Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC, good morning, everyone, and welcome to another day of January 6th, committee hearings. Today's proceedings begin at one o'clock and we will have live coverage here on WNYC. What will today's January 6th hearing bring? To my mind, a very important exercise in connecting the violent dots to Trump as directly as they can, without stretching the facts further than they'll go, and an explanation of how organized some of the violent right-wing extremist groups in this country were and are, that is how much of an ongoing threat they pose to safety and democracy.

An article on TIME magazine's site today about armed groups like these since January 6th is very interesting and chilling, really. I want to read you a paragraph, It says, "Over the last year and a half, the groups have surfaced at protests against COVID-19 vaccines and other government public health measures at state capitals. They've disrupted school board and town council meetings to protest mask mandates."

Recently, these groups have been more visible in public. On June 9th, the same week the January 6th committee held its first public hearing, a Proud Boys' group stormed a "Drag Queen Story Hour" event at a local library in California, shouting slurs and, "You're not safe here." Over the July 4th weekend, a group of men wearing Proud Boys emblems gathered at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, while about 100 people associated with white supremacist Patriot Front group marched through Boston carrying shields and flags with their insignia.

Anti-government militias and extremist groups like the Proud Boys have appeared at 27 abortion-related events as of July 1st, according to new data shared with TIME by the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, a nonprofit that tracks political violence, that amounts to 160% spike over the previous year. All of that from TIME magazine today, these groups are growing, not shrinking after the interaction they staged.

The key question for me today will be if the committee can actually connect Trump to the plan of some of these groups to break in and physically obstruct the transfer of power, or if Trump will still have a cloak of plausible deniability intact because tweeting will be wild. Doesn't mean go and bear spray capital police officers, and doesn't mean actually try to hang Mike Pence and things like that. It could be taken to mean, go make a lot of noise while the Trump allies is in Congress, try to reject the electors, and make the states recertify.

We will start there with Roger Parloff, senior editor at Lawfare. The site describes itself as being about hard national security choices. He's also an attorney and he previously spent 12 years as the main legal affairs correspondent for Fortune magazine. He's also closely following the Steve Bannon subplot that's been unfolding the last few days. Roger, thanks for coming on, welcome to WNYC.

Roger: Thanks very much. Thanks for having me.

Brian: Let's start with Bannon because I think he's your most intense obsession of the moment and his offer to testify before the committee, after all, after defying their subpoenas and getting charged with criminal contempt. I see at least two theories here as to what he's up to. Either, he's just caving to the justice system to try to get out of his contempt of Congress's potential prison sentence, or he and Trump are cooking up a hostile witness counter-narrative appearance, which the committee hasn't had one of yet. They haven't had to deal with that. Do you think it's one or the other or maybe even both?

Roger: Certainly if he testifies, it might help him in terms of sentencing on the criminal contempt charge, assuming he's convicted, and he's running out of defenses. We don't know what he has to say and whether that would actually help Trump in the long run. Certainly, if he's thinking of having a live interview that's not going to happen. I think that would be ideal for his purposes, obviously, Trump would love a counter-narrative, but the committee is not going to let that happen.

Also, he's going to have to produce documents first before he is deposed, that's how they always do it. It's not 100% clear he's willing to do that, his lawyer has said he is. It's going to take a little while, but I don't think he's going to get his live moment on TV.

Brian: If Bannon's motive was to wriggle out of his contempt of Congress criminal charge, a court proceeding yesterday made that look like a spectacular failure. I know you've been following this closely, what happened with Steve Bannon in court yesterday?

Roger: He lost almost every motion that he had filed and he had filed a ton of them. There's a lot of money being poured into this case. He did not get the postponement that he wanted, he wanted to postpone until October. He also did not get the right to present the defenses he wanted to present. He issued a trial subpoena to 16 Congress members and staff members, but Pelosi and all the members of the January 6th committee, really trying to produce a circus, the judge rejected all of that. I would say incidentally, the judge is a Trump appointee and a Clarence Thomas clerk.

