Summary
Former President Donald Trump took the Fifth Amendment over 440 times today in his deposition with the New York AG. Republicans back Trump after FBI search of Mar-a-Lago. The stakes in the next senate elections could not be higher. If the Democrats lose the Senate, Joe Biden will never have another federal judge confirmed.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Good evening, Ali, and thank you for bringing us that story about Zak. I`m sure someone in the administration was watching.
ALI VELSHI, MSNBC HOST, "VELSHI": I hope so.
O`DONNELL: I expect there`s going to be some movement on this, there has to be.
VELSHI: It would be great to have Zak and people like him as an addition to our country.
Have a great show, my friend.
O`DONNELL: Thank you, Ali. Thank you.
Well, Donald Trump can`t stop emailing me. He just emailed me again, just about an hour and a half ago. This one really urgent.
The email says breaking like breaking news. And it`s from the only -- it says the only of emails from official Donald J. Trump. This email right here on my phone.
It says, breaking, the Democrats broke into the home of President Donald J. Trump. There it is we can put it up on the screen this email that I just got. It says: To me, it`s very personal. It says, Lawrence, the radical left is corrupt. This is your chance to stand with President Trump. Please rush a donation immediately to publicly stand with President Trump against this never ending witch hunt.
This is to one of my many email addresses. It`s actually the least email address used which somehow the Trump email managers have found and they are suggesting once again the same contribution they suggested last night. They are suggesting $45. They figure that`s where I`m good for, on this deal, it`s $45.
But, you know, there is that problem deadline that`s right there on the screen. The deadline which is right under the $45 suggestion, the deadline is immediately. Now I am bad with any deadline but immediately? That is just no kind of deadline that I can work with.
So they will keep spending their email budget sending emails to me to raise money for Donald Trump to do what`s with it? What`s going to do with it? And he`s raising money because when the FBI raided his home. The FBI raids his home and they do it secretly, the FBI tells no one Donald Trump`s response is to tell everyone. That`s how we know it and then to rush out emails raising money on the fact that the FBI executed a search warrant at his home.
We`ve had 48 hours of public comment since the FBI surprised Donald Trump by executing that search warrant at his Florida home and we will now present to you every single Republican statement about that search warrant that is true.
So, here are all the Republican statements about the Trump search warrant that are true. Sorry. None, not one.
I would happily sit at this desk and read to you every two statement by any Republican anywhere about the Trump search work if there were any. There is not a single true statement made by a Republican about the search warrant.
Now in fairness most Republican members of Congress have managed to say absolutely nothing about it.
Republican Senator Mitt Romney is typical. "The Salt Lake Tribune" reports that Senator Mitt Romney did not respond seeking requests to comment. But every Republican who hopes to be president someday has had something to say about it, including Yale Law School graduate, Senator Joshua Hawley, and Harvard Law School graduate, Senator Rafael Cruz.
Senator Cruz called the FBI partisan attack dogs for Democrats, that was his phrase without mentioning the FBI Director Christopher Wray is a Republican appointed by Donald Trump. Senator Cruz simply lied about the search warrant and the FBI.
[22:05:03]
Senator Hawley offered a childish comment that Merrick Garland must resign and, that Christopher Wray must be removed from office. And Senator Hawley said something that has been echoed by other Republicans. Senator Hawley said, quote, the search warrant must be published. The Republican demand that the search warrant be made public was described as deafening by a CNN reporter online, deafening.
And not one of those Republicans is demanding that Donald Trump reveal but the FBI took from his home. Donald Trump was given a receipt of sorts for what was taken by the FBI. He could make that public right now and satisfy the deafening demands by Republicans to reveal the purpose of the FBI search warrant. Donald Trump has chosen to lie about the surge instead, suggesting that the FBI planted evidence, that they will now claim they found there.
Now that got instantly embraced by the most craven Trump supporters like Senator Rand Paul old and everyone at the Fox propaganda channel. Donald Trump knows what the FBI found. Donald Trump knows that what they found includes evidence that may be so incriminating to him that he might want to assert the defense at the FBI planted that evidence in his home. Donald Trump must also know that the paperwork that the FBI left for him at his home would not be helpful to his public defense and his public fundraising if he made that document public as he could, and there is no deafening demand from Republicans that Donald Trump reveal everything that he knows about the search in his home by the FBI.
