adam kensinger, his questions to the witness involve the damnin g revealing the names of republican members of congress who witnesses say saw preemptive pardons from former president trump. they include louie gohmert,

per perhaps marjorie taylor greene. what should happened to them? should they be censured? should they be removed from committees? what do you think? >> well, i guess that's a decision for colleagues, right? i mean, my job is to put evidence out there. as i said at the end of that, it's like, i only know of one reason to seek a pardon. because you're worried that you're guilty, that you committed a crime. this is something they have to answer to their constituents. you know, i can't enforce rules of the house or do certain things unilaterally. but i think the bigger point is, listen, america, do you really want your members of congress out there trying to bend or break the law so that they can maintain political power? that is like, anafma to everything we ever learned in history class whether you're in third grade or whether you're a senior. and that's got to stop. >> it's interesting because you had three trump loyalists, rose and donahue and engel, testifying today. these are officials who were loyal to donald trump. but they were willing to resign

instead of go along with his unconstitutional, perhaps illegal scheme. on the other hand, you have the trump loyalists that we just mentioned, these republican members of the house. do you think in your opinion, are they fit to remain in office? >> again, i don't want to go there. that's decision between them and their constituents. i -- you know, i've been able to present what i've presented. i will say this, though. let's contrast them to these three gentlemen that were in front there today. i'm sure all three of them voted for donald trump. i'm sure all three of them were sad he lost. you know, i'm sure all three of them wished the election would have been different. but when faced with that pressure, i mean, i don't think -- it's tough to explain how much pressure it is when you have a president of the united states putting that on you for all of them to stand strong, for all the deputy, you know, attorneys to basically make the decision that they were going to all resign. it's an amazing story in that courage, honestly.

but i think the other thing that we have to keep in mind -- and i kind of said this in my opening statement -- is what would happen if something different happened in the future? what if any of those people would have said, we will put the department of justice stamp on your lies and conspiracy. this democracy will be in trouble. this isn't over. we're not out of the woods. >> donahue, the former deputy, acting deputy attorney general, said that he told jeffrey clark that clark was advocating, quote, nothing less than meddling in the outcome of an election. and we also heard that clark was conducting his own investigation. and take a listen to what we heard about voting machines, the idea that trump was telling jeffrey rosen to seize -- you know, why haven't you seized the machine? in your view, do you think that the committee heard or presented evidence today that trump directed the justice department to break the law? >> i think we have shown a lot

of evidence that the president knew what he was doing. the breaking the law part, i think yes, personally. but, again, i like to leave that to doj. ironically, doj was on the stand today. they probably have a special interest in what happened at this moment. you mentioned the voting machines. think about this. the president asked rosen to seize voting machines. he said, i can't do it. so, the president calls cuccinelli at dhs and says, rosen here says you can seize voting machines. he never said that. that goes to show, you can't trust anything the president says. thankfully ken kuch nellie said, we can't seize machines, either. >> i guess the thing that's telling -- i guess we've known this for years now, but to see it play out because of the committee hearings -- is that, you know, a few people different in those roles -- you know, a bunch of jeffrey clarks serving as vice president, serving as acting attorney general, serving

as maricopa county board of supervisors in arizona, serving at secretary of state of georgia, just a handful of jeffrey clarks replacing any of those individuals, and all these individuals i'm talking about are trump loyalist conservative republicans, and we very well could have lost democracy in the united states. >> yeah. you know who else knows that? not just you, not just me. but the steve bannons of the world that are actually planning this. they think under the radar they can put in, you know, loyalists. and frankly they can. i mean, that's the point is every one of these hearings we've done, we've shown, like, a layer of stuff that could go wrong. and there's really no, like, there's no magic police force that if people don't follow through on their oath is going to come in and enforce that. it's really just us having to hold true to what we believe. and, you know, it's -- what happens in trump's second term in theory or a trump accolade in his term in presidency. now he can interview anybody for

doj or any position and says, is your loyalty to me or is it to the constitution? and trust me, you will find people who will say, i will pledge my loyalty to you over the constitution. >> that was my conversation with adam kinzinger. back to you, anderson. >> and one of the things he said at the beginning of that was very important. the price regular people have paid for these lies, for the attacks, the price on election workers who diecide, you know what? i'm not going to do this anymore if this is what i'm subjected to. and there are certainly plenty of, you know, sleaze zi folks with a political agenda who are willing to get those jobs in order to cause mayhem. >> the gubernatorial candidate for the republican party in pennsylvania, hi home commonwealth, doug mastriano, is an election liar and is -- was at the capitol on january 6.

