Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/24/23

Episode Date: February 24, 2023

Alex Murdaugh takes the stand; Ukraine War enters second year

Всім добрий вечір. Лідер фракції тут, голова Офісу Президента тут, прем'єр-міністр Шмигаль тут, Подоляк тут, Президент тут. Всі ми тут, наші військові тут, громадяни суспільства тут, всі ми тут. Захищаємо нашу незалежність, нашу державу. І так буде йти далі. We defend our independence, our state. And so it will go on. Glory to our defenders. Glory to our defenders. Glory to Ukraine. Glory to Ukraine. One year ago, President Volodymyr Zelensky stood defiantly with his cabinet in Kyiv as Russian forces attacked the Ukrainian capital. Ukraine has defied expectations and showed the world tremendous tenacity over the past year, fighting back Russian forces time after time.

Today, there are no signs that Europe's biggest land conflict since World War II will end anytime soon. We will be covering this somber anniversary throughout the morning. And back here at home, we're following the federal response to the train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg toured the city as investigators appear to pinpoint a possible cause for the crash. He certainly had challenges for Donald Trump as well. Yes, he did. Well, I'm glad he came here. And if he's now ready to join us in stopping the deregulation of dangerous trains like this one, then, yeah, we can we we can work together. We'll have more

of what he had to say and what's in store for East Palestine today. Meanwhile, former President Trump continues to treat the disaster like a TV show with more statements that are all about him. He actually talked about his, Willie, he talked about his ratings. He said the TV ratings for the coverage while I was here, this place where these people are suffering, were massive. Well, of course, it wasn't covered on TV. So I don't know what imaginary world he's living in this week, but just bizarre,

more bizarre, bizarre statements from this guy. More bizarre and also at the scene and the site of such a tragedy to immediately go to the ratings and the Trump water and handing out the hats at the McDonald's and all of that. But you were you make an important point. He's losing his grip a little bit when he says that just because it wasn't taken live. There were no ratings as if that mattered to this. But since he brought it up, there were no ratings for his appearance. Yeah. And again, so the guy goes there and he's handing out bottles of water and talking about Trump water, Trump water, Trump water. He's handing out campaign hats again for a community absolutely devastated. And he's going around bitching and moaning about, oh, these people, they're suffering so much.

And what is a Biden administration does? He uses it as a branding exercise. I mean, again, that's the bizarreness of donald trump and then he decides to lie about ratings oh i went there and my ratings were high they were they were massive there were no ratings nobody nobody covered it yeah well we'll we'll have more on that also we'll have the latest from a murder trial that is making international headlines. A man accused of killing his wife and son took the stand. We'll have the testimony for you. It was absolutely gripping. So, Willie, this is one of these things I was crashing on our Ukraine special. I didn't see any of this yesterday, but it's just one of those stories that you figure out very quickly.

A lot of the country just stopped far. And this seemed to be it because I heard a lot about it throughout the afternoon. Absolutely. We haven't even covered it very much on this show. I was talking to Alex, our EP. I think we've mentioned it a couple of times. But yesterday, because Alec Murdoch took the stand in an unusual move, he's accused of murdering his wife and son. He was on the stand and this did. You're right. It broke through completely for people who may have heard of it or casually following

it. Occasionally, they were locked in, driving around in their cars or watching MSNBC to see the coverage. And we're going to do a deeper dive on this in just a few minutes. But he said, I did not kill my wife and son. I did lie to police afterward. I did some bad things in my business life. I was addicted to opioids, which made me do some really dumb things around the murder

in June of 2021. But he said, clearly, I did not kill my wife and son. We'll see how he holds up under cross-examination. He's back on the stand today. We're going to talk to Danny Savellas in a second. Sam Stein, were you in front of your TV set yesterday watching this or was it just all of your friends and family members that were calling you telling you about it?

I was glued, glued, could not turn away. No, I didn't really watch it, to be honest with you. But my friends did, and they're very interested in this trial. Yeah. Now, we're going to have much more coming up with Danny. We have Sam. He doesn't contribute. You said he contributed.

He didn't watch it. He contributed. That's exactly what I would have said if I were Sam. I could lie to you guys and say I've been watching this religiously, but I'm not going to do that. No. I will say I got pulled into it yesterday. You were watching. Yeah, you and the dogs. I was. And it was really gripping and sad and but and fascinating.

So we'll we'll we'll look into that and talk to legal experts about it. But first, this morning today marks exactly one year since Russia launched its unprovoked war on Ukraine. On Twitter this morning, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recognized the day, writing, quote, On February 24th, millions of us made a choice, not a white flag, but the blue and yellow one. Not fleeing, but facing, resisting and fighting. It was a year of pain, sorrow, faith and unity. And this year we remained invincible. We know that 2023 will be the year of our victory here in the United States. The Biden administration is marking the day by announcing a new aid package for Ukraine. It's second of the week. Among other

things, it includes several new unmanned aerial systems, new high mobility artillery rocket systems and more ammunition. The White House is also imposing new economic sanctions today against more than 200 groups and individuals in Russia and other parts of the world that are supporting Moscow's war efforts. Well, Janet Yellen yesterday, the Treasury Secretary, used her opportunity to speak behind closed doors. Let the Russians have it. Let everybody have it. And said anybody that was supporting the Russians was supporting the atrocities in Ukraine. It was extraordinarily strong and striking coming from a secretary

