Jamie Raskin TRAPS Trump Witness Using Her Own Words

[0:00] donald trump is absolutely taking us outside of the rule of law i mean i don't mean to embarrass [0:06] you in any way but i liked your statement of principle and i'm just willing i'm wondering [0:10] whether you're willing to interpret it in a completely obvious and objective way okay so [0:16] original statement if any president whether it was maduro or trump or oscar orlando hernandez [0:23] says i want you to go and investigate and prosecute these 20 political enemies of mine [0:28] your position would basically be agnostic well let's wait and see what happens in the investigation [0:34] is that right doesn't that defeat the whole point of your statement respectfully that's that's not [0:39] right that's not what i mean that's not what i intended to say um what i would let me in he the [0:44] president biden was sworn in and was the president of the united states so he did not illegally hold [0:49] on to power in the manner that president maduro illegitimate dictator did oh i see in other words [0:55] because the coup didn't work and the violent insurrection didn't succeed in overturning the [1:01] election then you think it was all right what he did never hand a constitutional law professor the [1:06] shovel you're digging your own grave with because jamie raskin will gladly help you finish the hole [1:12] look i just finished watching this clip from a house hearing on venezuela and my brain is still [1:17] buzzing from the sheer unadulterated cognitive dissonance on display here i am so tired of this i am [1:23] genuinely profoundly exhausted by conservative pundits who want to preach to the rest of us [1:29] about sacred democratic norms from their moral high horse right up until the exact microsecond [1:35] those same rules apply to their guy watch this because raskin took this witness's entire high-minded [1:41] sermon on the rule of law held it right up against donald trump's actual record and left her completely [1:47] paralyzed i will recognize the gentleman from maryland mr raskin the ranking member mr chairman thank [1:54] you very much and um miss dandrea um i'm moved by some of your political statements one of the [2:01] things you said at the end of last year was if any political figure or party can direct federal law [2:07] enforcement against its critics we no longer live under the rule of law do you remember when you wrote [2:13] that yes sir so do you reject donald trump's very public orders to the department of justice and the fbi to [2:23] investigate and prosecute james comey letitia james adam schiff a bunch of other colleagues including [2:31] jason crowe i would say if there's reason and there's evidence to investigate those people then [2:37] he's absolutely right to call for it if not then he doesn't need to call for that wait you said if any [2:42] political figure can direct federal law enforcement against its critics we no longer live under the rule [2:47] of law i think there's a difference between someone being critical and someone doing something that [2:53] violates the rule of law okay but all of it i mean the reason why all the grand juries refuse to [3:03] render indictments the reason why a number of prosecutors uh resigned or were forced out of [3:09] uh their positions were because of the obvious point that donald trump is attacking them because he [3:15] perceives them to be political critics or adversaries of his and so it would seem to me just to apply your [3:23] rule to the facts of the situation donald trump is absolutely taking us outside of the rule of law [3:30] i mean i don't mean to embarrass you in any way but i liked your statement of principle and i'm just [3:34] willing i'm wondering whether you're willing to interpret it in a completely obvious and objective [3:40] way i would say that my interpretation is objective and i think that without having all the facts about each [3:47] of these individuals and each of the allegations allegedly you know against them i can't speak generally to [3:53] the president's statements okay so original statement if any president whether it was maduro [3:58] or trump or oscar orlando hernandez says i want you to go and investigate and prosecute these 20 [4:05] political enemies of mine your position would basically be agnostic well let's wait and see [4:11] what happens in the investigation is that right doesn't that defeat the whole point of your statement [4:17] respectfully that's that's not right that's not what i mean that's not what i intended to say [4:21] um all right well let me ask about another one i wish we had all day because you've said some [4:25] interesting things which i agree with at the at the level of generality which you stated them for [4:30] example you said um that maduro had refused to cede power i think it was in the 2024 election and you [4:38] said that it's impossible to sustain a claim to lawful governance by a leader who holds office in defiance [4:45] of his own electorate well that really made me think about what happened in 2020 when donald trump [4:52] claimed that he won the election but the congress found that he had not won the election 60 federal [4:58] and state courts rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption but not only did he claim that [5:04] he won it he continues to claim that he won it so i hope you would repudiate that uh mike thank you for [5:12] the question i would say that he was he ceded power he gave in he the president biden was sworn in and [5:20] was the president of the united states so he did not illegally hold on to power in the manner that [5:25] president maduro illegitimate dictator did oh i see in other words because the coup didn't work and the [5:31] violent insurrection didn't succeed in overturning the election then you think it was all right what [5:37] he did respectfully that's not what i said i i said that's what i said though in other words you