Was J6 a Precursor?
49:26 Share

The National Sales Event is on at your Toyota dealer, making now the perfect time to get a great deal on a dependable new SUV. Like an adventure-ready RAV4, available with all-wheel drive, your new RAV4 is built for performance on any terrain. Or check out a stylish and comfortable Highlander. With seating for up to eight and available panoramic moonroof, you can enjoy wide-open views with the whole family. Visit BuyAToyota.com for more National Sales Event deals.

Toyota, let's go places. In the market for investment-worthy bags, watches, and fine jewelry, Rebag is the answer. Rebag is a luxury resale platform where each piece is carefully inspected by experts to ensure quality and authenticity. Use Rebag to buy and sell finds from the world's top brands, including Hermès, Chanel, and Cartier. Head to Rebag.com to get 10% off your first purchase with code REBAG10. ♪

Hi, and welcome to Prosecuting Donald Trump. It is Tuesday morning, August 20th. I'm Andrew Weissman, and I'm here with my wonderful co-host, Mary McCord. How are you, Mary? I'm well this morning. How are you? It's actually unbelievably cool in Washington, D.C., this Tuesday morning. It was in the 60s with coffee on the back porch. I had a run and didn't feel like I was about to die. So very happy with the change in the weather. So I

It's so funny you said that because it must have been a cold front on the East Coast because I'm up north and it was in the low 50s. Yeah, wow. Well, you've got a flannel shirt on, I can see. I've got a flannel shirt on and I've got wool slippers on. I mean, it's just like grandpa here. Yeah, there you go. Mary, we have such a different and great show. And it's...

It's such an important thing. And I just want to say we have a guest on, as people know from who listen to this, we don't typically have guests. And what we're trying to do here is really talk about something that is preventative. You know, we've talked a lot about the four criminal cases, but we have this wonderful guest in an area that, Mary, you are such a national expert in because of your, I hate to say it, day job, the day job outside of this podcast.

But we're going to talk about militias, and we're really going to talk about the problem and trying to anticipate what could happen and how to deal with what could happen, as opposed to talking about the criminal cases of what happened. Right. We're looking forward, not backward. So that guest is Josh Kaplan. He's a reporter with ProPublica, and he will be joining us in our second and third segments to talk about his new deeply investigated piece,

about one of the largest American militia groups and the threat that that group and others pose to our democracy and to public safety. It's a piece that I talked with him about while he was reporting on it.

But before we get to that, Andrew, we do have to update and give our own thoughts on the latest. And I will say last week when we did our podcast, I said, I'll bet you anything Trump comes in right away and seeks to postpone his sentencing in Manhattan. Well, not that it took any kind of like crystal ball. Exactly. To make that. Mary, how did you possibly think that would happen? That is going out on a limb, Mary. But

But it was it was really quick. Right. It was not waiting till September 16th till Judge Mershon makes his decision on immunity. It was like immediate. You should right now postpone this. And that was done by letter form. So let's kick it off there, Andrew, your reactions to not only the request to postpone sentencing to let's be clear, after the election.

but also the DA's response, because he responded quite quickly. Yeah. So his response was unsealed yesterday. So I first have a sort of catty response to Donald Trump's submission. It's a one-page letter that is

the most unreadable letter. It's really bad. Yeah. It's single-spaced. The margins change so that it goes from one end to the other. And it's almost impossible to read. I agree. And it's also a bit of stream of consciousness. Totally. We've talked about...

his filing, his legal filing to Judge Mershon and how, like, my guess is it was not written by the trial team. It reads like it was written by Supreme Court advocates in anticipation of where this is going to go. It was in striking contrast to the letter, which was basically

in form unreadable and in substance unreadable. But just so people understand what their argument is, because if you strip away the detritus and get to the substance, what they're really saying is, look, judge, the way you've done this is that you've got a ruling that's coming out on the immunity issues on September 16th. And assuming you rule against us, you are going to have sentencing on September 18th. That's two days.

And we think that we have appellate rights, whether it's state or federal appellate rights, but you've only given us essentially kind of a day to do that, in which case we would seek a stay from you, we would seek a stay from an appellate court because we shouldn't have sentencing if this use of immunized testimony is something that we have a right to appeal. So that's sort of the argument is sort of the short timeframe.

And I would also just say that that is an interesting legal issue that I think we should spend a few minutes on. Like you mentioned, there's a bunch of other stuff in here, like revisiting the recusal and saying essentially to sentence would mean... Fourth time. This is the fourth time. Yes, exactly. I'm like, please already. You know, that's another reason. And saying that if the DA files a sentencing recommendation that's public, that would be prejudicial and election interference. Well, the DA responds, of course,

by law, sentencing recommendations are confidential and not made public unless the court makes them public and so on and so forth. So like you said, peel away that detritus. Do I have a legal question that has never been resolved because it's never come up before because we never had a case like Trump v. United States before? And that's, of course, what we've talked about before and what Judge Machar now has to decide. Was there such evidence that was introduced at

at trial at all? And if so, does that mean Trump's entitled to an entirely new trial? Or does that mean that that evidence could be harmless air? Those are questions that we all have our legal opinions about. But then the real question here is, whatever the ruling is, if it's not getting rid of the case, which is what Mr. Trump wants, does he have a right to immediately appeal that? And as we talked about, usually you appeal after something's

And we know from the immunity decision that that is an exception to getting an ability to appeal during a criminal case. But that is all about appealing before you were even made to go to trial because you're immune. Here, we're after trial. There's not an argument he was prosecuted for official acts.