of Treasury, a Treasury secretary, really, really strong. And the Treasury secretary will be joining us here on Morning Joe in our next hour. G7 leaders are set to meet to announce even more sanctions meant to hold Russia accountable. We'll be following that as well. So, Gene Robinson, we saw the tweet from last night. But man, that image that we bumped in on, that I guess it was on Instagram first, that statement, we are here. We are not going anywhere. Glory to our fighters. Glory to Ukraine was so strong. And it followed up in the lead up to the war when everybody was talking about getting Zelensky and his wife and family out safely. Zelensky's response, I don't need a car. I need weapons. He he was pitch perfect from the beginning and really framed this war. And I must say, just like Churchill in 1940, when the rest of the world was waiting for Britain to collapse. Zelensky did the same thing just with

his will and a determined Ukrainian people. He absolutely did, Joe. You used that clip last night in your excellent special about one year of war in Ukraine. And because that was such an electrifying moment. Remember, at that time, before he came out with that Instagram video, we had assumed that Russia was just going to sweep in, they were going to take Kyiv, they were going to find and kill Zelensky, perhaps his family, other government officials, and that this would basically last a week or two, and that Ukraine would be crushed. And that, of course, did not happen. And not only did it not happen, but Zelensky came out defiant with his officials surrounding him in that green sort of fatigued T-shirt, the symbol, the uniform of the Ukrainian army. And he just, it was an electric moment.

And I think, you know, moments matter. I think that moment mattered a lot to what's happened over the last year, to the way Ukraine has been able to resist. And of course, people matter. Individuals matter. Big sweeping trends in history matter, but individuals matter. Like Churchill mattered in World War II, the Battle of Britain, Zelensky matters in the battle for Ukraine. And he has just been amazing and a portrait of leadership. He has. And remember one year ago, guys, the question was, could Ukraine survive a few days of this? Could they survive a few weeks of this, let alone months or a year?

And here we are. They've done much better than survive. And would the West stand in and hang in with Ukraine? We see right now the Empire State Building is lit up in the colors of the Ukrainian flag. The Eiffel Tower is capitals across the world showing not just symbolic support, but again, the United States pledging its assistance, its financial aid, a new package rolled out on the anniversary, new sanctions against Russia on the anniversary, President Biden walking the streets of Kiev, making the speech in Poland. It is clear to Vladimir Putin and to Russia and to China, by the way, now that the West

isn't going anywhere and that it stands with Ukraine one year later. Yeah, we'll have much more on this somber anniversary throughout the show this morning. We want to get to news here at home. The National Transportation Safety Board says the Ohio train derailment and toxic chemical spill could have been prevented. According to a preliminary report, the crew on board the Norfolk Southern train received an alert about an overheated wheel bearing moments before dozens of cars left the tracks in East Palestine. At that point, the wheel bearing was 235 degrees above the ambient temperature. Investigators say the train had passed two other sensors before and no alarms went off. The preliminary report was released the same day Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg visited East Palestine. It was his first visit since the derailment happened three weeks ago.

Buttigieg viewed the wreckage and spoke to the community, pledging the Biden administration's ongoing support. That's why we've been here from the first hours of the incident as an administration. And it's why our interest both in what happened here in East Palestine and in keeping our railroads safe doesn't go away when some other hot news story comes into the headlines. We're going to be here day in, day out, year in, year out, making our railroads safer and making sure Norfolk Southern meets its responsibilities. That is a promise and one I take very, very seriously. Buttigieg also responded to criticism from former President Donald Trump, who had visited East Palestine the previous day. Buttigieg said it was Trump's

administration that deregulated railroad safety, including suspending a requirement that trains carrying flammable liquids be outfitted with faster brakes. One thing he could do is express support for reversing the deregulation that happened on his watch. I heard him say he had nothing to do with it, even though it was in his administration. So if he had nothing to do with it and they did it in his administration against his will, maybe he could come out and say that that he supports us moving in a different direction. We're not afraid to own our policies when it comes to raising the bar on regulation. Well, and this is really Sam Stein. This is a problem for all the Republicans. This is a problem for Donald Trump that are attacking, I say all the Republicans who are attacking Joe Biden's

response. They've been pushing one deregulation after another deregulation after another deregulation. And as Pete Buttigieg said, even deregulations that seemed to line up that could have prevented this crash possibly. And so the transportation secretary did exactly what he should have done. He said, OK, well, so Donald Trump, you're here. And now suddenly you're a born again believer in regulations. OK, help us add regulations to these dangerous these dangerous rail lines to keep the people of cities like East Palestine safe. And of course, neither Trump nor the Republicans will do anything about it because at the end

of the day, Sam, it's probably all about gestures, isn't it? Yeah, I don't want to be overly cynical, but I think you're right. Look, we've been looking into this at Politico for weeks now. One of the patterns we found is that, one, is the railroad industry is a behemoth in Washington. They've been very good at getting deregulation through during the Trump era. We were the first to report of those safety deregulations that happened. The other thing that we found was that this is not the first, sadly, not the first train derailment of this magnitude.

