Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, has officially flipped in the election interference case that is being brought forth by special counsel Jack Smith. Now, we have some word in regard to the various times Mark Meadows spoke to special counsel Jack Smith and provided him cooperating information [00:00:19] about Donald Trump and his role in attempting to overturn the election. Now, I wanna be clear that we don't know the entirety of what Mark Meadows has told Jack Smith, but here's what we know as reported by ABC News. Mark Meadows has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team [00:00:37] at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter. The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly [00:00:54] told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless. Now, clearly, Mark Meadows carried himself very differently, publicly speaking, [00:01:10] and his book contradicts what he has been telling Jack Smith, according to this reporting. But he even told Jack Smith that he felt that Trump was a dishonest actor, a liar, if you will. Meadows also told the federal investigators Trump was being dishonest [00:01:26] with the public when he first claimed to have won the election, only hours after polls closed on November 3rd, 2020, before final results were even in. Obviously, we didn't win, a source quoted Meadows as telling Smith's team in hindsight. [00:01:42] Now, keep in mind, Meadows is not someone who has had any bad blood with Trump yet. I'm very curious to see what Trump thinks about Meadows after he reads this reporting. Up until now, he has only said complimentary things about Mark Meadows. He has referred to him as a great chief of staff, a special friend, [00:02:03] if you will, he is special when it comes to this case. >> Speaker 2: Helping the special prosecutor. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, well, yeah. So, look, there's more that we have learned about what Meadows has told Jack Smith, including the contradictions between what he's told Smith and [00:02:18] what he wrote in his book. But before we get to that, Jenk, thoughts? >> Speaker 2: So, first thought is, ladies and gentlemen, we got him. Down goes Meadows. No, not Trump, Meadows. >> Speaker 1: All right. >> Speaker 2: Okay. >> Speaker 1: I thought you were having mission accomplished moment. >> Speaker 2: No, we know. [00:02:34] Okay, so down goes Meadows for now. And down goes, as in he got an immunity deal, so he's gonna be all right, presumably. But the most important thing is, in order to get this deal, he had to give the goods, and so apparently already testified in front of a grand jury. So this thing is locked in. [00:02:50] You can't untestify. That stuff will be used against you later. If you squelch on the deal, then you're going to prison for sure, cuz you're on the record both with Jack Smith in person and otherwise. So it looks like this thing is locked in stone. [00:03:07] I hope that's what it looks like. It just broke. And then so Trump will turn on him viciously. He'll go from great guy, special friend, to he was a loser. I always knew it. Okay, guys, this is his chief of staff. He knows exactly what they lied about in regards to the 2020 election and [00:03:27] exactly what, look, the big thing that we're all looking for here is the fake elector scheme. How much information does he have on that. Now Cheese boroughs flipped, and he wrote the fake elector documents. Sidney Powell's flipped, Jenna Ellis's flipped, we're gonna get to that next. [00:03:44] And now down goes Meadows. For the first time in a long time, including Trump, is in criminal trouble in New York on the fraud case. He's in civil and financial trouble, and that's very real, and [00:04:00] that's why he's so worried about the New York case. But this is the first time in a criminal case where I think, wow, are they actually gonna get him? >> Speaker 1: So a few things I think is worth mentioning. So Mark Meadows has not been indicted in any of these cases, [00:04:17] whether we're talking about the Georgia election interference case or special counsel Jack Smith's federal criminal case in regard to election interference. So it is interesting to me that Mark Meadows wanted to ensure immunity [00:04:32] before providing any testimony to Jack Smith or to his prosecutorial team. The only thing that we know of Mark Meadows engaging in was he was the individual who set up the phone call between Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger. [00:04:49] He also, of course, repeated some of the lies, the baseless notion that there was widespread voter fraud. Now, what he says isn't the problem, right? That's actually protected speech. The question know, did Mark Meadows engage in any activity that could be [00:05:07] criminal in regard to this case? Because look, he wanted immunity. Why would you want immunity unless you did something wrong? >> Speaker 2: Yeah, and so that is Mark Meadows and Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell and all of those people saying, yeah, we were in a criminal conspiracy together. [00:05:22] You don't get an immunity deal because you lied to your parents and it was slightly immoral. This is for legal matters, criminal legal matters. You have to admit, we did this crime together. [00:05:38] And here's my evidence on the rest of my co conspirators on the crime we committed. >> Speaker 1: Right. >> Speaker 2: So understand, the weight of this thing and the crime they committed