and in pennsylvania -- in pennsylvania, you don't elect a secretary of state. the governor appoints a secretary of state. so, this is a clear and present threat right now and whether it is sleazy people serving as election workers because they can't get good, decent people to do it anymore because they figure it's not worth the harassment or risk to their lives, or the governor of pennsylvania, this is a clear and present danger to american democracy, period. >> we don't actually know the exact date of the next hearing. that's because according to one of the committee members, deluge of new information the committee has received. one new piece of information, documentary video collected by a filmmaker who had some behind the scenes access to the former president, his family, and top allies, including before and after the january 6 attack. discovery plus, which is cnn's sister company. here's a clip of the former president presenting his version

of what happened on january 6. >> talk for a minute about january 6? >> no. well, it was a sad day, but it was a day where there was great anger in our country. people went to washington primarily because they were angry with an election that they think was rigged. a very small portion, as you know, went down to the capitol. and then a very small portion of them went in. but i will tell you, they were angry from the standpoint of what happened in the election. and because they're smart and they see and they saw what happened. and i believe that that was a big part of what happened on january 6th. >> no mention of violence, minimizing what actually happened that day and praising them is very smart. filmmaker alex holder testified today to the committee behind closed doors. don lemon spoke to him for an interview that airs tonight on don's show.

don joins me now. you specifically asked about january 6th. >> not to mention the reason they were angry, he was telling the lie. he was feeding the lie that it was rigged and it was stolen. it was very interesting because he said he never met the former president before, never interviewed him. after sitting down with him and interviewing him, anderson, he had a reversal, a change of mind. watch this. >> my position was that it was sort of a staggering answer to that question. and so the idea of trying to see whether or not you may even potentially dilute his position or change it wasn't for me to do. you know, i asked him a question. he gave me an answer. do i think he's wrong? of course. i think it was obviously a tragic event. and the fact that he called them smart. and also i thought was very interesting was the fact he thought these people think the election was stolen. and that was quite interesting

as well because why do they think that? and for me, i feel that he is essentially admitting that the reason why they were there was because of the fact they believed in his position on the election. >> did he, at any point, acknowledge that he lost? >> no. and i'll tell you something. when i interviewed him for the first time in the white house about a month after the election, i had this debate with our director of photography, michael, about whether or not the president actually believed that the election was rigged. and i was of the opinion that of course he doesn't really believe the election is rigged. this is just sort of donald trump rhetoric. but after that interview when he left and i was now thinking about what had just happened, my entire position changed. he absolutely, genuinely believes that he won and that the election was stolen from him. >> and in that moment, you

changed your mind? >> absolutely. i changed my mind in the point that he didn't really believe it. ie, my conclusion was that donald trump genuinely believes that he won the 2020 presidential election. and that is terrifying. >> now, listen. i think most people are of the belief because all the evidence shows that the former president knows better after 60-some-odd court cases and every legitimate adviser around him telling him it was bs, including his own former attorney general, i think the president knew better. but anderson, i think it was interesting. i heard you speaking to jake. you talked about it. the price was regular people pay for this. he is a master of creating his own reality and co-opting people to believe his own reality, the aloose ri truth effect. so, he got the smart filmmaker in that interview to believe that he believed that. i don't believe that he believes it. i think he knows better. but he has to continue on with

that big lie. >> how much time did holder actually spend with the trump family? i mean, who -- do we know under what circumstances he was brought? who's paying for this documentary? >> i asked him directly. he said there was no financial interest from the trumps. he said it's all independent people who were interested, independent investors himself. he spent a lot of time. kaitlan collins got more specific about it. he did three interviews with the former of president march of 2021, three hours with ivanka trump, two with jared kushner, two with eric, and then donald trump jr. one hour. and there was a second attempt but that did not work out. he spent a lot of time after the election and after the insurrection. >> but these investors -- wasn't it jason green blagt who was a friend of jared kushner. was he a backer of this? >> i'm not sure if jason was a backer of it, but i did ask him

directly if jason greenblatt conducted any of the interviews. he said jason did not. he said holder did all the interviews. he said he actually took offense to calling it a puff piece. and he said that he was very direct with him about wanting to spend time and wanting to talk about the administration and the trump legacy. here's what he said. >> we also have been told by folks in the trump world that they had been told that this was a puff, puff, puff piece and they had nothing to worry about and they had complete editorial control over what went out. you have denied that, right? did they have complete editorial control or any editorial control over -- >> no, they did not. they have not even seen a single frame of the footage. >> where do you think that is coming from? >> i have no idea. >> did you sell this to them as a puff, puff, puff piece? >> absolutely not. >> do you wish you spoke more