It does happen somewhat regularly. We could not locate an instance. Our reporters could not locate an instance in which there was a public opining for Elaine Chao, former transportation secretary, to go to the scene of a derailment, which is not to say she shouldn't have. It's not to say that Pete Buttigieg shouldn't have gone to East Palestine earlier, probably could have and would have saved himself a lot of political trouble. But what it does say is that there is some opportunism, shockingly, happening in this moment. The derailment was in

a section of the country that J.D. Vance himself said was, quote, our people. What he meant by that was sort of white working class people who felt abandoned because manufacturing jobs had been shipped overseas. You know, obviously, Trump ran out there because he sensed a chance to show empathy, but also to stick it to the Biden administration by being there in the flesh when Pete Buttigieg was not there in the flesh and when Joe Biden was overseas in Ukraine. So, yes, there is opportunism happening here. I think that's fair to say. And yes, I think you can overplay your hand. Now, this is where, of course, I think the Democrats suffer a little bit from losing control of one of the branches of Congress, because what they could do theoretically when Congress comes back into session, if they had

control of the House, is put up a bill that says we want to enhance regulations on the railroad industry, make it more safe, prevent possibly future accidents like what happened in East Palestine from happening again. But they can't do that in the House. They could potentially do it in the Senate, but the Senate's more complicated, takes some floor time. So that's one of the losses you see when you lose control of the House. Well, you know, Willie, the thing is, just to show how hypocritical Donald Trump and the Republicans are being that are criticizing Joe Biden's response. They should immediately Joe Biden should immediately propose a bill that reverses every one of Donald Trump's deregulations that made train train safety more tenuous. They could do that. And just to show the hypocrisy. And let's see how many let's see. Watch how quickly that bill is killed in the Republican House.

The Democratic Senate could push to push to try to pass it. See how many Republicans in the Senate kill it from even being voted on because they're interested in deregulating these sort of events, making it more dangerous. So that's the one. And number two, yeah, we shouldn't sit here and blame Elaine Chao for not going to, you know, every one of the train derailments that happened during the Trump administration because no Democrat called for it. Of course, Republicans and their stooges on Trump media are calling for it just because, again, they're a party of gestures. They just want to blame people. They want to deregulate. They want to make accidents like this more likely to happen. And then they want to go in and gesture and do absolutely nothing about it, keeping the people of East Palestine and across the rest of the country

in a more perilous position. And there were train tragedies during the Trump years, just as there were during the Obama years and the Bush years and the Clinton years, where, as you say, the secretary of transportation did not go. There were train tragedies with fatalities where Elaine Chao didn't go and no one called for her to go in those cases. But you're right. Holding this contrast up between they think they have a political point to score here. Republicans do by saying Joe Biden was in Kiev.

He should have been at this train derailment. They're raising money off that. They think they're stirring up some support on that. But also there are senators, Republican senators, who just a couple of years ago, sitting in the Senate right now, wrote a letter to the Railroad Association calling for less regulation, calling for automated braking systems. So it goes well beyond Donald Trump. It goes to senators, Republicans sitting right now in the Senate who called for a lot of this deregulation. We mentioned Donald Trump earlier. He's calling his stop, as you might imagine, in East Palestine a success. He posted on his social media site that his visit on Wednesday

boosted ratings on social media and TV. There were no ratings for it, of course. He also said his trip meant a lot to residents and, quote, raised the awareness needed to combat the incompetence of the Biden administration. In his words, I guess no surprise here, Gene Robinson, but this is just the kind of thing that has exhausted many Republicans even, who are looking for an alternative in the 2024 election. Yeah, it's just silliness. It's just lunacy. And the reasons why nobody covered this live, because why would you? And by the way, you did remove some of the regulations that might have prevented or ameliorated this crash. I think there's work to do now for Congress and the Biden administration, though, in really looking at railroads and railroad deregulation and the fact that the railroad companies, there are only seven big

freight rail companies in the country, and at least six of them are running much, much longer trains with fewer people. So, what could go wrong? Well, what could go wrong is, longer trains are heavier. This was a 151-car train with a bunch of cars filled with toxic materials. So, if you have a problem, if you have a derailment, these longer, heavier trains, it makes it that much more violent. And the force is multiplied.

And so the safety procedures and methods and equipment has to be upgraded to keep track with the way railroading is these days. And it hasn't been. In fact, it's moved in the wrong direction. And that's a potential problem. This was a huge disaster. And we're going to have more unless we get to work. And let's hope Donald Trump, when he's finished looking at his imaginary ratings and passing out Trump water bottles and hats and passing out campaign hats, let's hope he actually goes on Truth Social and says that he he wants to reverse the damage that he has caused to railroad safety and all of the deregulation

that he pushed through, that he signed, that Republicans pushed through, that many of them still support. He's now going to side with President Biden and side with Pete Buttigieg and side with Democrats in making making sure that this sort of incident doesn't happen again, because it's a real tragedy. But a judge handled that well and shined a light on exactly what you just said. And for some Republicans, they might be like, thanks a lot, Donald Trump, for shining a light on exactly where we fell short. Yeah. When it comes to railroad. They keep doing this. It's one cell phone after another cell phone after another cell phone.