was a crime against the United States of America. >> Speaker 1: And its voters, the will of the American people and our electoral process, who we, the majority of us, [00:05:55] wanted to be the President of the United States. Mark Meadows, along with all of these other individuals within Donald Trump's team and Trump himself, wanted to overturn the results of our democratic process and go against the will of the American people. And I am curious now that so many people in Trump's orbit have flipped. [00:06:14] I mean, is Vivek Ramaswami gonna continue arguing that Trump did nothing wrong, that his behavior was protected by the First Amendment? >> Speaker 2: Anna it's funny you say that, because on social media I put out just a couple of hours ago, not knowing anything about Mark Meadows at that moment, we've got to get every single [00:06:33] Republican on the record about 2020, and the questions have to be relentless. And the press should not ask them anything until they answer the question, was the election stolen in 2020 or was it not? Because, look, it's a public service announcement, in a sense, [00:06:48] because the Republican voters wanna know, too. And when I put that on social media, a lot of them agreed. They're like, Damn right, we need to know who's on our side and realizes that the FBI and the deep state stole this election. I don't wanna vote for a guy who's with a deep state. [00:07:03] Okay, good. So the Republican voters wanna know, the rest of us want to know, okay? So every Republican politician in the country should absolutely, positively be forced to say, was the election stolen or wasn't it? And none of this greasy, well, I think this is a reregularity. [00:07:22] No, stolen or us who won the goddamn election. >> Speaker 1: Right? >> Speaker 2: It's a very simple question, okay? >> Speaker 1: The thing that's so depressing to me is how many people in the country, how many people surrounding Donald Trump and Trump himself are willing to essentially lie to the American people, [00:07:41] even engage in this grift to sell books? In the case of Mark Meadows, repeating the lie that the election was stolen. So let's actually get to Mark's book, okay? Chief's Chief is the name of it, very clever. He's referring to himself as the Chief of Staff, and [00:07:58] what he says in his book is very different from the testimony that he allegedly provided to special counsel Jack Smith's team. According to Meadow's book, the election was stolen. And rigged with the help from allies in the liberal media who ignored actual [00:08:13] evidence of fraud right there in plain sight for anyone to access and analyze. So, of course, he's willing to say this kind of garbage in order to sell his books, because the grift, the money, is more important than being honest with the American people. And more importantly, being honest with the American people about our electoral [00:08:30] process and the outcome of a presidential election. Now, sources told ABC News that when speaking with Jack Smith's investigators, Meadows conceded that he doesn't actually believe some of the statements in his own book. Meadows privately told Smith's investigators that to this day, he has yet [00:08:48] to see any evidence of fraud that would have kept now President Joe Biden from the White House. And he told them he agrees with a government assessment at the time that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure election in US history. Meadows also told investigators earlier this year that he has long believed that [00:09:07] Trump was being dishonest when he claimed to have won the election, given the fact that votes weren't even like they weren't even done counting the votes yet. And before the votes were counted, Trump already declared that there was election fraud. Now Meadows also did, of course, help Trump spread the big lie. [00:09:26] Meadows has said publicly that he believed the number of allegations still warranted further investigation and that he hadn't reached a conclusion on the election overall by late December of 2020. And on January 2, 2021, Meadows helped set up that now infamous phone call [00:09:44] between Donald Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger. Now, while speaking with investigators Meadows was specifically asked if Trump ever acknowledged to him that he had, in fact, lost the election. Meadows told investigators that, no, he had never heard Trump say that. [00:10:03] Now Meadows also told Smith's investigators that around that time, there were many times he wanted to resign over concerns that the way certain allegations of fraud were being handled could have a negative impact. But he ultimately didn't leave because he wanted to help get a load of this, [00:10:21] ensure a peaceful transfer of power, which is why he then proceeded to publish that garbage book where he made garbage baseless claims, of course, all right? >> Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, we halfway jokingly, sometimes we'll say hashtag Cenk was right, hashtag Anna was right. [00:10:37] In this case, hashtag Cenk and Anna were right, so what were we right about? First we told you Mark Meadows is probably flipped, you remember us telling you that? Why did we say that, cuz he had a conspicuous silence. While everybody's speaking out, I didn't do it, we're flipping, etc., you couldn't [00:10:54] find Mark Meadows if you knew the codes of the Witness Protection Program, right? You just could not find him, he would not say anything, and