The MeidasTouch Podcast - Reaction to BOMBSHELL January 6 Hearings Day 3

Episode Date: June 17, 2022

On today’s episode of The MeidasTouch Podcast, we recap Day 3 of the January 6th hearings! Day 3 primarily focused on the nefarious actions former President Trump & disgraced lawyer John Eastman took to pressure Mike Pence in their attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. We heard new testimony from Mike Pence’s former legal counsel Greg Jacob & former Federal Judge Michael Luttig (who advised pence to outright reject John Eastman’s recommendations). Day 3 revealed explosive new findings that just how far Donald Trump and his co-conspirators went to end American democracy as we know it. New episodes of The MeidasTouch Podcast release every Monday & Thursday evening! If you enjoyed today's show please be sure to rate, review and subscribe! As always, thank YOU for listening! DEALS FROM OUR SPONSORS: One Fresh Pillow: https://onefreshpillow.com - Use code ‘MEIDAS’ at checkout and get a free sleep mask with pillow purchase Remember to subscribe to ALL the Meidas Media Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://pod.link/1510240831 Legal AF: https://pod.link/1580828595 The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://pod.link/1595408601 The Influence Continuum: https://pod.link/1603773245 Kremlin File: https://pod.link/1575837599 Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://pod.link/1530639447 The Weekend Show: https://pod.link/1612691018 The Tony Michaels Podcast: https://pod.link/1561049560 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? When your famous grainy mustard potato salad isn't so famous without the grainy mustard. When the barbecue's lit, but there's nothing to grill. When the in-laws decide that, actually, they will stay for dinner. Instacart has all your groceries covered this summer. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and

terms apply. Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts

your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly

to jump in on the fun and make same day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Welcome to the Midas Touch podcast, January 6th committee edition. Ben, Brett, and I don't know where Jordy is right now. Maybe he will grace us with his presence in a bit, but this episode will focus exclusively on the bombshells revealed on day three of the January 6th hearings. Brett, there were so many moments today that were consequential. And what I would say was it really built as the hearing went through from the beginning towards the end to kind of reach this crescendo moment where it almost reminded me of, you know, some of those M. Night Shyamalan movies where you're kind of sitting there and then you're like, OK, OK, OK, holy shit. And then that's how it all kind of

built. Now, I don't know if the committee fully intended it to be that way, but that's definitely how it developed. What I mean by that, the two witnesses today who were called were Greg Jacob, who won. Greg Jacobs was the counsel, the top counsel to Vice President Pence during January 6th and leading up to it. Basically, the top lawyer. he's in private practice now. And so he was the top legal advisor in the Trump administration, giving advice to the vice president about what the law was and what the vice president could do. And then the other witness that you had was Judge Michael Luttig, who was a former Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal judge. So he's now retired. I'll talk a

little bit about Judge Luddig, but he was someone who the Trump team and the Pence team consulted about whether it was lawful for them to try to have Pence overthrow the will of the people. And just like Jacob, Luddig said, absolutely not. There was no historical precedent or legal precedent at all that would provide for any way for the vice president to usurp the power, to assert this like plenary executive power to as the vice president to just decide who gets to win elections. And also based on common sense. But I thought it started off a little slow. But as the videos were played, as the testimony grew, as we started to learn what happened on the 4th, the 5th and the 6th, and the committee did a great timeline of what happened, and we'll take you through it on this podcast. I thought that this of all of the hearings so far made you say, oh, my God, how is John Eastman not locked

up right now? How is Trump not locked up right now and all that? And again, one more point before I throw it to you, Brett. Again, we've now seen not one witness, not one witness who is a Democrat. I mean, I don't know from the first hearing if the police officer, the Capitol police officer or the filmmaker were Democrats. They were not kind of nonpartisan, but they were even I don't think they were either. But the hearing number two featured all Republicans, all conservative Republicans on the last one. And now here, too, we have a conservative judge who's one of the top conservative thinkers and a conservative lawyer, but actual real conservatives, Brett, not this