Brian: How about that?

Roger: Yes, and he really poured Bannon out yesterday.

Brian: How do you think the day in court yesterday will affect Bannon's proclaimed willingness to testify?

Roger: I do think he should begin thinking about how to mitigate the sentence here if he is convicted. It's a misdemeanor, but it's two misdemeanors. It's two counts because there was the document subpoena and the deposition subpoena. It's one year each, and so it's two years and there's actually a minimum sentence of 30 days. Maybe he's taking it more seriously. Of course, he did testify against Roger Stone a few years ago, Roger Stone is still bitter about that. It's conceivable, he could testify and that would really be interesting because we really don't know what was happening at the Willard that day. If he comes clean, that'll be interesting.

Brian: Remind everybody of what that reference is, the Willard.

Roger: Oh, I'm sorry. There was this so-called war room at the Willard Hotel on January 5th where Bannon, Giuliani, Boris Epstein, Bernard Kerik, and Eastman were all there and nobody really knows what was happening. In fact, I guess we heard from Cassidy Hutchinson on June 28th the last hearing that Mark Meadows actually had thoughts of going over there on the evening of January 5th and Cassidy Hutchinson prevailed upon him not to do that, but apparently he did contact them by phone. It's very interesting. Bannon of course, on his podcast on the night of January 5th, gave this very provocative prediction that all hell was going to break loose the next day.

Brian: In fact, I have that clip. Why don't I play that right now? This is Bannon on his radio show, as Roger was just saying, January 5th, the day before the riot, of course, reinforcing Trump's earlier tweet to come to DC that day because it "Will be wild."

Bannon: All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this, all hell is going to break loose tomorrow.

Brian: Roger, do you think the committee might replay that clip today in trying to establish Trump's personal responsibility for the violence?

Roger: It's quite possible, I just don't know what their exact agenda is. I just don't know.

Brian: I laid out in the intro a question I have going into today, can the committee actually connect Trump to the plan of some of these groups to break in and physically obstruct the transfer of power or if Trump will still have a cloak of plausible deniability intact? Because tweeting will be wild, doesn't mean go and bear spray capital police officers, doesn't mean actually try to hang Mike Pence for real, and things like that. Do you have any knowledge of how closely they'll be able to connect those dots or if that's even the goal?

Roger: I'm sure it's a goal. I don't have knowledge of what's coming but Jamie Raskin who's co-leading this session, the Congressman was the lead impeachment manager at the second impeachment where the charge was inciting insurrection. This is something he's really been focused on for years and he's a constitutional law professor. I think what we'll certainly see is a lot of cues and signals and dog whistles, which are well known, but hopefully, we will see some more.

The biggest dog whistle was the one you mentioned the tweet of December 19th, "Be there, will be wild." I think what we'll probably see is how that was received in the extremist sphere. We know it was immediately received powerfully. It was reposted minutes later to a site called the Donald.win, which had some really fanatical and violent supporters, where it was regarded as a signal for revolt. Somebody said something like he can't exactly tell you to revolt. This is the closest he'll get. Then a few hours later, Alex Jones of InfoWars, who I think we'll be hearing about, probably today.

He called it one of the most historic events in American history. Then Kelly Meggs of the Oath Keepers, one of the important Florida leaders of the Oath Keepers, he reacts and says, "He wants us to make it wild. That's what he's saying." Then the day after this tweet, the then head of the Proud Boys, the chairman Enrique Tarrio creates a new chapter called the Ministry of Self Defense. That goes on to play a huge role in the January 6th insurrection.

Brian: But in Trump's defense to play devil's advocate here, just because these groups that are inclined to violence interpreted "will be wild" as the closest he could come to say, "Go and commit acts of violence and break into the capital." Doesn't necessarily add up to criminal liability for Trump, in fact, let me play a clip of Trump on January 6th that we hear a lot on Fox News that is exculpatory for him.