The only argument is that evidence of official acts may have been introduced. And we had that legal discussion about whether anything that he's claiming was official really was official. And so it's just unanswered whether you get any right to appeal that before your sentencing. And I could argue it both ways. Right. The real issue here is, is there a right to appeal that? Most defendants will say there's all sorts of errors in their trial. And by the way, sometimes they may be right that there's an error. But the way the law works is...

that's something that you get to appeal after the trial and after sentencing, and then you appeal it. And if the court agrees with you, the case could get dismissed or they could go back for a retrial. It could go back for a resentencing. But in terms of the timeline, you don't get to say, wait a second, before sentencing, I want to appeal. So there's sort of that issue. But Mary, as you noted, because this involves a

alleged immunized testimony, the question that the Supreme Court has not answered is, could you have that interim appeal here? And so that is this open issue. So the DA has basically taken sort of a middle road. He didn't agree with Donald Trump that the sentencing should be put off on the 18th. He didn't disagree. He basically said, we leave it to you,

judge to make this decision. And he did note, however, that there is this appellate issue, there is this time issue. So he does sort of, to use your phrase, where he gives a sort of permission structure to the judge if he were to say there should be more time, but he doesn't actually say he wants it or he's against it. There may be a whole number of political reasons

There maybe are just a variety of reasons that he doesn't want to jam up the judge by saying no or yes and say, we defer to you. And by the way, Mary, a lot of times in my career, that's sort of the right thing. I agree. I probably would have done the same thing. There are other times, especially in a high profile matter, where...

it could be viewed, and I'm not saying it applies here, but when I think about my high-profile matters where it's not terribly appreciated by the court to have the government saying, hey, you take the heat on this. We're not going to take a position, and we're going to let everyone yell at you, whether it goes forward or not. Here, the DA has certainly protected himself from a little bit of the claim of politicization, of a rush. On the other hand, as

as Nicole Wallace likes to say, who are you talking to? I mean, Donald Trump will always say it's politicized no matter what you do in this. So this is actually the point kind of that I wanted to bring up while reading these today. I thought when you think about, like, I understand DA Bragg taking that position because he's now in a box

of if I say, no, you've got to go forward for accountability, et cetera, then he's going to take criticism. And also just in terms of the DA, they've achieved getting 34 guilty verdicts, right, from a jury. So that's a very successful thing. They've shown the world

the evidence of what Donald Trump did. So this last piece is the sentencing. And I think they would agree and everyone would, maybe not everyone would agree, but a lot of people would agree that even if given a sentence that would include jail time, a judge probably would allow that to be deferred

until after appeal anyway. So they might be thinking, look, the stakes here are such that we're okay saying, judge, if you think we need to postpone, we're going to leave that to you, notwithstanding that we don't think there's really any merit to the argument about inappropriate admission of official acts testimony at trial. But the problem when you put this whole picture together

when you look at the history of this criminal prosecution as well as the other three, we talked a little bit about this last week, is look at how successful Trump has actually been at manipulating the system, right? Totally. Like, the sentencing was supposed to be July 11th. The trial was supposed to be earlier than it was, right? Then the sentencing got put off. And, you know,

Now he's put everyone in a box of being able to say this is political when he's the one who pushed everything up to the very last minute like this through all of his delay tactics. And so it's deeply unsatisfying to see those tactics wasted.

work because for other people, you know, people go to trial in criminal cases every day and they don't get this, you know, they don't have this ability to just put everything off and never have to have true accountability. And to me, it really emphasizes sort of the dual system that we have, unfortunately. I couldn't agree with you more. Two very quick points.

I know a lot of people are probably thinking, well, I think what should be the guiding principle here with respect to Donald Trump is treating him like anyone else. That if this is how anyone else would be treated, he should be treated this way. The problem with that analysis is that, of course, that's true. But there is this open legal issue about when you could appeal and whether it would be something that you could have pre-trial or pre-sentencing or not.