about january 6? >> no. i think their side speaks volumes. >> were you surprised they agreed to do this at all considering what was going on at the time? >> here's a guy from britain who had been introduced, who doesn't have any political skin in the game, and they were absolutely convinced they were going to win the election. this is a roundabout sort of september, 2020. so, sort of why not have someone follow them around on the campaign trail documenting them winning the election. and so they essentially sort of made that choice to allow us in. >> they absolutely thought that they were going to win the election, anderson. it's interesting just how out of touch they were not only with what happened but just with reality. >> yeah. i'm so fascinated to know who would have had actual editorial control over this film, which he -- i look forward to more on this interview, don. it's going to be on your program starting at 10:00 tonight. look forward to seeing that. don, thanks so much. >> thanks, anderson. back with us, jamie gan

gangel -- i want to get your reaction to the documentary filmmaker in a moment. first i want to go back to the hearing where former deputy attorney general richard donahue memorialized a meeting he had with then president trump. let's take a listen. >> toward the end of the meeting, the president, again, was getting very agitated, and he said people tell me i should just get rid of both of you. i should just remove you and make a change in leadership, put jeff clark in. maybe something will finally get done. and i responded, as i think i had earlier in the december 27th call, mr. president, you should have the leadership you want. but understand the united states justice department functions on facts, evidence, and law. and those are not going to change. so, you can have whatever leadership you want, but the department's position is not going to change. >> i don't know that that really mattered to donald trump, facts, evidence, and law are not going

to change. >> i mean, it clearly didn't, right? he said as much. he said, look, just write me a letter. just tell me it's fine, and then the house -- me and the house republicans will take care of it and we'll all be good. these officials that stood up today -- i've seen some criticism from democrats that they were late to the party. i've heard from some sources that the department of justice was under a lot of pressure from the trump administration well before what you saw in the context of that meeting. but i think this underscored and illuminated at the end of the day these guys showed up and said this isn't good enough. this is not okay. and they stood in the breach. and they're joined by a lot of other heroes we've also heard from in these hearings. >> i think what convinced trump to not do this through the justice department was not the facts and the evidence are not going to change. it was an angle. the head lawyer at the office of legal council at the justice department saying if you do this and we all resign, this is how it's going to look. >> yeah, yeah. you will look bad, mr. president, and we know that

the president cares about appearances, his reputation, how people think about him. so, that was what convinced him not to install jeffrey clark. what's interesting though is after that meeting, which is two and a half hours. they finally talked donald trump down from this crazy scheme of installing jeffrey clark. he then calls donahue 30 minutes later and comes up with this other crazy scheme of, oh, there's some i.c.e. agent with shredded ballots i think in georgia. i think donahue said, i'm sure he's exasperated at the president's schemes. you should call dhs. >> it's not my problem. >> exactly. it's somebody else's problem. so, he is still spinning and in this kind of manic race to find this evidence for this crazy theory he has. and this, of course, leads up to january 6. >> so, can we talk for a second. you said he's so obsessed with how things look. to go back to our documentary filmmaker who don just talked

to -- i don't know if you saw the clip he put out where he said the trumps did not have editorial control. but it was a clip of donald trump arranging the way that the interview looked. and i think any of us -- anyone who's interviewed donald trump has seen this. he produces his own television shots to the point where he's making decisions about, is this -- is the table next to me, does it look right? should the water glass have a paper cap on it or not? and i think that goes to show you that throughout all of this, he is producing a show that is designed to convince enough americans to do ultimately what happened on january 6th. and, you know, i think we should not lose sight of the fact -- and certainly, jamie, i know you know this so well. liz cheney has not lost sight of the fact that he's going to try, probably, to do it again. and what they're doing is a tv show, right, that's designed to speak to people to convince them that that would be a really bad idea. >> he is doing it. as we speak, he's doing it in election after election after election in republican primaries

all across the country. he is putting out for his endorsement not just a loyalty test but a test about whether or not people will spew the lies that we have heard over and over again. >> which is why you can't get them to answer the question, did biden win the election? >> right. >> we ask so many people that. >> exactly right. but even beyond that, you had people who won the republican primaries in states from missouri to pennsylvania and beyond both on the senate level on the gubernatorial level less so, but certainly when it comes to the house of representatives. so, it's happening as we speak. >> there are more jeffrey clarks in place i think at this point. and jeffrey rosens. >> absolutely. an army of jeffrey clarks. >> can we go to the point that don made about whether or not donald trump knew that he had lost? two things. one is, what's the worst thing in donald trump's world? >> losing.