so that was a glaring thing. And then when in Islander, Fani Willis indicted him, he seemed like shocked and so green, like what, you can't do that. [00:11:13] And that to us seemed to indicate he's already got a deal with Jack Smith, that's why he's like, what the hell, why are you indicting me in that letter, right? And so but apparently they did a good job of not communicating, and so Fani Willis didn't know that. [00:11:30] So now, of course, this will change what happens in Georgia as well. And then the second thing is, you could tell from the testimony of everyone else that we found out in the January 6 hearings that Meadows was super nervous about the whole thing. [00:11:45] He just felt like it looks like, based on the testimony, that he was stuck in the middle. He kept getting yelled at by Trump, and he hated being yelled at, and so he was intimidated by that which made me laugh and laugh, because this is one of the tough guys of the Freedom Caucus, right? [00:12:03] >> Speaker 1: Yeah, chief's chief. >> Speaker 2: Yeah, chief's chief, right, and then Trump goes, why didn't you cheat more for me? And he's like, please don't yell at me, right? On the other hand, when the others are saying at one of the most important parts, hey, Mark, they're saying that they wanna execute the vice president, [00:12:19] tell the president. And he's like, I already did, and he doesn't mind. >> Speaker 1: Yeah, actually, let me get to that. So, Meadows does shed light on what Trump was saying behind the scenes as the riots were taking place on January 6. Sources said Meadows confirmed that at one point, as the riots were unfolding, [00:12:37] Trump got on a call with then House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy and told McCarthy, I guess these people are more upset than you are. Meaning, like, hey, McCarthy, why aren't you rioting along with these lunatics? However, according to what Meadows told investigators, Trump seemed to grow [00:12:56] increasingly concerned as he learned more about what was transpiring at the Capitol. And Trump was visibly shaken when he heard that someone had been shot there. So, of course, he's referring to the woman, the Trump supporter who got shot, the one person who was shot and killed on that day, tragically, Ashley Babbitt. [00:13:13] Really tragic that that happened to her, she was lied to, and she felt that the election had been stolen from her preferred candidate, a well known narcissist and liar, and she lost her life as a result of that, I mean, absolutely tragic. >> Speaker 2: Yeah, so, look guys, now, note of caution. [00:13:29] So, I think I'm justifiably very excited about this news because we wanna get to the truth, and we don't want another coup in America, and we wanna protect our democracy, and these sons of bitches try to coup. And the fact that they are now turning on each other is the greatest news you could hope for. [00:13:44] Now, the caveat, what Anna said there in the middle is very important, he apparently did not say that he heard Trump say, yeah, I know I lost, right? Because if he had that, that would be huge because then you have intent to lie, [00:13:59] right, intent to deceive. Now, Trump still has the excuse, at least as far as Mark Meadows is concerned, and as far as what we know about his testimony, that like, well, golly gee, every other rational person on the planet knew, but I'm a moron, so I didn't know at all. I thought the mules and the Krakens really had stolen the vote and Hugo Chavez's [00:14:18] ghost was the one that stole the election, I'm the dumbest guy in America. He still has that defense left, and it might work. >> Speaker 1: Look, it really depends because think about it in other contexts. So, if you are, let's say, speeding, you're going 50 [00:14:35] miles an hour in a 35 miles per hour zone, the cop pulls you over. It's not a defense to simply say, I didn't know that the speed limit here was only 35 miles per hour. You're still gonna get a citation, you're still gonna get a ticket for that. In the case of Donald Trump, for [00:14:51] me, what I think is the most important is to see if there's any evidence of Trump himself engaging in plotting that fake elector scheme. >> Speaker 2: Yeah, totally, and so that's what the trial shows, okay? So now let me correct a couple of mythologies that the right wing [00:15:07] have, okay? So first they're like, you shouldn't like Vivek Ramaswami was on this show saying you shouldn't even try him. Well, then how do we know if he was involved in the plot or not? We have overwhelming public evidence, right, and we know that there was a fake electoral scheme and we know that they wrote emails about it. [00:15:24] But Donald Trump doesn't read, I'm not sure he's even capable of reading, and so right now would I convict him if I was on the jury? I don't know, I didn't see all the evidence, right, I would have to see the evidence from all these. Right now we know that these people flipped, but [00:15:40] we don't know the details of all of their testimony. And remember, I'm not gonna be on the jury, twelve random people are going to be on the jury, including some that might be Republicans, and some that might be independents, and that might be much more open to Trump. You have to convince them, and you have to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt. [00:15:59] So, I don't want people getting carried away and thinking, that city's in an orange jumpsuit two weeks from now, no way, no way. There's a long