And so it's not an easy thing to apply the rule of treat him like everyone else because it's treat him like everyone else who has this legal issue. And no one else has had that, right? Right. So it does complicate that because my strong inclination is, of course, that, you know what, it doesn't matter what the ramifications are publicly if he's being treated like anyone else. It's that that's a hard issue. The second is I do think the judge has put in a little bit of an unusual situation. He has not ruled yet.

on the immunity issue, and he's being asked to put off the September 18th date based on an assumption about what will happen on September 16th. And that's just an, usually judges don't do that. It'd be like, look, I'm going to rule on September 16th, and if you have an application at that point for a delay or an adjournment, I mean, it's just an odd position to decide now before the ruling that

that you, gee, I need more time because I... Because I think I might need more time. Right, exactly. It's sort of like, you know what? There's sort of like, it's somewhat premature in that the party should go ahead and I'm going to be issuing my decision. And for all you know, my decision might be favorable to you. Right. In which case, there's no reason to not have the A-team as the next date for doing something. For instance, also the judge could decide he wants to hear evidence. And so...

There are a lot of things that could happen. So it'll be interesting. But just so everyone understands, we do not have a decision from Judge Marchand on this disputed issue or sort of disputed issue. And we should be getting that, I would think, any moment.

Agree. Okay, Mary, why don't we take a break here? And when we return, we are going to hear from Josh Kaplan on his reporting in ProPublica focused on America right-wing militia groups and the future dangers of extremists collaborating with law enforcement, politicians, even just acting on their own. We'll be back with him in a moment. Yes, let's do it.

The national sales event is on at your Toyota dealer, making now the perfect time to get a great deal on a dependable new SUV. Like an adventure-ready RAV4. Available with all-wheel drive, your new RAV4 is built for performance on any terrain.

Or check out a stylish and comfortable Highlander. With seating for up to eight and available panoramic moonroof, you can enjoy wide open views with the whole family. Visit buyatoyota.com for more national sales event deals. Toyota, let's go places.

In the market for investment-worthy bags, watches, and fine jewelry, Rebag is the answer. Rebag is a luxury resale platform where each piece is carefully inspected by experts to ensure quality and authenticity. Use Rebag to buy and sell finds from the world's top brands, including Hermès, Chanel, and Cartier. Head to Rebag.com to get 10% off your first purchase with code REBAG10.

Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. With the internet's best converting checkout, 36% better on average compared to other leading commerce platforms, Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers. In fact...

Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash podcast free. All lowercase. Shopify.com slash podcast free. Shopify.com slash podcast free.

Welcome back. As we mentioned at the top, our guest today is Josh Kaplan. He's been a reporter at ProPublica since 2020. People may be familiar with his byline from recent really blockbuster reporting about the Supreme Court ethical issues for ProPublica. I shouldn't say the Supreme Court as a whole ethical issues, in particular, a couple of Supreme Court justices ethical issues, and that has been ongoing reporting for some time now that has been really, really impactful.

He also has reported on the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. He's reported on the U.S. military's withdrawal from Afghanistan and many other important subjects. ProPublica, of course, does in-depth investigative reporting, and he has rightly earned not only a Pulitzer for that reporting, but also a George Polk Award, an Edward R. Murrow Award, and other awards.

But what we have Josh here with us today to talk about is his latest investigative piece. In fact, it's one that he and I talked about while he was doing that reporting because it's on a subject that is something that I work on in my day job.

my non-podcast job. And that is reporting about a really deep dive into an American militia group. And by militia group, I mean an unlawful private paramilitary organization. The title of this article is Armed and Underground Inside the Turbulent Secret World of an American Militia. And we will post a link to that piece

in our show notes. So Josh, as we kick it off here, I do want to make clear that these groups are not lawful, but I'll save that for a moment. I know what you did here is you dove really deeply into one particular organization. There are many across the country, and they've sort of existed really since the founding of the country.

But this modern militia movement, I would say, dates to the 90s and in particular things like the Oklahoma City bombing, which, of course, was not committed by a person who was at that time doing it as part of a militia. But it was committed by somebody, Timothy McVeigh, who had been involved in the militia movement, including being president at Waco University.

and really, you know, discussing and being involved in militias for some time, including in his younger years. So just to kind of table set here for our listeners, when you're talking in this article about militia or paramilitary organization, what are you really talking about? Yeah, and it's

I mean, I think loosely speaking, it is these wide variety of groups and their kind of chief shared traits are an emphasis on armed military style training and this sense or belief that they are the last line of defense against the excesses of the government or the excesses of the left. And how those two kind of factors have manifested in terms of

the sort of activities they do have changed significantly since the modern movement really started in the early 90s. I wonder, Josh, if you could talk about, because we're going to spend so much time on their tactics and how they're going about doing things, and that's going to get to the legality of what they're doing. And it's complicated, but not as complicated as people think.

I would say it's not complicated at all, just to interject on that, but we'll get to that in just a moment. So I think it's useful to try to understand what do they want? Is there some unifying thread for what the sort of current militia movement is in terms of what are their goals? Are they seeking political reform? Are they seeking, is it economic? Is it racial? What is it that they want?

