busy news night. joy reid picks up next. tonight on the reidout give me a name. white supremacists. who would you like me to condemn. proud boys, stand back and stand by. as we await a verdict in the proud boys trial, how january 6th continues to be a drag on the republican party. as their likely nominee, donald trump, continues to quite literally embrace insurrectionists. also tonight, the sorry state of the right-wing supreme court majority. and the questions their actions raise about the credibility of the court. and actor and comedian john leguizamo will be here right hire on set with me to discuss his new series, leguizamo does america. very, very excited about that. but we begin tonight still awaiting a verdict in the trial of five members of the far right extremist group the proud boys. for their role in the violent attack on the u.s. capitol on january 6th. all five including the group s former leader enrique tarrio are charged with seditious con
a damning new report by the guardian says serious omissions were swept under the rug in the republican led senate investigation that claimed to exonerate kavanaugh of accusations he sexually assaulted christine blasey ford as well as potential misconduct against other women decades ago. the 2018 investigation prominently claimed to debunk the allegations of deborah ramirez who said kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party, saying it was a case of mistaken identity. turns out the mistaken identity claim was sent to the judiciary committee by an attorney named joseph smith, according to a nonredacted copy of a 2018 email obtained by the guardian. smith who is also a member of the federalist society, wrote in that email that he was in a class behind kavanaugh and believed ramirez was mistaken in identifying kavanaugh. instead, smith said it was a fellow class mate named jack maxi who was a member of kavanaugh s fraternity.
i get all that. however, there are real discrepancies in her own account that she has sold to the washington post, dianne feinstein. ms. mitchell is not a political actor. she did not come in here as a trailblazing pundit and say i want to exonerate kavanaugh. it seems like it is way overboard on the other side. but it seems like no one wants to touch ford s credibility, which i think it is odd. let s let the fbi question everybody who was there, including my charge, whose girlfriend set at laura: i get what you are saying. i am focusing on christine blase ford. she was very specific about the bedroom, the bathroom, the stairway, the running outcome of the configuration of the house. this is traumatic for her in a way that it wasn t for anyone
however there are real discrepancies that she hasve tod to the washington post and diane feinstein and to investigators. mitchell is not a political actor saying iin want to get fod or i want to exonerate kavanaugh. it s way overboard on the other side. i question kavanaugh but it seems like no one wants to touch ford s credibility which is odd. let st let the fbi question everybody who was there including mark judge whose girlfriend laura: i get your point. i m focusing on christine ford s credibility. she was specific about the bedroom and the stairway and the bathroom and the running out. this was traumatic for her in the way it was not for anyone else that was there. laura: and the people she
to her allegation, and so, originally, if you will remember, kavanaugh said before he knew what the e event was that ford was talking about, he said that i was not there, and i did not participate. that is impossible. so you need mark judge either side and both sides would want to call him. obviously, democrats to see if the ford allegation has legs, has another witness who observed it and certainly the republicans if they were trying to exonerate kavanaugh to hear judge say this never happened and i was never there, and i don t want to the talk about it. one other thing is another criticism of the way that the committee has structured the hearing which is by bringing in a prosecutor and having her question dr. ford whereas the democrats or the senators who are perhaps many of them are not lawyers and many of them are more discursive in the