Tonight, "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that an informant helped guide the FBI`s search of Donald Trump`s home. "The Wall Street Journal" reports, quote, someone familiar with the stored papers told investigators there may still be more classified documents at the private club after the national archives retrieved 15 boxes earlier in the year, people familiar with the matter said. And Justice Department officials had doubts that the Trump team was being truthful regarding what material remained at the property, one person said.
Two months ago, in just two months ago on June 3rd , Jay Bratt, a national security specialist at the Justice Department and three FBI agents, had a meeting with Trump and Trump`s lawyers at Mar-a-Lago to discuss records it appeared to be in a basement storage room. A few days later, Jay Bratt sent a letter to the Trump lawyers saying that a stronger lock should be installed on that storage room door we don`t know what`s happened between then and now but the next thing that we publicly know is that the FBI served a search warrant for those documents on Monday.
This is how Donald Trump described today what happened on Monday: The FBI and others from the federal government would not let anyone including my lawyers be anywhere near the areas that were rummaged and otherwise looked at during the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Everyone was asked to leave the premises. They wanted to be left alone without any witnesses to see what they were doing, taking or hopefully not, planting. Why did they strongly insist on having nobody watching them, everybody out?
To answer that quest, leading off our discussion tonight, is Bradley Moss, a national security attorney, Paul Butler, professor of law at Georgetown University and a former federal prosecutor. He`s an MSNBC legal analyst. And Andrew Weissmann, former FBI general counsel and former chief of the criminal division of the Eastern District of New York. He`s a professor of practice at NYU law school and an MSNBC legal analyst.
And, Andrew Weissmann, what about that description of the way the search warrant was executed, description by Donald Trump, saying that no one was allowed to watch anything that happened, the lawyers were not allowed on the premises? What is the standard procedure?
[22:10:02]
ANDREW WEISSMANN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: So, let`s just remember that the former president saying what happened and we don`t have anything to believe that is true or has been reporting that least one of his lawyers was there and that is also the case that there would be secret service and there would be other people who were there, as well as surveillance cameras.
So this idea that there was no ability for anyone to see anything than the FBI is something that remains to be seen whether that is true.
Now to your question as to what is the standard procedure? When the FBI does a search, they do not have other people milling around in the area that is being searched. And that is because they want to make sure that the search is being conducted without interference. They want to make sure that the person who was there isn`t picking things up, isn`t moving things, it`s distracting, and there`s a whole protocol when the FBI goes into do a search where they want to make sure that they document very clearly what has been found and where it has been found.
In fact, some agents are assigned solely to have that function, of documenting exactly who picked up quite item in what`s location. You want to make sure all of that is done without civilians running around in the scene that is being searched.
O`DONNELL: And do they -- do they video these searches?
WEISSMANN: Not in my experience. I have never seen that happen.
O`DONNELL: OK. Bradley Moss, you are the national security law expert here. As you look at what we have learned about the search so far, you look at everyone who`s been involved in the story as it evolved to this point. What do you see might be the legal issues that Donald Trump could be facing here?
BRADLEY MOSS, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: Sure, Lawrence. Quite simply, the legal issue is that Donald Trump the moment he left the White House and became a private citizen allowed classified documents properly marked hard copy classified documents to be shipped down to Mar-a-Lago in an unsecured manner. They were stored at Mar-a-Lago in an unsecured manner.
They were not in a secure facility, they were not in any sort of place that was authorized by the U.S. government, these were not records that Donald Trump was allowed or authorized to maintain anymore. Once he left the presidency, he no longer had authorized access except to the extent that Joe Biden chooses to give it to him.
So there are several criminal provisions, most of them technically under the espionage act, although this doesn`t have anything to do with espionage, but anybody who they deal with anybody who removes woefully classified information and puts it in an unsecured location.
That is what faces Donald Trump here.
O`DONNELL: As you look at it legally, what there is a potential defendant as a former president of the United States, and we`ve never seen that before. Cases involving these type of matters have been brought against lower level officials, and some fairly high-ranking in an administration.
But what does the novelty factor of the former president status bring this to live legally if anything?
