your time and for your reporting. appreciate it. >> this quick programming note, john fetterman is going to be interviewed by lawrence o'donnell on the last word in just over an hour. don't miss that. that's all in on this tuesday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. good evening, alex. evening, alex gangbusters good it's about the only sedition trial in our nation's history. we're going to talk about that, but first, let's talk about the sedition trial. after albreak, federal prosecuts resumed prosecuting a case on five leaders of the oath keepers

on charge of seditious conspiracy trying to overthrow the government. last week, the group focused on the founder stewart rhodes. but today focused on afghanistan veteran, jessica watkins. and she cut off pool cues to serve as antifa smashers january 6th. if they're convicted of seditious conspiracy, watkins and her fellow defendants each face up to 20 years behind bars. now, there's been a lot of legal wrangling on the radar lately, but this trial is incredibly important because it is yet another example of individual accountability. in this case, accountability for a small group that sought to inflict significant ghdamage. at the same time, accountability does not get to the root of the

problem. let's take the case that happened to d.c. police officer michael fanone on january 6th. i should warn you some of what we're about to show is graphic. if you don't want to see it, now is your chance to turn away. this is the image that made officer fanone famous. it's a snapshot taken moments after he'd been dragged out of the capitol and then beaten and taced at the base of his skull. it's also before members of the mob beat him with a flag saying blue lives matter. thanks to officer fanone's body cam footage we have incredibly detailed image of what happened to him that day. fanone isy. self-employed, he s on the news what was happening at the capitol and he got on the police radio and went where he was needed. we can hear for ourselves how he got the crowd to stop attacking with him by pleading with him

that he had children. ildren >> we can see for ourselves, as fanone is pulled away from the attack having suffered a heart attack and traumatic injury. usually, you can see who the individual, who assaulted officer fanone. that's how online sleuths and the fbi found this man who has since pleaded guilty of dragging fanone into the crowd shouting "i got one." and this man who has also pleaded guilty who you can hear on fanone's body cam screaming "kill him with his own gun." or the man accused of ripping fanone's badge from his chest and taking it home as a souvenir. or the man accused of tasing fanone repeatedly. none of these people were oath keepers, they weren't organized,

they didn't have much planned yet they did horrible things together. after fanone just authored a book called "hold the line." in it, he describes independent soldiers who became emboldened by the mob. when asked why he travelled to the capitol on january 6th, the man said, quote, trump called us, trump called us to d.c. unfortunately the basic facts of what happened on january 6th and trump's role of inciting that day that's become partisan debate. republicans and congress have done all they can to sell that to the public about january 6th. though officer fanone has made it his personal mission to make sure history tells the story of

that day correctly that everyone responsible, up to and including former president trump is held responsible. fanone showed everyone who would watch his body cam footage. he testified before the january 6th committee and told his story in excruciating detail. here's what officer fanone received after testifying to the january 6th about how he was brutally beaten. >> first saved message. >> yeah this is for michael fanone. metropolitan police officer. you're on trial right now lying and -- you want an emmy? an oscar? what are you trying to go for here. i wish they would have killed all you scumbags. you people are scum. they stole the election for trump and you know that you scumbag. and [ bleep ] too bad they didn't beat the [ bleep ] more. >> as much as i'd like to say that voice is an outlier, that

that voice is uncommon, i don't think it is. more republicans believe january 6th was a legitimate protest than they did before. you can see the green line, the percentage of republicans who think january 6th was a legitimate protest. jumping nearly 15 points in a year. and that red line, that's the amount of republicans who view january 6th as an insurrection, and it dropped 20%. even, and maybe especially within the police force itself officer fanone has been ostracized for trying to tell the truth. in his book, fanone writes the personal animosity toward me had grown so strong that some miss leaders worried that if i returned to street patrol, i might end up like frank serpico, the nypd whistle-blower was shot in 1971 and nearly died awaiting a suspicious delayed response.

