lamon and the rest of the field are part of the past. >> you know the senate? 64 1/2. i think we've got to get new energy, new fight. pretty soon we're going to have a young dynamic america first caucus. >> kyung lah, phoenix, arizona. the news continues. let's hand it over to casey hunt and "cnn tonight." anderson, thank you so much. anderson, thank you so much. there is so much news. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com multiple ongoing investigations into donald trump's trying to turn over the 2020 election. we have not one but two former trump white house insiders who are going to help us tonight. in a moment you'll hear from former trump acting chief of staff mick mulvaney, his message for some of his fellow republicans. pay attention to the january 6th

hearings. and there are big developments tonight on that front. you'll also hear from former trump white house press secretary stephanie grisham. she, like mulvaney, resigned from her administration post on the day our capitol came under attacked. stay tuned for both of them. the select committee, meanwhile, apparently just finalized plans for what could be its most critical testimony yet. our sources say the committee struck a deal for a closed door, recorded interview with former white house counsel pat cipollone set to happen on friday. he met with members in april for an informal interview. but since his name came up numerous times during last week's explosive testimony from former white house aide cassidy hutchinson, the committee subpoenaed him for formal testimony under oath. >> white house counsel pat cipollone -- >> mr. cipollone.

>> pat cipollone. >> white house counsel pat cipollone. >> mr. trump's former white house counsel pat cipollone. >> there you go. there will, of course, be limitations, due to executive and attorney/client privilege. but it's still a very big deal. this is someone who spent a significant amount of time with the ex-president while he was in office before, during, and after january 6th. he is a witness who could potentially help fill in lots of critical blanks. remember, hutchinson testified that cipollone -- >> mr. cipollone said something to the effect of please make sure we don't go up to the capitol, cassidy. keep in touch with me. we're going to get charged with every crime manageable if we make that movement happen. >> will we see some of

cipollone's testimony? meanwhile, one has gone from defending the white house days, investigating trump's actions on january 6th. why? i put that and more to trump acting chief of staff mick mulvaney. sir, thanks so much for being here. >> kasie, thanks as always for having me. >> you previously predicted the committee was going to work on getting pat cipollone's testimony and he's going to show up. now that is happening. what do you think he's going to offer to the committee? >> the truth. i know pat. i worked very closely with pat for 15 months, actually more than that when i was in the white house in the west wing. and pat will tell the truth. there is no question about it. will he corroborate what cassidy hutchinson said? will he counter what she said? i don't know. but i do know pat cipollone is

an honorable guy and once he puts his hand on that bible, he will be telling the truth so help him god. >> you clashed a bit with cipollone in the white house. you guys did overlap. what's changed, if anything, that gives you a higher estimation of mr. cipollone now? >> nothing. that hasn't changed. i always held pat at high esteem in terms of integrity. we just disagreed on policy, disagreed on procedure, disagreed on how to handle the impeachment. i didn't think he was a dishonorable person. you have those discussions in every white house. it's not sitting around singing kumbaya. my opinion of him as a person has not changed. and i absolutely believe the man is going to tell the truth. i just don't know what he's going to say. >> if cassidy hutchinson's testimony conflicts with pat cipollone's testimony, and again, they're both under oath,

who would you believe? >> it's a good question, and it depends on how it conflicts. and is it directly opposed? for example, if pat says he never heard a story of the president grabbing the wheel, does that undermine cassidy when he heard that story from tony ornato. they're not exactly contrasting statements. if he said, i was never worried about getting charged with all crimes manageable, that's going to create this head-to-head on the differentiation of the testimony. and it will be up to folks to decide who's telling the truth. like i said, pat's a very compelling, credible guy, and i will be paying close attention to what he says next week. >> you left the white house before january 6th, but in the time you were there, that you were behind the scenes in the white house, did you ever witness pat cipollone warning the president or his top advisers that they might be about to commit a crime and advise them about taking action. >> no, the president never asked