MOSS: It brings a very significant wrinkle to the entire equation that obviously the Justice Department has to be considered right now. That is whether or not Donald Trump believes reasonably or not, that he declassified his records before he left. There has been some hints of that, former capital, has been saying that Donald Trump would be classify this.
The question becomes, why weren`t they markings addressed? Every classified document has specific classification markings on them. They have classification times about when I was classified by whom, and what authority. That was supposed to be addressed and result before anyone could handle them as anything other than classified documents.
And so far, there is no indication that was properly done by Donald Trump`s administration.
O`DONNELL: Okay, so it is not the proper procedure for Donald Trump to simply point to a cardboard box in the White House before he leaves, while he is still president, just point to it and say, that is going to Mar-a-Lago, and someone says oh, but it`s all classified. And as it`s now declassified, right, now I appointed it, declassify it.
That doesn`t pass the normal rules of this classification. But could Donald Trump`s defense in court be, those are my rules, that`s how I declassified things.
MOSS: He could certainly try and I expect that he will try it is ultimately becomes a prosecution in pretrial motions, to argue that. In this novel legal issue, we have no precedent for this. There is no case law. There is no real guidance that tells us how any quite, whether it be enough for travel, quite an appeals court, but the Supreme Court, would do it because we never had a president, a former president, prosecuted for mishandling classified information once they became a private citizen.
[22:15:15]
All we know, all we have, is the existing theory classification guidelines, the roles, that`s all we can work off right now in terms of trying to evaluate and assess how this might play out. But we are in completely uncharted territory here.
O`DONNELL: Paul Butler, they planted the evidence on me is a defense that has been raised in municipal court rooms, local court houses, federal court courts, and drug cases, in particular, especially for small amounts of possession in drug cases. How do prosecutions handle that offense? The cops, in this case, the FBI, planted the evidence?
PAUL BUTLER, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: So, Lawrence, back in the day, I actually prosecuted drug dealers who would make the claim that cops planted evidence. Juries typically reject that defense. If this case goes to trial, I expect that the jurors would credit the testimony of the 30 FBI agents who executed the search warrant, more than Donald Trump`s blabbering.
To get a federal judge to grant a search warrant, prosecutors had to itemize all the materials that they expected to find, and the judge had to agree that there was probable cause that the evidence was at Mar-a-Lago on the day of the search.
I think Trump is running scared because he thinks the FBI found incriminating material during the raid. And I think he`s also rehearsed the possible defense in the event that he is charged with concealing classified material.
O`DONNELL: So, Paul, just a state with the, they planted the evidence a defense, what we know is there will be no direct -- we can assume, they will be no direct testimony offered by the defense of an eyewitness saying, I saw that agent plant that documents, in that file. That won`t happen.
The way that this defenses, usually mounted, on cross examination, it`s a defense lawyer standing up there, cross-examining an FBI agent and saying, in effect, isn`t it a fact that you brought that with you and you planted it there. The FBI agent says no. And that`s what the jury has. That`s really all they will have, most likely, in that kind of defense.
BUTLER: That`s exactly right, it`s a credibility determination. We have heard that there is surveillance tapes around Mar-a-Lago, and they might demonstrate places where documents might be concealed, or that Trump was holding these top secret documents in areas that were unsecure.
DOJ never talks about search warrants unless and until someone is charged. But, Lawrence, guess what, as you mentioned, a subject of an investigation can say whatever they want, and release any materials they have to the public.
Right now, Trump and his attorneys have a copy of the search warrant, and an inventory of every item the FBI seized in this raid. If Trump believes that DOJ is acting unethically, he should just share these items with the American people.
O`DONNELL: Bradley Moss, what do you make of the Wall Street Journal that they were there was an informant, someone who said to the FBI, to the federal authorities, there is more here, and here is where it is, this is where you should look. What does that add to the dimensions of the case?
MOSS: Well, it certainly explains why the justice department chose to take this controversial step, choosing to actually execute a search warrant against the former president`s personal residence. They had evidence not only that classified documents were there, not only that there were still more documents that was in the initial recovery in June, but indications that Trump staff was hiding classified documents.