that officer hack forced to leave the police force. earlier this year, the anti-defamation league identified 373 individuals who were both members of the oath keepers and are currently serving in law enforcement agencies across this country. yes, those oath keepers, the ones who are on trial for sedition. today, the department of justice updated it's running count of how many people they've prosecuted for involvement on january 6th. 880 defendants have been arrested so far. 412 of those individuals have pleaded guilty. 21 have been found guilty at trial. those numbers include the oath keepers who are on trial for sedition today. what those numbers don't include are the people who incited january 6th. those people including former president trump have yet to be held to account in any serious way. this thursday, the january 6th committee will hold its next hearing. one of the people who will be

there watching, seeing how the committee lays out its case and tries to get the history right is officer michael fanone. joining us now is former d.c. metropolitan police officer michael fanone. he's the author of the book out today "hold the line, the insurrection and one cop's battle for the american soul." officer, michael, thank you for joining me today. and thank you for sharing your story with the american detail in excruciating detail. >> thank you for having me. >> i just want to start with the number of people in law enforcement who also belong to a group like the oath keepers. as someone who served in law enforcement, does that surprise you -- did that surprise you, when you heard that statistic? >> no, it doesn't surprise me at all. unfortunately, we've seen a growing trend, i would say, ever since 2015, 2016, of law enforcement officers, members of

the military, joining up with groups like the oath keepers, proud boys, threepercenters. i think a lot of the rhetoric that these groups use to recruit law enforcement officers is the idea that they are preserving our republic. that they're fighting to preserve democracy, but in reality, they have a very perverse version of what democracy actually is. >> you were a trump supporter. you voted for him in 2016, is that right? >> i did vote for trump in 2016 in 2016, i was a single issue voter, my issue was law enforcement, i felt at that time donald trump and the republican party best represented law enforcement. >> and did you see between 2016 and 2020, inside law enforcement, the sort of mushrooming of this kind of oath keeper proud boy-like seditious

behavior when you were in the ranks of law enforcement? could you see that among people, of men and women, who supported the president at the time? >> not so much the extremist ideology. i mean, what i experienced was a reaction to what police officers were experiencing post ferguson. you know, we saw a lot of politicians using what i would say was a dangerous rhetoric against law enforcement. and it resulted in law enforcement officers in many cases, being targeted. i mean, we saw the assassination of police officers in dallas, texas. we saw the assassination of police officers in louisiana, and here in new york city. i 20 many of those officers' funerals, and that had a chilling effect within the ranks of police officers, especially uniformed police officers. >> and what was it about trump's message that appealed to law

enforcement officials? what was it that was so catalytic in terms of fostering this allegiance, if you will? >> i mean, i think it was him vocalizing support for law enforcement. we felt as though we had been abandoned by, you know, the democratic party. and that, at least many of us did, and that, you know, we saw this kind of blind loyalty to law enforcement from donald trump. but it was pretty early on in his administration that i recognized like how dangerous that was. >> yeah. >> and how it was not productive. >> what was it that sort of revealed the danger? was it a specific moment that you remember thinking this is not the right guy to lead the country? >> yeah, i mean, listen, i'm not going to lie, i was attracted to his kind of bombastic approach. i'm not a big fan of politicians

in general. >> yeah. >> so watching him make other politicians uneasy appealed to me for a time. and then i realized how counterproductive it was. and as a police officer, i didn't see anything getting better. things were getting worse. we need politicians who are going to facilitate constructive conversation between law enforcement and the communities we serve. and what donald trump was doing was actually dividing law enforcement and making it more difficult to interact with these communities and vice versa. >> it sounds like you made your break with sort of the trump agenda before january 6th. but i want to talk about that day and what happened in the aftermath. because you took your cause to the hill. i mean, you've met with republicans in congress, urging them to call out the events of january 6th. and you met with republicans who are in leadership, like kevin mccarthy who is poised to become the speaker of the house if republicans take back congress in november.