It's even,'s attention, Kevin. Back to when Donald Trump helped start a riot to try to overturn an election, to try to overturn American democracy and his people, his people almost killed you and almost killed other members of the House and the Senate. Do you know how I know that? Because you called him on January the 6th screaming. And when he tried to blame it on Antifa, you swore at him, hysterically saying, these are your people. Call it off, Donald. Call it off. And then, Kevin, you know I wouldn't be talking about this. Why am I talking about this?

Oh, wait a second. He's releasing all the tapes. That's right. And then, Kevin, you went on the floor. You went on the floor and you rightly condemned Donald Trump. I was so proud of you. Finally showing some backbone, finally showing some spine, finally putting the safety of those that you work with ahead of your own, your own

craven political ambitions. And then you back down, you back down and you groveled and you went down and you shined his shoes and you got a picture taken and you once again showed what a weak, weak human being you are. Now, why are we bringing this up, Kevin? We're bringing this up because you keep bringing it up. And this is just yet another self-owned by Republicans. They can't stop. For God's sake, I'm exhausted. I wish Reverend Al were here and I could do the James Brown thing, fall to the floor. He could throw the robe over me. I could get up and start talking to Republicans again.

No, you can't. About how you need to stop being so stupid so you can start winning elections again so we can once again have two strong parties in America. But that's not going to happen so long as you're consumed with the stupid, the idiotic. Well, and the unpatriotic. And it's a cell phone, just like Trump doing what he did in East Palestine is a cell phone. Just like just about everything that they do is a cell phone these days. They missed the mark on easy issues. Still ahead on Morning Joe, accused murderer Alec Murdoch takes the witness stand in one of the country's most closely watched criminal trials.

We'll talk to legal analyst Danny Savellos about his testimony, plus new developments in the fight to get former Vice President Mike Pence to testify as part of the special counsel's January 6th probe. And Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is our guest this morning, fresh off her confrontation with Russian officials at the G20 meeting. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Environmental protection. We waste all of this money. We're going to bring that back to the states and we're going to have other many things. We are going to cut many of the agencies Disbarred South Carolina attorney Alec Murdoch will continue his testimony later this morning for a second straight day in the murder trial against him. The 54-year-old is charged with murder in the fatal shooting of his wife

and their 22-year-old son in June of 2021. NBC News correspondent Katie Beck has the latest. After nearly five weeks of testimony, a stunning surprise. I am going to testify. I want to testify. The trial's most anticipated witness takes the stand. Alec Murdoch testifies in his own defense. The first questions aimed at the heart of the case. Did you take this gun or any gun like it and blow your son's brains out on June 7th or any day or any time? No, I did not. Did you take 300 blackouts, such as this, and fire it into your wife Maggie's leg, torso, or any part of her body?

No, I did not. Quick to confront what is perhaps the prosecution's strongest evidence, the video taken by Paul Murdoch at the dog kennels, placing Alec at the crime scene minutes before the murders. He's told investigators he wasn't there, but admits now he was lying. Alec, why did you lie? As my addiction evolved over time, I would get in these situations or circumstances where I would get paranoid.

Murdoch says he didn't trust state law enforcers and regrets the lie that led to many others. Did you continue lying after that night? Did you not? Once I lied, I continued to lie, yes, sir. Emotional and crying throughout, Murdoch's testimony largely rewrites his timeline on the night of the murders, showering and changing clothes before dinner, and describing the moment he discovered the bodies, again saying he checked for signs of life. I know I tried to turn him over. When you say you tried to turn him over, why were you trying to turn him over?

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know why I tried to turn him over. Me and my boys lay face down. Later in testimony, Alec admits a longtime addiction to opioids, that he stole client funds, but denies being overly concerned about getting caught prior to the murders. What kind of cases did you normally do? On cross-examination, prosecutors began by pressing Murdoch on the fraud cases, where he admits he stole money from his clients and lied to them. And prosecutors suggesting all the stolen money wasn't going to fund his pill addiction. You were generating millions of dollars in fees. That was not enough for you.

Would you concede that? If I concede that, you mean was I also stealing money that I shouldn't have? Yes, sir. I agree with that. I've said that repeatedly. Katie Beck reporting there from South Carolina. Let's bring in MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos. Danny, so much to talk about here, but let's take a step back because I do think so many people just really tuned in to this trial yesterday because of the testimony of Murdoch was was so gripping and went on for so long. What exactly are the events of that day? What is he accused of? And I think for a lot of people, they wonder about motive. What could drive a man allegedly to kill his own son in cold blood? Alec Murdoch's been charged with the murder of his wife, his wife and his son, Paul. The allegations by the prosecution, they have developed a motive theory. And it's this, that Murdoch was so beset

by all of these allegations of financial crimes against him, crimes that he apparently just admitted to on the stand, that he, as an ploy to get sympathy, killed his wife and son. I rather think this is a bit too far for the prosecution. I understand they have to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but this might be overkill. It's a theory that maybe jurors might not be able to buy. Everyone has known criminals. Everyone has known people who built people or read about them. Very few of them have ever killed their wife and son to get sympathy. And if that's why he did it, it hasn't even worked. Those financial crimes, those prosecutions are still pending. And in fact, like I said, he apparently just admitted to them on the stand.