MAGA culty fascist strain that has overcome the Republican Party. Yeah, there is no way at all that the current Republican Party can claim the mantle of conservatism, especially when you view them next to these actual conservatives who are actually trying to abide by the Constitution and the rule of law. I will just say for those wondering about Jordy not being here, it's not a conspiracy. He's having technology issues. And so he hasn't been able to get onto the internet. Maybe that is a conspiracy. Maybe someone's trying to silence Jordy. We got a hashtag free Jordy. But anyway, let's talk about the case. Ben, it's funny that you mentioned the M. Night Shyamalan sort of ending, because I

agree. I thought in presentation and style, it began a little slow. We started off with that letter from Ludwig, which I thought was incredibly powerful, really set up these hearings to be a blockbuster smash. And then the hearing started a little slow. But I thought the legal implications of everything that was being said was brilliantly executed and was spot on and was important to make the case that Donald Trump himself was directly to blame for January 6th and for all

the action happening around January 6th. I thought there were two very compelling witnesses, two witnesses that have a lot of weight in conservative circles and right wing circles and should have a lot of weight with the American people. And then we saw from very early on, we saw these connections being made to the people in the streets, Donald Trump's own words, and how they instigated the violence out there. One of the first clips that really gripped me and really shocked me was a clip of the rioters, the insurrectionists that day outside the Capitol saying, if Pence caved, we're going to drag these motherfuckers through the street. You fucking politicians are going to get fucking drug through the streets. These are the intentions of the insurrectionists that day. This was not only a coup attempt, it was a violent coup attempt

where they hoped to actually kill our politicians and our other political leaders. And this was further emphasized by the fact that a informant within the Proud Boys was revealed to have said that the Proud Boys intended on murdering Mike Pence, that noose was not just for show. They planned on killing Mike Pence and they planned on killing Nancy Pelosi if they had the opportunity. And when they whisked Mike Pence away to safety, these Proud Boys came within 40 feet of Pence, 40 feet separated Pence from living and dying. And I know a lot of people watching these hearings probably were like, oh, it's very difficult to like have to hear Mike Pence lauded as some sort of hero, right? Oh, I can't believe I have to say good job, Mike Pence. And to an extent, I do agree with you. But I do think the actions he took that day

did definitely save our democracy. I am conflicted because I think if he truly had courage to steal a phrase from Donald Trump, as was emphasized, if Pence truly had courage, he would have been appearing right there alongside these two witnesses today to give his side of the story. And I think at the end of these hearings, when Benny Thompson looked into the camera and he said, hey, and if there's anybody who's been on the fence about testifying before us, now is your time. Contact us.

We can still make it happen. So to be determined. But I think they were making a little bit of a pitch there. What do you think, Ben? I agree. So why don't we start off with the first clip, Brett, if you'll play it, of the January 6th committee releasing new shocking video of the plot to pressure Pence. This is what you described. These were the insurrectionists on the ground in their own words. Play the clip. Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us.

And if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country. And Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you, I will tell you right now. I'm telling you what, I'm hearing the Pence, I'm hearing the Pence just caved. Is that true?

I'm hearing reports that Pence caved. I'm telling you, if Pence caved, we're going to drag motherfuckers through the streets. You fucking politicians are going to get fucking drugged through the streets. I guess the hope is that there's such a show of force here that Pence will decide to do the right thing, according to Trump. Bring it out. Bring it out. Bring it out, Pence. Bring it on, Brett! Bring it on, Brett! Bring it on, Brett! Bring it on, Brett! Bring it on, Brett!

So then, Brett, you had the testimony from the witnesses, particularly Greg Jacob, who was really, really, really good at bringing us through the timeline of what was taking place leading up to January 6th. And what began as this kind of fantastical, absurd theory, basically to borrow the words from Judge Luddig's opening remarks, which were not read in full, this would kind of be like just a weird and bizarre theory that maybe someone brings in a first year law class

on the constitution to just, these aren't his words, but basically to play the contrarian asshole in law school, but that nobody would actually bring these arguments to a sitting president. But nonetheless, what Greg Jacobs says as his role as Vice President Pence's counsel, as these theories were being talked about in that December period after the election about whether the vice president could literally block the state electors from being counted and substitute them with Trump electors and literally declare Trump the winner. What Greg Jacobs said is, look, they looked through the text, they started reading it. And this way they were prepared in the event that Trump and John Eastman and team not normal, if you will,

