Democracy Stoppers

one with my friend Katie Fang on MSNBC. And I will say this, um, The New York Times did a three part series on Tucker Carlson and Tucker Carlson's racism, and what I gotta say is, I'm not so fucking sure Tucker Carlson needed a three part series in The New York Times to tell us that he's racist. I'm sure we could have done that in a sixty second clip. I'm pretty sure that that could have been done in

a fucking tweet. That giving him that much prime real estate, I think only goes to reinforce, particularly to his rabid bass, that he's doing all the right things. I sat down with Katie Fang over the weekend for a one on one interview with her because I have spoken out many times about Tucker Carlson. I believe that Tucker Carlson is a threat to national security. I believe that his show, As I said with my co host washahat Ali on

Yasmin Vesugian Show on yesterday. On Sunday, I said that I believe that Tucker Carlson and Fox News like they need to come with warning labels right where you're watching their shows, and right before it comes on, it goes black, much in the same way that happens on Netflix and Hulu and what have you up in that corner while the screen is black, it says, oh, this content contains nudity, violence, explicit language, triggering abuse, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Why don't we do that? I've been saying this for years. Right when Tucker Carlson was sued many many moons ago, the judge came back and said that, well, nobody in their reasonable mind would consider Fox News News right that it is for entertainment purposes. Well, if that is so, then why doesn't right before Tucker Carlson show go on.

Why isn't it black that says for entertainment right just as you go into bedback then beyond their life as seen on TV for entertainment purposes only, this show contains misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, explicit language, all of these things and just list it all. What got me though, and why I think that the New York Times series was problematic is because I don't need again a three part series delving into one man's racism.

What we do deserve a three part series on in the New York Times, however, is America's racism, And how Tucker Carlson could have the number one news show in the country because he is a rabid racist, and why we would love to believe that he is operating outside on the fringe somewhere. What I said very explicitly over the weekend was that this is no longer the fringe, right like what we thought was crazy four and five years ago has now been mainstreamed and mainlined into the

Republican Party. We saw this with the confirmation hearings for Judge Brown Jackson. We heard them try and kind of walk her into this sad pit of pedophilia. Meanwhile, like I had said before, Daily Coast has put out a thirty plus part series on Republican abused, sexual abusers, predators and apologists. Why isn't that worthy of a three part series? In the New York Times to show how far devolved

the Republican Party has become. So you give this man all of this fucking primetime real estate, right only for him to take a picture of the cover of the paper and be like, look, mom, I've made it, and then just give him more fodder. And here's the thing.

I do not believe in ignoring these people, because they're not going to go away, right, Like you can ignore COVID, but at the end of the day, you may and fact catch it or it's going to continue spreading because it's a fucking virus and it needs you to be paying attention to it. Well, I can say the same thing about white supremacy. It is a fucking cancer and a virus on our society. You want to talk about a pandemic, right, it is the pandemic of white nationalism

that nobody's been paying attention to. Even though ten years ago a report came out to tell us about the place that we would be in right now if we were to decide that we weren't going to be paying attention. Right, Remember, the FBI put this out and then all of a sudden, no, there are no resources into that. Instead we're going to

direct our attention and our resources to black extremist groups. Well, you tell me the last time you heard about a black extremist group raiding the Capitol building, killing a police officer and you know, injuring many hundreds in the process. You tell me the last time that you remember a black extremist group walking into a church and killing a

group of praying parishioners. You tell me the last time you heard of a black extremist group being directed by the President of the United States to stand back and stand by. So while white people love to project out on to the rest of society that it is the black and brown quote unquote menaces, because that's what was said in the New York Times article as well, that they've made conscious decisions about what they are going to showcase, and it doesn't matter if it is factual or not.

It matters if it's going to sell to the rapid red bass. And they know Tucker Carlson knows exactly what sells right. It is hate and division. And what pissed me off most about the article is that they want to be like, oh, he's been like wood or seduced by white nativism and white nationalism. I'm like, you know, is it about ratings or is it really who he is?