It's a fascinating question because it's harder than you'd think it'd be because it's such an unusual thing to go off and join a militia and dedicate an enormous amount of your life to preparing for war, essentially. But for a lot of these militias, including this large militia I was looking at, there's not...

kind of deliberately, there's not a clearly defined goal. It's a very capacious and vague ideology. So the mission statement of this group I was looking at, which has long been one of the largest militias in the United States, is something I'm going off memory here, but resisting all efforts to undermine the Constitution and the American way of life, and we will restore America to the glory it once was. And there's a lot of disagreement amongst the members of this group. Some of them are really

at least have significant ties to the white nationalist movement. And they're very upset about anti-white racism. A lot of really common threads are they're worried about gun control. They're worried about COVID restrictions, voter fraud, alleged voter fraud. But

Because I think this kind of modern post-Obama form of militias don't have these very clear mission statements that you might have seen in the earlier days of when the white supremacist movement was really the main show in town in terms of far-right extremism. And that allows them to be more flexible, to be able to kind of morph themselves, to bring in more people that are in positions of power, whether that's law enforcement, in government,

and allows them to deal a little bit better with moments of extreme controversy like we saw on January 6th. Yeah, if you, and also I do want to make sure listeners are aware that the reason that Josh is not naming this group, I mean, that was at our request. I've been studying this long enough and Josh knows his mission's a little different when he's reporting.

that all media attention is good media attention, even when it's got a negative focus. And I know from enough of my own work and my own writing on this issue that naming individuals, leaders, or groups

they love that. It then proliferates on social media. It's used for recruitment, even if it's negative. And so the fact is that the group that Josh studied is really pretty emblematic, I think, of all the groups that I've studied in my career and that researchers brief me on pretty regularly about at least every two weeks on what's happening. So that's very deliberate on our part. But what Josh has experienced here, I think, shows the arc of what we've seen in terms of

You know, again, Timothy McVeigh, the attack on Oklahoma City was an anti-government based attack. And so we've seen the ebb and flow of sort of white supremacy as a motivation, even though they'll often deny it. Christian nationalism, I'd say now is I'd ask you, Josh, if you think that's kind of now being injected as sort of an overarching ideology.

And I think of them as grifters and users. Whatever is the cultural issue of the moment, and particularly a cultural issue being promoted, at least in these last eight years by Donald Trump, is the issue they will grab a hold of and run with for their own purposes, whether it's recruitment, whether it's

whether it's training, organizing, making public statements, et cetera. And so that's why things like, and that's why we're having you on this program, because things like the baseless claims of election fraud led, of course, in 2020 to there being not just violence, of course, on January 6th, but other episodes of violence

before and after the election. So let's, before we move forward, let's jump back a little bit to fill in this gap here about the rise of militia activity when Barack Obama became president. Because that is when I think this fear, again, of the government's coming to take our guns really spurred a real relaunch of these groups. And it seems like you found that in your reporting as well. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it was, how this was described to me

So this was a group that, like a lot of the militias you might have heard about in the context of January 6th, was founded in Obama's first term. And at first, it was basically an idea on Facebook. Let's make a militia. Let's all join together. But then it went from this kind of paper tiger to something with a real world physical presence. Right.

relatively quickly. And kind of the impetus for that was they were able to capitalize on some of Obama's gun control proposals that he started after the Sandy Hook shooting. And, you know, how this was described to me by militia leaders was, you know, we stopped having to look for people. They started coming to us. And we're having local chapters go from four or five people to more than 200 people in less than a year. And eventually, you know, had a

active on the ground presence, not just an online presence in almost every state in the United States. - I was wondering if there's any sense, this is sort of tying what you've been talking about and what Mary's been raising, this issue of how big a problem do we have now? I think for a lot of people,

They thought that with the prosecutions of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, that there was this enormous deterrent effect and that this was largely, not entirely, but largely a problem behind us. But do you have a sense of how big a problem do we have now in spite of those prosecutions?

Yeah. I mean, so, I mean, there's a lot more to say about kind of the aftermath of January 6th and why they were able to overcome that. But I think this deterrence effect ended up being a lot smaller than the people inside the militias were anticipating because they know their history and they know that that's the sort of thing that could destroy them. But they were able, you know, this militia I was looking at was able to

grow at a really kind of rapid pace in the time since then. And, you know, I think part of the reason that we don't hear as much about them is they've done a good job of keeping their activity more underground. You know, before January 6th, all of those, you could tell on Facebook, if you were on the right Facebook groups, you could have some sense that there was something underway. But now they're being more careful about that sort of operational security. And, you

in this group I was looking at, I mean, leaders in it are talking about how this upcoming election will, in their view, will be decided not at the ballot box, but at the ammo box. They're talking about how they're ready to force their way into voting centers if they have to, or commit violence, whatever it takes. And also, I mean, I found this kind of eye-opening that they have sometimes talked about January 6th as a botched job. You know, the plans weren't good

weren't good enough, they didn't go far enough. And if the movement, if the militia movement hadn't been weak, hadn't been uncommitted,

they could have really achieved something that day. And they don't want to make that mistake twice. I want to focus particularly on that in our last segment of the episode. But we did skip from sort of a resurgence when Obama became president to current. And I do think it's important to fill in that block in between there, which you do fill in your story, Josh. And that is when Trump was elected, typically, if we look back to the early 90s to forward, we would see sort of a difference in popularity and

outward demonstrations, for example, of malicious activity between administrations, depending, frankly, oftentimes on the politics of it, because there was more of a concern that with a Democrat in the White House, you know, there was going to be gun control. But what was really changed also, I think, with the election of Donald Trump is a difference in permission structure and groups that have been anti-government

suddenly found someone that they thought was on their side, but that someone was himself anti-government. So that's the piece between sort of Obama administration and where we are now and this involvement in politics and elections. So maybe before the break, if you could tell us a little bit about that piece, and we'll come back and focus on the present in our last segment. As I think a lot of people remember from the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, which was when we first really saw this,