So, Danny, what is the alternative theory then from the defense? Who else may have done this? Are there other suspects? Is there is there an alternate theory of the of the case from Murdoch and his attorneys? Well, that's what I think is the problem for the defense throughout the prosecution's case in chief. They cut away at it, suggesting vaguely that there may have been a third party involved. They had expert testimony that the shooter was probably around five feet tall. But Alec Murdoch is something like six, four. They also suggested, at least Murdoch did, that there were people who wanted to do his son, Paul, harm. But beyond that, there hasn't been that much of a third party defense out of the defense in their case in chief.

I expected if that was really their theory, they'd come out of the gate with that really strong. But so far, this is what the prosecution's evidence seems to show. Number one, there was one person found at the crime scene, Murdoch. Number two, that person handled a gun at the crime scene. You can hear him in 911 calls saying, I'm going back to the house to get a gun. And finally, this is somebody who has lied about everything. He didn't just lie about his financial crimes. He lied to law enforcement. So the only person you have at the crime scene is a habitual liar who had his hands on a firearm when the police found him. That is a huge problem for the defense.

And if they were going to develop their some other dude did it or sody, as we call it, at least in criminal defense, they would at least have a theory of that third party. And we haven't heard that yet. Nothing can change the fact that Murdoch was the person at the crime scene. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that anyone else was there. As to the height issue, Danny, Dave Ehrenberg says that possibly he could have been on a golf court, a golf cart, which could have perhaps mitigated that problem. I'm just curious what you thought of his testimony overall, like after seeing it, would you have put a witness up like this? And knowing what to look for in witness testimony, how did he do? Did he help his case or did he do things like

over explain certain details that give you pause? You hit right on it, Mika. Everyone knows a habitual liar. Criminal defense attorneys just happen to know a lot more of them than average people. And one of the red flags is this. Beware the person who gives a ton of detail about inconsequential matters. Murdoch spent about three minutes on how to get a chicken out of a dog's mouth. But when it came to questions like, hey, where were you exactly at the time of these supposed killings? I'm not so sure. I really don't know. Why were you why didn't you go back to the house to get a gun? Why were you carrying a firearm with the wrong ammunition? You know, I don't really know.

So he gets really vague when it comes to the details that matter. And that's why I tend to think that his decision to testify was his alone, maybe against his attorney's advice. And you kind of got a hint to that when his counsel said something to the effect of Mr. Murdoch wishes to take the stand. Normally, you never put your client on the stand unless you absolutely have to get a piece of information out of him that you can't get from anywhere else. But Murdoch already denied shooting his wife and son on police interrogation videotape. There wasn't that much else I think they could have gotten out of him that they needed that they couldn't get elsewhere. So this to me smells like he wanted to testify, not his attorneys.

Well, he'll be back on the stand today. And when the trial resumes at 930 Eastern Time, we'll be bringing it to MSNBC viewers live. MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalas, thank you very much for your analysis this morning. And coming up, the lead investigator for the January 6th Select Committee joins us with his perspective of the panel's inquiry on the Capitol attack. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. All right. A beautiful shot of the White House at 43 past the hour. The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to compel former Vice President Mike Pence to testify as part of the special counsel investigation into January 6th and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. According to The New York Times, federal prosecutors have asked the judge to set aside any claims of executive privilege that Pence might raise to avoid answering questions. This latest development comes after Pence signaled he would oppose a subpoena from the special counsel's office.

Times reports last week that Pence was planning to invoke the Constitution's speech or debate clause, arguing his previous role as president of the Senate. I'm sorry. Meant he was protected from legal scrutiny by the executive branch. Gene Robinson. Including. That's just a stupid argument. The Justice Department.

Gene, that's just a stupid, stupid legal argument because, you know, first of all, you had a riot going on at the time. Mike Pence was at the center of all of the events on sedition. Donald Trump forcing and trying to force him to commit sedition. And when he refused to do so, Donald Trump sicking the mob on him and his own Secret Service men thinking they were going to die that day. But also Pence makes the argument. And this is at the heart of his argument that he was telling Donald Trump. And by the way, we just have to always give that footnote of thanks to Dan Quayle, former vice president, who told Pence, you're in a ministerial role, dude. OK, you're in a ministerial role. You can't do anything but what the Constitution tells

you to do. So he's a he's in a ministerial role, even in this position. So there's just no privilege based on what his argument to Donald Trump was. Yeah, I don't think, I mean, I'm obviously not a lawyer, certainly not a constitutional lawyer, but I don't see how this fits under the speech and debate clause. It's a novel argument. I think it's kind of off the wall, and I'd be surprised if it flies. I don't know what it gets Mike Pence. I mean, look, he's going to have to make a decision at some point. Is he going to tell the truth and be honest about January 6th and Donald Trump and speak forthrightly? Or is he or not? And he seems to want it both ways as he gears up his own presidential run. And he can't have it both

ways. I think for a man who claimed to take his job very seriously, for him not to understand that this is his duty, that it is his duty to tell the truth and the whole truth about January 6th is weird and counterintuitive and doesn't make sense, given the image he's trying to project of someone who played this straight. Yeah. Hey, and don't we have some more news about Mike Pence this morning? Like, he said there were going to be more people competing and didn't he, Alex, didn't he go after Ron DeSantis yesterday? He did as in a Pence-y way. It wasn't really going after him, but he had some criticism of his policies down in Florida. We'll