would put on this pressure campaign. They'd be prepared to make the arguments what the law was in this circumstance. So, Brett, play the clip, if you will, of Greg Jacob basically saying how early on he was reviewing the text, reviewing history and consulting common sense and the conclusion that he reached fairly soon in his investigation. The vice president's first instinct when he heard this theory was that there was no way that our framers who abhorred concentrated power, who had broken away from the tyranny of George III, would ever have put one person, particularly not a person who had a direct interest in the outcome because they were on the ticket for the election, in a role to have decisive impact on the outcome of the election. And our review of text, history, and frankly, just common sense all confirmed the vice president's first instinct on that point. There is no justifiable basis to conclude that the vice president has that kind of authority. And that's a common theme that we heard over and over again, that there's no precedent for this.

It's simply not there in the text. This is totally unconstitutional in every way imaginable. And not only that, though, later, and we'll get to this shortly, but John Eastman knew this himself and still pushed this bunk, illegal, criminal, legal theory. He knew it the whole time and still pushed his batshit insane theory. And we'll get to that shortly. But first, I think one of the most revealing statements came shortly after that, Ben, when Greg Jacob made the most brilliant point. Well, he asked the question to John Eastman. He said, if you were right, don't you think Al Gore would have liked to have known in 2000 that he had the authority to just declare himself president of the United States and went off about that? And the John Eastman response, what John Eastman told

Mike Pence's counsel, Greg Jacob, I think really said it all. And I'll read it and then we'll play the clip. But he said Al Gore did not have a basis to overturn the election results in 2000. Kamala Harris should not be able to do it in 2024. But I think you should do it today. If that doesn't speak to his consciousness of guilt and doesn't speak to the fact that he knew what he was doing was illegal, then I don't know what is, but let's play that clip. He had come into that meeting trying to persuade us that there was some validity to his theory. I viewed it as my objective to persuade him to acknowledge he was just wrong. And I thought this had to be one of the most powerful arguments. I mean, John, back in 2000,

you weren't jumping up and saying Al Gore had this authority to do that. You would not want Kamala Harris to be able to exercise that kind of authority in 2024 when I hope Republicans will win the election. And I know you hope that too, John. And he said, absolutely. Al Gore did not have a basis to do it in 2000. Kamala Harris shouldn't be able to do it in 2024, but I think you should do it today. Wow. That's all I want to say is wow.

And John Eastman also acknowledged right then and there that this was, I mean, I think Adrian Fontes, who's running for secretary of state of Arizona, he responded to our post from Midas Media Network posting this. And he says, quote, listen to how authoritarianism thinks. I know it's wrong and there's no reason for it to be right, but it helps my guy. So do it anyway. Damn the rule of law. And that's truly what we see there in action. And so what was able to be laid out with Greg Jacobs testimony, though, was how the pressure campaign really started escalating as you got closer to January 6th. And they try to use every tactic basically possible, including eventually Trump calling Pence the P word, telling Pence, you're not my friend. You're not going to be my friend if you don't go along with it. Has that ever worked? Even in elementary school, has that ever worked?

I'm not going to be your friend anymore if you don't overthrow the government. So first, let's play the clip, though, where Greg Jacob has this conversation, though, with John Eastman and Eastman himself acknowledges that there's no basis in law at all for this plan to have Pence unilaterally declare Trump the winner. Play that clip. Mr. Jacob, you discussed and even debated this theory at length with Dr. Eastman. Did Dr. Eastman ever tell you what he thought the U.S. Supreme Court would do if it had to decide this issue? Yes. We had an extended discussion, an hour and a half to two hours on January 5th. And when I pressed him on the point, I said, John, if the Vice President did what you were asking him to do,

we would lose nine to nothing in the Supreme Court, wouldn't we? And he initially started it, well, I think maybe you would lose only seven to two. And after some further discussion acknowledged, well, yeah, you're right, we would lose nine to nothing. I appreciate that. In our investigation, the Select Committee has obtained evidence suggesting that Dr. Eastman never really believed his own theory. Let me explain.