Militias and the broader far right became emboldened after Trump. They had more activity out in the open. It was less, I mean, in the Obama years, there were some scary plots that happened that were foiled by the FBI. But really, I mean, these guys spent a lot of their time out in the woods. And the main kind of chief threat of violence was towards federal agents and these sort of standoffs that often happened out west. And, you know,

In the Trump years, you started seeing a lot more people in the streets kind of proudly walking around with guns at rallies, engaging in various activities. It wasn't Trump for the kind of anti-government or anti-government is no longer quite the right word, but this strain of the movement.

Trump wasn't universally a good thing. I think the first three years of Trump's campaign, it became a little harder for them to recruit. And that's true for a lot of these groups. They're on the downswing. That all changed completely in 2020. COVID hits, all of these conspiracies they feared seem to be coming true and Trump is legitimizing them. Trump's tweeting, liberate Michigan, liberate Minnesota.

And suddenly you get on this track that carries us through the summer with the protests around the murder of George Floyd. That also is a real boom for these groups, and they're very active patrolling city streets with assault rifles, with baseball bats, getting in violent confrontations with protesters. And then, of course, you have the 2020 election. Trump says it was stolen.

And that brings us on this train of violence happening at several protests towards the end of the year and then eventually January 6th.

This is a good time for us to take a break. And when we come back, one thing that would be useful as we focus on tactics and violence is to maybe do some level setting on what the legal issues are here. Because I bet you that there are people listening to this saying, well, why don't we just, not to borrow this phrase, but why are these people not locked up? Why can't they be prosecuted? What are the lines for bringing criminal accountability? And

in terms of these actions and where do they cross over from legal to illegal. But with that, why don't we take a break and we can come back and continue this discussion with Josh.

The National Sales Event is on at your Toyota dealer, making now the perfect time to get a great deal on a dependable new SUV. Like an adventure-ready RAV4, available with all-wheel drive, your new RAV4 is built for performance on any terrain. Or check out a stylish and comfortable Highlander. With seating for up to eight and available panoramic moonroof, you can enjoy wide-open views with the whole family. Visit BuyAToyota.com for more National Sales Event deals.

Toyota, let's go places. In the market for investment-worthy bags, watches, and fine jewelry, Rebag is the answer. Rebag is a luxury resale platform where each piece is carefully inspected by experts to ensure quality and authenticity. Use Rebag to buy and sell finds from the world's top brands, including Hermès, Chanel, and Cartier. Head to Rebag.com to get 10% off your first purchase with code REBAG10.

Shopify is the global commerce platform that helps you sell at every stage of your business. With the internet's best converting checkout, 36% better on average compared to other leading commerce platforms, Shopify helps you turn browsers into buyers. In fact...

Shopify powers 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at Shopify.com slash podcast free. All lowercase. Shopify.com slash podcast free. Shopify.com slash podcast free.

Welcome back. Well, as Andrew knows, and Josh knows too, because he and I talked quite a while while he was reporting his pace, I'm champing, that's champing, not chomping at the bit to talk about why this is unlawful. So just to be clear, folks, this is something my organization, my day job, we litigated against unlawful militias after Charlottesville. So that's why this is something that is such great interest to me. And

One of the things, as Josh indicated, that militias, and by that I mean private militia groups, because the only lawful militia is our people.

actually federally and state authorized militias. So we're talking about the National Guard or other state authorized militia groups that report through the governor if they can be federalized and report through our U.S. military. It's the people that, you know, sometimes deploy abroad, sometimes are used for disaster relief, for support at the border, things like that. Lawful activities by militias that are authorized by the government. That is what a real militia is.

Anything else we're talking about here, whether these private groups of people that get together, that is an unlawful militia, an unlawful paramilitary. And as Josh was indicating, they will say we stand as a bulwark against a tyrannical federal government or a tyrannical state government and try to claim that that was sort of baked into the history of our country and our constitution.

But that's where they're just so wrong. They're so wrong historically and textually based on the Constitution itself and based on law. So the three points to kick us off of this segment is there is no federal or state authorization for private individuals to group together and form their own militia under their own command.

