You're the lawyer and a great one.
I'm not but this just seems to make Donald Trump look awful, just awful.
Your thoughts.
>> Yeah, Neil today, I thought that the committee focused a lot on linking
the former president to this scheme to create the fake electors.
And it seems to be a real theme that the committee members are trying to bring out.
And their statements and their questioning to show that the former president
wasn't just a bystander or that people who work for him, we're trying to do this.
But that the president was a central player in all of this,
that really seems to be one of the themes that these committee members
have been pounding on the last few hearings.
>> So look let's be clear that is Neil Cavuto,
that is a Fox host who is admitting that this testimony is damning.
And look now we have to bounce the fact that Neil Cavuto is not one of the most
influential people at Fox.
That is totally true.
But also Fox basically doesn't show let alone cover what's going on at these
hearings.
So having Neil Cavuto at least bring it up,
let alone is in as critical light as that.
Like he is saying that this is damning, he looks awful.
It's totally true for a lot of different reasons.
In particular what they're focusing on there, is that he clearly had been trying
to get this scheme of the alternate electors cooked up.
Which is not a thing, you can't do that, it's not legal.
But much more importantly, since all of this is supposed to hinge on whether what
he thought he was doing was legal or not.
Whether it was based in truth or not.
The testimony has made clear that people that he could have and should have trusted
were making clear him at every step along the way that none of this was legal.
None of this made sense.
They were gonna go along with it and he kept pushing for it too.
And that is where it gets into potentially really damning territory for Trump.
Now of course his fallback defense is that he is a powerful, wealthy,
white former president.
So that's a pretty good defense against basically anything Jr, but
the testimony has been really bad for him and it's not done yet.
>> Yeah, there's just one thing, the way even Collado said that.
And I don't wanna nitpick on certain terms.
But this is just the way our mindsets go when it comes to something like this with
the former president, especially from this party.
But he said doesn't this make Trump look awful, just awful.
No, no the January 16th are not making Trump look awful.
They're showing how awful Trump is,
there's nothing about making him look that way.
Making someone look that way means that you're taking information,
like applying it to them and making them look like makeup and
you're covering up his reality and making him look bad.
No, no what we're doing is taking the makeup off and showing how bad he was.
From every detail from how they planned and targeted and
violently pushed this entire plan across.
Hopefully what they thought was gonna be the finish line.
It's showing how awful they were.
It's showing how illegal their actions were.
It's showing how much they had no intention following democracy in the way
that we normally do things.
It's all about Donald Trump.
>> 100%, and again, like it's so weird,
if you're just coming into this now, that so much of this has to come down to wall.
Did he know for sure that he couldn't do that?
Did he believe in his heart of hearts that he'd actually won against all odds?
Like none of that should matter literally at all.
But for some reason, this very particular case with these particular crimes,
even as high as the stakes are, which is so
much infinitely higher than the vast majority of all other crimes that matters.
So I wanna give just a little bit more from what they're back and forth was.
So Neil Cavuto went on to say, if you knowingly make statements you know aren't
true and they're proven untrue and yet you still make the statements.
Which has been demonstrated in this that he kept doing that.
Maybe because you're totally and personally convinced you're on the right
and they're on the wrong, which could be his psychological defense.
Since he doesn't trust anyone.
At what point does that cross a constitutional line and maybe a legal one?
And the lawyer that he brought a former White House lawyer says,
it can cross the legal line if you're making those false statements in
conjunction with the certification of an election or
you're trying to corrupt the counter things of that nature.
He added that it can be shown that Trump quote believed or knew or understood that,
if it can be shown, that he believed or knew or understood that his claims didn't
have merit and yet went ahead with this, then he's in real trouble.
Well, we are so far past that at this point.
>> Exactly.
>> Like he knew, he knew he knew that what he was doing was not legitimate.
There's no case to be made that that is not the case.
The only thing that we need to figure out is will the DOJ,
will Merrick Garland do something.
And I have obviously been, I've been very unsure about that.
Very pessimistic.
Recently Merrick Garland decided to flee to a different country.
He's off in Europe right now.