It's who this motherfucker is. Why are we stay trying to make excuses for these people as if to conjure up a way to say to ourselves, No, they can't possibly be this racist, No, they can't possibly be this misogynistic. No, they can't possibly believe that trans children deserve bullets on their backs, right, deserve targets on their backs, and deserve a life that is let in a closet or face

being riddled with violence? Like, why can't we believe who these people are when they show us time and time again. I just don't get it. I'm like, here's the thing. Tucker Carlson is not pretending to be a good person. Tucker Carlson is not pretending to be neutral. He lives in an alternate universe. And the most interesting thing about that article was the fact that he has created a

fucking bubble for himself, right, a feedback loop bubble. And this is what I always fear with myself because I have tons of friends and colleagues and folks that are in the sphere, and I'm like, I'm not trying to preach to them. I'm not trying to convince them. And so what do other people think? Right? But Tucker Carlson can't take what it is that other people think, which is why he has created this like a this vacuum around him. But much in the same way that Donald

Trump couldn't take any criticism. Right, these big strong men, But the moment that you say some hot shit about them that is fucking true, or put their own words in front of them allah a Marjorie Taylor Green on the stand, then they want to cry fout. Oh the media is run by liberals. Well, I don't know about you, but there have been a number a fucking advertisers that pulled from Tucker Carlson's show. But it's still not only the number one show, but it is the highest grossing

for Fox News. So you tell me, is he the aggrieved? Right? Is he the person that needs to be coddled and handled in the way that he professes? Oh? My god. Replacement theory and the fact that these illegals and these browns are coming in to the country and they are replacing me and the hierarchy, the order of things is

being thrown off. Well, Let's talk about that hierarchy. Let's talk about the ways in which white men, white Cish hetero men have created a society where only them and them alone can succeed and even when there are the black and the Browns and the women and those that

intersect with multiple marginalized communities happen to rise above. Then you want to what try and call us a pedophile like you did to Judge Jackson Brown, whose record is impeccable in comparison to the Beer Guslin rapist that you all put on the fucking bench. Miss me with the bullshit right, you know, would have rather see a three part series on Mallory mcmarrow and how her authenticity, her passion needs to be replicated that we saw out on the floor of the Michigan Senate as opposed to the

bullshit dance that we are seeing senators in our party take. Oh, if I hear one more time that fucking Joe Mansion is really concerned or like we need to delve into this with regard to voting rights, I'm like, Joe Mansion, shut the fuck up unless you were about to vote yes on a voting rights bill and changing of the filibuster before fucking time runs out in November. Shut the fuck up. Ain't nobody trying to hear you, pay attention to you? And frankly, if fucking Schumer were smart, he

would put Joe Mansion into a fucking applause vacuum. He is such an attention whore. Take his name out of the headlines, take away the gaggle of reporters that follow him around so that he feels important, and instead, if he's going to grab a headline, let it be Joe Mansion alone. Wants to stop democracy, Right, let's tell the fucking truth. But we don't. Right, We perpetuate the same level of lies and bullshit because of ratings, right, because

of clicks. This weekend, I got to tell you that between that story, listening to Marjorie Taylor Green's clips talk about how Satan has taken over the church, I'm just beside myself, folks, and it's Monday, but I am beside myself with the fuckery that we are seeing out of this country. So the question continues to be asked, our Democrats going to show up? Because Nancy Pelosi was up in Kiev in Ukraine talking about you don't back down to a bully, and I'm like, so does it not

apply here in the United States? When Democrats are fucking coutelling to Republicans left and right. Does that same hot energy that you have for Putin? Does that translate? Is the question that I'm asking, because it doesn't fucking seem to I'm tired of Democrats tough talks, finger wagging, and

trying to shame people that are shameless. Tucker Carlson, what he got from New York Times is a bunch of free advertising, right when instead the New York Times should be doing multiple part series on how systemic racism is the reason why we have the racial wealth gap, doing breaking pieces on how we should be fearful about the loss of our democracy and why folks need to wake the fuck up. Not you doing a fucking profile piece

on Tucker Carlson, folks. Coming up next is my weekly conversation with our friend Glenn Kershner, MSNBC legal analyst and the host of Justice Matters, talking to us about what whether or not the Department of Justice is going to act like it is an agency with authority and power to do something about the criminal Twice impeached ex President and this allow his ability to run for office again in twenty twenty four. That conversation is coming up and

much more. Friends, You know that I'm always so happy when our friend MSNBC legal analyst and the host of Justice Matters, Glenn Kershner, joins us to break down the latest in unlawful news. Right, we can't talk about justice, Glenn, because we're still waiting on that, but we have a bevy a bevy of unlawful stories came out this past week, so I want to start first with Marjorie Taylor Green.

Marjorie Taylor Green, We've watched her in Georgia lie on the stand when asked about her connection to the insurrection, her calling for violence the day of the insurrection at the Stop to Steel rally. We've seen now the trove of text messages over two thousand that CNN was able to get from the Mark Meadows Treasonous Treasure trove, where she's talking about martial law. But then goes on Fox News and says, I don't know what everybody's talking about.