them to do anything illegal. we can rehash the ukraine withholding, which is 100% legal and moral. i won't go into conversations between the president and pat cipollone. that's his lawyer, after all. but i didn't see this. i didn't see the story cassidy told about the president last week, about someone who throws plates and pulls table cloths off the table. i did not see that. understand things may have been very, very different after the election in 2020 than they were when i was there. for example, the chief of staff, my previous role, mark meadows seemed to be, from cassidy hutchinson's testimony, completely detached and not engaged in the process. that would have been a big change. i didn't see what everyone saw in january when i was there up until march of 2020. >> so, can you help us understand a little bit about why you are more vocal now than you were in the immediate

aftermath of january 6th? and of course the committee has been doing its work. we've gotten a couple new outspoken things from you. there was obviously the tweet after cassidy hutchinson's testimony where you called it two stuns hours. we know he assaulted his security team, there may be links to the proud boys, et cetera. you also recently wrote an op-ed in "the charlotte observer" arguing americans out there should be paying attention to the january 6th hearings. why did you decide you need to start being more vocal now? >> i'm not being more vocal. it's just more people are paying attention because i'm coming out with things that are against the president. in fairness, for a year, i've been defending him saying that while i resigned because i didn't think he lived up to the expectations i had for my president, also didn't try to take some of the advice i tried to give him, i was defending him, saying i didn't think he did anything illegal or impeachable. but no one cared about that. i do what chiefs of staff do.

we call them like we see them. our job is to tell the president things he doesn't want to hear. that's all i've been doing. and the evidence that has been presented, some of it at least, is very compelling. and i don't think anybody should be afraid to watch these hearings and make up their own minds as to what's happening. i don't believe anything that liz cheney says about the situation. i don't believe anything bennie thompson says. i believe they're hopelessly biased. but i do believe republicans. >> you don't believe anything liz cheney says when she played a key role in cassidy hutchinson testifying? >> i can make my own decisions based on watching the evidence. i know when i'm seeing political bs from people. i know when i'm seeing show boating. i know when i'm seeing the hiring of a television producer to put on the show. i have been moved by the testimony, which is what supposed to move us. it shouldn't be statements of

politicians on the outset who clearly have an ax to grind against president trump, regardless of what party they're in. but the testimony under oath by republicans is compelling, and i wish more folks in my own party were watching. >> there's more. a lot more. watch what mulvaney says about his successor in the job, mark meadows whrks it comes to january 6th. you won't want to miss it. part two of our interview with the former trump acting chief of staff when "cnn toninight" returns. nsurance, soso you only pay for what you need... and a blblowtorch. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

lemons. lemons, lemons, lemons. look how nice they are. the moment you become an expedia member, you can instantly start saving on your travels. so you can go and see all those, lovely, lemony, lemons. ♪ and never wonder if you got a good deal. because you did. ♪ (vo) red lobster's seafood summerfest is fire! turn up for the grilled lobster, shrimp and salmon trio ...and our hottest summer duo, steak and lobster! it's lit! don't miss red lobster's seafood summerfest.

why choose proven quality sleep from the sleep number 360 smart bed? because it can gently raise your partner's head to help relieve snoring. ah. that's better. and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. and now, the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. only for a limited time.

this is john. he hasn't worked this hard to only get this far with his cholesterol. taken with a statin, leqvio can lower bad cholesterol and keep it low with two doses a year. side effects were injection site reaction, joint pain, urinary tract infection, diarrhea, chest cold, pain in legs or arms, and shortness of breath. with leqvio, lowering cholesterol becomes just one more thing life throws your way. ask your doctor about leqvio. lower. longer. leqvio.

♪ i got into debt in college and, no matter how much i paid, it followed me everywhere. so i consolidated it into a low-rate personal loan from sofi. get a personal loan with no fees, low fixed rates, and borrow up to $100k. sofi. get your money right. . more now from my conversation this evening with former president trump's one-time right hand man, mic mulvaney. he talks about the impact of the hearings, who you should believe, and how the republican party should view trump in 2024. >> when you say you wish more folks were watching, what is your assessment? you were a politician for a long