you can tell me about those conversations, especially with leader mccarthy, because there was a sense of danger that he felt in january 6, and then after january 6, which is not to hold the former president accountable? >> yeah. i had pretty low expectations going into all of those meetings. >> why? why was that? >> i mean, i think like many americans i've come to expect little or nothing from my elected leaders. what did shock me was the level of indifference that i experienced from people like kevin mccarthy and many of the other republican leaders. and just members of congress, that i met with, specifically the indifference that they showed not only to me who was there, you know, trying to represent the other officers that responded to the capitol that day, fought to defend democracy and the lives of the

individuals in the building but also the indifference he showed towards brian sicknick's mother, gladys sicknick. this is the mother of a fallen police officer, a dead police officer, and many of these people like kevin mccarthy. and in one particular instance lindsey graham, you know, took an adversarial position with this woman who was looking for answers. >> i mean, indifference is one word for it. but i think what's so striking on the outside of this is, there's a reporting today that on january 6, mccarthy is on the phone with president trump saying they're trying to effing kill me. this is someone terrified for his own life and then can't acknowledge publicly what happened that day. is that indifference? or is that aiding and abetting someone who is trying to tear

down american institutions? i wonder if i would describe more nefarious motives who so clearly understood the stakes that day, the danger, the peril, not just individually but the country, but in the months since has done anything but lead on the issue? >> i mean, i would describe it to -- i don't know if it rises to the level of criminal culpability. >> and i'm not suggesting criminal. >> certainly, there's a moral obligation that i believe our politicians have. and kevin mccarthy has failed to meet that threshold i think time and time again. it's disappointing. >> but did any of it shock you after you left those meetings effectively having failed in your quest? >> i don't if i failed in my quest necessarily with those events. i mean, i went there, i met with kevin mccarthy. i had an opportunity to speak with him. i recorded that conversation. >> yeah. >> and i was able to expose, you

know, elements of his indifference. and what i saw was a calculated approach to the events of january 6. like let me assure you, and there's a lot -- there's people out there that are much better versed in kevin mccarthy than me. but kevin mccarthy really wants to be speaker of the house. and he will do anything to be speaker of the house. you know, he's not concerned about his legacy. he's only concerned with retaining power and obtaining that position. and so what he did was, you know, in the immediate aftermath of january 6, he saw it for what it was. he voiced that, vocalized it on the house floor. and then when he realized it was going to be politically disadvantageous to stay that course. he reversed course, went down to mar-a-lago, kissed trump's ass. and now we're seeing, you know, a very different approach to what january 6th was for him and the rest of the republican

party. >> well, yeah, the polling on this is shocking. republicans on whole are more prone to believe january 6 was a legitimate today than they were previously. >> and that said, it's a combination you've got fox news pumping propaganda out, downplaying, you know, the reality of that day. and then you also have elected representatives in congress and other political positions going back to their constituents and telling them things like andrew collide saying it was a porous day. and the senator from -- >> ron johnson. >> ron johnson saying he keeps debating in the debate what an armed insurrection is. well, i hate to tell you, ron johnson, there were firearms there, there were guns there. it's a fact. you have to get over the fact this is an armed insurrection in whatever sense you describe it

as, but there were guns, period. >> says someone on the front lines. we know and certainly in your broader mission to raise awareness of what happened, you've been remarkably successful and this book is testament to that. there's a january 6 committee hearing on thursday, and i wonder when you think about that day, are there any unanswered questions for you? what do you still wonder? do you have questions? >> i think at this point, the select committee has done an outstanding job of investigating, you know what i described early on in my congressional testimony. the root cause for january 6th. that was what liz cheney asked me at the conclusion of my testimony. i want to know what the root causes were. we've seen that, we had a president, a sitting president, who looked to defraud the american people. by saying that the 2020 election was stolen. that it was not in fact a free

and fair election which it was. the unanswered question is why is it that almost two years out from january 6, we've been incapable of acknowledging the police officers on an individual level who responded to the capitol and fought not only to save the lives of the individuals in building to preserve democracy and for one another. you know, we awarded a congressional gold medal to the metropolitan police department and to the u.s. capitol police and i think that's disingenuous like many officers feel. it wasn't institutions like the metropolitan police department that fought to save democracy. it was individual officers acting in their own volition in many situations. who like myself self-dispatched and went there and fought for hours. >> yeah. i mean, that's what you have done. what you did was extraordinary. and we know there are others like you.