On the screen, you can see a draft letter to the president from October 2020. In this letter, an idea was proposed that the vice president could determine which electors to count at the joint session of Congress. But the person writing in blue eviscerates that argument. The person who wrote the comments in blue wrote, quote, The 12th Amendment only says that the President of the Senate opens the ballots in the joint session and then, in the passive voice voice that the votes shall then be counted. The comments in blue further state, nowhere does it suggest that the president of the Senate gets to make the determination on his own. I actually tend to agree with the analysis that they would lose seven to two. Just so you know, I think Clarence Thomas-

Thomas for sure. And Justice Alito. I think Thomas and Alito were the two justices that John Eastman was thinking about. But nonetheless, he knew he was going to lose. He knew the theory had no basis. And then one of the things I also like that the committee did, Brett, is they played the clips of the other advisors around Trump and what their view was about John Eastman's theory. I want to play that clip where they do that kind of montage of all of the advisors and what they had to say. You weren't the only one who knew that the legal theory was wrong, though. Here's what various advisors to the president thought about that theory. The first person you'll hear from here is Mark Short, former chief of staff to Vice President Pence. You've been clear repeatedly with Mr. Meadows about you

and the vice president having a different view about his authority on January 6th. I believe I had. Did Mr. Meadows ever explicitly or tacitly agree with you or say, yeah, that makes sense. Okay. I believe that Mark did agree. What makes you say that? I believe that's what he told me. But as I mentioned, I think Mark had told so many people so many different things that it was not something that I would necessarily accept. It's OK. Well, that means that's resolved. I see. Tell me more what he told you on this topic. I think it was that, you know, the vice president doesn't have any broader role. And I think he was understanding that. So despite the fact that he may have said other things to the president or others to you, he said he understands the vice president has no role.

Yes. OK. Did he say that to you several times? A couple the vice president has no role. Yes. Okay. Did he say that to you several times? A couple of times before January 6th. Yes. Next up is Jason Miller. What was communicated to me was that, um, uh, Paso Bologna thought the idea was, uh, was nutty and had, uh, at what point, uh, confronted Eastman confronted Eastman basically with the same sentiment. Here's Mark Short again. That expressed his admiration for the vice president's actions on the day of the 6th and said that he concurred with the legal analysis that our team had put together to reach that point. Here's former White House lawyer Eric Hirschman.

That in all the protections that were built into the Constitution for a president to get elected and steps that had to be taken, that the power to choose the next president would be sitting with the vice president. Do you know if Mr. Clark or Mr. Morgan viewed about that, thought about that, Mr. Eastman's advice? Yeah, they thought he was crazy. Jason Miller again? Do you know if they ever expressed an opinion on whether they thought the vice president had the power that John Eastman said he did? I know for a fact I heard both say that his theory was crazy, that there was no validity to it in any way, shape or form.

So we could keep going on and on and on, but you get the point. All of the, you know, one, I would say this, these advisors though, while they were saying this behind closed doors, many of them, including Jason Miller, were speaking to the press and actually calling out Vice President Pence and basically pressuring Pence to do the exact opposite of what they now claim they were doing privately. Nonetheless, their testimony today and their deposition testimony is incredibly damning and helps the case certainly to prosecute Trump and to prosecute Eastman. But let me tell you what was going on on the 4th. So on the the fourth, you have Greg Jacob has this conversation with Pence and with John Eastman. And in the conversation, though, between Eastman and Greg Jacob,

what Eastman says is, look, I don't we don't even need Pence to like completely just like reject the electors. What we want him to do is just let's just just buy us some time and throw it back to the state legislatures. Say you need some time to examine the issues, but we don't want him to actually we don't need him. We'd prefer that he basically declare Trump the winner that day. But we understand that may be politically difficult. So why don't we help you out Pence by just delay it by 10 days? Because their plan was to then get all these fraudulent state electors and then to get all these state legislatures who they were, remember, they were whining and dining them in the Trump hotel at that time also. Remember we would see all the footage? Like champagne.