I never said anything. I never called for a violence, Glenn. Do they think that we're stupid or do they think that if they act stupid. Then then this will all blow over. You know. My assumption is that because they have seen zero accountability, visit any of the political criminals that you know, we've seen committing crime with our own Because there's no accountability, why would they bother telling the truth about anything, particularly anything that could incriminate them or

make them look bad. So even though she there are texts where Marjorie Taylor Green says, look, I'm talking to members about martial law, tell Trump he needs to consider it, and an under oath in front of a judge. I don't remember, I don't ever remember talking about that. Well,

first of all, I don't remember. Is not a perjury proof answer, especially on something so consequential as a member of Congress saying tell the President of the United States that members of Congress think he should impose martial law. It's absurd to have her say I don't remember and think she can get away with it. But if there's no accountability, Danielle, she can get away with it, and that's why she does it. Let's let's I want to provide uh the woke af audience with the severity of

martial law. Right, what can you recall a time in modern times where martial law. We're a president of these United States has instituted martial law, which which and again just describe for us what that what that would look like. I mean, it's essentially the president, um, you know, seizing military control and being able to deny anyone and every one of the rights that we all typically think we enjoy. Um,

it hasn't been done in modern history. And um, you know, for for members of Congress to be urging a president to do it, m is kind of the flip side of the coin of what we heard from some of the McCarthy tapes where he and Liz Cheney are casually talking about, well, remember how we were talking about the twenty fifth Amendment, how we should consider removing Donald Trump from office for unfitness. Oh yeah, Liz, I remember we were talking about that, and you know what, I think

maybe he should just resign the presidency. And McCarthy is saying that he's going to recommend that Donald Trump resigned the presidency. This is flips the flip side of the same coin. You got some members of Congress saying keep the criminal president in office and have him declare martial

law to basically kill our democracy. You've got other members of Congress saying he's unfit to serve under the twenty fifth Amendment, he needs to resign, and then to cap it all off, This is actually my favorite part of the McCarthy tapes. McCarthy said, I'm gonna go in and tell him to resign, but I just don't want him to bring up the Pence pardon thing. Boy, that was a really important revelation because McCarthy didn't just pull that

out of the air. It tells me that if McCarthy is so concerned that Trump is again going to bring up the Pence pardon thing, that tells me that Donald Trump knows he committed crime, knows that if he resigns, he's going to have to be pardoned by incoming president Mike Pence. And McCarthy doesn't want to have to deal

with the Pence pardoned thing again. For Christ's sake, excuse my language, how can we not have McCarthy testify about those things, because not we all know Donald Trump's a criminal, right, But that's evidence potentially of the corrupt intent that people keep whining about. It so hard to prove, which it's not. But McCarthy apparently has relevant evidence to that too. Get

him under oath. I don't care if it's before the J six Committee or preferably in a federal grand jury investigating Donald Trump's crimes, and let's document this and let's move forward to protect our dang democracy. I mean, Glenn, the Pence pardon thing. So you would have to be devising some type of criminal operation for you to then think about all the ways that you can skirt justice, right, So you would be thinking to yourself, Okay, if I do a B is going to happen, So I need

to cover my ass. This is what is driving me crazy because Donald Trump wanted to say, no, no, no, I honestly believed I lost, that the election was stolen. Well, if you honestly believed that the election was stole, why would you be speaking with your inner circle about potential pardon. Where would where would that fear, where would that anxiety?

Where would that calculation come from? Yeah? Wouldn't you think McCarthy would have said, Uh, I don't want to go talk to Trump about resigning because I know he's gonna say I didn't do anything wrong, I didn't commit crimes. No, that's not what McCarthy said. McCarthy said, I want to go tell him to resign for everything he did, but I don't want to hear him talking about the Pence Parden thing, which goes right to your point. And that's

why we need McCarthy's testimony. And I hope Congress, you know, finally pulls that tool out of its toolbox and says, oh, you want to disobey our subpoena, we got a little something for you. We're going to compel your testimony. You know why they won't do that, Danielle, Why they would rather continue to let the contemptuous witnesses win the subpoena battle rather than using a lawful power that Congress has

to compel testimony. I will never ever understand that, because if they keep tying that one hand behind their back and we lose our democracy, how are they going to feel about the fact that they did not deploy their lawful constitutional power of inherent contempt. It's like, you know, Glenn, the mountain of evidence against this corrupt Republican Party because it isn't just Donald Trump. Because now I'm not just

looking to take Donald Trump down. These tapes right show criminal to me, right now I'm saying it a layperson criminal intent when you are looking at the calculations on how you can skirt accountability for your criminal behavior. I mean, what else, Glenn, is the Department of Justice waiting for? And I don't even want you to answer that yet,

because here's the question that I have. Last weekend, I was on MSNBC and the question was asked by Amon Mohadeen about media integrity, journalistic integrity, the fact that the