and our hope is that they feel empowered to come out and speak about their experience. but until and unless that happens, we are left with these riveting and terrifying accounts like the one chronicled in your book. officer michael fanonefanone, fe d.c. metropolitan police. thank you for your sacrifice. the book is called "hold the line, the insurrection and one cop's battle for the american soul." thank you for coming on. >> yes, ma'am, thank you for having me. in the next half hour, i'll speak to one of the very important lawyers and someone who believed that congress should indict donald trump. but up next, there's rachel maddow to talk about "ultra" stay with us.

my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala.

♪♪ in november of 1938, in the nazi german against jews known as kristallnacht, it shocked the world, incredibly, one of the most influential voices in america basically told the audience that the jews had it coming. this father who spoke with his immense audience he was well on

the campaign to turn his listeners against jews which he blamed for communism. by 1938, his anti-semitic rants turned into a call for culture. called the christian front. here's my colleague, rachel maddow, and what happened next. >> in the fall of 1939, a dozen cans of cordite, military grade explosives went missing from the 165th infantry division of the new york national guard. a dozen cans of cordite, about 1500 rounds of ammunition as well. those explosives and that ammo went missing because the commander of a new york national guard machine gun company took that stuff and gave it to the christian front. the christian front by then, had started to prioritize the recruitment of new members who had military training and military connections. they decided to escalate their own military training and their own arsenal of weapons. by then father coughlin's

christian front militia had decided it was time to move beyond rallies and protests and pickets and beating up jews in the streets. by then, they had decided it was time for them to move as an organization in a big way. >> that true story about one seditious conspiracy plot to overthrow the u.s. government well, that is a taste of the riveting and dare i say shocking new podcast called "rachel maddow presents ultra." guys, run, do not walk, and download the podcast. the creator of the new podcast "rachel maddow presents ultra." good to see you, my friend. >> good to see you. >> i feel very blessed to talk about this -- really, everyone has said the same thing but it doesn't make it less true, incredibly urgent and revealing

podcast. for those who haven't listened to it, father coughlin, who was he? and how big was his audience, really? i mean, he what spreading this fascistic anti-semitic rhetoric. apparently, he had a lot of followers. >> oh, yeah. he's someone in the pofd cast you might have heard about before. father coughlin, maybe if you've never heard of him, but anyone in the cast of characters he's one. he's a parish church. he's not high up. he starts doing this radio broadcast in the church. he starts out as a fdr new-dealer. he turns against fdr and the new deal and turns really, really right. he turns against democracy.

he writes fan mail to mussolini. he said that america should follow the franco way. we should have a franco-style take over with a hunt taking over by violence and by force. and he essentially tries to rally his followers to rise up against the u.s. government because it's been taken over by the jews and the communists which he sees as one and the same. and just the anti-semitic seditious demagogue. there's only 130 million americans in the country at the time. so the equivalent like tv audience right now would be him getting 80 million people a week. >> wow. >> right? on the greatest cable news, of the greatest cable news night ever, maybe you're talking 5 million people, he's getting 80 million people, and he's

essentially calling for them to form violent armed cells to go, you know, rise up, to turn against jews and overthrow the government. >> what's so shocking, a., first of all, the traction he gets in american society. 30 to 40 million people, right? and then the people actually take him up on his suggestion that they should be armed and they should foment revolution and insurrection. we have a page from the christian story 1940 edition of "life" magazine who talks about the d-men who arrested 17 men for plotting revolution. that's 17 men. so these are the guys that are working as part of the christian front. >> uh-huh. >> and when we talk about the oath keepers and the proud boyce, we kind of think of them as a confection -- not a confection, but expression of contemporary america. and yet, there were numerous actors that fit that same bill back in the 1940s. >> sure. this is just one chapter.