Donald Trump: We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing, and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections.

Brian: Obviously, he's lying about who the duly elected electors were and the integrity of the elections, but he said match peacefully and patriotically. How much does that get him off the hook?

Roger: That's a terrific question. That's the key question. That's a 75-minute speech and that line, which only occurs once occurs very early in it. Then there's lots of, "Fight like hell. You've got to fight to take your country back." There's lots of provocative language. There's lots of provocative language about Pence, particularly, that he's not doing the right thing. Now we know that throughout this whole thing, he knew that the crowd was quite armed. He had already been advised of the magnetometers and wanted to get rid of them. He's talking to an armed mob and he wants to lead them to the Capitol.

I think we're beginning to get further and further to crossing over the hurdle presented by the first amendment. Especially if you don't look, it's not one speech, it's a course of conduct over months. This drumbeat of lies about the election and with everyone telling him these are false and nothing will stop them. That would be part of the case. I think another thing we might listen for was Cassidy Hutchinson also mentioned that she believed that Meadows had called on the night of January 15th. She said she thought he had completed a call with Roger Stone and General Flynn.

Brian: Sorry, you broke up a second. January, what?

Roger: Oh, I'm sorry. On the evening of January 5th.

Brian: Thank you.

Roger: Am I coming through okay?

Brian: Yes, you're fine.

Roger: On the evening of January 5th, that Meadows, she thought he had completed a call with Roger Stone and General Flynn, Former Retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. I'll be interested to see if we're hearing more about that today. Roger Stone, of course, has very close ties with both groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. Of course, he was being protected that day, oth the fifth and the sixth by about six Oath Keepers most of whom later reached the Capitol.

Brian: Listeners, we can take your January 6th calls for Roger Parloff from Lawfare as we preview this afternoon's hearing, live coverage at one o'clock here on WNYC, and talk about what we've learned, questions, big picture takeaways, anything related is welcome at 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. By the way, before we probably leave Steve Bannon aside for the rest of this conversation, unless callers want to bring him back into it, which is fine, but what would you want to ask Steve Bannon if he testified before the committee?

Roger: I would want to know what was happening in that room, at the Willard because we really don't know. Also, what he had in mind when he predicted that all hell was going to break loose. What were his sources of information? He's got a lot to tell us. There's a curious thing I haven't really heard. This is just me. I haven't really heard anyone concentrating on it, but why is everybody in the Willard that night?

Usually, all of these people were in Trump's own hotel curing favor and giving him in effect money and monuments, why is this night different from all other nights? This night they're all at the Willard. Roger Stone is there in a different room. They're all distancing Trump from this. It seems that there's some sense that maybe tonight they shouldn't be operating out of the Trump. That's just me, but maybe that's just conspiratorial.

Brian: No, that's an interesting thread to try to follow. Milton in Manhattan, you're on WNYC. Hi, Milton.

Milton: Hi.

Brian: Hi there, we got you.

Milton: I'm curious to know your opinion of the use of this Presidential Seal, which screams out every time we see vigils of that speech and wonder how much planning went into making its decision to deploy that Seal to the rally site. It didn't get there by itself. Some degree of planning must have been involved and that Seal was Trump standing behind it, was in my opinion weaponized, and then brandished to the crowd and was an element of the incitement.

Brian: I guess, to confer legitimacy as if it was an act of the government, I actually don't know this detail. Roger, is the premise here correct that when Trump was giving his January 6th rally speech, he had the Seal of the President of the United States in front of him on the podium.

Roger: I hadn't noticed that either, if it's true it's interesting. Obviously, this was more in the nature of a campaign speech but he wasn't one to be very careful about those Hatch Act distinctions but actually, I had--

Brian: The Hatch Act being the federal law that's supposed to keep you separating your campaign activities from your elected office activities.