If the reporting is true, that there was additional information that the FBI still didn`t know about, that raises concerns about them that there is no evidence, no indication that they are getting true and honest cooperation from Trump`s lawyers, and from Donald Trump himself. And they can`t simply allow this to continue on any longer. And they have to take this very bold and out in the open controversial stop.
O`DONNELL: And with Donald Trump has to worry about tonight is that is entirely possible that this informant told them a lot more than just here is where to look. That he might have actual, that informant could have conversations, been a part of, or heard, also sorts of other possible evidence.
Bradley Moss, Paul butler, thank you very much for helping us out of this discussion tonight.
Andrew Weissmann, please stay with us, because up next, we will discuss another first for Donald Trump in presidential history. Today, in New York, Donald Trump became the first former president of the United States to take the Fifth Amendment during under oath questioning by New York state prosecutors.
[22:00:04]
That`s next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: In 1790, the Fifth Amendment was added to the constitution where pond it became the law of the land that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. In the 221 years since then, no former president of the United States has ever refused to answer a question under oath, citing the Fifth Amendment.
[22:25:08]
Jimmy Carter has had the longest post presidency of any president, he has lived 41 years now as an ex-president, who like Donald Trump, ran a family business before getting into politics, and not once has Jimmy Carter use the Fifth Amendment to protect himself from being charged with a crime in an investigation of his family business.
Donald Trump only made it to the second year of his post-presidency when he decided today, that he could not answer a single question put to him by the New York state attorney general, in a deposition because the answer could incriminate him.
Donald Trump pleaded the Fifth Amendment to more than 440 questions asked of him in four hours -- 440 times, Donald Trump cited the Fifth Amendment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: The mob takes the Fifth. If you are innocent why you`re taking the Fifth Amendment?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Andrew Weissmann is back with us.
Can you answer Donald Trump`s question? He is asking if you are innocent, why do you take the Fifth Amendment?
WEISSMANN: So, I think it`s very important to remember that the Fifth Amendment and the assertion of the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional right that we all enjoy, and it`s cannot be used against you in a criminal case. Meaning that we can`t sit around and say oh the person must be guilty because they asserted the Fifth Amendment. That would be the case if we were all jurors and a criminal case.
But we are not. We are public citizens, and in fact, in a civil case, the assertion of a Fifth Amendment can be used against you. And in fact, the very definition of a asserting the Fifth Amendment is that, it has to be the case that a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you. That is the standard for assaulting the Fifth Amendment.
So by definition, it is a sign of guilt. It`s just that under the law, it cannot be used in a criminal case.
So the president is right when he says that many people, I wouldn`t say all, but many people who was at the fifth amendment do in fact have something to hide. And that is one of the reasons that in a civil context, it can be used against you. But it is important to remember that there are situations where somebody could be entirely innocent and they assert the Fifth Amendment because they are concerned about other things that could come out.
There could be concerned about a gray area and the law. There are circumstances where that does come up.
O`DONNELL: But just to clarify, the Fifth Amendment is a protection against criminal charges. For example, this is a civil case that he has testifying in. In a civil case, he`s going to end up with fines. There`s no possibility of any kind of prison term, or anything, any criminal liability in a civil case.
And, so in a lawsuit, if someone invokes the Fifth Amendment, they can`t do it just because the answer will somehow hurt their position in the lawsuit, right? It`s that they can only use the Fifth Amendment because it may hurt their position in the lawsuit or it might not. But what it would really do is create a criminal liability for them.
WEISSMANN: That`s absolutely right. The Fifth Amendment, the requirement is that it would tend to incriminate you in a criminal matter. It can`t be that you just think it will hurt you in that civil case. And so that is what is required in actually to have a valid indication of the Fifth Amendment.
Here, Letitia James, the New York attorney general, it`s going to be able to get an adverse inference, if she brings her case, she`s going to be able to say, I want an adverse and inference against Donald Trump on each and every question in which he asserted the Fifth Amendment. And that means that the jury can assume that the answer that the former president would have given would have been adverse to the president on those questions.
O`DONNELL: So, an example of a Fifth Amendment question in a deposition like this would be, is it a factor you lied about the valuation of that property in this document right here on this lot? And Donald Trump`s his Fifth Amendment, and then when you`re presenting that to the jury later, what the jury is hearing, he is was asked if he lied about the valuation and he wouldn`t answer the question and we have a right to make -- to take a negative inference from the?