time. what's your assessment for whether republicans are willing to be moved, especially in some of these key swing states in georgia and perhaps wisconsin, where these hearings might be getting a little bit more coverage? >> it's not determinative. but i think it was in gallup. somebody came out with a poll in the last 12 hours that asked folks to rate the most important issues to them. no one said january 6th. no one said the january 6th commissions. things like the economy are still driving ordinary americans and what they care about. that being said -- by the way, i don't think the hearings are moving that needle one way or the other. inside washington, inside the political world, it is moving the needle. and what you're seeing, i think, is folks, especially in my party, are looking at donald trump as damaged and something that might weigh down the party going into the midterms and into 2024, which is why i think you're starting to hear rumblings of mike pence running against donald trump, mike

pompeo, ron desantis, nikki haley. those are conversations i don't think you would have had six or eight weeks ago before these committee hearings started. >> would you vote for donald trump? >> no. i'm not going to tell you who i would vote for, but there's a lot of folks i think would be a better president than donald trump in a republican primary. >> that was going to be my question. do you have somebody you have in mind? >> kasie, i serve in the state legislature with tim scott. ron desantis played on the baseball team together. nikki haley was my governor. mike pence and i go back 12 years. i don't have a favorite dog in the fight. i think it would be healthy for the party to have really good candidates running against trump in 2024. >> let me bring us back to the hearings briefly. we talked about cipollone, obviously who is scheduled to testify. the person that we are still waiting on is mark meadows, who is, of course, your former

colleague in the house of representatives. the freedom caucus, of course, a place where you two interacted regularly. do you trust mark meadows to tell the truth? >> if mark meadows put his hand on a bible and said he was going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, i would be inclined to believe that. i don't think he's the most credible person of all the witnesses. you asked a fair question a few minutes ago, which is if cipollone says x and hutchinson says y. mark seems to have gone through a very dark period. he was apparently, according to cassidy, detached from the job. i don't know if he was having some sort of event where he could not engage. but i think mark -- mark is in a really strange place. and my guess is, if he testifies -- and he may be compelled to testify because he's not under criminal indictment yet but criminal

referral to the department of justice -- my guess is we'll see him take the fifth amendment more often than not. >> do you think mark meadows betrayed the country with what we know now about his actions around january 6th. >> that case is being made, but the hearings are not over. there may be five or six or eight witnesses that come out and say she was lying under oath and i'll be wrong about giving her the benefit of the doubt that i have up until this time. this process is not over and we need to see it through to the end. that being said, as a former chief of staff, i picked up on things in cassidy's testimony that really frightened me, and it was the way the west wing was running. it wasn't running. it was anarchy. it was chaos. it was a clown show with folks like rudy giuliani and linwood and peter navarro in the oval office with the smart people disengaged. it's up to the chief of staff,

me, mark meadows, john kelly, to make sure the west wing functions properly because there are protections in place to make sure things like january 6th don't happen. and that system fell apart under mark's watch. and while the president is ultimately responsible for the people he hires, the chief of staff bears a great deal of responsibility when it comes to running that office. >> finally, before i let you go, do you have any regrets about your time in the west wing? you did write at one point that you thought that the former president would gracefully accept defeat in the end. >> no. i'm not big into regrets. by the way, that piece -- i've taken a lot of criticism for that piece. you started by saying my prognostication for cipollone was a winner. that's good for me. that was me with my chief of staff hat on. that was me advising the president. that was me speaking to an audience of one. i hoped that it was true. i really did. and there was evidence, as i set forth in that piece, that it was true. but i was also trying to speak to the president as his former

chief of staff in the way i know he communicated, which is through the editorial pages. and he didn't take the advice i gave in that piece, which is one of the reasons i quit the day of the riots. >> he certainly did not. mick mulvaney, we really appreciate your time. so much to discuss there. a key question will be who donald trump met with leading up to january 6th. and that's going to include some of those who spent time inside the white house residence away from the cameras and the attention of the west wing. the one person not named trump who may know better than anyone joins me next.