Roger: Exactly. Yes, but now it's an interesting point. I'm afraid I hadn't zeroed in on that.

Brian: Let me play another clip of Cassidy Hutchinson, top A to White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows on January 6th, whose testimony was so dramatic last time. Of course, she was just 24 at the time and a real Republican up-and-comer. She had worked for Ted Cruz and then worked in the Trump White House with Mark Meadows until she was on hand for all of that, even though it apparently alienated her. She refers here to another person who I think we're going to hear from today on tape. That is White House Counsel, Pat Cipollone. Listen.

Cassidy Hutchinson: Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, "Please make sure we don't go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen."

Participant: Do you remember which crimes Mr. Cipollone was concerned with?

Cassidy Hutchinson: In the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral account.

Brian: Possible criminal activity. I don't know if you were able to hear the clip, Roger. Cassidy Hutchinson invoking white house Counsel Pat Cipollone's concern that they could get charged with a lot of crimes for what they were doing or about to do on January 6th and Cipollone a little bit like Bannon, maybe, but different agreed to finally sit down with the committee and that happened behind closed doors on Friday. I think we're anticipating seeing some video clips of that this afternoon. How would you potentially connect the dots between Cassidy Hutchinson's moment there and what we might see from Cipollone's own lips today?

Roger: I would love to hear that from his lips. I think there's been some reporting that he wasn't asked that question and that he has said he doesn't recall that particular comment. We might not hear him verifying that testimony. They do apparently plan to use some clips from him and they have teased that there will be maybe some new stuff. Apparently, what she said was that he had warned him a number of times. He had tried to get Trump to take out the language about Pence from his speech and that failed.

He had tried to get him to take out the fight like hell language and that failed. Then he had tried to persuade him not to go to the Capitol and of course, he tried very desperately.

We don't know if there was physical altercation, but he certainly tried very desperately to go where he had no constitutional function and where his appearance would obviously further incite what he knew to be an armed mob. We would love to hear from Pat Cipollone about these things.

Brian: Ben in Mamaroneck, you're on WNYC. Hi, Ben.

Ben: Hi, Brian. Good to talk to you again. I guess I was calling in about in terms of the signaling will be wild by President Trump to his followers, whether or not it's explicit enough. I studied Caribbean politics in political science classes and in Haiti. In other authoritarian countries, they would have these gangs of political thugs that they would use to engage and basically that was how they did politics.

Even IRSD and other politicians, they would signal their followers basically through either sarcastic or ironic comments. Like, oh, I would never want anybody to beat up my opponents or engage in this thing called [unintelligible 00:23:53] where they put like a tire and gasoline around their neck and beat them up. You can't look at the explicit words. There's hints that they give through sarcasm. It's like a historical pattern with authoritarians.

Brian: Interesting context, Ben. You're familiar with that, Roger?

Roger: Well, I wasn't familiar with those examples. I totally agree. Of course, if you've seen Trump over the years as we have, he is a dog whistle president. It began, for instance, in the presidential debate in September of 2020 when he was asked to disavow the Proud Boys and he gave that remark stand back and stand by. The Proud Boy chairman Enrique Tarrio posted on Parlor that evening, "Standing by, sir." Then, after November 7th, when the news media announced that Biden had won, he posted on Parlor, "Standby order rescinded."

If you look at these donald.winsites, everyone is understanding very well what he's saying. In fact, in that context and here probably every constitutional law professor will disagree with me, but that one sentence in the middle of a 75-minute speech where he says, "Walk peacefully and patriotically," early on, and then he says, "Fight like hell." To me, that's incriminating. It says he understood that this was going to be a violent crowd and he is putting in one little line to try to protect himself. That's my take if I were on the jury, but no, I think it's a very solid point.