[22:29:47]
WEISSMANN: Absolutely and the claim there is that when he was seeking loans from banks he was inflating his assets and trying to look healthier as a business in order to get those loans. And conversely when he was paying his taxes, he was saying that he was a lot worse shape so he was paying a lot less to the state and the federal government in his taxes.
And if those questions are asked in the Fifth Amendment as this started, the juries are going to be able to draw a negative inference against the former president.
Having said that, Lawrence if I were his defense lawyer that`s exactly what I would`ve wanted Trump to have done and say is to assert the Fifth Amendment.
He`s in so much legal jeopardy that that is the right thing for him to have done from a legal perspective. Maybe not from a political perspective but certainly from a legal perspective.
And this is an example of, you know, people think that a former president is not controlled and isn`t that street smart, but when you think about what he has done, you know, he didn`t testify before the special counsel. He refused to come in for an interview. He did not submit any statements to Congress in the impeachment hearings. He has not testified in the New York attorney general investigation.
All of those things are very smart, because (INAUDIBLE) all jurisdictions where if he actually spoke and submitted a statement and they were false, there was criminal exposure for doing that.
So he has shown remarkable restraint and I`m sure his defense counsel is very happy with the fact that he asserted the Fifth today.
O`DONNELL: Yes. I don`t think we`re going to see Donald Trump answering questions under oath from a prosecutor for the rest of his life no matter how many questions they have.
Andrew Weissmann, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.
WEISSMANN: You`re welcome.
O`DONNELL: Thank you.
And coming up Stuart Stevens and Eugene Robinson will join us on the new Republican attack on the police. That is the federal police, the move to defund the police, the attack on the FBI and the FBI director who was appointed by Donald Trump. That`s next.
[22:32:15]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: Here is the FBI director who was appointed by Donald Trump responding to a question today about the FBI search of Donald Trump`s home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Former President Trump is raising the prospect of agents planting evidence in the FBI search of his residence in Mar-a-Lago saying his lawyers are not allowed to observe this search.
Can you address that particularly as many of Mr. Trump`s supporters online issued a so-called call to arms and threats against your agents during in light of the search?
CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: Well, as I`m sure you can appreciate that`s not something that I can talk about so I would refer you to the department. As to the issue of threats, I will say that I am always concerned about violence and threats of violence against law enforcement. And that is a topic that I`ve been talking about frequently including earlier today with law enforcement partners here in Nebraska and yesterday with law enforcement partners in Iowa and Illinois.
And any threats made against law enforcement including the men and women of the FBI as with any law enforcement agencies are deplorable and dangerous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Republican Senator Marco Rubio rushed to the defense of the FBI, praising the Justice Department and the FBI for finally going after the conman.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): He`s a con man. I think it`s time to unmask him for what he is. A con man who`s taking advantage of people`s fears and anxieties about the future, portraying himself as some sort of strong guy. He`s not a strong guy. He`s never, you know, he`s never faced real adversity before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Sorry, that was my mistake, blame me completely for that. Sorry, that was Marco Rubio talking about Donald Trump in 2016 before he began living every moment of his life in desperate fear of Donald Trump.
This is what Marco Rubio actually said about the Trump search warrant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUBIO: This writ was about trying to disqualify a likely future election opponent. About trying to intimidate Republicans who oppose the left and about creating a distraction from Biden`s failures.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Joining us now is Stuart Stevens a veteran of five Republican presidential campaigns. He`s the author of "It Was All A Lie: How the Republican Party Became Donald Trump".
Also with us Eugene Robinson, associate editor and Pulitzer prize-winning columnist for the "Washington Post". He`s an MSNBC political analyst.
And Eugene, the Republicans -- we now do have a party, congressional party very much in favor of defunding the police. They already did defund the tax police which Joe Biden has s restored. And Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying it in plain English, defund the FBI. That`s where the Republican Party is now
EUGENE ROBINSON, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: It is amazing for me to hear the Republican Party, the conservative law and order Republican Party sounding like the Weather Underground from back in the day. You know, the FBI is a bunch of pigs. They frame everybody. They`re stormtroopers.