play that in a bit. And Pence-y criticism. He had criticism, but it's very pencey. Yeah. So this morning, we are learning about what went on behind the scenes of the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Timothy Heafey, the former lead investigator for the committee, is now speaking out and he joins us now. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. I guess, first of all, give us your thoughts on how you felt when these different revelations emerged. The revelations about Mike Pence, completely predictable that the special counsel would want to speak to him. I think that Jack Smith and his team are understandably trying to get

information from every possible source before they make the momentous decision about a possible indictment of a former president. Mike Pence, obviously, arguably witness one right at the center of this, would have very direct information. And understandably, he's stepping to Mike Pence, to the president's children. He's going to turn over every rock or at least try to before a final decision is made. We had a guest on a couple of weeks ago who said, just dismiss the entire January 6th committee. It was just political. What do you say to people who say such a thing? Yeah, it was an attack on the United States Capitol, not a politically motivated investigation.

It was a bipartisan investigation, very unusual on Capitol Hill. We had Republican members. We didn't have a majority and a minority. And all of our witnesses, literally every person who had material information, was someone who was in the Trump administration, in the Trump campaign. Can you just underline that again for me? Just stop again right there, because in most of these committees that we see,

you'll have Democrats bring on liberals, you'll have Republicans bring on conservatives, and they've been fighting these ideological wars for years. So you're just sitting there going, okay, I know what that person's going to say. I know what that person's going to say. I want you to underline again the fact that every single person that delivered damning testimony on what Donald Trump did January the 6th was a trumper, defended him through two impeachments, defended him through the horrific things he said over four years, defended him over caged children, defended him

time and time again. And yet on January the 6th, they woke up and all of these people that you called, they were all Trumpers. Exactly. Look, the folks in the room where it happened were all very close to the former president. And it's ironic to me that people call this a politically motivated investigation when our star witnesses were Bill Barr and Pat Cipollone and Jared and Ivanka. You know, again, these are people not with a bias to try to hurt the former president, but people who were on his team, who sincerely wanted him to win, but acknowledged that he didn't and did the right thing when it counted. Timothy, good morning. One of the arguments Trump supporters have made is that this

January 6th was spontaneous, that there was a protest, a rally at the Ellipse, and that it got out of hand. But one of the things, the headlines that came out of the January 6th Select Committee and all the research and investigation you did was the premeditation, was the intent, which gets at the heart of what the special counsel will have to prove. Is there any doubt in your mind that former President Trump had intent to commit these crimes that you've recommended now to the DOJ, these charges? Willie, no, not at all. That's really the basis of the criminal referral, the evidence of specific intent to disrupt the joint session. The statute says obstruct, interfere, or influence an official proceeding.

And we developed ample evidence that the president and others had such specific intent. The day of January 6th was really the last desperate part of a multi-part plan to prevent the transfer of power. And all the way through, from pressure on the Justice Department, to pressure on state legislatures, to pressure on Mike Pence, to launching a mob at the Capitol during the joint session, informs the intent to prevent the transfer of power. So no, absolutely no doubt we wouldn't have made a criminal referral

had there been any question about that intent issue. One of the other desperate arguments we've heard is that the media or you on the committee have somehow blown January 6th out of proportion that really at the end of the day, it was a few people who broke into the Capitol. Meanwhile, we've seen video of people beating cops with American flags, smashing their heads into revolving doors, calling for the hanging of Mike Pence, seeking out Nancy Pelosi. The list goes on and on and on. What surprised you most? Because you saw so much evidence. You talked to so many witnesses. At the end of the day, were you stunned by how close we came to

really even a more terrible day than it already was? Yes. To be frank, absolutely. Look, I grew up believing that democracy is durable, that our institutions hold. And we came close here to that not being accurate. Right. Democracy has to be earned repeatedly. It requires good people doing the right thing. Thankfully, that happened here, but it was tenuous. And I didn't fully appreciate how tenuous and how close this plan came to success until I was immersed for 18 months in what happened before and on January 6th. Timothy, Sam Stein here. I have a two-part question. I would love if you answered both of them. One is, did you ever have a reasonable hope that Donald Trump would appear before your committee? And then the second one is, had he not defied the subpoena and had he sat down and not pled the fifth to every question you asked, what's the one question above all else that you would have asked him?

Always hoped that he would come in and thought that there's a fair amount of hubris with the former president and that he may think that he could answer questions and continue to spin some of the things that he had said publicly about January 6th. So while we knew going in it was unlikely, we never know exactly with him. And we were prepared to ask him questions. The two things that we would want to know first and foremost were acknowledgement of loss of the election, try to get into his understanding of the lack of evidence of election fraud, and then real time what he was doing, what he was thinking, what he was not doing on January 6th. We wanted to hear his account of that day. We had a lot of evidence that he was encouraged to take more aggressive action to disperse the violence, that he refused or was resistant to that. So we would have spent a lot of time on his awareness of the election loss and a lot of

time about what happened during the day on January 6th. All right. Former lead investigator for January 6th Select Committee, Timothy Heafey, thank you very much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it. And here is former vice president and potential 2024 candidate Mike Pence. We're getting pincey here. This is very pincey. We're in the pincey zone, everybody. Yeah. So it's sort of different, different kind of attack situation. Sort of a pincey type of attack. It's pincey. Not a pince, sir. A Pence. Right. OK, so here he is. I'm ready. Mike Pence weighing in on Republicans underperformance in the 2022 elections and his thoughts on 2024. Our candidates that were focused on the past, particularly on relitigating the last election, did not do well, including in areas that we should have done very well. Did you say we need someone else in 2024? You're on record saying that. I've said we I think we're going to have better choices.