way to go before that. And remember, even if he gets convicted, he's gonna appeal and appeal and appeal and it's gonna take a long time. And by that time he might have already won the election. [00:16:15] I'm giving you a thousand caveats, cuz they're important and they're real and you have to be honest with your audience and with everybody. So, you know what the real facts are. But guys, the mythology of the right wing is that you shouldn't even try him because it's deep state to actually go through a justice system. [00:16:32] No, the justice system is testing whether you did it or you didn't do it. It's not prejudging, it judging. It is exactly what happens in the justice system, right? So, saying that he shouldn't face charges is absurd given how many co conspirators [00:16:49] have said, yes, we committed a crime together and he was the leader of that crime. Okay, so then the second thing is they're like. Well, you didn't verify the vote, so we think the election was stolen. No, brothers and sisters. I know a lot of Republicans don't know this and this is gonna go to one of the most important points. [00:17:05] A lot of Republicans think that the vote was never verified. That they never did a recount or a hand recount. No, all those states did two to three recounts, including in Georgia, a hand recount. They could not have recounted an election more than they counted this one and [00:17:22] recounted it and verified it, right? And then Trump had 60 cases and he didn't present one piece of evidence, not one piece of evidence. And a lot of Republican voters have. I know it seems unbelievable, but they genuinely don't know that. [00:17:37] They think, no, the judges were intimidated, it was procedural, blah, blah, blah. No way, no way, okay? So, now you're gonna have a trial where they're gonna get to see this evidence. And it's to some degree. And it's gonna put the Republican voters to a decision. [00:17:53] What do you guys wanna do? All of these people who are right wing Republicans are telling you he did this. There was never any evidence. We definitely lost the election and he wanted to do a fake elector plot to steal the election. [00:18:08] Okay? And then Republican voters can say, I don't care, I don't care, I don't believe anyone. If Jesus Christ himself came down here and told me that Trump was the one trying to steal election. I wouldn't believe him and I'd spit in his face. Trump is my messiah. Okay, then you made a decision, right? [00:18:25] Or you're gonna say, or by the way, you could say, hey, you know what? I know we were stealing the election. So, what? We should rule. I don't care if we won or not. Okay, then at least you made a decision, okay? But, there is some chance that a lot of Republicans and I think a lot of people would be shocked by this. Anna's been saying this all along. [00:18:41] I've come to believe it, that a significant chunk of even Republicans, let alone independents. Will go, well, I didn't know that, really? No, I'm not for that. I don't wanna coup. That's crazy. Yeah, and look, it really depends on whether or not the individual in question [00:18:59] looking at the trial and looking at the evidence is a good faith, honest actor. Because, look, I saw what came out during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. And I changed my mind about it based on evidence that came out in the context of that trial. That is what, in my opinion, honest individuals do. [00:19:16] They look at new information, new evidence, and they change their minds. Now, the question is, are the news organizations that Republican voters consume going to cover all of these various individuals flipping on Trump? Are they gonna cover the evidence that will come out during the trial? [00:19:34] We'll see. We've seen them evade that type of news in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if they do it again. >> Speaker 1: And look, like I said, you got to put every Republican politician to a decision. You also got to put Fox News to a decision. Everyone in news should say, look, if you don't cover this honestly and tell people what's actually happening in the trial. [00:19:52] Not tell them what to think about what's happening in the trial, but just the facts of the trial, right? Then no one's ever gonna call you Fox News anymore. You can call yourself whatever the hell you like, but we're never gonna say news. So, the Fox Entertainment Organization or the Fox propaganda, whatever, [00:20:07] they'll never say propaganda. But, they could say Fox Entertainment Division has decided to entertain their audience with lies about the trial. But, they're certainly not in the news business, because they're lying 24. They already paid $800 million for lying. And God MAGA, guys, you think Rupert Murdoch? [00:20:26] The guy who's slightly to the right of Attila the Hun, would have paid $800 million if they weren't lying? And one last thing. Trump, in all these trials, will get to present his evidence. And if he has the Krakens and the mules. And he doesn't bring them forward in the trial, you should be living at Trump. [00:20:44] You had it, right? If you're a MAGA, you think that was stolen from you, great. You should be thrilled about the trials, cuz Trump will get to prove it. If he doesn't [LAUGH] and that still doesn't convince you. Then, okay, then you're hopeless and you're an occult. But, let's see. Let's give them an opportunity. [00:21:00] Let's give them an opportunity to see the evidence and change their mind.