[22:39:58]
ROBINSON: I mean it`s just amazing, that`s what Donald Trump has done to this party. He has turned it into a willing or unwilling cult of personality. Some people actually believe in it, want to follow him, others like Marco Rubio are too scared not to.
And that`s where the party I think is going to be until -- until it get purged of this man somehow and the way that will happen is through some massive defeats at the polls. Until that happens or Trump goes away some place, maybe gets thrown in jail, and then the spell will break. But that`s where the Republican Party is right now. It`s amazing.
O`DONNELL: Stuart as I said at the beginning the show, in fairness to most Republicans, most Republican members of Congress had said absolutely nothing about this. That`s as decent as they can get on it. It`s the Rubios, the Rand Pauls, the Cruzes, the Hollys, the people who haven`t given up the dream of someday getting all those Trump voters to vote for them for president who are out there in this defense of Donald Trump.
What is it like for you as someone who worked in Republican Party politics at the presidential level? What is it like for you to watch this?
STUART STEVENS, FORMER REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, look this is incredibly heartbreaking. I spent years trying to help these people get elected. I actually believed what they said.
I believe that they thought character was destiny. I believe that they thought that law and order and rule of law was important.
I really don`t think Donald Trump change the party. I think Donald Trump revealed the party. I don`t think people abandon deeply held beliefs in a few years, unless it`s some believes in, I don`t believe in your opposing. (INAUDIBLE) I`ll change my opinion.
But that didn`t happen with Donald Trump. and you look at these people and they care about nothing but power. And the language here is just so striking. They have adopted the language -- Eugene saying the Weather Underground or like a narco cartel. It`s about wearing a wire and flipping and who`s a rat. And attacking the FBI.
It`s not a governing party anymore. It`s an authoritarian movement. And I`m with that great liberal Dick Cheney, I think Donald Trump is the greatest threat to the country and people who support Donald Trump and help him are part of that threat.
O`DONNELL: Gene, one of the things about this position that they are taking, the ones who are taking it, you know, that this is just an outrage, this is horrible, is they are taking it without knowing the thing that Donald Trump could tell them which is here is what I had at Mar-a-Lago, here`s what they found, here`s what they took back. Here`s what the FBI took. You might want to know that Marco before you rush to my defense.
ROBINSON: Yes. I would want to know that especially given the experience of Donald Trump. He lies about everything. And we know what kind of person he is. We know he -- look, he had stuff there that he wasn`t supposed to have. I mean -- you know, I can`t prove that but I`m pretty sure that`s true.
And these people who are defending him ought to know that too. But there is this fear. I think Stuart is right, I mean yes he revealed something that was there before or that wasn`t there before -- a character that wasn`t there before.
But you just also see this naked fear of him and his base and what crossing him or not supporting him in a loud enough voice would do to their chances of ever getting the support of that base.
It`s just -- it`s stunning. It`s not a governing party. It is a threat to the country.
O`DONNELL: Stuart, I know your father served in the FBI. And I just want you to imagine your father at his desk at the FBI hearing these things over the last 48 hours from Republicans. What would he say when he would come home for dinner?
STEVENS: You know, I think that what`s happened here is really an attack not so much just on the FBI but it`s just a continuation of attack on the organs and the institutions of a civil society.
Trump attacks anything that opposes him. So he`s attacked the election system. We don`t have fare elections in America.
[22:44:46]
STEVENS: He`s attacked the judiciary. When he ran he attacks specific judges. He called one judge from Nebraska I think, a Mexican-American or something, or Mexican, because that judge ruled against him in a case.
This is really one of the things we have learned I think in the Trump era just how fragile our society is and how much it depends on goodwill and man of good faith acting together.
And what has happened is the Republican Party has really abandoned the concept of what it means to be an American. Because to be an American is to be in a system where you are willing to lose, where you are willing to admit that you are wrong, where the other side has valid points.
That`s how a civil democracy, a civil society works, and Republicans have just walked away from that fundamental building block. So we have talk of civil war. And I don`t think that this is going to end -- I think it`s just going to escalate. You look at the history of authoritarian movements.
And God knows if they get in power. No group that was against democracy when they got in power certainly became pro-democracy. There are only going to become more so.