I really don't. Than former President Trump. I think we're going to have better choices. You know, I never really understood Willie and Harry Potter, why they could never say Baltimore's name, you know. But Harry did. Right? Harry did. I mean, and it made all the difference.

Right. And Dumbledore, you know, called him Tom. You shouldn't have come tonight, Tom. Like, you know, they said his name. And good things happened to Harry. Okay. Right? Right?

And I think it kind of intimidated Voldemort. And when he said, you shouldn't have come here tonight, Tom. Like, you know, it kind of freaked him out. Listen, everybody knows what I'm talking about here. No, I don't think they do. I got 87 kids. I've seen every Harry Potter 434 times. And I think there are a lot of people out there like me. But anyway, you notice it was

a name that could not be said. Trump is the Baltimore of the Republican Party. Mike Pence won't say his name. Nikki Haley won't say his name. Pompeo won't say his name. Nobody will say Voldemort's name. It's very intense. They're talking about another character in the book, but they've got to get past Voldemort before they can get to that next character. They're talking about Joe Biden a lot, which you understand, of course, but we've got a primary before we've got a general election. And by the way, Joe, Harry Potter was the hero of the story, the one who said Voldemort's name. They named the book after him, for heaven's sakes. He's got rides in Orlando, the whole thing. He's the guy. He's the guy. Pence also criticized kind of Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis over Florida's bill that revoked Disney of its special tax status.

I have concerns about the follow on. Look, Disney stepped into the fray. They lost. But then the idea of going after their taxing authority, I, you know, I, that was, that was beyond the scope of what I, as a conservative limited government Republican would be prepared to do. You remember DeSantis signed legislation that took away Disney's decades old special tax district status after Disney executives spoke out against Florida's law that limits the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in schools.

So kind of a criticism. You see the outlines of a guy who wants to run for president and kind of feeling the borders of who he can go after and who he can't. It's just a little pincey. I mean, he doesn't go after DeSantis. Just touch. Just tap. Just tap.

But the thing is, the thing is, by the way, if you want to go to the Harry Potter world, you have to do that Universal in Orlando. You can't do that.

Disney doesn't have any of the Harry Potter stuff, kids. You got to go to Universal. Joe, I was there last weekend with my family. The Harry Potter world at Universal. Oh, my gosh. The new Hagrid ride. They're building more Harry Potter stuff. It's incredible. But I digress. Go ahead. It's great. We digress, Jeff Schell. We digress. But yes, it's wonderful. But but the thing is, though, we've said this before, Gene Robinson, that that if you're a governor and you attack large corporations because you don't like their politics, you attack small businesses because you don't like their politics and you tell them that they cannot keep their

premises safe based on how they as private business owners want to keep it safe. If you're stepping in and putting the boot of big government down on cruise lines that are desperate to restart cruises in the middle of COVID, but they want to take some precautions. And yet you have a centralized state actor like Ron DeSantis going, no, Disney, you can't do this. Cruise lines, you can't do that. Small businesses, you can't do that. School boards, you can't do this.

There is nothing, nothing conservative based on the definition that Mike Pence and I grew up with in the pre-Trump era. There is nothing conservative about that. That is big government with a B and a G. Yeah, it's certainly not conservative. And, you know, this this jackbooted approach that DeSantis takes, this humorless, I'm a tough guy, I'll go after you approach. You know, it worked in Florida, got him a big reelection victory. I am still very skeptical that this works across the country the way he thinks it does. And I think, you know, as people, more people get to know him and as he's around for a while, I think, you know, the longer that goes on, the worse it is for DeSantis, in my opinion. But but that was the pensiest of attacks I've ever heard. But it was it was an attack. And so we'll see how that develops. We'll see if others go after him for this decidedly un-Republican, unconservative move he's taken against Disney, against Mickey Mouse.

Incredible. Yeah. Yeah. Attacking Mickey Mouse, attacking the Tampa Bay Rays because and taking away something that the legislature wanted to pass a tax benefit because they gave they tweeted out their sympathies to young children who had just been slaughtered in Uvalde schools. All of these acts, maybe they play well in Tallahassee. They're really small ball. And and we'll see. We'll see how they work on the national stage. Yeah, he won huge in Florida. He won huge in Florida in part, Sam, because the Democratic Party never showed up, never gave Charlie Crist any support, never gave him a chance to keep it close. And then everybody got wiped out. So, again, I'm curious, what do you think about whether DeSantis' act of attacking Mickey Mouse, attacking baseball teams, whether he can take that nationwide? I'm maybe a little bit more bullish, I think, than Eugene. Not nationwide, necessarily, but I do think it might play in a Republican primary.

