but i want to start by looking at the bigger picture and ask why we absolutely need to hold everyone involved in this gargantuan anti-democratic efforts to account. it s bad enough that it happened. and but for a few good people doing the right thing at the right time, it could have succeeded. but this is not a past tense discussion. this crime against democracy remains in progress. donald trump is still lying about the election results. he is now attacking, on a daily and sometimes hourly basis, jack smith, prosecutors across the country, the men and women of the fbi, and the justice department. federal judges, the whole united states government, and the rule of law and the republicans in congress who could have washed their hands of trump, after he lost, we ll, take kevin mccarthy, who, in the immediate aftermath of january 6th, laid the blame squarely and accurately with donald trump. that same guy, in order to win over trump s insurrectionist supporters in congress, agr
donald trump. that same guy, in order to win over trump s insurrectionist supporters in congress, agreed to a series of concessions, including the so-called weaponization of government subcommittee, which is, itself, the weaponization of government. donald trump held a fund-raiser for january 6th felons at his golf club three weeks ago. the michigan secretary of state, jocelyn benson, said on this program last night, that the threats posed by election denier still persists, and noted the election denier that she beat out the ballot box was rewarded with a job as the head of michigan s republican party. so, yeah, the repercussions of donald trump s lie about the 2020 election have a long tale, all the way to the present day. it s not about making trump and his allies pay for the past. it is about making sure this does not happen again in the future. and to make that case, the only person i wanted to talk to was congressman jamie raskin. he s the ranking member of the house ove
named a target of smiths investigation earlier last week, his allies have been feverishly speculating about the degree of meadows s and whether smith provided testimony to build a case against trump and others. in the weeks after the 2020 election, mark meadows reportedly pandered to donald trump lies about election fraud. the washington post reports, quote, people close to meadows have said that he was privately sympathetic to those trump advisers who were skeptical of the fraud claims. yet meadows also played both sides, often appearing to indulge trump s desire to use those false allegations to try to remain in office, people who witnessed his behavior have said. another possible cooperator and potential plea deal beneficiary in jack smith s january 6th investigation is bernie kerik, the only former new york police
reportedly pandered to donald trump lies about election fraud. the washington post reports, quote, people close to meadows have said that he was privately sympathetic to those trump advisers who were skeptical of the fraud claims. yet meadows also played both sides, often appearing to indulge trump s desire to use those false allegations to try to remain in office, people who witnessed his behavior have said. another possible cooperator and potential plea deal beneficiary in jack smith s january 6th investigation is bernie kerik, the only former new york police commissioner who has ever been convicted of crimes and imprisoned. kerik served time in federal prison for financial crimes committed while he was new york city s police commissioner. and he obviously does not want
accept as gospel whatever the cult leaders tell them to believe in him. and this is propaganda, understood as a form of magic, that the people perpetrating don t believe in, but the people who receive it still do. so, this is legally important, if the people portray perpetrating it do not believe it. if, back-to-back smith seems to be honing in on the people around on trump, including jared kushner, to try to determine and, as close as possible, under oath and indulge trump s words, what he believed to be true after that election. whether he believed he had won the election, or he believed he had not won the election, and was perpetrating a big lie. the evidence seems to point to the fact that he knew that he had lost the election, and was being egged on by a few people to carry on lying about the whole thing. but that is legally very very important. is it not? it is. if you look at the criminal offenses that the january six