Well-regulated is always meant regulated by the government, even since before the founding. Second point, the Second Amendment doesn't protect them. The Supreme Court has been clear since 1886 in a case called Presser v. Illinois. They upheld anti-militia laws.

saying these do not violate people's right to assembly under the First Amendment. They don't violate people's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. At that time, the right to bear arms was never imagined to include the right to bear arms for self-defense. That didn't happen until 2008 when the Supreme Court decided a case called District of Columbia versus Heller, the first case ever to say individuals can bear arms for self-defense. But even in Heller, the court

in a decision written by Justice Scalia said that has nothing to do with paramilitary activity, reaffirmed his holding in presser that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from prohibiting private paramilitary groups. And third point is all states,

All 50 have either constitutional provisions or state laws that make it clear this is not lawful. The Constitution states say that militia shall always be under the control of the government and other criminal statutes prohibit paramilitary activity, training and militia activity. So that leads to Andrew's question. How come there's so little enforcement? How come they seem to be able to be out there doing their thing in public?

heavily armed, often with AR-15s and other assault-style rifles, when this really is not authorized activity. And also, I would say, what does it mean to be a militia? In other words, we know that you can lawfully own a gun under various circumstances, and obviously there's a right of assembly. So where is the line between sort of the right of assembly and the right of owning a gun and

and state laws, whether it's statutory or constitutional state laws that say you can't be a militia.

I mean, I am the last person to lecture the two of you on constitutional law. My sense from the national security officials I've spoken to is, one, there's a hesitancy around what they see as potential either constitutional questions around the First Amendment or simply political backlash that they could receive from Republican politicians if they are going after people who have

haven't committed other crimes such as plotting to bomb a mosque. Secondly, I think there is a fear in the FBI that really cracking down on these groups could backfire. And whether or not that's the right view, I don't know. But, you know, the modern movement was really sparked in the 90s by these extremely well-publicized standoffs at Ruby Ridge and at Waco that men

meant to be law enforcement actions, but as a result, kind of mobilized, really sparked this movement. And I mean, in terms of the sort of activities they do, I mean, just to illustrate the

the ways that this is different than being in a gun club. I mean, the training is remarkable to watch videos of. It's a lot of getting together with semi-automatic rifles and practicing storming into a building, sometimes doing that in pitch black with night vision goggles on. Which, just to be clear, is not defensive tactics, right? That is very much an offensive military maneuver.

Absolutely, absolutely. And these are often taught by military veterans who learned it while they were in the armed forces. And so close quarters gun combat indoors, that's another thing they learn a lot.

using a sniper rifle to hit a target from half a mile away, which is, that's a tough shot. That's a, I think the assassination attempt on Trump was about 150 yards. Much closer. Yes, much, much closer. Then there's the actual activities that they do in the real world, which kind of the standard things are these armed vigilante operations, which the group I was looking at, and I think this is a case for other groups, you know, that's going to the border and rounding up migrants in these vigilante patrols that

The Border Patrol says is unlawful, although Border Patrol agents sometimes collaborate with militias that are down there. Similarly, at ballot boxes, trying to crack down on people casting absentee ballots, and during Black Lives Matter protests. Josh, that might be a really good place because you started to mention at least sort of the makeup of these groups. And it might be useful to talk about sort of who are you seeing in these groups? And something that you talk about in your really superb piece is

how they try to infiltrate, recruit people in law enforcement, not just former military or former law enforcement, but actually people who are currently in law enforcement and also the same question and issue with respect to politicians. Yeah. I mean, so there are a lot of veterans, there are a lot of former law enforcement. And I do think the ranks of, you know,

This group are a little wider than someone might expect for a bunch of people out in the woods. It's a lot of active duty law enforcement working alongside convicted criminals. It's people who have successful businesses, active duty military, people that work in the medical field.

And, really, as you said, I mean, this is viewed as an absolutely crucial goal for them to build alliances with active duty law enforcement for, you know, among other reasons, because these are people that put themselves in extremely volatile situations with guns, and they want the cops on their side. They want the cops to see them as friends. And there are other reasons to that, too. But they have a...

a wide variety of tactics, some of which are like business school-esque marketing schemes. You know, they have these brochures that say in all caps with like five exclamation points, we are not a militia. And they give those to police officers. Internally, the leader of this group said, of course, that's not true. We all know better.

We're a militia. But this was viewed as a branding decision that might make it so that a cop might feel more comfortable joining or supporting the group.

And wouldn't you say also a financial, because like you showed in your story and I've seen this elsewhere, there's fundraising online. And so that branding as we are about disaster preparedness and doing food drives and all of these things to sort of normalize their activity, try to fundraise on it. But like you say, the sub rosa, not even that sub rosa for a militia doing close combat, you know, assault operations.

training. Absolutely. And it helps bring in more people. And it's a helpful line for if a police officer in the group gets in trouble to be able to say, no, no, no, no, no, that's not what we do. We do this and this and that. And that's

