. But if they are technologically savvy, and they know what they`re doing, you can wipe that off the hard drive and nobody can touch it.
[18:35:21]
MELBER: Well, that`s what`s tricky, right? A lot of people think you delete something on one end, it`s over. Well, you often have end-to-end or cloud backups. But when you`re dealing with the Secret Service and DHS, you`re dealing with the people who actually know more than as we say around here, the average bear if you will.
Nick, always good to see you, sir. Say hi to the books for me, all right?
AKERMAN: Thank you. Bye, bye.
MELBER: I appreciate it.
We have people who are against democracy who are flirting with authoritarianism and they`re winning the primaries to oversee elections. That`s another big headline on the last night that I have for you tonight. But coming up, the stunning moment in court. Rarely do you see someone owned like this. Alex Jones thought his biggest problem was bankruptcy. It may be perjury, it may be prison, we`ll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
MELBER: Judgment day is hitting Alex Jones hard. I`ve told you we`re covering this case, because it matters for accountability in what has happened to these families, these victims` families and Sandy Hook, but it also matters for drawing lines and punishment to deter lying in our politics. But that`s not all. This hit a whole another level. The jury now has the case in the defamation trial of Mr. Jones, but there was this bombshell twist in court. If you`ve been watching tonight, you`ve heard me referenced it, but let`s get into it.
Jones was taking the stand in his own defense. So, he`s up there trying to back up the claims he`s made, which include the idea that he wasn`t really lying, that he never had any emails about this, and so on. And then, and I`m telling you, you don`t usually ever see anything like this, the revelation from the lawyers for the Sandy Hook parents suing him. They`ve got the goods that proves he`s a liar and maybe a criminal, and they got it from Alex Jones own, I guess, incompetent lawyers, because those lawyers accidentally sent Alex Jones incriminating texts and emails, the emails he said he didn`t have to the other side. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK BANKSTON, LAWYER: Mr. Jones, did you know that 12 days ago, 12 days ago, your attorneys messed up and sitting an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you`ve sent for the past two years. And that is how I know you lied to me when you said you didn`t have to text message about Sandy Hook. Did you know that?
ALEX JONES, RADIO HOST: See, I told you the truth. This is your Perry Mason moment. I gave them my phone. And then --
MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE, JUDGE, TEXAS 459TH DISTRICT COURT: Mr. Jones, you need to answer the question.
JONES: No, I --
BANKSTON: Did you know this happen?
JONES: No, I didn`t know this happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Answer the question. The judge has repeatedly tried to take control there when he has gone off the rails. Jones stammering, pushing back, obviously caught. And then this happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANKSTON: In discovery, you were asked, do you have Sandy Hook text messages on your phone and you said no, correct? You said that under oath, didn`t you?
JONES: Oh, if I was mistaken, I was mistaken, but you`ve got two messages right there.
BANKSTON: You know what perjury is, right? I just want to make sure you know before we go any further. You know what it is?
JONES: Yes, I do. I mean, I`m not a tech guy. I told you I gave --in my testimony -- the phone to the lawyers before, whatever. And so you got my phone, but we didn`t give it to you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: This is as serious as a heart attack. That warning about perjury is real. Jones is being sued for defamation, a type of lying. And now, he`s caught lying on the stand and he hasn`t even reached the punishment phase of how much he might have to pay or it could get worse. The cell phone data that is being discussed here is now all in the hands of the other side.
Now, Jones is doing his usual deflection. He has tried to say that all of this is some sort of misunderstanding or just his entertainment. And he`s used his platform to repeatedly, willfully, and intentionally lie and hurt people and he knows that what he lied about, what he claimed was some sort of false flag hoax, he always knew it was real.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONES: It`s 100 percent real. And the media still ran with lies that I was saying it wasn`t real. It`s incredible. They won`t let me take it back. They just want to keep me in the position of being the Sandy Hook man. I really do want to try to change things and hopefully be a more positive force when it comes to issues like mass shootings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: This is what the start of accountability might look like. I told you we`ve been covering this story long before today`s twist. Anyone interested would cover this. This is truly wild. I want to bring in Will Sommer. He`s a Daily Beast reporter who`s been following all this and the author of Trust The Plan, a book about the related issue of the rise of QAnon conspiracies that can unhinge all of our ability to function as a fact-based democracy.
Important stuff. Thanks for joining me.
[18:45:01]
WILL SOMMER, POLITICS REPORTER, THE DAILY BEAST: Thanks for having me.
MELBER: We`ll go big picture, but let`s start with what happened today. How bad was this for Mr. Jones on a scale of one to 10?
SOMMER: Really bad. I mean, I think I`d say 10, maybe 11 or 12. I mean, as you said, these are the kinds of scenes you just do not see in courtrooms where, you know, it`s like a Law and Order moment where suddenly -- or as Alex Jones himself said, a Perry Mason moment, where essentially, you know, he`s already lost the case at the judge`s order because he has repeatedly broken the courtroom procedures. Now, he`s finding himself -- you know, it`s up to the jury to decide how much the damages are going to be.
And here they`re deciding, is this a credible guy? Do we believe that he`s apologizing or is he just trying to get out of this? And then he`s shown on the stand to be a liar. You have this, of course, great moment where Mark Bankston, the lawyer, says you know, you`re incompetent attorneys have shared all these emails with me. I mean, I think it was really -- you know, as someone who`s watching it myself, I was stunned and I`m sure the jurors were as well.