>> being a loser. >> yeah. so, there is a story that has been reported out that after election day, a number of people close to him, including hope hicks, go and say, work on your legacy. move on. and he says, according to the reporting to hope hicks, if i'm a loser, there is no legacy. >> all right everyone stay with us. we still have much more to cover, including this, wisconsin republican senator ron johnson who was last seen trying to avoid reporters earlier in the week pretending he was on the phone rather than answer their questions about the revelation that his office tried to pass on a slate of fake electors to vice president pence's office. today johnson is finally saying which member of congress' office he believes passed along those names and that slate to his office. the details ahead. and norm eisen, the former special counsel for democrats during the former president's first impeachment will join us to discuss what was most damaging today for donald trump and his allies, as our special

coverage of the january 6th hearings continues. more restftful sleep per nigh. and now, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart beded is only $89. only for a limited time.

announcer: type 2 diabetes? discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right

away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. announcer: you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ introducing the all-new infiniti qx60. take on your wild world in style. ♪

new developments tonight in the mystery of a fake slate of electors senator ron johnson wanted to give the vice president last january 6th. here's what happened when manu raju tried to speak to him after the committee made the revelation. >> why was he asking something about that? >> because someone delivered this to the office. >> do you support the efforts to get the slates to the vice president? >> no, i had no knowledge of this. i had no involvement in the proceeding, slate of electors. i had no idea it needed to be delivered to us. it got delivered staff to staff, chief of staff did the right thing, contact the vice president's staff. they said didn't want it, so we didn't deliver it. that's tend of story. >> who's the person that

delivered it to your office? >> i have no idea. >> it's so not the end of the story. that is such a ludicrous explanation on so many levels. manu was not the only one asking for the senator's response. johnson resorted to the old, i'm on the phone move, even if he wasn't really on the phone. take a look. >> senator johnson, how much did you know about what your chief of staff was doing with the alternate slates of electors? >> i'm on the phone. >> no, you're not. i can see your phone. i can see your screen. does your chief of staff still work for you, senator? >> can you explain what happened there? why was your chief of staff even offering this to the vice president? >> today the senator did get on the phone, telling a radio host where he thinks the alternate

slate of electors came from. what did he say? >> reporter: well, we are hearing a lot of back and forth on this one. so, congressman mike kelly has said these allegations from senator ron johnson are patently false. he says he hasn't talked to the senator in the better half of a decade and he has no idea what johnson is talking about. of course he took this back to johnson, and he is standing by his words. our manu raju caught up with him moments ago, and senator ron johnson still says he believes these documents came from mike kelly's office. he says he is also basing this on what he has seen from a conservative reporter who is reporting that, so he doesn't know for sure. so, there is still a lot of questions about johnson's involvement in this. every day we get a little bit of a different story or a little bit more of the story. i think the big picture here, anderson, is that a lot of these trump allies are starting to feel the heat as this

investigation is playing out publicly. a lot of them are getting caught in the cross hairs, whether it's senator ron johnson, or the nearly half a dozen republican lawmakers who we learned today requested a presidential pardon after january 6th. >> so, ron johnson claims that representative mike kelly gave his chief of staff that list? >> reporter: yes, that's what ron johnson said initially in that radio interview. he said that mike kelly was the o originator of that set of documents t but mike kelly saying that's not true. >> with us now, david urban, laura coates is back with us, alyssa farah griffin also back with us. i want to get to senator johnson in a moment because lots to dissect there. you've said before on cnn, david, that the former president shouldn't really worry about the proceedings. what do you think after today? >> again, you know, unless

there's going to be charges filed, which is -- it's a long stretch. i know there's people keep talking about it, right? i think -- you know, i think the president's on the way to being the nominee for the republican party if he wants it in 2024. i don't think that the people who have an impact on that republican base voters have tuned into this. i don't think they care. i hear from talk to people who tell me, have you seen the movie "2,000 mules"? they keep questioning by questioning them of why they don't believe the president lost? these are people i know are very edge caughted folks. and if i can't get through to them and they continue insisting the president didn't lose -- these aren't bump kins. these are educated people. i don't know how to change that. >> i do think it's getting under trump's skin though. he put several messages on truth social today. he calls them the unselects. i think today's testimony did get to him. i think mainly the fact that he's kind of made to look like a fool and the advisers around him