McCarthy tapes, Right, we're somehow, we're somehow right. The New York Times reporters get ahold of this, but they're like, we're writing a book, so we're gonna hold this the same way that Bob Woodward held the fact that Donald Trump knew in twenty nineteen how dangerous the coronavirus was, knew that it was airborne, knew that it was deadly, but he held that information to sell a book. Right,

What I mean, are these people liable for anything? And then the question that I have like that, And then number two, Joyce Vance was on the show and she was talking about the fact that whoever recorded Kevin McCarthy should be questioned, right, that it isn't just it isn't. It's this chain of just I don't know what we call it, right, these people that have this information, it is critical to the American people to have it, It is critical for the Department of Justice to have it,

but they hold it. Is there any liability anywhere, so,

you know, civil liability versus criminal liability. You know, the reporters, unfortunately will have a good I shouldn't say unfortunately, They will have a good bit of protection under the First Amendment about you know, what they reveal, when they reveal it, how they reveal it, And so I don't know that there would be liability for them sitting on things that you would think, you know, their own patriotic instincts would would kind of compel them to release to the public

to help save lives. But I don't think they're required to, you know, so that it's different for government officials who are sitting on information, like the people who recorded the phone calls, for example, they might have some sort of exposure. But here is the way to make a dent in that there's a law on the books federally accessory after the fact. Whoever knows that somebody's committed a crime against

the United States. In other words, a federal crime if that person does anything to assist the offender in avoiding apprehension or punish or charges criminal trial, they've committed the crime of accessory after the fact. So any politician who buries crimes that they know Donald Trump committed, they are assisting him in avoiding punishment for his crimes. They're also violating their oath of office. But that's not necessarily a

criminal charge. And Danielle, all it takes is for the Department of Justice to bring one damn accessory after the fact charge against the Jim Jordan or a Scott Berry or a Kevin McCarthy or any of these other anys who have covered up Donald Trump's crimes. And then that's going to have the effect of one causing a whole bunch of people to start to spit stuff out because they don't want to be charged as accessories after the fact, And it's going to deter future criminal conduct by people

who are thinking about burying the crimes of politicians. This is not rocket science, it's not even advanced criminal law. It's it's just it's common sense. It's good basic law enforcement and good basic prosecutorial practice. And I can't, for the life of me understand why none of it is

being done. I mean, like I you know, I don't know because at this at this point, let me tell you something, my mind goes to the fact that not bringing these indictments is now showing your complicit right Like to me, at some point I have to ask about the Department of Justice's integrity and whether or not they are complicit in these crimes, because why else would you

not be bringing these charges. Danielle. Think about this. If a local sheriff knew that his brother had committed crimes, and the local sheriff was like, I'm not the rest of my brother. I'm not bringing charges against my brother. That would be a criminal cover up. It would be obstructing justice. It would be a dereliction of duty. Now

let's change the scenario a little bit. Let's assume a former high DOJ official join Donald Trump's conspiracy to overturn the election authored letters to the battleground states falsely claiming the Department of Justice has evidence of election fraud and

we want you to appoint alternate electors. Drafts those letters, doesn't send them, Others talk him out of sending those letters, and then when questioned about it, that high government official with the Department of Justice invokes his Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. In other words, if I hasified about what I did and what the President did, I would incriminate myself. And the Department of Justice has not charged that person, and there's no indication they're even on their

way to charging that person. How far is that from the first hypothetical where a sheriff refuses to charge his brother. They feel an awful lot alike. And as I said on air yesterday, I said, that feels like cronyism at best and corruption at worst. Now, maybe we're about to see a big old indictment drop. So I'm not accusing DOJ of corruption. I'm posing the question because I think it's a fair question and one that screams out for an answer. Are we already living inside of a Banana

republic like this? If you know, I've always said, you don't become a Banana republic by prosecuting political criminals. You become a Banana republic by not prosecuting political criminals or criminal politicians. So we're halfway there, We're maybe three quarters of the way there. We're not all the way there yet, but in the absence of criminal indictments of Donald Trump and all of his co conspirators, we are absolutely a

banana republican. We're a banana republic where the future dictator or autocrat will have even more nuclear weapons than Vladimir Putin has. How does that make us feel? Jesus Christ, it's too early for me to drink, but my god. Let's transition to New York, where Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney,

has decided to do a whole lot of nothing. This comes after, just to remind you everybody, his predecessor, side Vance, had called a special grand jury to sit for a longer period of time because guess what, the evidence was so overwhelming that they needed more than the six weeks to be able to sit and go through the evidence at hand. Alvin Bragg gets elected and then poof, the case goes nowhere. Two of the major prosecutors quit in protest.