Brian Lehrer: We may hear today how much he did know about the plans for violence. We certainly heard from Cassidy Hutchinson that he knew that there were armed people there. They were trying to get into the rally speech before the break in. He said, let them in because they're not here to hurt me rather than restrict people with arms from the site. He knew they were armed people.

We heard from that filmmaker in an earlier hearing who was doing a documentary. I forget whether it was on the Proud Boys or the Oathkeepers about how he documented some of them who didn't even go to the rally first. They went to the Capitol from the outset apparently to case out the joint for how they could break in. Did Trump know about that?

Roger: I certainly don't know if he knew. Perhaps we'll get some insights today.

Brian: By the way, a few people have tweeted. Thank you, listeners, for being on it. Photos of Trump at the January 6th rally with the presidential seal on the podium, so confirming that, unless there was a lot of photoshopping going on in our audience in the last few minutes. I wonder how much they'll emphasize today Trump's lack of intervention once the break-in began as evidence of his complicity with it. For example, here's a clip they played last time of CBS news anchor Norah O'Donnell on the afternoon of January 6th, while this was going on interviewing house Republican leader, Kevin McCarthy.

Norah O'Donnell: I want to quickly bring in Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader. Leader McCarthy, do you condemn this violence?

Kevin McCarthy: I completely condemn the violence in the Capitol. What we're currently watching unfold is un-American. I am disappointed, I'm sad. This is not what our country should look like. This is not who we are. This is not the first amendment. This has to stop and this has to stop now.

Norah O'Donnell: Leader McCarthy, the president of the United States has a briefing room steps from the oval office. It is the cameras are hot 24/7 as you know. Why hasn't he walked down and said that now?

Kevin McCarthy: I conveyed to the president what I think is best to do, and I'm hopeful the president will do it.

Brian: There was that and we heard about Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram and Don Junior and others who were of course all in with Trump in general, urging him to say and do more for the sake of their own side's own political future. Never mind right and wrong. Is there more to establish on that storyline that we could hear today?

Roger: Well, that's possible. That was already pretty powerful testimony. I think the way I look at it is that that is evidence of his state of mind during that speech and before. I don't think it's a separate crime, not his inaction once this happens. I think it's evidence of his state of mind when he delivered that speech that he really did want this result and showing that he's ratifying. He's showing that this was his intent.

Brian: Joel, in Union, you're on WNYC with Roger Parloff from LawFare. Hi, Joel.

Joel: Hey, Brian. Thanks for taking my call. Yes, a simple question. Do you think the adamant opposition of Republican politicians to an assault weapons ban has any motivation deeply concealed to keep these violent gangs armed, in the event that they have to have some kind of violent interaction [unintelligible 00:30:31] people like me and you?

Brian: Interesting, Roger, is that too much of a conspiracy theory for you?

Roger: I'm sure there's a wide variety of reasons that people oppose these assault weapon bans, including that one. I think probably the main one is some slippery slope argument that oh, it will begin there and then the next thing, they'll take all our guns. I'm out of my element there. That's a little speculative.

Brian: We've got a few minutes left. Let me go to one other thought here, part one, part two. To me, one of the biggest things to remember, and it goes to the last caller, Joel in Union's point about what they're preparing for in the future, is that these hearings are not just about the past. There have been an ongoing threat to democracy and public safety per the article that I read at the beginning of the segment from TIME magazine today about the armed extremist groups showing up, first of all, having apparently increased their rank since January 6th, as opposed to them being discredited in the eyes of so many people that they shrink.

Now, they're showing up at things having to do with vaccines and things having to do with abortion rights and things having to do with LGBTQ rights. They're showing up at all these things, not just explicit Trump stolen election things, or racial things. We know these are white supremacist groups. Per all these changes of state election law, to make it easier for politicians in the legislature to overturn valid election results. Do you think we'll hear much about the present and future danger from the extremist groups today from the witness named Jason Tatenhove I think you say it or Tatenhove, who used to be a spokesman for the Oath Keepers?