These are all true. They do do these other things. They do do charity drives, but they're very cognizant. And at a certain level, once you get into the chats that are just the leaders, they're very explicit. Like these are very, very useful things for us to do. Josh, you've talked about Facebook and you've talked about their ways of communicating. And I know that there was some effort by social media to sort of crack down on this. But if you could talk about how are they communicating? Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, so a lot of their communications these days are on secure messaging apps. So either Telegram or Signal, which is an encrypted messaging service, which is, you know, it's less on the open. All these chats that I'm referencing in this story were open only to vetted members of the militia.

or a lot of the chats were also just for the high-level leaders of the militia. I mean, Facebook is a pivotal piece of this whole puzzle. I mean, it was fascinating for me reading these chats that, you know, as scared as they were about the FBI taking this shock and awe approach to arresting people who were participating in the Capitol riot, really, I think they were more afraid of Facebook. Facebook cracked down on militias at that time, and

And that was their core recruiting tool. And it wasn't just that this was just an online group. They then bring people into the real world through Facebook. But that was, you know, as their leader described it, their greatest weapon. And Facebook's policy hasn't changed. The group I'm looking at is still ever since January 6th has been on their list of banned dangerous organizations. But

Starting in fall 2021, just a few months really after January 6th, they start celebrating that they can recruit on Facebook again and that Facebook, as far as they can tell, has relaxed its controls. And so...

Before long, they were bringing in so many new members that they were really struggling to keep up, you know, as many as 50 new people a day, which does not take very long to become a real, real force. It's definitely when you're talking about social media, it just reminds me and its power and its utility in terms of recruiting and fomenting. I mean, that triggered me. Oh.

Oh, here we go. Sugar Avenue. With respect to what we were looking at in the Mueller investigation and the use of foreign actors of social media, particularly Facebook. And it's way too long a topic for this podcast, actually. But it's I mean, to me, it is so interesting to see the ways it's now been

been used domestically when my first encounter with it was with respect to foreign actors operating here. I think that's one of the big lessons from January 6th to, wouldn't you say, Josh, that like before that and before all of the criminal prosecutions, a lot of these groups

If they hadn't been banned by Facebook, they were operating either on Facebook or in other publicly accessible forums. And then they went, like you said this earlier, they went kind of more underground after January 6th and started actually having some operational security. And so it's made your job, of course, harder. It's made law enforcement job harder and everyone, because when you're using end-to-end encrypted apps and things like that,

The planning is not as out in the open as it was.

As we wrap up, I really do want to focus on what we've got coming up here, because your piece highlighted things that many of us paid attention to, but not everybody was aware of that happened during the midterms, which was an early thwarted, but otherwise supposed to be a nationwide effort to really have armed individuals out surveilling ballot drop boxes, voting centers, polling places, etc. And because of some early crackdowns that didn't really take off,

But are you, number one, expecting to see a resurgence of that activity before and on Election Day this year? And two, what are you thinking about post-election? There's one other thing I want to say, because there's another group I work with a lot, Bridging Divides Initiative, and I think you've probably talked to them as well, and the Armed Conflict Location Event data set, which draws actual activity from, you know, the world world, not social media, into trends. And

And we have seen in this last year, there has been a pretty significant decrease in sort of out of public armed militia activity. But I

But I don't know about you, but I am worried that that could very well end as we get closer to the election and post-election, regardless of who wins. But I'd like your take on that. Yeah, I mean, it's hard to predict exactly what form it will take, what will happen in this election, certainly. But I mean, when you look at the midterms, I mean, the conspiracy theories promoted by Trump around this are, they're like catnip to militia because it's this idea that, you know,

elections are being stolen, our country is in mortal peril, and the authorities are either asleep at the wheel or are complicit. And that's exactly the sort of rubric where they decide we're going to step in and do this ourselves through vigilante operations. And as you said, in the midterms, this group was, they were very explicit. We're going to stake out these ballot boxes. We're going to intimidate people who are dropping off ballots that we think are committing fraud. Could that happen again? I mean, I think...

Absolutely. I mean, this has become more of a, this is becoming more of a commonplace thing in contemporary elections. And then it's the aftermath of the election where things, I think, get a lot dicier. And I think journalists are notoriously bad at predictions. But I think the most important takeaway here is that we're still too early to know, is

Is January 6th going to be the peak? Is January 6th going to be this kind of high watermark for militia violence? Or are we going to look back on it as a prelude to something even more consequential, to some uptick? And there's a lot of ways this could go. If Trump loses this disappointment, a lot of experts I've spoken to or government officials I've spoken to are worried that that could happen.

spark violence either in the immediate aftermath of the election, if Trump again refuses to accept the results, or down the line throughout this administration. Because these things have often historically, these cycles of violence have hinged on presidential election results. And then even if Trump wins, he's promised he's going to pardon the January 6th rioters. I think he recently said, oh yeah, I might pardon the ones who assaulted police officers too. And that, people

people I've spoken to are afraid that that could amount to a kind of political hunting license, like get out of jail free card for doing violence for the cause. Even if that's not what he means, there's a lot of people with a lot of guns who could interpret it that way. I have to say, the reason that we thought this was such an important topic

tied to what we typically do, which is cover primarily the criminal cases against Donald Trump, is that this is because of the concern this is a precursor. We've talked a lot about Georgia. We've talked a lot about the D.C. criminal cases, and that is looking backwards to what happened. That's what criminal cases are. It's criminal responsibility for something that happened in the past.

