BUCK: There was a lot of focus on Kamala Harris’ comment — a speech comment, by the way, not an off-the-cuff remark, a scripted comment — written for her by someone else where she compared the January 6 insurrection to 9/11. Jen Psaki had to try to do a little bit of cleanup on this one, of course, as she is always having to do for this administration. Here she is.

PSAKI: I would first say that, um, as the president also said in his remarks, uhhh, you know, when — if we look back to some very difficult moments in our history, back in 1861 there were no Confederate flags being… uh, being waved in the Capitol. In very dark moments in our history there were not people storming our nation’s Capitol, uh, trying to take over the office and even threaten the speaker of the House.

So instead of for those who are being contradictors of the vice president’s remarks, I think instead of focusing on or analyzing comparisons of moments in history, I would suggest they be a part of, uhhh, solving the threat to democracy that occurs today, that is happening today.

BUCK: What is that threat to democracy today, Clay, first of all? What the heck are they talking about?

CLAY: Well, first of all, if you have a written speech that all of the brain trust of the White House chose to put into a teleprompter for the vice president to read, it is not overexaggeration to analyze what the vice president said. And when she said that January 6th was comparable to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, that is an insanely ludicrous, absurdly stupid comment to make. And so it deserves to be analyzed and critiqued.

Moreover, this Confederate flag in the Rotunda or wherever it was, somebody walking through Statuary Hall, that didn’t happen because we fought a civil war! If the Confederacy could have done that, they would have. But that was an actual war. That was — if you study history at all — in 1864, Abraham Lincoln went out to the parapets of all of the forts that were defending Washington, D.C., and Jubal Early’s invading Confederate army was within eyesight of the Capitol Dome.

The reason why they didn’t go into Washington, D.C., was because it was ringing with protection. Those were armed men who were in a war. Comparing someone who decides to walk into the Capitol… I guarantee you that there have been a bunch of people who have worn Dukes of Hazzard T-shirts in the Capitol with the General Lee car on the front of it with the Confederate flag.

I guarantee you the Confederate flag has been worn many times inside of the Capitol, because that is not in any way a historical analogy that is making sense, either. These people… These people in the Biden White House lack all comprehension of history, and they are constantly trying to lecture us, Buck — you me and everyone listening us right now — that we are on the wrong side of history. Let me just ask you this: How many times has the right side of history ended being the group that is insisting on canceling people, on canceling books, on canceling debate? The book burners never win. That’s what the Democrats are right now. That’s what the left wing is.

BUCK: It was embarrass yesterday watching them try a much bigger thing than it actually was.

CLAY: Totally embarrassing.

BUCK: It was embarrassing, but the Democrats are actually not capable of shame and it’s quite clear that this really does all turn into — very quickly — a stop Trump from running again, or at least make it so unpalatable for the GOP that maybe even Trump wouldn’t even win again in a primary. I’m saying that’s the goal of the Democrats. Whether it would work or not based upon this is a different judgment, different conversation.

But that’s what they’re trying to do with this. You have people going around trying to pretended that this is not explicitly political. Oh, wait, no, no. One more before I move on, before this went out to me, Clay. Speaking of historical items, I actually hold the position spending a fair amount of time with and around people at CNN, for example, that a lot of the most well-known journalists — particularly TV journalists — are deeply stupid and don’t know very much about anything and that if they could have a success —

CLAY: (laughing)

BUCK: Honestly, if they could have been successful actors or if they were good enough at math to work at a hedge fund they would have done something else, but this is kind of what they’re relegated to. You know, they were B students from second tier schools who now get to be kind of the cool kid journo table in D.C. so to speak — and there’s Chuck Todd who I think needs to a bit of a history election.

.@chucktodd claims “Lincoln’s election was more accepted in 1860” than Biden’s in 2020, @mitchellreports agrees. Reminder: After Lincoln’s election, half the country seceded and 600,000 people died. pic.twitter.com/5EPFxOUFZJ

— Kyle Drennen (@kjdrennen) January 6, 2022

ANDREA MITCHELL: (whispering) The election, the peaceful transfer of power, something that since the Civil War we have never (snickers) argued about. We’ve never had a disagreement about, actually, since founders.