He doesn't release their letters of resignation because he says, oh, there's some evidence in there and we couldn't possibly release it, or the evidence is that somehow once again corruption Because I don't know how you come into a new job with a desk full of evidence, a special grand jury, and then out of nowhere, decide we're not going to prosecute. We're gonna this kind of fizzle out on its own.

Tell me that this doesn't smell like something's not right either. Yeah, and then if we add the new Daily Beast reporting, this is going to give us all whiplash. You're ready for this because let me let me round out the picture with not only did the prosecutors resign, but Mark Pomerant's the lead prosecutor and by all accounts, just an expert mob prosecutor, white collar criminal defense attorney, seventy year old gentleman who basically was doing this for free because

he felt so strongly about bringing Trump to justice. In his letter, which Alvin Bragg wouldn't release, he said, Sivance told us to indict Trump because there was enough evidence, do it as quickly as is responsible, and there is enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Donald Trump's guilt of multiple felony offenses. That's what Mark Pomerand said. And then Alvin Bragg came in and instantly killed the case for reasons we don't yet no, but I have

a suggestion on that front in a minute. But then the new Daily Beast reporting this is what will give you whiplash. There was a deposition taken of Donald Trump in twenty twenty one in connection with a suit that was brought for his security staff roughing up some protesters outside of Trump Tower in twenty fifteen, and it was just revealed that what Donald Trump said under oath in that deposition in twenty twenty one is that I and I alone was responsible am responsible for the compensation to

Matthew Collamari, my chief operating officer. Now Matthew Collamari is alleged to have basically been involved in the same criminal scheme, getting lavish apartments and cars and not paying any New York City tax or New York State tax or federal tax on any of it. Those are the precise crime, Danielle, that Alan Weisselberg and the Trump organization are indicted for, and they're pending trial still in the fall. And the complaint and the concern is, oh, my goodness, we can't

prove Donald Trump was involved in any of this. Well, actually we can with his own sworn testimony in a deposition, and the Daily Beast article says, and this is going to be of great benefit to the New York District Attorney's Grand jury investigation looking into Donald Trump's crimes. But Alvin Bragg just killed that investigation. So this is like the kind of searing injustice that is going to leave a mark. You know, there's no two ways. So here's

what has to happen. In my instimation, New York Governor Hopel either has to reassign the case to somebody who will prosecute it, whatever her lawful authority is to do that. If she can sign it to Tish James's office, let's do that. Or she needs to remove Alvin Bragg from office and replace what she has the authority to do. There are some you know, procedural basis she has the touch to do it and put somebody there who will actually give this prosecution of Donald Trump a fair shake.

Or the voters of New York need to vote her out and vote in a governor who will because the governors who are running for office in New York, both Republican and Democrat, have pledged. Now, campaign pledges are not worth the paper they're written on, but they have pledged they will get rid of Alvin Bragg and put somebody in who will give the Trump So let's do those things. And also let's have some investigative journalists dig into Alvin Bragg and see he filled his campaign offers. Because I'm

not accusing him, but we need asking the question. We need to know, just asking the question, not accusing anyone, but I just find it very curious. And I say every time that something like this happens, the only thing folks need to do is follow the money. Follow the money, because it will lead us to the answers that folks

are starting to ask. Last question for you, Glenn, is there any indication out of the Governor's office right now that there is any interest, any hinting at making any of the moves that you just laid out for us. The only and I hesitate to say, it's reporting. I have a recollection that Governor Hokel was quoted as saying she's not enamored of removing Bragg from office, which is

only one of the remedies she has. And I haven't heard anything about the possibility of reassigning the Trump investigation out of the DA's office. So but that's pretty much all I've I've heard on that. Oh we're gonna, we're gonna digg into this one. We're gonna, we're gonna keep our eyes on this one because everybody's up for reelection and it's it's it's pastime. It is pastime. And I want to know why teflon Don thirty years, forty years of criminality in New York and ain't nothing touch him.

Even my own mother said, I just don't get it. Danielle, explain it to me. What am I missing? Oh, you're not missing anything. Everyone is corrupt, is what I believe. Glenn As always, thank you so much for spending time with us today on Woke f and pretty much adding multiple gray hairs to my head. I think that's the one that's the one concern I don't have. It's the one I appreciate you. Thank you, Danie. I'll see you

next week. That is it for me today, Your folks on Woke a f As always, power to the people and to all the people. Power, get woke and stay woke as fuck.