the guys that were arrested were in the new york chapter, there's also a huge one in boston, another one in indianapolis, another big one in philadelphia. st. louis, all over the country had that. when those 17 guys got arrested in new york. one of the things that is so unnerving i'm glad you played that clip of the cordite taken from the national guard. the majority of those guys arrested were either active in the military guard or who had been previously. they wanted people with military training and military connections and they stole u.s. weapons to use in this plot they were planning for january plot. >> let's just set aside the january plot for a moment. did anything else bind these folks together? i mean, did we have a profile of the typical christian member? do we know how they were activated? in the same way trying to get an understanding who is tracted by

this anti-democratic seditious plot today? who is attracted to it? >> that's a really, really good question. and one of the things that was a challenge about putting the podcast together is that there's a whole lot of violent plots to overturn the government. and so you've got the christian fronters who are followers of father coughlin, all by and large catholic. are by and large people in cities, it's all men. certainly, they have a wider range of supporters. but then you've also got other groups that are planning similar plots who also are stealing stuff and planning takeovers of armories. and the silver shirts which features prominent three on monday, they're actually a middle class group. businessmen, teachers, lawyers. and it is within the scriptures of that group that they all have to be armed. and many of them have tens of thousands of ammunition at home. and they're planning on their own violent overthrow of the u.s. government, again, to get

rid of the jewish communist plot in anti-nazi style protests here. the christian profile is a little different than the silver shirt profile. that's different the other plat we talk about after the 1940 election that involved a klansman. which had a klan vibe to it. but the need to organize, whether the jews or the black people or the communists and that's what's wrong with america, they've taken over the government. therefore, we need to take over america, strong men, take this back. everybody's got their own flavor on it but that authoritarianism moves it to the time. >> i have to draw the parallel to today. first of all, the explicit praise of hitler and musolini

and franco, it made me think of victor orban, i'm not comparing orban to hitler, but the desire to have a strong man, you know, correct the wrongs is as true then as it is today. and i wonder if in your research for this and putting together of this podcast, whether you thinking about this sort of zeal that the republican party has for people like vladimir putin or viktor orban? >> i think there's a reason when you look around the world at authoritarian leaders you could kind of swap all of their heads in photo shop, you know what i mean? like there's putin with the bear but bolsonaro doing the say thing. and there's putin -- these news guys can all do that. it's because that same message from all of them, the idea that the strong man is going to protect you from the other, that we need to exterminate, to go

back to where we were when we were pure. it's the same in brazil as in hungary. as far as what you're able to achieve, and the same principles that they rhyme for a reason. when cpac goes to hungary. and when see the cpac tweet that came out praising the russian annexation of ukraine. and you see, you know, trump stumping for bolsonaro. bolsonaro saying if i don't win, we're going to have a war in brazil because we don't trust the election results. it's other piece. >> rachel, we have more to discuss, you can stay with justice. >> absolutely. >> we're going to take a quick commercial break. again, those listening at the top, it's a podcast "racial mad do you presents ultra." go to it immediately. we'll be right back.

[coughing] hi, susan. honey. yeah. i respect that. but that cough looks pretty bad. try this robitussin honey. the real honey you love, plus the powerful cough relief you need. mind if i root through your trash? robitussin. the only brand with real honeyand elderberry.

we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. they have no idea they're sitting on a goldmine. well they don't realize that if you have a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. we've got to tell them! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

♪♪ i am back with my friend and colleague rachel maddow talking about her new excellent podcast "rachel maddow presents ultra" that explores american democracy and right wing extremists and officials and a result of world war ii. there are a lot of parallels to what we're seeing today.