CHUCK TODD: Lincoln’s election was more accepted.

ANDREA MITCHELL: Exactly, and I was just thinking about that. Even in the Civil War we did not disagree with —

BUCK: Clay is jumping out of his seat, just for everybody at home.

CLAY: That is so insanely stupid, okay? First of all. We have had many elections which were wildly divisive. This is off the top of my head. I’m not sitting and looking at a history book. I didn’t prepare, because I didn’t know there was somebody that stupid on television as Chuck Todd and whoever he was talking to. In 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected, Buck, the South seceded!

That’s a pretty strong sign that they did not actually legitimize him as president. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think anybody seceded when Joe Biden got elected. I believe it was 1824, the House of Representatives had to decide the election and it was wildly controversial. In, I believe, in 1876, we had a disputed series of electors that were sent to Washington, D.C., and we had a massive dispute over who was going to be the president in 1876.

Literally, states sent dueling electors to Washington, D.C. That’s just off the top of my head. The idea that what happened in 2020 was in some way outside the bounds of norm democratic process. It was wildly, wildly more calm than what happened in 1824, what happened in 1860, and what happened in 1876 just off the top of my head. If I’m not getting that perfect, I apologize. But that is so insane stupid of what Chuck Todd and whoever his idiot guest was said. They don’t even have a basic conception of American history.

BUCK: This is Andrea Mitchell. Yeah, someone who’s very famous in TV journalism because Boomers have been watching her on TV for a long time. She has never said anything interesting or worthwhile in all the time that I’ve seen her on television.

CLAY: It’s an embarrassing historical illiteracy, their entire conversation that aired there.

BUCK: Of course. But this is just a reminder for everybody that it doesn’t matter how silly it is to somebody who’s well acquainted with history and has some understanding of context. This was all about creating a narrative that can be used to just move the needle a little bit in favor of the Democrats in the midterms, and you’ve got Liz Cheney out there who, you know, look… (sigh) It’s a shame.

It’s a shape what’s happening with some of these Republicans. I actually feel sorry, Clay, whether it’s somebody in politics or in the media. When you switch over and become a tool for the other side and then you have to do the whole “I’m the principled one,” you’re helping the people that want to essentially destroy everything that you say you’ve stood for — for, in some cases, decades — when you switch over. Here’s Liz Cheney saying that the committee investigating Jan. 6 is not just trying to stop Donald Trump. Of course not.

BRET BAIER: Sounds like, Congresswoman, that the goal of the committee is perhaps to go after Trump’s inner circle and prevent the former president from running for president again. Is that a fair assessment of the goal?

CHENEY: No. The goal of the committee is what I said. We are a committee of Congress. Our responsibility is legislative purpose, to determine what laws we have in place, what additional laws women need to prevent an attack like that from ever happening again. You know, the peaceful transfer of power is fundamental to the survival of our republic.

BUCK: I don’t need the rest of the lecture. Clay, there’s law that’s going to be passed, there’s no law that needs to be passed that would have stopped this. She’s just being disingenuous. This is just a political charade at this point, and this is meant to have — and so don’t lie to us. This is what we keep seeing whether it’s on Fauci or the apparatus of covid or the Jan. 6 “insurrection.”

And it’s not an insurrection, and the fact that they use that term is really all you need to know listening to this out there. But why lie to us, Liz? If you’re the principled one, tell us the truth. You don’t like Trump, you don’t like his supporters — and you want to try to harass, intimidate, and smear his inner circle. This isn’t about preventing the next insurrection. We’re not all idiots.

CLAY: What about the huge line of Democrats trying to shake Dick Cheney’s hand?

BUCK: Oh my gosh.

CLAY: You want to talk about an upside-down world? Suddenly, Dick Cheney is the Republican they love? It’s absolute insanity.