are, just the level of craziness of the conspiracy theories. again, i think it's simply getting to him. >> again, i don't dispute any of that. i don't dispute that today the testimony from the acting attorney general and from mr. donahue, right -- it's devastating to hear this testimony. i don't dispute any of that. i just don't -- at the end of the day, if you're going to question, will donald trump be the nominee in 2024 for the republican party? did today impact it? did yesterday impact it? i think not. will he be president again? will republicans vote in sufficient numbers in '24 to make him president? i think this may have an impact. >> suddenly you see reports of kind of this subterranean movement towards ron desantis and of florida. and he could take on donald trump. and maybe there's republicans now who look at this and say, you know, we'd like somebody who's got donald trump's policies but without the crazy. and so that may be seeping out there among -- >> i think the point you made, just what you just said is

important though, that it may impact some republicans about whether they would vote for the president if he runs. >> in a general election. >> in the primary in '16, we had lots of people on the stage and it slowly winnowed down to a few, right? if we're going ohave the list of people you're seeing run, like my friend mike pompeo and former vice president, you have this long list of people running in a crowded republican primary, donald trump will emerge the victor in that primary. that's what i'm talking about. >> and you're absolutely right about that by the way. >> do you feel that there is a little bit of a drip, drip -- >> absolutely. >> -- among some -- lots of -- there are a lot of fair-minded republicans out there who are looking -- you know, looking at this with a clear eye. >> i think people hear that. i think that's what alyssa is referring to, that's why it's bothering the president. it does get to some people. people are seeing this and saying, we don't need the drama. i don't know if he did something criminal or not. i just don't want to go through

that drama or not. they're not taking a judgment whether he should be tried, not tried. they're like, enough of 2020. i'm worried about 2025, 2026. >> we're seeing this compartmentalization in the past. there are several people said several years ago despite the shenanigans trump brings with him, as long as he gets people on the supreme court who can overturn roe, i'm fine with the rest. >> the attorney general of the united states. >> all he's doing is talking about 2020. you're talking about voters who want to get beyond it. he's not. >> i do want to play remarks from congressman kinzinger on the attempt to install a former doj official jeffrey clark, his acting attorney general, and how mark meadows and scott perry factor into that. take a look. >> on the same day acting attorney general rosen told mr. clark to stop talking to the white house, representative perry was urging chief of staff mark meadows to elevate clark within the department of

justice. you can now see on the screen behind me a series of texts between representative perry and mr. meadows. they know that representative perry requested that mr. clark be elevated within the department. representative perry tells mr. meadows on december 26 that, quote, mark, just checking in as time continues to count down. 11 days until january 6th and 25 days until inauguration, we've got to get going. representative perry followed up and says, quote, mark, you should call jeff. i just got off the phone with him, and he explained to me why the principle deputy won't work, especially with the fbi. they will view it as not having the authority to enforce what needs to be done. mr. meadows responds with, i got it. i think i understand. let me work on the deputy position. representative perry then texts, roger, just sent you something on signal. just sent you an updated file. >> signal is obviously encrypted

app and they don't have access to that. as a former prosecutor, i wonder what you make of that. >> i make of that, evidence. all of that corroborating other things people have spoken about, the idea of trying to -- and recognizing that the powers that be that actually had the authority, jeffrey rose skpn the like, were not willing to play. they did not want to play at the game of pretend we have the authority legally to do something illegal. and so they're searching for -- these are members. scott perry is the person who at one point brought jeffrey clark to the white house unbeknownst to jeffrey rosen, ended up on the white house visitor log as well, and was confronted by jeffrey rosen on the very notions. so, this is an example yet again where there was an end run attempt around what the protocol of doj was, knowing there was no legal authority to do what he's asking for, to send the georgia letter, to have a fixed slate of electors. and yet and still they still tried to do so with a member of congress supporting it. >> and got close to doing that.

everyone stick around. coming up, we're going to speak with the former special counsel during the president's first impeachment trial. his thoughts on the hearing. quote, to say the election was corrupt and they would do the rest. it with a new one of the same make and model. get a whole lot of something with farmers pololicy perks. ♪ we are farmerers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ ♪ baby got back by sir mix-a-lot ♪ unlimited cashback match... only from discover. she is fearless heart's on the line

depend silhouette keeping leaks off her mind. comfortable in shapeware fabric she moves with ease. confident on nights like these. depend silhouette. the only thing stronger than us, is you. hybrid work is here. it's there. it's everywhere. but for someone to be able to work from here, there has to be someone here making sure everything is safe. secure. consistent. so log in from here. or here. assured that someone is here ready to fix anything. anytime.