(burke) a new car loses about ten percent of its value the minute you drive off the lot. or more. that's why farmers new car replacement pays to replace it with a new one of the same make and model. get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪

the doctor will be in to see you shortly. ♪ hi. [ chuckles ] when you see things differently, you can be the difference. capella university looks at education differently. our flexpath learning format lets you set deadlines and earn your nursing degree on your schedule. make your difference with capella university.

wanna help kids get their homework done? well, an internet connection's a good start. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities.

my blood pressure is borderline. garlique healthy blood pressure formula helps maintain healthy blood pressure with a custom blend of ingredients. i'm taking charge, with garlique. a clown show. you heard how former president's one-time chief of staff described the administration under mark meadows. my next guest was in the trump administration from the very day

trump was inaugurated right up until january 6th. she worked directly with both the former president donald trump and first lady melania trump. thank you for being with us tonight. >> thank you for having me. >> what do you make of the dysfunction mick mulvaney described? >> i think that what mick had to say was direct, and it does seem that towards the end there perhaps mark was more disengaged than usual and allowed some pretty bad actors to surround the president. >> do you agree with mick mulvaney's assessment of who is to be believed in the context of these hearings. he suggested he would believe pat cipollone over mark meadows if their testimony conflicts. do you agree? >> yeah, i think mick was a lot more charitable when it comes to

mark. i would believe my dog over mark meadows. i do want to believe with mick completely about pat. he is a man of integrity. i didn't always agree with pat. also i think it was the normal lawyers versus pr person butting heads about what to do. but he is a man of integrity, and i saw himself myself constantly shutting down bad ideas and telling the president that things shouldn't go certain ways. another thing that i saw quite a bit was the president wasn't great to pat. the president would tell him he was weak and he needed better lawyers. and pat stood firm and did what was best for the country. so, i believe that's what he will do now. >> can i ask you also in the event that there are conflicts between pat cipollone's testimony and what we heard from cassidy hutchinson and we expect pat cipollone to testify under oath. she was under oath. how would you evaluate discrepancies between those things?

>> that will be hard. it will depend on a lot of things. a lot of what cassidy had to say, what she said up front was what another person told her. obviously if it was a conversation between cassidy and pat and he believes it differently, it will depend on nuances. if pat said, i absolutely didn't say that, or if it's a discrepancy in a word or two or cassidy thought he was saying it in a way that pat wasn't quite saying it, it just depends. and in that white house, there's so many things going on in one moment and there's so many conversations happening. so, i think we all just have to watch and see. i think that cassidy was very believable. i did not work with her. i don't know her. but i think we'll have to wait and see. >> and did you ever personally witness instances where the then-white house counsel pat cipollone informed the president or those around him that they couldn't do something because it was illegal? >> no. i never saw that. you know, pat, to his credit, was great at having, i think,

those kinds of conversations with the president privately. he often had conversations that it would frustrate me as the press secretary because i needed to be in there so i could hopefully tell the press kind of what was going on. but i never saw him say no in terms of this is going to be illegal. but i did see him push back often. and i did see him say, you know, during the first impeachment hearings -- that's a great example -- jenna ellis wanted to come on board as legal counsel and the president was okay with that. and pat said, no, i don't want her on the team, and we will step back. so, i've seen those conversations take place. >> remarkable. it really underscores -- what you just said really underscores why pat cipollone's testimony is critical here. let's turn to what you were witnessing in the white house behind the scenes around the time of january 6th and the days before. you wrote in your book a little bit about meetings that would happen in the white house residence after hours.

have you spoken to the committee about those meetings? and what can you tell us about who was in them and how they unfolded? >> yes. i've spoke ton the committee extensively about anything that i know about the days leading up to january 6th. but, you know, as just practice, mrs. trump, understandably, always wanted to know if people were going to be in her home at night. and the president often times didn't tell her. so, i, as chief of staff, needed to be notified. so, i was always told by the usher who was going to be in the residence that evening. and i know leading up to january 6th there were a lot of the lawyers -- i like to do that -- up there speaking that mark meadows would usher them into the residence. i don't know what was discussed -- what? >> can you enumerate who those lawyers are. i think some of our viewers may know but for clarity. >> i apologize. jenna ellis, sidney powell, rudy giuliani. those are the three i can think of off the top of my head.

