Speaker 1: Nobody should be shocked by this. Outrage may be, but not shocked, because Donald Trump, remember, he would play the January 6th anthem at all his rallies. He would call, but he still calls them hostages. Incredibly offensive, given that we have hostages in Gaza right now. He promised over and over. So I would say to you, look, what J.D. Vance says has zero validity. Four days ago, Pam Bondi, in her confirmation hearing, said that these cases would be looked at case by case. What Pam Bondi says has zero validity. There is one person who matters, and I think that the things he promised on that campaign should be taken very seriously. And if you voted for him thinking, oh, don't take him seriously, he's just joking, well, you screwed around and you're finding out.

Speaker 2: By Trump's definition of this, and by his token, I would also expect to see the hundreds of people who were convicted of the George Floyd protests of assaulting police officers to walk free. Right, Scott?

Speaker 3: Well, they were prosecuted this summer. I mean, how many were prosecuted, ultimately, because there were lots of people that had all their charges dropped.

Speaker 2: I have the answer for you, and it's hundreds of them who were charged and prosecuted.

Speaker 3: I saw an analysis that summer, and most people who were charged had their charges dropped.

Speaker 2: But what charges were they?

Speaker 3: I mean, all kinds of charges.

Speaker 2: If they were failure to disperse, those types of charges. The ones who were charged with violent crimes, those charges were not dismissed. They were prosecuted.

Speaker 4: Well, they went into all kinds of diversionary programs. I'm one of the few lawyers in this country that represented people in those riots, and on January 6th, one of the very few. And the way that the prosecution was handled between those two groups are starkly different.

Speaker 2: Don't you think that there is a substantive difference between what happened on January 6th, what they were trying to do, and why the federal government has a desire, and in fact, a necessity, to prevent that from ever happening again? Don't you think there's a substantive difference between those two things? One of them was trying to overturn an election.

Speaker 3: No, I mean, I'll answer it. You don't think there's a difference

Speaker 2: between trying to overturn an election and violent social justice protests?

Speaker 3: Well, it's called social justice. Okay. So, I'll give it to you, Scott.

Speaker 2: Let's say that they're violent. You don't think there's a difference between trying to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power and violent riots in the street of any kind? The ones in 1968, the ones in 2020?

Speaker 3: What were the objective of those riots? I think both groups of people were mad about something going on. They wanted to change it. They took matters into their own hands that they should not have done. In both cases, you had people engaging in activities that they should not have engaged in. Now, our culture and our public discourse decided one group of people, social justice is good, and these people were bad, but the reality is they had the same motivation. Here's the thing. They actually did.

Speaker 5: They all did the same thing. Wait a second. They did not have the same motivation. They wanted to change something they didn't like. First of all, I don't even want to get into this debate because it's done. People voted, and as Anna said, FAFO, okay? Go Google it if you don't know what that means because I can't say it on national television, but this is the era that we are in. And people, there were people in protests. They were not riots. They were protests, and there were people who showed up at the protests and did bad behavior, but that was because a man was murdered unjustly. That doesn't give you the right to break into the Nike store. That doesn't give you the right to break into Tiffany's. How about you let me finish? Blowing up a police precinct. How about you let me finish? Thank you. That's what we do at this table. They, a man was killed, and that's why they protested. Now, I don't sit on this network and try and both sides something. If you were violent in those protests, repercussions should be had, but that is not what happened on January 6th. What happened on January 6th is people went and stormed the Capitol because a man pouted and lost an election and couldn't stand up. Nobody died because of that election. People died because of Donald Trump's actions, and because, I don't know if the people you defend, but the people, officers died on that day?

Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, no, no. One guy had a heart attack five days later. No officers died. Back the blues.

Speaker 1: Officer Brian Sicknick, he had multiple strokes. He died by suicide. Officer Jeffrey Smith, Metropolitan Police. Do you know how many cops die by suicide all the time? I'm going to say their names, whether you like it or not. You can say everybody's name. He died by traumatic brain injury, and he died by suicide. Officer Howard Livingood, Capitol Police, died by suicide. Gunther Hashida, Metropolitan Police, died by suicide. Kyle DeFraytag, Metropolitan Police, died by suicide. So I am not going to, and if you're going to be campaigning about being for the blue, being about law and order, you know what I really appreciated today? The very few Republicans on the Senate who stood up, people like Tom Tillis, people like-

Speaker 2: Can I play the sound? Because we have it.

Speaker 1: Let's play that sound. Because they are being consistent to who they were on January 6th and January 7th. That's right, let's play the sound.

Speaker 4: To me, I just can't agree. It was surprising to me that it was a blanket pardon.

Speaker 6: 100% of pardoner put up, they've been here long enough. Most of them hadn't even been charged with anything.

Speaker 7: I do not support the pardons if they were given, if they were given to people who committed violent crimes, including assaulting police officers.

Speaker 8: He told us he would pardon the Jan 6th protesters. That was well known when he campaigned for the job. He won the popular vote, he won a mandate, and I fully support him in doing that.

Speaker 2: So there were some, to your point, and do we have that Wall Street Journal op-ed? The Wall Street Journal just put out an op-ed tonight, basically saying this, that Republicans, Trump pardons the January 6th cop eaters, Republicans busy denouncing President Biden's preemptive pardons for his family and other political allies, and deservedly so, but then it's shameful if you don't hear many, if any, ruing President Trump's proclamation to pardon unconditionally nearly all of the people who rioted at the Capitol on January 6th. I mean, there are people here on the right who think this is outrageous, and so I don't think it, you know, it's, I don't know, maybe some people think that you can't be pro-Trump and not oppose this, but it seems like you can. Tom Tillis supports Trump, he opposes it. It's not right-left. It is, it clearly is, but it's not supposed to be right-left.

Speaker 4: He's right, he's right, it's not supposed to be right-left. It's right-wrong, it's right-wrong. For the presidential power, it's what's best for our community and our society as a whole. You're right, all of those officers that died and lost their lives and committed suicide, they should be honored, they lost their lives, but it doesn't matter why you attack a federal building. You can attack a federal building because you're mad because somebody got killed, or you can attack a federal building because you're mad because somebody didn't win an election. No, no, no, no, no, no. It doesn't justify, it doesn't justify disparaging,

Speaker 2: it doesn't justify disparaging treatment between us.

Speaker 1: I take your point. Can I say something? I would argue that letting, what, 1,500 people lose who are now emboldened and feel that they are untouchable because the president of the United States has their back.