anywhere. even here. that's because nobody... and i mean nobody... makes hybrid work, work better.

you also noted that mr. rosen said to mr. trump,

quote, doj can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election. how did the president respond to that, sir? >> he responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what i'm asking you to do. what i'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressmen. >> that was former acting attorney general richard donahue testifying today during the presidential transition. donahue says the former president urged him and another top justice department official to just declare that the 2020 election was corrupt and leave the rest to him and a bunch of republican congressmen. joining us now, someone who knows firsthand the significance of these kinds of hearings, former special counsel to house democrats during trump's first impeachment, normanize b. norman, thanks for joining us. what does that statement convey to you, do you think, about the former president's intent?

>> jake, thanks for having me. it shows a disregard for the truth, jake, when you say, just declare it's corrupt and leave it to me and the republican congressmen. we learned that the republican congressmen were so concerned about that, came out in the hearing today, that they sought pardons. so, to me, jake, it fits into the criminal conspiracy that a federal judge has already -- was found was likely to conspire to defraud the united states by essentially stealing an election that does not belong to you. he was asking doj to help him do that. >> so, how does that play into the idea that this was a full-blown conspiracy? >> well, what we've seen over the course of these hearings is that trump was methodically proceeding step by step with the

help of lawyers to engage in what the committee has described as an attempted coup, jake. but it wasn't a coup with tanks and guns. it was a coup with law books and statutes. and the president was trying to co-opt these lawyers. we had heroes today, three senior doj officials, trump supporters, republicans, defenders of trump, who refused to participate in that. and then of course we also had one of the villains. he took center stage next to trump and john eastman. that's the president's doj lawyer, jeffrey clark, who was trying to push that scheme. >> so, earlier, we heard the british documentary filmmaker, alex holder, say that he does think that trump really believes these lies. he really believes that the

election was stolen from him despite the fact that there's no actual factual evidence to that case. but criminally, does it even matter? >> jake, it doesn't matter. that's because you're not allowed to engage in vigilante justice, even if you believe you lost an election. when the president in georgia told the secretary of state there, just find 11,780 votes, or when, as we heard on tuesday, he pushed these phony electoral slates, you know, essentially those are forgeries. you're not allowed to forge documents simply because you believe you won an election. it would be as if i thought that the u.s. treasury owed me $11,780, so i counterfeited the money or robbed the mint. you can't do that, jake. so, intent is really beside the

point for the crimes that are allegedly emerging here. >> all right, norm eisen, thanks so much. for more reaction, jamie gangel, dana bash, nia malia henderson. how big were these revelations from the senior justice department officials? >> i think they were the most compelling hearings we have heard thus far because these are conservative republicans, trump appointees. and what we heard once again today -- and you referred to it with norm -- is this was the just do it conspiracy. whether it was georgia, just find me 11,780 votes. rudy, aren't we all republicans? eastman, just do it, we'll sort it out in the courts. trump to pence, you can do it. there's one other thing that was mentioned this week that i think we should take note of. liz cheney said this week that

more than 30 witnesses -- now, they had 1,000. but more than 30 witnesses took the fifth. we know about a handful. who are these other people? >> interesting. the ones that we know include eastman -- >> eastman -- >> -- and jeffrey clark, i don't know if he took the fifth as much as claim executive privilege. >> he took the fifth as well. >> he did both, okay. >> roger stone. one of the proud boys. but there are a lot of people out there that we don't know who they are yet. >> donald trump once said something like, you know, only guilty people take the fifth, only the mob. you know what i mean? the fifth is -- >> it's not wrong. >> well, people who they know what the fifth is, the fifth is the right to not incriminate yourself. but it's when you have committed a crime. >> correct. which is why at the very beginning of this, we thought bill stepien, the former president's campaign manager,

was going to testify in public. he was somewhat of a hostile -- he was maybe the only hostile witness so far we expected. he ended up not testifying because his wife went into labor. i asked somebody close to him, why doesn't he plead the fifth? the answer was, he doesn't think he did anything that was criminal. so, he won't incriminate himself. he will just come out and talk. so, pleading the fifth, you know, it makes clear -- it doesn't make clear that they did commit a crime. but it makes clear that they are worried they possibly did. >> we should just reiterate the point that jeffrey clark wouldn't talk to the committee, but he went on fox -- >> yep. >> -- tonight, and he was allowed to spew his lies. that's a safe space for these lies. and that is why these hearings are going on because nobody is being shunned in the maga world for these lies. they're encouraged and they still have safe spaces. >> yeah, i think they're being embraced. they're being elevated in some ways. we'll see if he becomes a