Yeah, it was a multifaceted plot. Yeah, right in plain sight as you were about to say, and it was happening right before us. And I remember watching it and thinking the worst. And I think all those thoughts now have been proven true, that the worst was really being attempted behind the scenes and everything that we felt was warranted at the time. And we got incredibly lucky that our system ended up holding. And then on the fifth Eastman calls Greg Jacob with the exact opposite of what he said the day before. And he goes, you know what Eastman, you know, Eastman says, you know what, Greg Jacob, I actually, here's what we need you to do when they have this conversation. I think it was actually an in-person conversation. And Eastman says, what you need to do is to stop the counting of the electors and declare Trump the winner that day.

And you need to stop the counting that day, reject the electors. And at that point, Greg Jacob was like, you literally told me the exact opposite thing yesterday. And now you're telling me you want me to have him reject the electors and just declare Trump the winner? We absolutely can't do that. He goes, I was writing a memo for Pence why we couldn't do the first thing you wanted us to do, which was delay it.

But at least delaying it had some tethered to reality. He goes, but now you want me to reject all of the electors? We definitely can't do that. And so he told Eastman that, sent Eastman out. That leads us to the morning of January 6th, before the rally, when Trump has this conversation with Pence. And we hear what took place in this conversation between Trump and Pence for those people who were in the room, who were able to hear the conversation and to people who it was rallied to. And this was one of those moments, Brett, that will be talked about forever in American history. Should we just play the clip? Let's play the clip. But actually, right before we

play the clip, I do want to also say one other important fact that was revealed is that Trump and Pence had actually met privately on January 5th. And Pence told Trump that he did not have that power to reject the electors and install their own various state electors. So what did Trump do? Trump went to Stephen Miller and he told him to put out a statement saying that Trump and Pence met and both agreed that Pence had the power. So without Pence's go ahead here, without Pence's approval, he made up the opposite thing of what Pence said and put it out there to further try to pressure Pence. And that brings us, Ben, to the morning of January 6th with the phone call that was listened to by a whole host of people. And let's see what they had to say about that call. The president had several family members with him in the Oval that morning for that call. I'd like to show you what they and others told

the select committee about that call, along with never before seen photographs of the president on that call from the National Archives. And first here, they go back and forth between former White House lawyer Eric Hirschman and When I got in, somebody called me and said that the family and others were in the Oval and knew I want to come up. So I went upstairs. And who do you recall being in the Oval Office? Don Jr., Eric, Laura, Kimberly, Lee Meadows was there. At some point, Ivanka came in. It wasn't a specific formal discussion. It was very sort of loose and casual.

So then you said at some point there's a telephone conversation between the president and the vice president. Is that correct? Yes. When I entered the office the second time, he was on the telephone with who I later found out to be was the vice president. Could you hear the vice president or only hear the president's end? Only hear the president's end. At some point it started off as a calmer tone and everything and then became heated. The conversation was pretty heated. I think till it became somewhat in a louder tone, I don't think anyone was paying attention to it initially. Did you hear any part of the phone call, even if just the end that the president was speaking from? I did, yes.

Next is Trump's former personal assistant, Nick Luna. Dropping off the note, my memory, I remember hearing the word wimp. Either he called him a wimp. I don't remember if he said, you are a wimp. You'll be a wimp. Wimp is the word I remember. It's also been reported that the president said to the vice president

that something could be effective. You don't have the courage to make a move. General Keith Kellogg, former VP Pence National Security Advisor. I don't know if Jack needed it, but something like that. You're not tough enough to make the call. It was a different tone than I'd heard him take with the vice president before. Did Ms. Trump share with you any more details about what had happened or any details about what had happened in the Oval Office that morning. This is Julie Radford, former Ivanka Trump chief of staff. Had just had an upsetting conversation with the vice president.

Do you recall anything about her demeanor, either during the meeting or when you encountered her in Dan Scavino's office? Hirschman again. I don't remember specifically. I mean, I think she was uncomfortable over the fact that there was obviously that type of interaction between the two of them. Something to the effect, this is, the wording's wrong. I made the wrong decision four or five years ago. And the word that she relayed to you that the president called the vice president, I apologize for being impolite, but do you remember what she said? Her father called him the P word.