>> and some of them were present then at a meeting at the willard hotel right before january 6th. that's become significant interest to the committee n. your experience and based on your knowledge of this period of time, do you think president trump knew who was meeting at the willard hotel and why? >> yes. and the reason i say that is because nobody did anything without president trump's blessing. period. end of story. i, as press secretary, any chief of staff that i worked with, which was literally all four of them, you didn't do -- make a move without first getting his sign off. people didn't go behind his back and make major decisions and talk strategy without him knowing. so, i think that he was well aware. but that's just me knowing just from my own experience. this is just a guess. >> so, you're saying that based on extrapolation on previous behavior not necessarily because you knew based on experience. what about mark meadows? do you know if mark meadows knew what was going on at the willard

hotel, and do you have any insights into the claims we've heard from the committee that he was interested in atepiding that meeting? >> i don't know. personally. again, when mark meadows took over as chief of staff, i left the west wing probably three weeks later. so, i was gone and i was very much removed. but, again, knowing the way the president worked, knowing the way the west wing worked -- this is just mark meadows, as chief of staff, needs to know those things going on for so many reasons. i can't imagine he wouldn't be aware and i can't imagine the president wouldn't have told him to go there. >> final question. do you recall ever hearing any conversations or discussions around connections to extremist groups, the proud boys, the oath keepers? we're going to see those links explored in the next hearing. does that ring true to you at all? do you know anything about it? >> i don't know anything about it.

with regard to january 6th. it does ring true to me only that -- and i'm not going to get into this, which is terrible, i know, for your show. but there were people on the trump campaign that had connections that i spoke to the january 6th committee about. so, it rings true to me. i don't know any factual connections that maybe meadows had or anybody in the west wing had. >> very interesting. trump campaign officials, potential connections to the proud boys and oath keepers. we'll be on the lookout to see if that m cos up. stephanie grisham, thank you for your time tonight. >> okay. we're going to take what we just heard tonight from grisham and mulvaney and bounce it off another trump world insider along with two former federal prosecutors. what do they think the upcoming january 6th hearing might lead to. that's next. ♪ ♪

aleve x. its revolutionary llerball design delivers fast, powerful, long-lasti pain relief. aleve it, and see what's possible.

mission control, we are go for launch.

♪ um, she's eating the rocket. ♪ lunchables! built to be eaten. ♪

so, you just heard donald trump's former chief of staff speaking out and his former communications director, who told us who was secretly meeting with trump in the days before the mob attacked the capitol. we have so much to break down with our panel. we've got doug jones, the former u.s. senator and former u.s.

attorney, el lot williams, and miles taylor, former chief of staff to the homeland security secretary during the trump administration. miles, you had a strong reaction when we were listening to the mulvaney interview when he said he saw nothing illegal or immoral in his time in the west wing. true or no? >> let me say a couple things. one, i do think it's important that mick and people like mick are starting to speak up. and that shows you cassidy hutchinson testimony is making people scared. there was no one in mick's job during the trump administration who did not see him do things that were immoral, unethical, or try to do things that were illegal and unconstitutional. i sat there in rooms when mick was there when the president wanted to do things. did he do them? no. he was talked out of them. >> do you have examples? >> absolutely. mick was there for meetings where the president wanted to

illegally and unconstitutional seal the entire border even though the law said you have to allow asylum seekers to come in. in fact, he would berate people for that. and stephanie was right in her interview when she said pat cipollone was often the one who got berated by the president because he was the lawyer who had to say no. this happened in mick's presence, it happened in mark meadow's presence. this was a daily occurrence that trump wanted to do things that were immoral and unethical. we're now entering a stage in this investigation where there's a lot of names coming forward. mick versus mark and cassidy and cipollone. people are getting scared and people are starting to come forward. >> i say this as a former prosecutor. we fixate so much in thinking about what is a crime and what isn't, what you can charge as a crime and what you can't. and much of the conduct people do in the world you shouldn't do can't be charged as crimes. and that's okay. a lot of this was disgraceful

and immoral conduct for people who were blessed to be able to serve the american public and failed the country. and that in itself is immoral and indecent and wrong. some of it may not be criminal. i think it's important it drew that distinction knowing this was immoral conduct and shameful for anyone in the white house. >> what has struck me about -- i sat through an impeachment hearing and i saw people coming forward then. and people like mulvaney and others just enabled the president to berate those people and to continue to do things. i'm glad they're coming forward now. i'm happy they're doing it. but every one of those folks enabled donald trump. and when you enable somebody like trump for that long, you're going to end up with a january 6-type situation. and that's what bothers me for the future. to call everybody -- look, again, i can't say it enough. i'm glad they're coming forward. we see it all the time in investigations like this. but if they had come forward and did the things that they needed

