6th hearing, i have to say, i am struck by the enormously fruitful fact finding, that the committee has done so far, and continues to do. each day, there is new information, learning new things. so, most recently, the committee met with former overstocks eo, patrick byrne, that s the overstock guy, about the now infamous december 2020 white house meeting. he attended a, or a group of outside trump advisers tried to sell the president on the coup. that s just today, getting testimony from him. today, they got testimony from a former white house aide, named garrett ziegler. never heard of him before. who, reportedly, let the ragtag group of coup plotters, into the white house, for that crazy coup plotting december meeting. still, a year and a half after this happened, the committee, the new testimony, learning new things. additionally, the committee is also pulling on, another, i think, important threat. you may have seen things about this, we ve covered it a bit in the news to
good evening from new york, i m chris hayes, as we approach thursday s primetime, january 6th hearing, i have to say, i am struck by the enormously fruitful fact finding, that the committee has done so far, and continues to do. each day, there is new information, learning new things. so, most recently, the committee met with former overstocks eo, patrick byrne, that s the overstock guy, about the now infamous december 2020 white house meeting. he attended a, or a group of outside trump advisers tried to sell the president on the coup. that s just today, getting testimony from him. today, they got testimony from a former white house aide, named garrett ziegler. never heard of him before. who, reportedly, let the ragtag group of coup plotters, into the white house, for that crazy coup plotting december meeting. still, a year and a half after this happened, the committee, the new testimony, learning new things. additionally, the committee is also pulling on, another, i think,
off to open. the defense attorney by the name of, evan corcoran open for steve bannon. and i think he made a fatal mistake. he wrote a bad check to the jury. he wrote a check i don t think the evidence will cash. trial lawyers will tell you never bounced a check with your jury. it hurts your case. and it can hurt your credibility in the eyes of the jury. will he, said it was really interesting, was, here ladies and gentlemen, steve bannon was served with the subpoena, but the dates weren t fixed. they were, quote, flexible. i have seen no evidence, chris, in the governments opening statement or any of the litigation on the motion that will support that assertion. in fact, the first witness who is already testified, kristen amerling, the chief counsel for the j 6th middle, he has already shut that down. she said he was subpoenaed and he defied, he violated the subpoenas. miss amerling has not been cross-examine yet, that will come tomorrow. but, you know what, if you
violation of the subpoenas. but here is the thing, steve bannon would have to testify to make some of these arguments to the jury. and i have a feeling he will not fair all that well on cross examination. and i wasn t impugning the integrity of evan corcoran. i assume he s making his arguments a good faith. they are going to have some kind of evidence, even if only circumstantial, to back up with their promising for the jury. yeah, i mean, there would be something somewhat amusingly ironic where he would end up giving sworn testimony on the witness stand in his own trial that is about his refusal to give testimony to the january six committee. but it seems highly unlikely. right? highly unlikely. in most criminal cases, defendants do not take the stand. and that is for good, tactical reasons. i think it really is unlikely that we re gonna see steve bannon raise his right hand and begin to tell the truth.
write a check for the jury an opening statement that you can t cash, you are in trouble. wait a second. we should be clear. i don t want to impugn this defense attorney who has been in his own words, left with very little and a bunch of pretrial motions. he wanted to raise a bunch of motions that the judge effectively ruled out of order. and can t use, about the legitimacy of the committee himself. he said what s the point in going to trial if there s no defenses? the strategies are limited. was the idea that the dates weren t fixed that, like, steve had this on his to do list? and just hadn t quite gotten around to it yet? i am not exactly sure how they are going to prove up that the dates weren t fixed here s with the my, to chris. they might say, well, steve bannon may be misunderstood that the dates were flexible. and that could give him a defense, because it has to be a willful and intentional