regular on fox news at any point given what his past was. he's going to be embraced, obviously, by maga world, the people who think he was the hero, the one who was trying to right the election wrong. so, we'll see, you know, what happens to him. obviously he's in some legal jeopardy. his home got raided. who knows what they're finding there. i think they were there for something like three hours. but this is the world that trump created, where, you know, sort of corruption is embraced. it's ignored. it's seen as something where you're embracing trump and embracing trumpism and doing the right thing. and in redwality, jeffrey clark was very wrong. >> kasie, some of these coconspirators in the house of representatives, if polls are right, are going to be chairman and chairmen of committees and chairmen of subcommittees in a year. >> yeah, mm-hm. >> because there are things that people hold against bide skpn the democrats, inflation and gas

prices and the like. i guess democracy is not a factor. >> well, look, i think that the key test here for the committee, for our democracy, is, yes, it's true. jeffrey clark has his platform. he was given a platform tonight. yes, it's true there are many maga members of congress, particularly in the house of representatives who will continue to have, you know, maga-phones. however, we have seen some evidence that there are republicans out there who are tired of donald trump. that is why he lost the election in 2020. look at the election results in georgia, for example, where there are republican members of congress who were sent, most of them back to washington with more votes, more -- larger percentage of the vote than donald trump received on the presidential ballot. these are also the same people who sent brian kemp into the governor's office in georgia, who sent brad raffensperger back into the secretary of state's office despite an effort by

donald trump. there is everyday i think there are republicans who are looking to turn the page. i think so far the evidence we've seen across the board in elections is that attacking donald trump outright is a bad plan if you want to win a republican primary. but you can in fact kind of run past him. yeah, he's mad at me, i'm not mad at him. this is what we're going to do in the future. the voters are willing to say, okay, i'm going to do that. i think that's what people like ron desantis are counting on. i think liz cheney is also counting on this. she's in a different place herself in wyoming because she's the chief attack dog. she is talking to those voters, republican voters, independent voters, voters who may want to vote against joe biden. and if the republicans nominate trump, we're going to have a tough conversation along those lines. we've got to get there first. this is an attempt to say the department of justice could try to solve this judicially. we all know it's not going to be solved unless it's solved politically. that requires convincing people.

i think that's what you're seeing happen. >> you saw david urban say to anderson that he is still pretty confident that the base voters, those who elect the nominee for president, are not convinced because they're not seeing it. they're not hearing the same set of facts. they're not living in this reality. i do think it's grueling. i was just going to say that. that's such an important point. a, it's too early. and the other thing -- and you touched on this kasie, is compared to what? >> right. if ron desantis does run or if somebody else who may be more palatable on these issues but still trumpy on other issues, donald trump could walk right up the center in that nomination. but if he's facing one person the whole time, different ball game. >> thanks so much. we want to continue what would come next in these hearings. david urban, laura coates,

gloria s these were originally expected to wrap up pretty soon. it's now been, gloria, extended -- do we even know when the next ones are? >> i think probably mid-july although, as you know, these things are dynamic. they could change at any moment. >> they say it's because they're getting what they called a deluge -- >> they're getting a lot more information. i was also told by one of my committee sources is that there's archival information that we don't know about. >> how much of this is also -- i mean if the supreme court ruling on abortion comes out, say, next week, that that's going to take aug all the news coverage and they don't want to compete with that. >> they don't want to compete with that, but i do believe they have a lot more work to do. we've all remarked how organized these hearings have been. you have one member at a time, one narrative at a time. you come away with one big message every hearing. and i think they've got some hearings to talk about -- more things to talk about.

and what they're going to do at the very end is give you a minute-by-minute recitation of january 6th and where donald trump was and what he was doing and what he was not doing. >> david had made the point a couple days ago that it would be more impactful if they just had republicans asking the questions. if it was liz cheney, adam kinzinger asking all the question and not really democratic members of the committee. >> i tend to agree with that. while i do think adam schiff did a masterful job, to a republican, you think of impeachment when you think of him. so i do think the fact that nearly all the witnesses have been republicans is important. the fact that every time ranking member cheney has gotten a chance to speak -- and today i think, in my opinion, the best hearing we saw to date was from congressman kinzinger. the plea that he made, and he mentioned this in his interview earlier with jake. to republicans right now, if you saw what you saw today, it's no