I assure you the P word was not patriot. I assure you the P word was not a pancake. I mean, look, we should just say it. I mean, how, whether democracy hangs on the line, Trump is calling and berating the vice president and calling him a wimp and calling him a pussy. That's what the president of, I mean, just think about how this tyrant, how this individual just demeaned the presidency. And then we learn also, Brett, about, and you referenced this earlier in the show, about how an informant described what the true intentions were here. We played earlier in the podcast first, the clip of what the insurrectionists said they were going to do. But here we have a testimony from a confidential informant who was embedded inside the Proud Boys. And this is what the testimony of this confidential informant was, as read by the Jan 6

committee. Play the clip. A recent court filing by the Department of Justice explains that a confidential informant from the Proud Boys told the FBI the Proud Boys would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance. This witness, whom the FBI affidavit refers to as W1, stated that other members of the group talked about things they did that day. And they said that anyone they got their hands on, they would have killed, including Nancy Pelosi. W1 further stated that members of the Proud Boys said that they would have killed Mike Pence if given a chance. Right. And that clip of the hearing what the confidential informant said was absolutely chilling. There's also another moment we should mention where Eric Hirschman talks about how the morning on January 6th, how Giuliani called him out of the blue to discuss what John Eastman was

saying. And by the end of their conversation, Eric Hershman says that Giuliani said, I believe you're right, that there is no authority for us in any way to kind of compel Pence to overturn the electors. I mentioned that one part because today, as Rudy Giuliani's campaigning for his son, who's going to lose miserably in the race for governor in New York, Rudy Giuliani's campaigning for his son, who's going to lose miserably in the race for governor in New York. Rudy Giuliani was asked about this conversation with Eric Hirschman and Giuliani was asked. Eric Hirschman said that you believe that there was no legal authority for Vice President Pence to overthrow the state electors that were given to him that day based on the will of the people. What's your response? And this listen to Rudy Giuliani's response. Eric Pershman just testified before the once January 6th committee committee that

you told him that Pence did not have the authority to block certification of the election where he looks like he's been drinking again i shouldn't really talk about that so i uh but but did you show that i had with the committee was that my uh answering question would be confidential now the committee leaks because the committee is an irresponsible this was eric hirschman saying saying that Eric can do what he wants. But the reality is I do not comment on the testimony I gave to them, except to say, well, I'm asking you about his testimony. I'm not going to comment on his testimony. I'm going to tell you that the committee is a witch. It's really unbelievable. Here's what's unbelievable is that somebody like, you look at a Rudy Giuliani and this is not political. This is not partisan. That individual who you're watching there, who was giving the advice to the president, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman. These are people who are unfit for the most basic of tasks, yet alone the sober responsibility of being the top advisor. Sober responsibility. Good one, Ben.

Thank you. Of advising the president of the United States. These are not just bad people. These are idiots. It's a combination of tyranny meets idiocracy meets, I can't even think of the words that describe. I think the term is kakistocracy, if I'm saying it correctly, which is a government by basically the dumbest amongst us, the dumbest tyrants amongst us. And before I want to kind of wrap this all together and explain, you know, my final thoughts on today's hearing, the January 6th committee's work in general, I do want to give a special shout out to One Fresh Pillow. And if you want to know how Brett, Jordy, and I get a good night's sleep, it's with One Fresh Pillow. One Fresh Pillow is the true pro-democracy pillow company that exists. The product is actually absolutely

incredible. So we were introduced to One Fresh Pillow actually right around Jan 6th when One Fresh Pillow were providing national guardsmen and women with pillows to sleep on. And we were so impressed with the work that they were doing that we contacted them. We met the founders, a husband and wife team who are incredible small business owners, incredible patriots. I love how One Fresh Pillow, they speak their mind. But ultimately, if their product wasn't like the greatest pillow ever, I could definitely like them as people, but I'd be like, yeah, I'm not going to really do an advertisement for your pillow. These are some of the most comfortable pillows. It's a patented design created by a licensed massage therapist. It's made for flipping, not tossing and turning. They also have a 30-day money-back guarantee, so there is no risk to try it. You just have to visit onefreshpillow.com.