there is history on the podcast and the current state of affairs. today's anti-american extremists are no longer on the fringe of the two parties. today, extremists are part of the main extremistconnect 1200

chim. >> how do you see that advice in our -- as it pertains to our current modern day political landscape? >> the whole point of this, and this, i think it's sophisticated -- it's written like a children's book but it's sophisticated anti-fascist fantasizing. if somebody is showing up in your town telling you to hate jews, whatever it is, turn against some other, they know it's controversial.

they hope it will upset you, they want the public to be -- they might even want violence in confrontation between their supporters, their thugs and outrage. that's what makes them more important. gives them more juice and fundraising. and moves them on to the next don't do that, don't publicize that. instead, inoculate your community against these ideas. tell them what they're going to hear before they hear them. tell me them these are old ideas, this is how it worked out in other places. make the information boring and old news and not salacious and modern. i feel like it's a media criticism on the election. >> we're hearing it right now. >> when somebody tries to make you outraged, that means your out rage is playing your request. don't let people yank your chain. control the narrative if somebody is trying to take over the cycle by being outrageous. describe what is being said and

allowing them to do it through you. that's what i think the message was. i wish we had been better in the last five years. >> can you just record that on my phone to share that every single night. just join me every single night, my friend. >> i just want to tell you, you honing this out -- >> oh -- >> as you know, don't listen to anybody, the staff of what used to be the rachel maddow show is working with you four nights a week and me one night a week. our staff is so weird and demanding. >> but they like cupcakes. >> they're demanding, they don't -- they do not suffer fools, and they do not work well with people who don't do the work. they're so impressed with you and you're doing such great work. and i'm very proud of you. >> oh. >> i'm telling you, that staff is hard to please, and they're happy to be working with you and

impressed, and i'm just really happily you're here. >> thank you, rachel. i'm really happy you're here. rachel maddow most of "the rachel maddow show." if you haven't heard of it. the creator of the new podcast ultra. rachel, everything you do is a-plus. thanks for joining us. thanks for your time. still ahead, after talking to merrick garland's friends some attorneys, some believe the justice department will inevitably indict donald trump. the only question is when. frank ford joins me next. stick around. around

there's a different way to treat hiv. it's every-other-month, injectable cabenuva. for adults who are undetectable, cabenuva is the only complete, long-acting hiv treatment you can get every other month. cabenuva helps keep me undetectable. it's two injections, given by my healthcare provider, every other month. it's one less thing to think about while traveling. hiv pills aren't on my mind. a quick change in my plans is no big deal. don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking certain medicines, which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions post-injection reactions, liver problems, and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver problems or mental health concerns, and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection-site reactions, fever, and tiredness. if you switch to cabenuva, attend all treatment appointments. every other month, and i'm good to go. ask your doctor about every-other-month cabenuva.

again today, the justice department is sparring with donald trump over the mar-a-lago documents scandal. in a filing several hours ago, the doj asked the supreme court not to intervene in a dispute about the specifics of the special master's document review. trump has asked the court to allow the special master judge raymond deerie to review more

than 100 documents reviewed from trump's beach house. today, in a document calling the documents, quote, extraordinarily sensitive. the lawyers from the justice department say trump's attempt here is, quote, unprecedented and an attempt to restrict the executive branch's own use of records in a criminal investigation. this is the latest salvo in a very public and ongoing that the justice department is waging with the federal government. and the attorney general mare some merrick garland. and in a article by franklin foer said he believes we will see the doj excite trump in a matter of months. he said he spoke with his closest friends and former

clerks, and studied the record and interviewed the attorney general himself. and reached the conclusion that garland's belief in procedure is belief in the rule of law and in particular his reverence for duties, responsibilities and traditions of the u.s. department of justice will cause him to make the most monumental decision an attorney general can make. and he said the search for mar-a-lago in the first place was a big deal as it predictively opened the floodgates of the right wing criticized at the doj. garland is also the one who decided to include that photo of all of the classified documents retrieved from mar-a-lago in an august brief, a move that trump has complained about about almost nonstop. this is a present ongoing fight. not political anger, this is all right now. garland is already set ago side