too late to come forward but to walk away from this president. the battlefield is the voters. we don't know what the department of justice is going to do, but if trump's the nominee, it doesn't really matter to some degree. i think this is a messaging effort as much as anything. >> david, you agree with that? >> i agree. also to gloria's point about they're going to keep -- they're going to have a hearing in july, a hearing in august -- >> no, no. >> not on purpose. i can just tell you what people will not be watching in july -- they'll be watching shark week in august. >> they watched watergate in the summer. >> that was when you had three stations and everyone was glued to the tv. it's a different world. they can afford to go on vacation, if they could afford to buy gas, they'll be gone. you reach a point of diminishing returns with these hearings, right? i think you're going to start getting there. to your point, if it's going to be a hearing where they go with a minute by minute recitation, i would urge them to get that done

quickly because their viewership is going to tune off at some point. people have families and lives, and they're going to take a break for the summer, and it's just natural. >> and yet there is some value, unlike a criminal trial, in allowing it to breathe, in allowing the conversations to unfold. the idea of people being able to converse about, did you hear this part? did you see when this person said this? it takes away a lot of the bite about people saying this is a partisan exercise. why don't you hurry up because the midterms are coming up. the more they're suggesting that they're not concerned about that figure. the doj has damocles above them. >> did you hear anything today in particular, or what did you hear today that the department of justice or attorney general merrick garland would immediately be interested in and want to know more about? >> well, i think the idea of the slate of electors and the idea of somebody intending in some form or fashion to try to circumvent the normal process, are there are jeffrey clarks is my question.

he's very emboldened. he's very audacious, but were there others who felt it was important to do so? were there members of congress who were trying to facilitate communications. jeffrey clark's home was raided today. they may have had other things before this moment in time. but what about jeffrey clark today did you learn from the hearings? was there other corroborating evidence that said this person was named? i also want to know, if i'm doj, how exactly did scott perry know that jeffrey clark was the person to speak to about these issues? this was like a mob case, for example. who told you what? who leaned on you where? why does jeffrey clark have an audience with the president of the united states? >> why does perry know that clark is susceptible to this idea? >> exactly. again, at doj, remember, when you were a prosecutor in the department of justice, you are vetted to an extent even your credit cards are vetted. >> david, if merrick garland did pursue charges against the former president, would that make the former president

more -- would that serve the former president's interests, you think? >> yeah, i think, look -- yeah, i believe so. the president would go out and say, look, i am being persecuted for my beliefs here. if you're not going to convict the president, which you're not going to end up doing, it will make him a thousand times stronger. i don't think the attorney general will bring judges. i've heard mention on this network many times they might indict lots of people around him, leave him as an un-indicted co-conspiracy. i that's probably more powerful. >> except in georgia. >> just one question on laura's point about raiding this guy's house. what took them 18 months? >> right. we don't know if there was new information they received or -- >> it seems a little curious. someone's asleep at the switch. >> we started tonight's program calling today's testimony extraordinary, and i'm not sure that word even captures the scope of what we heard, jake. >> to put it plainly, we've

never heard anything like what we heard today. it was historic, and there are more hearings to come. >> thanks to all of you. thanks to jake, all our guests tonight. the news continues with don lemon in a moment. what if you could change your surroundings with the touch of a finger? now you can. biometric id... inside the innovative, new c-class.

at bath fitter, every quality bath starts with quality people. our consultants help you choose from hundreds of bath options so we fit your style. our installers complete your work in as little as a day so we fit your schedule. our manufacturing team custom crafts your bath so we fit your standards, and it's guaranteed for life. when you can trust the people who create your new bath, it just fits. bath fitter. visit bathfitter.com to book your free consultation.

oh, hey. buying a car from vroom is so easy, all you need is a phone and a finger. just go to vroom.com, scroll through thousands of cars. then, tap to buy. that's it. no sales speak. no wasted time. just, straight up great cars. right from your phone to your driveway. go to vroom.com and pick your favorite. wooo. oh yeah, she digs it. buy your car on vroom.com vroom. get in.

this is don lemon tonight. a firsthand account from the witness who gave dramatic closed-door testimony to the january 6th committee today. >> this is the sitting president of the united states saying this in the white house, and that was actually very scary. >> you've used the words "frightening" and "scary." you were frightened? but those are strong words. >> of course i was, absolutely. >> in the capitol, revelations on the plot to overturn the election. what the president told the doj. >> what i'm just asking you to do is just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressmen. >> a nutty conspiracy theory about italian satellites that reached the highest levels of the government. >> the c