The conviction of Proud Boys leaders for "seditious conspiracy" on Jaunary 6 energized MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace. She was ready to pounce—on Donald Trump. She was hoping to parlay that into a prosecution of Trump. It had everything but the "lock him up" chants.
Approvingly quoting Liz Cheney, Wallace claimed that the conviction of the Proud Boys:
"underscores questions about holding accountable the man, who the January 6th committee vice chair Liz Cheney so memorably puts it, quote, summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack."
Andrew Weissmann, the former Mueller prosecutor and Trump antagonist, took up Nicolle's torch, saying:
"Everyone is going to be thinking, okay, you've gotten not just the foot soldiers, not just their leaders, such as the leader of the Proud Boys, but what about the actual leader of what happened on January 6th?"
"Everyone," wants to put Trump in jail, Andrew? Perhaps in the Pauline Kael-esque circles in which you travel!
Wallace then took the giddy speculation to Washington Post investigative reporter Carol Leonnig, that given the Justice Department's success in obtaining seditious conspiracy convictions in regard to January 6th:
"Questions are now gonna have to deal with, as to whether or not they can prosecute Trump for the same crimes."
Wallace's "I hope I hope I hope" hung clearly in the air.
But that's when Leonnig punctured poor Nicolle's balloon. She began by sympathizing with Wallace's view of Trump, saying that in the debate in which he told the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand by," Trump:
"Recognized that these extremist factions really were the voice of a certain group of people that he needed on his side. And he wasn't going to cut them back, and he wasn't going to reject them."
But then came Leonnig's blow to Nicolle's dreams:
" I know, and I think many of the people on your panel know, that prosecutors do not have evidence in hand linking the effort of Enrique Tarrio, Stewart Rhodes, and other lieutenants of theirs, to Donald Trump. They do not have the smoking-gun evidence that shows that Donald Trump was directing an effort to violently overthrow the government. "
And if that weren't deflating enough for Nicolle, Leonnig then delivered an unsubtle slap at Wallace for substituting her hopes and dreams for reality:
"Let's be careful about what we know and what we don't know."
Ouch!
Note that Leonnig is no fan of Donald Trump. Alongside fellow Postie Philip Rucker, she is the author of A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America.
An NPR reviewer of the book wrote that Leonnig and Rucker [emphasis added]:
"Leave little doubt that they and many of their sources regard that presidency as an unmitigated and deepening disaster — a threat to American government as we have known it."
So Leonnig is clearly a fierce critic of Trump. But one with the apparent journalistic integrity to call things as she sees them—including calling out Nicolle Wallace for her evidence-free, Trump-hating blood lust.
The Washington Post's Carol Leonnig informing Nicolle Wallace that prosecutors have no evidence linking Donald Trump to the efforts of the Proud Boys to overthrow the government was sponsored in part by ADT, Tide, Samsung, AT&T, and Progressive.
Here's the transcript.
MSNBC
Deadline White House
4/4/23
4:00 pm EDTNICOLLE WALLACE: Any minute now, Attorney General Merrick Garland is expected to hold a news conference on the Justice Department's big win in court today in its January 6th investigation.
More than two-and-a-half years since the disgraced ex-president told them to, quote, stand back and stand by, a call that help to galvanize the Proud Boys to serve as the tip of the spear of the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol months later, four members of the Proud Boys, including the group's leader, Enrique Tarrio, were convicted today of seditious conspiracy.
. . .
This victory by the Justice Department, while it is was a milestone, and a massive and hugely consequential federal investigation into that plot to overturn an election and overturn democracy on January 6th, only underscores questions about holding accountable the man, who the January 6th committee vice chair Liz Cheney so memorably puts it, quote, summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.
Of course, we're talking about the disgraced ex-president himself.
. . .
ANDREW WEISSMANN: To your point, there has been such a call-and-response relationship to groups like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, and others, with the former president, that everyone is going to be thinking, okay, you've gotten not just the foot soldiers, not just their leaders, such as the leader of the Proud Boys, but what about the actual leader of what happened on January 6th?
. . .
MARCUS CHILDRESS: I'm not looking facts in a vacuum anymore. I'm understanding how these groups were built, how they were created, and then how they were inspired by the former president's words.
WALLACE: Yeah. And I think, even more pointedly, how they were directed. I mean, he told them when to come, and where to go, and he wanted to join them where he told them to go and where they followed.
. . .
He meant what he meant. I think there was a misperception that we understood and accepted some of the spin, that he just wanted everybody's votes. I think the truth is closer to what Ayman's was talking about. They were already so intersected into his political organization, through people who were known spokespeople and operatives for the Trump campaign and the Trump candidacy, and some of the darker artistes now very publicly known to be associated with.
And I wonder what you think this means, both in terms of the Justice Department having some, a real track record now of successfully prosecuting seditious conspiracy.
And the questions are now gonna have to deal with, as to whether or not they can prosecute Trump for the same crimes.
. . .
CAROL LEONNIG: No question, Nicolle, that in the debate, he recognized that these extremist factions really were the voice of a certain group of people that he needed on his side. And he wasn't going to cut them back, and he wasn't going to reject them when asked over and over again whether or not he wanted to deride or dismiss white supremacy and white supremacist groups, alt-right groups.
Second question I think you raised is whether or not Donald Trump can be charged with a crime in the wake of now this third trial and great success for the Department of Justice, in bringing and winning convictions for seditious conspiracy.
The key in seditious conspiracy is violence. A critical element is that you must be using force to overturn your government.
It's a rarely brought charge for a reason. Not a lot of people try to violenty overthrow the U.S. government. These four, in a conspiracy to do so.
And right now, I know, and I think many of the people on your panel know, that prosecutors do not have evidence in hand linking the effort of Enrique Tarrio, Stewart Rhodes, and other lieutenants of theirs, to Donald Trump. They do not have the smoking-gun evidence that shows that Donald Trump was directing an effort to violently overthrow the government. However, that doesn't mean they're not ever going to get it. It also doesn't mean that it exists!
Let's be careful about what we know and what we don't know.