He wants to get as far from this thing as possible,
granted there's some stuff going on in Ukraine.
Anyway, so
that worries me a little bit Jr. >> Yeah,
I'm trying not to be as pessimistic as I have been on this.
But I'm super pessimistic on it.
The more we see it, the more I'm thinking, my God,
they can't possibly let this go beyond.
At least doing something, at least in some form of indictments,
they have to suggest these things.
But man, again, I'm gonna sit with believe it when I see it.
And right now we just have to see what this is.
And if it doesn't happen that way, it's gonna be written off easily as, yeah,
these Democrats did this whole entire January 6th committee hearing.
Which of course is to Republicans on board as well.
And it was just them trying to win an election.
>> Yeah. >> Because the follow through on the legal
part of it has to be the next step.
>> Yeah, does anyone remember, I wanna, like,
I'm trying to make this easier to understand outside of the context of this
complicated stuff about the constitution and law and all that.
Does anyone remember when Ross had a relationship with one of his students?
And he got fired.
Even though he believed that it was just frowned upon.
It's very clear that he believed that it was just frowned upon.
In fact, I have videos of him saying it many times.
So why did he still get fired?
Sure, he broke the rules, but he thought it was just frowned upon,
he didn't think it was illegal.
Think about that, like how low the stakes are, you would never get away with
anything like this if you thought it was okay, doesn't make any sense.
Man our justice system is 180 ft, like it doesn't make any sense.
Everything is topsy turvy.
Anyway, hold on.
Sophie reminds me, it was pretty high stakes because her dad was Bruce Willis
and he could have beat up Ross.
That is, I forgot that that's who that character was.
Wait, is that who's Bruce Wills?
That was it?
I thought that was a different student, anyway-
>> Are we talking friends or
what Ross are you talking about?
>> Yes, I'm talking about friends, the only reference I've ever made different.
>> Are you sure?
>> And then Rachel dated Bruce,
we're going too deep into the Canada friends at this point.
Anyway, what is coming on the January 6 hearings?
Well, potentially some exciting stuff.
We might have to wait a few days, we might have to wait maybe a few weeks, but
some exciting stuff is in fact coming.
Documentary film director Alex Holder was apparently shooting tons of footage during
the former president's failed 2020 campaign.
He was with Trump and the family.
That footage, which has never seen the light of day,
has now been subpoenaed by the January 6th committee.
And the Rolling Stone reports, by the way,
Nicky McCann Ramirez who's been on our show a couple of times,
now with the Rolling Stone, doing great reporting there already.
So awesome job for her.
In some of the highest ranks of the Trumpworld diaspora, including among, just
Rolling Stone, including among several who testified before the January 6 committee.
News of the documentarian cooperating with a congressional panel came as a bizarre
surprise.
What the f*ck is this?
A former top Trump 2020 official messaged Rolling Stone on Tuesday after seeing it.
So that is potentially coming.
Now we also know that after this Thursday, so
we're gonna get some of the hearing discussion this Thursday,
after this the committee is gonna resume its hearings in July.
They say they're reassessing their schedule after significant
new tranches of evidence have arrived.
>> Yeah.
>> Including documentary footage, and new tips as well.
So if this person was hanging out with them, filming Trump, and
we know all the stuff Trump revealed to like authors who were embedded with him,
he's gonna be on video in this thing.
It is gonna be dramatic, delightful news.
>> It's like it's not gonna get much better than this.
It's similar to what the documentarian is due on the first days of these hearings.
When he talked about how he was embedded with the Proud Boys.
And openly showed how they planned and
intimately planned how they're gonna get into the capital and force certain things.
And yes, they were the first breach moments and
they knew that the rest of Maggie would be right behind them.
It was all a plan on camera.
They talked about this dark deal in the middle of a parking garage.
It doesn't get more movie like than this.
>> Yeah, 100%.
God I hope the footage is good.
And I also have to wonder like why don't they have it yet?
It has been a year and a half, get this stuff out there.
And by the way, one of the reasons I hope that the footage is good,
is because that's probably all we're gonna get from this.
We're not gonna get consequences.
So I at least hope we have some good video.
[MUSIC]