'America is forewarned': Raskin sounds alarm about Trump’s 'authoritarian program'

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. So let me just start there where I ended. Because when you hear Donald Trump, I know we get a little numb to this, but we can’t compare the Biden administration to the Gestapo. What is your reaction to that? Every accusation is a confession, essentially, of purpose. And we’ve never had presidential candidates, much less presidents, talk like that before about the other party in America. There’s been a very strong degree of civility at that level. And so it telegraphs some very dark intentions on this part. It’s what dictators do, which is so important for people to remember. I want to just go back to the thing I also ended on there, which is that the final summary of the article, which was very lengthy, I mean it was like an 83 minute interview where he said a lot of things he said about his talk of dictatorship. A lot of people like it. Yeah. Well, I mean he’s right about that in the sense that dictators, whether Pinochet and Chile or Mussolini or you know, the most horrible specimens from the 20th century, have always had their supporters. It doesn’t last long because most people want to lead a life of democracy and security and freedom and self government. But those kinds of opportunists and demagogues have always been able to fool some significant part of the population for a certain period of time. And the founders of America knew that. Alexander Hamilton, in the very first Federalist paper, warned of demagogues. Who would whip up a mob frenzy based on negative emotions instead of using government as an instrument for the common good to make things better for people? So at this point, Americans are forewarned if you look at the things he’s talking about doing, mass roundups and incarceration and deportations from the country. Crack down on women in red states on abortion. Banning women from going from red states to blue states to get productive health care. Freeing the so-called January 6th hostages who are a majority of whom people who’ve pled guilty to violently assaulting our police officers. That is an authoritarian program. I mean that’s right out of the authoritarian playbook of Mussolini and beyond, no question about it. And some who are still in and still around the country dictators right now, he also said. And what what strikes me time and time again is that we’ve seen this movie before. You have led investigations into this movie We’ve seen. And when he said, I think we’re going to win. And if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election. He said that in response to a question about the potential for political violence. Yes, which is a hallmark of fascist and authoritarian political parties. But look, now. None of the Republicans will commit to stand by the results of the 2024 election. They won’t even stand by the results of the 2020 election, when 60 different federal and state court decisions rejected every claim of election fraud and corruption that Donald Trump brought forward. And still, they’re saying it was a stolen election. There is zero evidence of that. You cannot make a remotely plausible case for it. So they’re living in an alternate reality, and that’s how authoritarianism works. And they’re still, to your point, not willing to commit to abiding by the outcome in 2024. There was a little bit of like a VP stakes race out there with a lot of people this morning on Sunday morning shows answering versions of this question. I want to play you something that Tim Scott said in an exchange with Kristen Welker. Get your thoughts on it. Well, Senator, will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024? Bottom line, at the end of the day, the 47th President, United States will be President Donald Trump. And I’m excited to give back the low inflation, low unemployment. Wait, wait, Senator, yes or no? Yes or no, will you accept the election results of 2024 no matter who wins? That is my statement. That is my statement. I mean, it’s not a hard question. I think we should acknowledge clearly that is what Trump wants him to say. He wants to be on his VP list, but how concerned should we be about that becoming, as you alluded to earlier, the common response? I mean, it’s a dramatic departure from American history when all of the major presidential candidates have agreed to abide by the outcome, even when they’re real questions, like in 2000 in Bush versus Gore, Vice President Gore actually had a lead in the popular vote. There were real questions about what was taking place in Florida, and yet he stood down in the interests of constitutional continuity. And now we’ve got politicians who will not even abide by a certifiably legal election outcome because they say, well, Donald Trump is going to be the 47th president, end of the day, Not end of the election, but end of the day. And we know what other kinds of events they might have planned for that day, which is such an important thing for people to remember. Be clear about Hope Hick. We’ve been talking a little bit this morning. All right, this afternoon about Hope Hope Hicks testimony and the significance of that. You were a member of the January 6 committee, of course, when she testified before the January 6 committee. What did you make of the testimony on Friday, the significance of it or not significance? What’s your view? Well, the best way of understanding that trial taking place in New York is that it’s part of Trump’s determination to essentially predetermined the outcome of an election, not by advancing a program and going out and knocking on doors and campaigning, but rather by manipulating public opinion. And so there it was, all about paying off hush money to a former mistress to keep it out of the news and sweep everything under the rug. But the problem was they were messy in terms of leaving a money trail behind. And he described it as legal expenses. When he reimbursed Michael Cohen for the money that was going to Stormy Daniels and that made it an illegal campaign expenditure. And they were cooking the books from the standpoint of state law. So her testimony to me reinforced that there was a mad scramble within the Trump campaign to deal with the problem of the Access Hollywood tape and Donald Trump bragging about his misogynistic sexual assaults on women in different places. And so they couldn’t afford to have another one of these outbursts. They knew, he knew that it was going to be an impact, which was striking. Me. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you always for your clarity of explaining difficult issues and bringing us all back to the What’s at stake here. Appreciate you joining me today.