But your reporting and the incredible work that Mary does at ICAP is really looking at this forward-looking and thinking about this going forward.

I'm going to say something, my last comment on this, which is not optimistic, is when I think about my time in law enforcement, I would read your article and presumably would know a lot of information in addition to that from a whole variety of sources, both human intelligence and electronic intelligence, to try to anticipate what is coming up. But the FBI did such a horrendous job investigating

in anticipating January 6th, in spite of clear warning signs that I am just very concerned because the leadership of the FBI is the same. There is a different administration at the Department of Justice, but the FBI needs to have a very different attitude to its mission here to make sure that there isn't a repeat of January 6th. Because as Mary outlined, what we're seeing is

conduct that does form, at the very least, a criminal conspiracy. And as Josh, you've talked about some activity when you talked about what they actually are not just talking about doing, but actually doing at the border, for instance.

Those are real criminal actions. And so in addition to being on the radar screen for law enforcement, there has to be a very different mindset at the FBI if we're not going to see a repeat and we're not going to have Christopher Wray, the head of the FBI, after the facts talking to the public saying, gee, we could use your help in identifying people who committed a crime right outside our backyard.

Yeah. The FBI has historically, in recent years, done a very good job at stopping small sets of people with specific terrorist plots. Yes. And January 6th, you know, militias were at the forefront of that, according to the Department of Justice. They were leading the charge at every major breach of the Capitol's defenses. But

But their plans were, they were inchoate, they were haphazard. This was not a master plan that they perfectly executed, but they played a pivotal role. And that sort of, how do we predict that? Especially if we get the sort of inflection point

And the sort of mass mobilization that a figure like Trump can create very quickly if he issues something that people interpret as a call to arms again, that hasn't been tested since January 6th, really, the law enforcement's capacity to prepare for and respond to that.

Well, I think that's all the more reason for you to do the writing and reporting you're doing, Josh, and us to keep talking about it as well. And I, you know, people need to know it's not lawful. There actually have been some prosecutions at the border of militias there that were had no authority and were, you know, detaining migrants unlawfully.

But it's too few and far between. And I agree, law enforcement needs to be way more proactive this time around to protect everyone's public safety. But I don't want anyone to feel like they cannot safely go to the polls or go to ballot drop boxes because there has been so much work done over the last four years

to try to make sure that people can safely vote. And that includes what we saw, the thwarting of that plan to have surveillance across the country before the midterms. We saw DOJ get involved in one of those cases. So I'm going to do something I don't always do and end with my glass half full instead of my glass half empty, that we're smarter now and we know more. And let's hope that that helps. Josh, it's been absolutely wonderful having you on. Really, really...

We admire your reporting, not only on this, but obviously on many other topics that are very, very important to us. And maybe we'll be able to have you back sometime. Maybe we'll be celebrating post-election that none of this came to pass. Josh, thank you again so much. And thank you to ProPublica. I really feel like it is having such a moment and such an impact on us.

all of our thinking. And it's just remarkable, the work that you have done. I mean, talk about punching way above its weight in terms of breaking truly important stories for people to know and follow. Thank you so much. We really appreciate it and really appreciate you having me on.

Thanks so much to Josh Kaplan, a reporter at ProPublica since 2020. His piece is called Armed and Underground Inside the Turbulent Secret World of an American Militia. And we'll post a link to that in our show notes. Quick note for our loyal listeners.

We usually record on Tuesdays, but next week we are going to record on Wednesday because we're expecting a joint filing in the D.C. case before Judge Chutkin that is coming on Tuesday and could be filed anytime up to midnight that night. So we are going to record first thing Wednesday so that we can cover what's in that filing and give you our thoughts on that.

Thanks for listening. Remember to subscribe, if you so choose, to MSNBC Premium for ad-free episodes of Prosecuting Donald Trump on Apple Podcasts, as well as exclusive bonus content like our recent conversation on Supreme Court reform.

To send us a question, you can leave us a voicemail at 917-342-2934. Or you can email us at prosecutingtrumpquestions at mbcuni.com. This podcast is produced by Vicki Virgulina. Our associate producer is Jamaris Perez.

Our audio engineer is Katherine Anderson. Our head of audio production is Bryson Barnes. Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNBC Audio. And Rebecca Cutler is the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. Search for Prosecuting Donald Trump wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.

The National Sales Event is on at your Toyota dealer, making now the perfect time to get a great deal on a dependable new SUV. Like an adventure-ready RAV4, available with all-wheel drive, your new RAV4 is built for performance on any terrain. Or check out a stylish and comfortable Highlander. With seating for up to eight and available panoramic moonroof, you can enjoy wide-open views with the whole family. Visit BuyAToyota.com for more National Sales Event deals.

Toyota, let's go places.