to do back in the day, we might not would have ever got to january 6th. >> what do you think the motivation is? you've prosecuted cases. you know how this works with one witness saying something and pulling other witnesses up out of the woodwork. >> i think it's a conversation for people that cassidy hutchinson did embolden people. people were afraid. anybody that spoke out against donald trump, trump was going to get slaughtered in the social media. they were going to get bullied. and i think people are seeing this now they can actually speak out and tell the truth. and they are people with character. i think other people are also thinking, oh, my god, did i do something wrong? i better talk to somebody because i see all of this now. there's a combination of things. we see it all the time in federal investigations where the media comes out and people get -- they either get emboldened. they get frightened. this is a very similar pattern. >> and this is happening on a public scale in a way that criminal trials and

investigations don't. because congress is congress, it's a public body, they have political interests too, but they get to be out there in ways that prosecutors wouldn't. thaw see what's going on. they're seeing the sky doesn't fall and you do the right thing when you come forward. >> but kasie, i'm cynical about a lot of this stuff too. i watch bill barr, i watched mick mulvaney, i questioned them both in hearings, especially mick mulvaney and others. i think also it's a new tour. it's a kind of self-righteous tour that all these people are going on to try and rebuild an image that got tarnished, incredibly tarnished. >> i have to add to that senator. you can't serve in that administration without coming out in a phd in cowardice analytics. in 2020 when i was trying to recruit every single senior trump official, the first

motivation in saying no was fear. another motivation was they didn't want to lose out on money-making prospects in trump world, especially if he came back one day. one of the things we're seeing now is a different type of fear, fear they're going to be prosecuted. and people starting to change their tune. i said this during break. also perversely, some of them saw cassidy hutchinson became a hero and a lot of them left the trump administration being villainized by the american public. >> they could have done it earlier. >> they see oh, i can be a hero on tv. >> i would be curious for the elected official at the table. is it wise now that maybe folks are seeing? >> that's a good question. is it changing significantly? >> i still haven't seen that much changing in the congress of the united states and the senate. everybody is still talking behind closed doors. we have seen january 6th now -- how many hearings? seven. and we have nothing but crickets coming out of the house of representatives, the republican leadership and the senate lead

sher i.p. >> the point that mulvaney was making about how this might break the dam on 2024 -- it's clear in races -- in house and senate races, trump is still, especially in primaries, kind of the be all and end all. but there is a group of republicans just itching -- they all want to be president. and do you think this creates space? >> not a single one of them have come out and criticized this president that much. >> is that a prerequisite do you think? >> if they're going to have any credibility -- they're all enables. everyone mick named is an enabler. you have to say it's a witch hunt and we need to move on. they would love to get donald trump in the rear-view mirror as we talked about last night. >> mike pence was probably one of the biggest stars of i think the first hearing. clips of his testimony and so on. you notice he was very careful and measured in the tones he

took when speaking about the former president. >> they want a break. they want a break. let's gt a break. and i think the country needs it. i think the republican party needs it. >> i'm very happy not to be a republican. i left a little too late. i will say to your question, kasie, i talked to three different people today who served at high levels of the trump administration, have not come out publicly to ask that question. what will it take? some people are being moved by cassidy hutchinson's testimony. a number of people are saying to me that it will be the primary process in 2024 that hopefully is trump's political death nail. it's going to be ambition countering ambition n. their view it's all the ex-trumpers going to work for the next crop of gop. i wish they would just come out anyway. but if that's what it take ss the primary process to get in the fight, by all means get into the fight. it sounds like the former president is angling to get

there. >> not a single one of them is going to be protecting democracy if they do that, not a single one of them. nobody is going to be protecting the democracy as we know it, which needs to be protected. that is one of the most critical things that this country is facing right now, and those folks that are not coming out and not speaking out, they are doing serious damage. >> it's not just trump. it's the underlying causes that led to january 6. >> absolutely, absolutely. >> and it's cutting that stuff out and attacking that stuff. it hasn't gone away. it's not going anywhere regardless of what happens with donald trump. >> it's part of what's unfolding with faith in elections, the way laws are being changed and mettled with. we've got a lot more to talk about. stick around because we have another investigation on efforts to overturn the election that is also heating up tonight. the prosecutor who just subpoenaed senator lindsey graham won't rule out a subpoena for donald trump. we'll discuss that next.