MELBER: And it was a complete shock?
SOMMER: Yes, absolutely. I don`t think anyone saw this coming. I think Mark Bankston, the kind of the lead lawyer on this, has -- he`s talked a lot about the case and he`s been pursuing this for years. But he really had not tipped his hand on this. I think one thing that`s interesting is he`s only been able to access these emails and text messages for about a day because when the lawyers inadvertently shared it with them, he said, hey, you shared this with me, do you want to claim this as privileged? And then they basically had 10 days to do that.
That deadline only ran out yesterday, I believe, or roughly so. And so, you know, again, his lawyers almost screwed up again by not trying to retract that -- those emails in those text messages. So, it seems like potentially there`s more to come. We know, Rolling Stone is reporting that the January 6 Committee wants to see these emails and text messages. You know, I think potentially, it`s a treasure trove operating -- offering a glimpse into the right-wing media.
MELBER: Exactly, and how this is done for profit. There is a wide and broad First Amendment protection for all kinds of views. But there is not free speech or a right to knowingly defame. And when you do it repeatedly for profit, that is when you with malicious intent try to sell something. In this case, he was selling a lie that defamed, according to the court, these families, these grieving families. I mean, you couldn`t come up with a sicker kind of approach.
You`re not in First Amendment land anymore. And now they`re just deciding on the cost. Then you have what you raise. And I want viewers to understand this because again, the way this case goes down might set a precedent that does dissuade others or make them think twice about how they profit off lies. He`s in trouble for the misconduct alleged regarding the case and the larger idea of whether he can perjure himself and break all these laws. Take a look at how that came up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GAMBLE: Is it your stance that there should be no punishment for breaking the law as long as it`s done only on rare occasions?
JONES: Well, this is a civil but there is a law, right and wrong. And we have a massive price for the mistakes we made.
GAMBLE: OK, Mr. Jones.
JONES: Just reading in place.
GAMBLE: Yes or no?
JONES: It`s not. No, I don`t think -- even when people do stuff on accident, I think they`re still somewhat culpable. But I did not do this consciously --
GABLE: No, Mr. Jones, that`s not the question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: Not impressing the judge, not an easy defendant, but he may be hurting himself that way, again, when it comes to the judgment day. Final question, if he loses bad, does the outcome of this case, what the families call justice, deter others from profiting off lies?
SOMMER: You know, I really think this is a precedent-setting case, this and the other two Sandy Hook lawsuits to come. I really think this is the first time we`ve seen one of these cases make it all the way to trial. Previous lawsuits, Seth Rich`s family suing Fox News, some other cases, but none of them has gotten this far. And I think potentially, you know, I mean, the plaintiffs are asking for $150 million in this case. It`s not clear whether they`ll get that. But I mean, you`re looking at potentially a just massive, massive judgment that could destroy InfoWars. They`re constantly trying to move in and out of bankruptcy to avoid it.
So I think, you know, I think this could demonstrate to other people pushing hoaxes and fake news and frankly, profiting handsomely off it in the way that Infowars has, that they might want to avoid that.
MELBER: And I`m out of time, Will, but did you pick a beat on purpose where you would spend so much time watching InfoWars and studying QAnon? No judgment.
SOMMER: You know, it`s -- I have a high tolerance for it. I think that`s all I could say.
MELBER: Respect. And you`re doing important work, which is why we wanted to get your reporting on this issue, your objective reporting. Thank you, sir.
We`re going to fit in a break. When we come back, you`ve got authoritarians running against democracy, but becoming GOP nominees to oversee elections, when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:50:00]
MELBER: The Republican Party is increasingly rallying around a strategy where it can lose elections but still try to hold power. In 2020, that was the coup that almost was, but now they`re doing it in a way that is more organized and laundered.
Take a look at Arizona. Trump said that the Secretary of State race is the most important one in America. Why would that be? Well, last night Mark Finchem won the primary for that post overseeing elections even though he has done everything to sow doubt and potentially overthrow elections if he doesn`t like the outcome.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARK FINCHEM (R-AZ), SECRETARY OF STATE CANDIDATE: Ladies and gentlemen, we know it and they know it. Donald Trump won.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MELBER: On January 6, he was there at the Capitol just like Trump demanded. Photos show that although there is no evidence that he actually criminally trespass. He`s a member of the Oath Keepers which is the larger group charged with seditious conspiracy, some of its leaders. And in his work as a state lawmaker, he was one of the people trying to again, through these seemingly governmental measures, overthrow what happened that Joe Biden won.
[18:55:16]
He co-sponsored a separate bill that would try to get state legislators to just throw out the results entirely, so we don`t live in a democracy anymore. It`s something Professor Melissa Murray and others have warned about on this very program. He also is facing a subpoena from the January 6 Committee. And he is now the nominee to take over as secretary of state where he would have independent authority to control many aspects of the election.
The Democrats have not yet picked their nominee to run against him, but it is a race to watch. And we wanted to get that on the record as we monitor the results from these and other primaries around the nation.
Thanks for spending time with us here on THE BEAT WITH ARI MELBER. "THE REIDOUT" with Joy Reid is up after this short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JOY REID, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on "THE REIDOUT" --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is what democracy looks like.
CROWD: This is what democracy looks like.