seem [5:43] to be saying that because his attempt to destroy joe biden's electoral college majority which he won by [5:51] more than seven million votes 306 to 232 in electoral college because his efforts to overturn that on the [5:58] floor of congress and with a violent insurrection then he complied with what you were stating as a basic [6:06] rule of law principle respectfully sir i think there's a difference between asking whether fraud [6:11] occurred and refusing to cede power once it's been made clear to you that it has well what's inciting [6:16] a violent insurrection against your own government i'm not sure i understand what you mean what well [6:22] you're saying there's one thing about asking a question for example going to federal 60 different [6:27] federal and state courts to try to get a ruling but once you've lost all of those you think it's [6:32] legitimate within the rule of law and democracy to incite a violent insurrection [6:37] as donald trump was impeached for sure i appreciate the question i don't have a clear answer for you [6:43] on that okay i think that well we can discuss we can discuss it later and i i thank you for your [6:49] statement of principles which i think are often quite lucid but i i wish that you would apply them [6:54] even handedly across the board it might be tough from the the job that you're in right now i yield back [7:00] to you mr chairman so the republicans bring in this witness to testify about venezuela fine she's there [7:05] to talk about authoritarian regimes corrupted courts strongmen hijacking state power and raskin sits down [7:12] across from her if you know anything about jamie raskin you know he doesn't shout he doesn't do the [7:18] cheap theatrical outrage thing he's calm he's pleasant and he's lethal with the receipts he opens [7:24] up by reading a quote she wrote just a few months ago she said if any political figure or party can direct [7:30] federal law enforcement against its critics we no longer live under the rule of law and look as a [7:36] progressive as anyone who cares about basic civil liberties and justice i agree with that that is a [7:41] solid fundamental principle so raskin smiles nods and basically says great in that case do you repudiate [7:49] donald trump publicly ordering the doj and the fbi to go after his political critics james comey [7:55] latisha james adam schiff and right on cue the brain freeze she doesn't say yes she doesn't stand [8:02] by her own words instead she immediately starts squirming well if there's reason and evidence [8:08] then he had every right to call for it seriously raskin immediately steps in and goes wait a minute [8:14] career prosecutors resigned grand juries literally refused to indict because there was no evidence trump [8:21] singled them out purely because they were his political adversaries so wait if a president you [8:26] like weaponizes the justice system it's just fine but if it happens in caracas it's tyranny give me a break [8:33] then she tries to dodge behind well i can't speak generally without knowing all the specific facts of [8:38] every case so raskin does what he does best he widens the aperture he says okay what if nicolas maduro in [8:46] venezuela or juan orlando hernandez in honduras got up at a press conference and named 20 political [8:52] enemies they wanted thrown in prison would your response be well let's wait and see what their [8:58] state prosecutors dig up of course it wouldn't we know damn well she'd be calling them ruthless [9:03] authoritarians on cable news that very evening but when it's donald trump tweeting threats from mar-a-lago [9:09] suddenly she's an impartial juror who just needs more time the hypocrisy makes you want to pull your [9:14] hair out he pulls out another quote of hers about venezuelan elections it is impossible to sustain [9:20] a claim to lawful governance by a leader who holds office in defiance of his own electorate god it's [9:25] like she handed him the script because what happened in 2020 donald trump lost by over 7 million votes [9:32] over 60 state and federal courts threw his garbage fraud claims right out the door yet he claimed he won [9:38] tried to trash the certified results and still claims he's the legitimate president [9:43] that is the literal textbook definition of trying to hold office in defiance of your electorate [9:49] and you will not believe her defense she actually sits there and says well he ceded power joe biden [9:56] was sworn in so he didn't hold on to power like a dictator wait are they kidding me raskin calls it [10:02] out with zero hesitation so you're telling me that because the coup failed and the violent insurrection [10:07] didn't succeed in overturning the election that makes it okay she tries to argue that trump was [10:13] just asking questions about fraud and raskin just looks at her asking questions in court is one thing [10:20] inciting a violent mob to breach the capital after losing 60 lawsuits does that fit inside the rule of law [10:26] and her answer i don't have a clear answer for you on that unbelievable just wow when you corner these [10:33] folks with their own logic and they realize that defending trump means having to defend political [10:38] violence against the government the high-minded rhetoric about the rule of law just evaporates [10:43] into thin air raskin didn't yell he didn't demean her he just said thank you for your principles i [10:49] just wish you applied them across the board and that's the entire ball game folks principles aren't [10:54] a buffet you don't get to pick and choose when democracy matters based on the party registration of [10:59] the guy breaking it if attacking the rule of law is bad in venezuela it is bad right here at home period [11:06] let me know what you thought of this hearing down in the comments i want to hear from you [11:09] smash that like button subscribe and take care of each other i'll see you in the next one