psoriatic arthritis, made my joints stiff, swollen, painful. emerge tremfyant®. tremfya® is approved to help reduce... joint symptoms in adults with active psoriatic arthritis. some patients even felt less fatigued. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge tremfyant® with tremfya®... ask you doctor about tremfya® today. hey, caleb. what's going on? homework. i'm supposed to learn how to cook a souffle. ooh. french impressive. i have no clue what you're saying. yeah, i said that you should learn french because it makes you sound smart. i got you. you know what else is smart, alec?

donating to shriners hospitals for children. i thought you'd say that. and you know what? you're right. just think what it would be like if people didn't support shriners hospitals for children every month. i don't even want to think about it. i know so many kids whose lives are completely different because of the specialized care shriners hospitals for children provides. yeah. like sebastian, who can stand now? yeah. and the best part is, it's so easy to become a monthly supporter. all you need to do is call the number on your screen or go to loveshriners.org your support will make sure our amazing doctors and nurses keep helping kids like us who need them now and in the future. alec, do you think i could try this part? go for it, buddy. when you call right now. and your $19 a month only $0.63 a day,

we'll send you your very own love to the rescue blanket as a reminder of all the kids you are helping every day. your monthly support makes a huge difference for kids like us. so please call now or go to loveshriners.org to give. on behalf of all the kids you're helping, alec and and i just want to say - thank you. you got that right. thank you so much. please call the number on your screen or go to loveshriners.org with your monthly support right away. your support shows you care too. could former president trump be subpoenaed as part of a grand jury investigation into whether he criminally severe feared in the 2020 election in georgia. fani willis, the district attorney in fulton county,

georgia, says yes. take a look. >> might we see a subpoena of the former president himself? >> anything is possible. we're not ruling out. it is possible. >> absolutely. >> anything is possible. that grand jury just subpoenaed a handful of key trump allies, including his former attorney, rudy giuliani, and south carolina senator lindsey graham. back with me now, doug jones, elliott williams, and miles taylor. there's a lot to talk about here. elliott, let's talk nuts and bolts here. what happens if the fulton d.a. does subpoena donald trump? >> you've got a legal fight on your hands because just like lindsey graham has said he'd do, the president would move to quash it saying it's not based in fact. >> if there's anyone who has a phd in dragging out legal processes. >> the judge would have approved the subpoena saying there's a basis for it, but you've got a

legal fight on your hands if the president gets subpoenaed. >> it's not normal practice to subpoena a targeted investigation. it's not normal practice. you run a real risk of potentially having a grand jury tainted if you put a target -- >> how so? what does thatthat he is incapable of doing that, but if he had any decent lawyer even a court appointed -- lawyers of any strife would tell them, do not testify, take the fifth. it's protecting you. there can be serious ramifications for a case in which somebody puts a target in front of a grand jury, knowing they're going to take it . >> you have the right to remain silent. literally, if they bring it in with a subpoena, you know, they

are asking you to testify and then if they charge you with a crime, that might throw the whole thing off. >> he's clinically a capable of remaining silent. at any prosecutor would know that. honestly, that's what the trail that donald trump has created, frankly, is what puts him in the most vulnerable position here. one of the reasons that trump world is panicking right now. they feel totally besieged, not by the january 6th select committee but by any number of investigations, they know at some point, the she was going to drop. the penny is going to drop and somebody's going to stick. he's not teflon don. something will stick at this point and is one of the reasons why the former president itching to announce his candidacy in 2024 so people around him are worried that they will get hit. if he's a candidate for public office, he can say, this investigation is partisan and they are trying to end my candidacy. >> we were talking about in the break, you know, the rest of trying to prognosticate when