the political noise andel following the evidence he has and abiding by the law he must uphold. it's no longer a question of whether garland should indict trump, it's when. and foer reports that the location of the potential trial may portend trouble that's inevitably top of mind for attorney general garland. quote, once the trial began, trump would likely be stuck in florida, in chance that he's charged in connection with the mar-a-lago documents matter. or in washington, d.c., if he's charged for his involvement in the events of january 6. the site of the washington trial would be the pretteman courthouse on constitutional satisfactory which is a short walk from the capitol. this fact terrified the former prosecutors and other experts i talked to about how the trial might play out. right wing politicians including

trump himself intimmated violence. with protesters and counterprotesters on the same locale, the occasion would tempt street war fare. the prospect of such a spectacle fills merrick garland with dread. joining us franklin foer, thanks for your reporting and your tile tonight. >> hey, alex. >> so, i just want to ask a question i think a lot of us are wondering why do you think the attorney general agreed to speak with you in an incredibly fraught time where a sideways glance he makes on camera is parse to what that might imply about a future indictment? >> right. i should be up front and say i spoke with merrick garland in june before the mar-a-lago raid. he did nothing that tipped his hand in any sort of way. the justice department, at least in my dealings with it really takes seriously it's vows of

silence. it doesn't talk about ongoing investigations. but i do think that merrick garland has taken a lot of criticism. there have been times when he seemed disconnected. and i think he suffered, especially in comparison to the january 6 commission investigation on the hill, which has done a vivid job of portraying a narrative and he's taken a lot of heat for being extremely cautious. so i think he's decided in certain venues he's going to step out and explain what he's doing a little bit more clearly, even if he's not talking about specifics. >> so this is an attempt to clarify the situation, and yet you came away with it -- clarifying the situation but not issuing any indictments, as it were. you came away with a pretty clear idea that he was going to issue an indictment against former president trump. can you talk to me about how you came to that conclusion? and the evolution you've seen the attorney general undergo since he first came to office in

many ways trying to lower the temperature of things in the nation's capitol and around the country? >> so, merrick garland is -- i'd describe him as a hyper prudential institutionalist. he's to his core a very cautious person. he's a creature of the department of justice. he really, really cares about protecting and preserving this institution, and the administration. he saw this as uplifting the institution. he's somebody who is a judge, as a person who is very collegial. who is very inclined to consensus-building. he worked very closely with republicans when he was a circuit court judge. i think when he came to office, he had a certain idea how the country could be restored. how the institution could be protected and preserved but when you're attorney general, you sit in his position where you have this very panoramic view of american life. and the assault on democracy is something, and the decay of a

culture, is something that he observed really up close, through the judicial system. so, i think over time, he wasn't exactly radicalized, but i think that he became kind of hardened and a little more confrontational and a little bit more darker and more pessimistic when he thought about the institutions in this country. so, i think that shifted him to a more confrontational stand as it relates to anti-democratic forces in this country. and then you have the emergence of the mar-a-lago documents case. and in contrast to january 6 which is a very complicated case, the congressional commission has portrayed things in a very clear sort of way, but they're not making a case that can stand up in a court of law, and so i think that is a very difficult case for the justice department to bring. but the mar-a-lago case, i think, is much more black and white, and relates to a very core principle that merrick

garland is -- it's just central to merrick garland which is the rule of law. that there's nobody in this country who stands above the law. who's immune from the law. and so i think that this case which is so much clearer, at least it seems from the outside. and the principle at stake is so central to the way that garland thinks about the fabric of our democratic institutions i think it's inevitable that he brings an indictment here. >> all right. franklin foer, we will be catching up with you in the coming weeks and months. we know this all has to come to cap before a new president is installed. franklin foer, staff writer at the "the atlantic," thank you for your reporting, frank, great to see you. see you, thank you. that does it for us tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow, "way too early with jonathan lemire" is coming up next. when the house and senate gets back, they're going to have to -- there are going to be consequences for what they've done with