It is, for lack of—if we're just speaking crudely about it, it's sort of a Trumpy type of attack or playbook that he's operating. Use the power of the state to achieve your political ends. He got cheered wildly by conservatives for going after Disney, for going after the Rays. They've longed for conservatives to use state power to do just that. And so he did it. And I think it's made him a kind of a cult hero figure on the right. I think the question is, and this brings it back to Pence, ultimately someone's got to

take on Trump, right? Someone's got to go after him by name. And it's early, and I get it. Ron DeSantis has not even announced that he's going to run for president yet. But so far, from Pence to Nikki Haley to others who have shown that they're going to jump into this race, no one is willing to go after Trump. And what it seems like to me is that we're going to have just a reenactment of what happened in 2016, which is everyone's going to try to be the last one standing against Trump. We'll go off to DeSantis. And then Trump might just, you know, by virtue of that, end up coasting to the nomination. You know, Willie, though, it is it is so crazy when you look at what Republicans have been willing to do to sell out every value that they've ever believed in.

I was having a conversation a couple of days ago with some friends who grew up in the church like me. And every one of them had the same experience with with with evangelicals that were still hardcore Trump supporters. And one was saying, you know when I was talking to him, and the person said, you know, you go through what he does every day, and he listed it, talked about the vanity, the lying, the self-serving. He said every one of those things are the antithesis of what Jesus Christ did and what Jesus Christ taught. And like I said, you look at every single one of

the Beatitudes, where Jesus says, these are those who are... Trump does the opposite of it. And the answer was, and the answer that I always hear is, well, yes, that's true. He doesn't do anything that Jesus said he should do, but maybe it takes that type of person to get what we need done. Well, that's the irony about small business conservatives. These people that I grew up around who were supposed to be small business conservatives, they want leaders that use the power of the state. They want strongmen. They want authoritarians. How ironic is it that my party

that I came to Congress with in 1994, we were all supposed to be for small government. Now they have morphed. They have devolved into what they hated. They want big government. They want strong men. They want authoritarians to use the power of big government to tell local school districts what to do, to tell small businesses what to do, to tell cruise lines what to do, to tell Disney World what to do, to tell the Tampa Bay Rays what to do.

And they think that's cool because it shows strength. No, Pencey was right. That's the opposite of being concerned. If you want to vote for an authoritarian and you love big government, that's fine. Just don't call yourself a conservative because you're not. Yeah, I mean, to your first point about evangelicals, the line we both heard for many years when we'd confront them with that about Donald Trump was, well, we're electing a president, not a saint. What are you going to do? And in their eyes, that was borne out. They got

three Supreme Court justices in Roe versus Wade overturned. So it was about power, not about whether he behaved like Jesus. And to your other point about small business, you're right. I mean, you have governors now reaching in, not just into businesses, but to elementary school libraries, like going all the way down the chain that far and saying that book about Hank Aaron or that book about Roberto Clemente, which mentions racism. We don't want our kids to see that. So, yes, it's not small government by any means. It's perceived strength, not a not a picture of strength. I think you or I agree with. But a governor or an executive showing strength in ways that they believe accumulates

power and gives them earns them votes, money and everything else. Well, right. And so much of it has to do with just spreading fear. Like you brought up Hank Aaron. We've talked about Roberto Clemente here yesterday. Ron DeSantis was shocked. He was shocked and stunned and deeply saddened, shocked and stunned and deeply saddened that he was being mischaracterized as someone that got books about Hank Aaron removed from shelves. Well, what he did was he deliberately passed a law that was

deliberately vague, that has scared teachers, that has scared librarians, that scared everybody. Because if you do anything that suggests that black people in the 1950s or 60s like face discrimination from white people and it makes white people feel bad, talk to teachers, talk to principals, talk to school administrators across the state of Florida. They are nervous. They have asked for guidance from the Department of Education in Florida. It is intentionally vague to spread fear. And it spreads the fear and people overreact. And then when they overreact because they're afraid they're going to lose their job, then Ron DeSantis holds a press conference, goes, oh, this is stupid. People are saying that I'm doing this and I'm not. I mean, come on. Does he think that just because he's Brick Tamlin, that the rest of us are Brick Tamlin?

Like he he may love LAMP. All right. Yeah. The rest of us don't have to love LAMP. The rest of us don't have to use brick Tamlin logic. We can see through it. And when we look through it, we see a big government Republican that wants to use the power of the centralized state to scare small businesses, to scare teachers, to scare local school boards, to do the very thing, Mika, that we fought against as small government conservatives. We said, let's get the power out of Washington. Let's send it down to school boards. Let's put it in classrooms. Let's put it in the hands of teachers and parents. In many cases.

That's what we've said our entire, this is what I said my entire career. And now you've got a guy that's doing just the opposite. Nothing conservative about that. And then he goes out and whines. If he wants to stop being, quote, mischaracterized, he needs to be specific about it and actually tell people here are the standards. No, of course, the Roberto Clemente book. No, of course, the Hank Aaron book. They aren't bad, even though they do show, even though they do show that black people were treated horribly by white people back in the 40s and the 50s when Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente and Jackie Robinson and Gail Sayers and other athletes went from town to town to town. And that's not to make little kids feel bad. That's to teach them history so we can learn from it, so we can be better, so we can move toward a more perfect union. Well, in many cases, this is not the Republican Party that once it's just

unrecognizable. It is actually Sam Stein, Eugene Robinson. Thank you both for being on this morning.