charges are coming. it's never a good idea. prosecutors know this, however, if the president is to be charged, the former president is to be charged, it's probably in jordan georgia, they are quicker than the federal government. it's straight up election law. >> the evidence is very clear as well. >> look everybody is talking about how clear that is, let me tell you something. i did a little defense work, two and a good defense lawyer is going to rip that tape to shreds. because you can say, if you are in the heat of something and you've lost a close election, you can say, oh my god, i just need to find 11,000 votes, that can be an innocent conversation. if you are asking someone to redo account, do it again. >> very generous interpretation. >> but remember, it's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and if there's a different

hypothesis that is consistent with innocence, then you don't get a conviction. >> he asked for exactly the right amount of votes he would need to win but it actually muddies the water enough for a defense attorney. >> so senator jones, let me ask you from a political perspective because i think all of these things are layered together perhaps less so in georgia but definitely in the case of merrick garland making decisions about what to do. is there, in your view, as someone who understands what the legal system is, a risk, to charging donald trump that will potentially elevate him in the context of the 2024 run. >> of course there is. look, i think significant, you only go back to my old nemesis judge roy moore. he got elevated because he got sued by the aclu. and he wrote that horse as far as he could, not his regular horse, he wrote the legal horse as far as he could, sorry.

but yes, there is a risk but i will say this, that is not the kind of risk that is going to be determinative for the department of justice and the attorney general of the united states. they will look at the strength of the evidence. they will look at the policy behind it, they will understand that when you are trying to indict a former president that has never been done in the history of this country, that you got to raise the bar. there's long-term ramifications for doing that, and that's what it's going to be, it won't be the political risk. i don't believe it'll be the political risk at all. >> it occurs to me and i wanted to circle back because we haven't talked about what stephanie grisham said at the end of her interview, which is that she is testify to the january 6th committee about potential links between the cowboys and the oath keepers to the trump campaign. miles taylor, what do you know, if anything, about that and is

that going to be the center of whatever the department of justice does? >> i talked to someone who said to me, when they would go on advanced trips with the president, you have the drivers that drive staff in the cars, there would be the qanon and cowboys types that would be brought on to drive the staff. they were worried about it then, that was years before january 6th. one thing was clear before i left the department of homeland security. that was the white house didn't want to talk about domestic terrorist because people that the law enforcement considered domestic terrorists were the people that the white house considered supporters. very active supporters. they didn't want to launch cases against these people. the red flags were being aired then. so you can draw a line from what happened on january 6th way back into the administration but there is a crucial point. >> final word. >> we hope that investigations would save us from donald trump, impeachment, one thing is clear. this may ultimately go back to the people. donald trump may make it into a

primary process and that's ultimately what the constitution says. the people have the final word and we may have to be prepared to have the people vote to keep this man from being in public office. >> i hope the people have the final word and not some partisan election official. >> i think that's what liz cheney is going for hehere. this was a great cononversation we will be r right back. >> the day you get your clearchoice dental implants makes every day... a "let's dig in" day... >> mm. >> ...a "chow down" y... a "taka big bite" day... a "perfectly delicious" day... >> mm. [ chuckles ] >> ...a "love my new teeth" day. because your clearchoice day is

the day everything is back on the menu. a clearchoice day changes every day. schedule a free consultation.

to finally lose 80 pounds and keep it off with golo is amazing. i've been maintaining. the weight is gone and it's never coming back. with golo, i've not only kept off the weight but i'm happier, i'm healthier, and i have a new lease on life. golo is the only thing that will let you lose weight and keep it off. who loses 138 pounds in nine months? i did! golo's a lifestyle change and you make the change and it stays off. (soft music) there's a reason comcast business powers more businesses than any other provider. actually, there's a few... comcast business offers the fastest, reliable network... the protection of securityedge™ and the most reliable 5g network. want me to keep going? i can... whether your small business is starting or growing, you need comcast business. technology solutions that put you ahead.

get a great offer on internet and security, now with more speed and more bandwidth. plus find out how to get up to a $650 prepaid card with a qualifying bundle. thank you all for watching with us tonight. i will be back tomorrow. don lemon tonight with laura e sitting in, starts ri now. e sitting in, starts ri >> this is don lemon tonight. this big. i mean, it's really big, the witness the january 6th committee has wanted to talk to for months, i'm talking about none other than white house counsel pat cipollone.