And that`s why these next two elections I think are arguably the most important since 1860.
O`DONNELL: And that brings us directly to our next guest. Stuart Stevens, Eugene Robinson, thank you very much for joining our discussion tonight. Really appreciate it.
ROBINSON: Thanks Lawrence.
STEVENS: Thank you.
O`DONNELL: Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson is one of the most dangerous and ignorant Republican members of the Senate. Wisconsin`s lieutenant governor, Mandela Barnes is now the Democratic nominee running against Ron Johnson.
Lieutenant Governor Barnes will join us next. You just heard what Stuart Stevens said about the importance of elections like this. The future of the country is at stake.
That`s next.
[22:46:41]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O`DONNELL: The stakes in the next senate elections could not be higher. If the Democrats lose the Senate, Joe Biden will never have another federal judge confirmed. Never.
If the Democrats add senate seats, then Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema will no longer be in a position to decide the outcome of all senate legislation.
The lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, Mandela Barnes is now the Democratic nominee to run against Republican Senator Ron Johnson, and according to a recent poll, Mandela Barnes is now running two points ahead of Ron Johnson, 46 to 44. And joining us now is lieutenant governor of Wisconsin, Mandela Barnes. He`s Wisconsin`s Democratic nominee for Senate.
Thank you very much for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.
you go forward in this campaign, what for you, is the most important issue in running against Ron Johnson.
LT. GOV. MANDELA BARNES (D-WI): Well thank you so much for having me. And I`ll tell you that the most important issue in this campaign is quite frankly rebuilding the middle class.
It is about the people that Ron Johnson has forgotten about in every corner of the state of Wisconsin. Let me tell you, whether it is his threats to slash social security, Medicare, his disregard for veterans that were impacted by burn pits, or even coming out against capping insulin cost, Ron Johnson couldn`t be more out of touch.
And he has exhibited this failed leadership for the last 12 years. That is exactly why I`m running to replace him.
O`DONNELL: What about Ron Johnson`s position within a Republican Party that stands against counting all the votes in presidential elections? They are now supporting the idea that Republican secretaries of states can simply change the votes and change the outcome of presidential elections.
BARNES: Well, counting all the votes is one thing for Ron Johnson`s office to try to send fake electors to Mike Pence. Ron Johnson doesn`t seem to be too concerned over democracy because democracy isn`t working out too well for the Republican Party.
And that is why this election cycle is so important. Our democracy is quite literally on the line. But we can not go anywhere unless we expand the majority and you just hit on it earlier, about what this election means.
The very first plan that my campaign (INAUDIBLE) was a democracy and accountability agenda to hold people like Ron Johnson accountable. To make sure people who tried to subvert our democracy are held to the highest standards, are held accountable.
And we aren`t going to see that type of leadership just happen on its own especially not as long as he is in office. So for folks out there who are concerned about saving democracy, I will invite you to please go to MandalaBarnes.com because we need your help.
This is one person who is in the way of you exercising a fundamental right to vote. Or even the fundamental right to choose given the fact that Roe v. Wade is concerned.
O`DONNELL: What does Wisconsin -- what are you going to be able to do on Roe v. Wade, if you get to the Senate, the Senate would have the votes to basically turn Roe v. Wade into federal legislation and pass it as federal legislation. Would you support that?
BARNES: Well I`m glad you asked because that`s exactly what we are going to do. That is what`s on the line with this election. This is about restoring that right to choose to people in states like Wisconsin, who now, we are under this 1849 law that is archaic law, that was written at a time when women didn`t have a right to vote. Women certainly were not participating in the legislature drafting this sort -- drafting this sort of law.
[22:54:57]
BARNES: Now with that being said, if we win here in Wisconsin, we are one step closer to codifying the right to choose. And I guarantee you, I`m going to be a vote for it.
O`DONNELL: Mandela Barnes thank you very much for joining us tonight. Really appreciate it.
BARNES: Thank you so much for having me.
O`DONNELL: Thank you.
We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:52]
MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators at any level accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. We will follow the facts wherever they lead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O`DONNELL: Attorney General Merrick Garland gets tonight`s LAST WORD.
THE 11TH HOUR WITH STEPHANIE RUHLE" starts now.