Roger: Gee, I don't know. It's certainly within the committee's jurisdiction to look into potential laws that would prevent these things from reoccurring in the future. I think that Tatenhove, and I don't know how to pronounce it either, is more likely to be backward-looking to give us insight into Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the Oath Keepers Elmer Stewart Rhodes III, who he was fairly close to for a few years, 2014 to 2018. I think, in fact, I think Rhodes might have actually moved into his basement for a period when his marriage broke up in 2018. He might talk about the evolution of that group, Oath Keepers. I think it'll be backward-looking.

It was a anti-government group, it was founded under Obama and so at that point, and everyone they take, they literally take oaths to resist certain kinds of orders. Some are orders like to take our guns, but others are really wild thing. It's a very paranoid group, there are orders like they would resist a government order to blockade a city and turn it into a concentration camp. One of the things that they took an oath to resist was a Martial Law Order. Of course, everything changes after Trump and by the end of the Trump administration, he seems to be welcoming and begging for a martial law--

Brian: For Trump to declare martial law to invalidate the election.

Roger: Yes. I think it will be more along those lines.

Brian: Looking back, and even more dangerous, perhaps, than Trump's own authoritarian dreams, or mental condition. You were talking about his state of mind before and certainly, we could come to the conclusion that he's sort of a delusional narcissist. Actually going forth with this plot, despite being told by almost everyone in his inner circle that he actually lost the election but that even more dangerous than Trump's mental condition is the fact of the mass psychology that allows 70% of Republicans according to the polls to believe him to this day.

I know that very recent polls say his support is fraying a little in the face of the effectiveness of these hearings, but the susceptibility of the massive to charismatic authoritarian leadership. We saw it in Europe in the 20th century and it's the most frightening thing to see it to this degree here now, has this been surprising or shocking to you in the United States in the 21st Century?

Roger: Yes, absolutely. I am a little heartened by what I'm seeing from some polls and focus groups performed by Republicans that Trump supporters don't really acknowledge that these hearings are having any effect on them and they largely purport not to watch them but fewer and fewer are talking about wanting him to run again. I think there's a lot of-- I think they would view it as baggage. I view it as a lot more than baggage but in any event, I think that these hearings are having an impact, even though people don't admit it, but yes, it's totally shocking.

It's totally shocking to see the way the Senate Republicans will not speak up to him by and large and certainly not the congressman. I haven't seen it in my lifetime. We didn't see it with Watergate.

Brian: Maybe that's the ultimate point of the hearing, for all the talk about whether there's enough evidence to charge Trump or anyone from his inner circle criminally. Maybe what they're really after, in this hearing, is to discredit Trump in the court of public opinion, just enough that it makes it impossible for him to be elected again in 2024 because the next layer, as right wing as they are Ron DeSantis, or name, whoever you want, they may be really, really conservative in ways that a lot of other people consider dangerous, but not authoritarian in the same way, perhaps.

Roger: I agree with you. This guy is a charismatic leader. Charismatic leaders are hard to replace. In my lifetime, Robert Kennedy died, Martin Luther King died. Well, they were murdered. They were not replaced. I would say somebody that I was not fond of Yasser Arafat. He was also a charismatic leader. He was not replaced. They're very hard to replace. If he's not back as President, I think that whoever replaces him will be a different sort of animal. I agree with you also that even the Trumpist that would probably succeed him would not try this sort of coup. They would acknowledge an election loss.

Brian: Roger Parloff, senior editor at Lawfare, the site that describes itself as being about hard national security choices, he's also an attorney and he previously spent 12 years as the main legal affairs correspondent for Fortune Magazine. Certainly, I know your Twitter this afternoon will be all over the hearing as it proceeds. We will have live coverage this afternoon at one o'clock here on WNYC. Roger, thanks so much for coming on with us. Good discussion. I really appreciate it.

Roger: Thanks so much. Appreciate it.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.