Use the code MIDAS, M-E-I-D-A-S, and check out for a free sleep mask. You'll get a free sleep mask, which has a $18 value. Just use that code MIDAS. But I can't speak highly enough for this pillow company, for the product itself, and for the founders who are incredible pro-democracy advocates. And I'm proud to call some of my closest friends. Yeah. And I got to say, during the January 6th insurrection, while we had that other pillow maniac, whom shall not be mentioned at this moment, while he was literally plotting an insurrection, the fine folks at One Fresh Pillow were actually donating pillows to the National Guard and those keeping watch of the Capitol in the days following January 6th. And I will always

appreciate them for that. I'm a huge fan. Remember to go to onefreshpillow.com. Use that code Midas at checkout for a free sleep mask. Ben, let's close it. So let me give you my final perspective on today's hearing. Can we talk about the Eastman pardons though? Oh, let's go there. I'll let you do the honors. Okay. So it turns out John Eastman, the Trump attorney who we've been talking about this entire time. He had actually asked drunk Rudy Giuliani, which I think is just his name now, for a pardon to ask Donald Trump to give him a pardon.

To me, that shows the ultimate signs of consciousness of guilt right there, that you know what you're doing at that time is engaging in criminal activity. So he asked Rudy for a pardon. It's ultimately never granted. And then ultimately, when he's brought in front of the January 6th committee to give his testimony, what does he do? Is he as forthcoming as he has forthright as the other witnesses who you've heard from today? No, John Eastman actually pled the fifth more than 100 times. I like it. Like when you look at the footage, he like looks over at his lawyer lawyer like, can I answer this one? Oh no, fifth.

Fifth. And so that was the entire tape. We could play it, but that's literally all that happens in the tape. Fifth. Just play it for a second. Dr. Eastman, did you advise the President of the United States that the Vice President could reject a lector from seven states and declare that the President had been

realized? Fifth. Dr. Eastman, the first sentence of the memo starts off by saying seven states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the president of the Senate. Is that statement in this memo true? Good. All right. That happens 98 plus more times. And as we all know what Donald Trump says about people who plead the fifth, which is not my view about people who plead the fifth. This is Donald Trump's view about people who plead the fifth. It's what the mafia does, what the mob does. It shows that you're guilty and that you're a criminal. Once again, not my words, Donald Trump's

words. And now Donald Trump's own attorney pleading the fifth more than 100 times and asked about his involvement in the January 6 coup plot to overturn the results of the 2020 election. It's what's going to be so interesting. You know, Brett, Trump is going to be deposed in New York by Tish James July 15th. And it'll be interesting. We get a live stream of that. How do we how do we get cameras in there? Oh, if we can get a live stream in there, it will be a joyous, joyous thing. I think maybe one other observation to mention, though, that when like right after January 6th, Eastman like called up the one of Trump's counsels, the Eric Hirschman, who we've heard about before, and was basically like trying to talk to Eric Hirschman like things were normal. And he was like, so I'm thinking about filing this appeal brief in Georgia.

What do you think about this appeal brief? And Hirschman was like, listen, you motherfucker. That's basically the whole Hirschman testimony. I just want to see the full tape because I feel like the whole time he's like these stupid motherfuckers, these motherfuckers. I told you and Hirschman's like, I told him, are you out of your fucking mind? You better hire a criminal defense. You better hire a criminal defense lawyer. What in the world are you doing right now? I don't want to hear anything other than orderly transition of power.

Just play that clip. It's a perfect way to end our summation. I said to him, are you out of your effing mind? I said, could I only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth for now on? Orderly transition. And Ben, I think I just want to also close by highlighting Judge Ludwig's words that he used at the end of this hearing, because I think he spoke to the real heart of the And that's why it's so important that we see justice for what happened during this insurrection. He stated, I have, and let's play the clip. I have written, as you said, Chairman Thompson, that today, almost two years after that fateful day in January 2021, that still Donald Trump

and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy. That's not because of what happened on January 6th. It's because to this very day, the former president, his allies and supporters pledge and supporters pledge that in the presidential election of 2024, if the the former president or his anointed successor as the Republican Party presidential candidate were to lose that 2024 election in the same way that they attempted to overturn the 2020 election but succeed in 2024 where they failed in 2020. Donald Trump and his allies and his supporters, he said, are a clear and present danger to American democracy. I think that really sums up what these hearings are all about.

And I think it sums up why they are so important. And I think it sums up also why I left today's hearings, maybe not as fired up as I was from some of the previous testimony that we heard, but I left them really angry and I left them really kind of sad, like sad that it's gotten to this point for our country and sad that this is where we are and that these Republicans still don't care. They're still pushing these big lies. They're still pushing this bullshit. They are still trying to overthrow our democracy each and every day. And that's where you all come in who are listening to this podcast to make sure that you share all these clips and share all the information that you learned, because most people

are not going to digest these hearings the same way we all did. Most people are going to be hearing about them from friends. They're going to be reading about them online. They're going to be seeing them in TikTok clips and other social media clips. So it's on you to share the important moments from not only today, but from all these hearings and have that be the way that you help protect our democracy. And I, like I said, I am angry. I am, I'm very angry about this all. And I'm very sad about it all. And I am hoping that the Department of Justice, who we know is investigating this all, that they do take action on all of these people. Because I do personally, in order to see the future of this country, we do need to see

indictments of Rudy Giuliani. We do need to see indictments of John Eastman. We do need to see indictments of Rudy Giuliani. We do need to see indictments of John Eastman. We do need to see indictments of Donald Trump and everybody who aided and abetted this coup attempt, or else it may happen again. In Washington, you often see politicians over-promise and under-deliver. With each revelation from the January 6th committee, we seem to be seeing the opposite. Count me impressed. Those were the words of Dan Rather today after the hearing, and I think those words are incredibly apt and incredibly true. What we're seeing here is a presentation that is not

partisan in any way. In fact, if it were to be partisan, it would be partisan in favor of conservative Republicans because not a single Democrat has actually testified about their feelings about what takes place. I mean, one of the interesting things is we still have to sit there and listen to people like Greg Jacob, who want Republicans to take power in 2024, just not the Republicans who want to literally overthrow the rule of law. You have someone in Greg Jacob who is actually trying to find a way and trying to search through the law to see if there was any basis whatsoever to allow Trump to serve a second term. That was where they were actually trying to find their outcome was one that they wanted to figure it out, but there was

no basis in law to do it. And so I don't want to give these people like the biggest pat on the backs because their initial intent was actually not one that was trying to find an outcome that was the right one, but they wanted to find the right one that was right with the law and what the law said. And this is what the rule of law is all about. And ultimately, well, I think I probably would disagree with Judge Luddig on a lot of issues and Greg Jacob on a lot of issues that I would likely, I know I disagree with Liz Cheney on a lot of issues and Adam Kinzinger on a lot of issues. But ultimately, if our country was made up of people who had pro-democracy views across the aisles, but disagreed on certain policy approaches to it, but ultimately we supported the actual rule of law. Could you

imagine what we'd be able to accomplish as a country? What types of compromises we could be able to reach? There literally is nothing, as I said, partisan about the work of a committee where all of the witnesses have been conservative Republicans or people who worked for Trump. That's it. That's the witnesses. Not a single person who's a Democrat has testified. And when the Republicans that are currently in power are calling these individuals who defended the rule of law rhinos, and for you not to be a rhino means you have to go to Mar-a-Lago and sit in front of murals of Donald Trump and kiss the ass of a dictator with no clothes. That is not what the United States of America is all about in any sense of the world. I want to make sure that Midas Touch helps unite the

country, brings us together and try to find commonality, but most importantly, to protect the rule of law and to protect our democracy. Brett, I'll give you the last word. Yeah, I just want to say thank you for everybody for being so supportive of the Midas media coverage and for tuning in and for showing such a passionate interest in our democracy. It truly means the world to us. And it really gives me hope for the future of the United States. I want to let you know the next hearings can be viewed Tuesday, June 21st at 1 p.m. Eastern. Our coverage on the Midas Media Network at youtube.com slash Midas Touch always begins one hour prior to the hearings. So you will see our live coverage next this Tuesday, June 21st at noon Eastern, 9 a.m. Pacific time.

Followed by that, we will be on live Thursday, June 23rd at noon Eastern, 9 Pacific. So tune in, let all your friends know, share the hearings like I said, and I will take the role of Jordy here to close us out. And I will give a huge shout out to the Midas Mighty.