heorning. we're gonna always make sure that you have all of the financial tools and support to secure your financial future. that means a lot for my community and for every community. you want to see something cool? xfinity rewards is how we go beyond saying thanks. so we're going to spread the joy this holiday season, the xfinity way. take your trusty sidekick to see puss in boots: the last wish what's a puss in boots? he is me. with buy-1-get-1 movie tickets, on us. in theaters christmas. join for free on the xfinity app. xfinity rewards. our thanks. your rewards.

good evening, everybody. i'm john berman. and this is cnn tonight. so, here's a question. is donald trump finished? i'm not saying he is or should be, but i am saying, it feels

like that question is part of the national discussion in ways it has never been. today, the house january 6th committee issued criminal referrals for the former president. four of them to be exact. >> anyone who incites others to engage in rebelling, assist them in doing so, or gives aid and comfort to those engaged in insurrection, is guilty of a federal crime. >> so, we thought about booking historians tonight to place these criminal referrals in historical context. but what's the point? there is no context. this has never happened before. it is generous -- which is just a latin way of saying, unique. we will discuss the actual legal teeth these work frills have, spoiler, none. but they might refer a marker for a moment with a lot of people figure trump is just not worth the trouble anymore. on the other hand, when asking that question, remember, we are

talking about a guy who was impeached not once but twice. that was certainly sweet generous. so was a candidate revealed to have bragged about -- sexually salting women. >> when you're a star, they let you do it. you can do anything. >> whatever you want. >> grabbed by the -- >> do anything. >> -- or equivocated on marching antisemitic white nationalists or publicly -- picked veteran putin over his own intelligence services. or asked about and injecting disinfectant to fight a pandemic. >> and then i see the disinfectant. it knocks it out in a minute. one minute. and there's a way we can do something like that? by injection inside or cleaning. you see it gets in the lungs, and it does a tremendous. they be interesting to check the. >> -- times three. and he survived.

those may before trump it should be called -- here we go again. if you're looking around the world right now irreversible political death sentences seem scarce. israel just elected and former prime minister brazil victim or present who is imprisoned couple years ago. it's the political monte python corollary to prescriptions of demise. >> bring out your dead. >> here is. one >> i'm not dead. >> what? >> i'm not dead. >> here, he says he's not dead. >> yes. is >> i'm not. >> he is? it >> really obesity will be soon, he's very. >> trump wasn't dead yet. not those times. that is the other hand question being asked about trump. but back to the firsthand, and the situation tonight. and about the notion beginning to flow that donald trump really is politically finished this time. and it's not just the criminal referrals about which we will soon discuss the legal teeth.

spoiler alert, none. but it's also the mid term election defeats. the mar-a-lago dinner with an antisemite in a white nationalist. the idea of terminating parts of the constitution, that all this adds up to someone even republican supporters don't want to deal with anymore. especially in a world where ron desantis exists. that may be tonight, donald trump is less like the guy on the court in the holy grail, and more like bruce willis in the sixth sense. politically dead, but no one told him. sorry, i missed the spoiler there. that's the question hanging over everything we will discuss tonight. about what happened today. so, let's dive right in. joining me now, cnn political analyst maggie haberman, cnn political correspond for the new york times. cnn political commentator, s.e. cupp, and cnn senior legal analyst, elie honig. >> can we please just, that was an awesome, awesome intro. >> if it was good, it's sui generis, which is the first-time. >> it had bourbon written all over.

i loved it. >> let me do another dramatic reading, this time from maggie haberman. who wrote on twitter about an analysis that you just posted in the new york times about donald trump. in the referrals today. the largely symbolic but unprecedented criminal referrals by the house committee of a former president underscored the reality that trump is facing. a diminished figure politically. >> i think that's right. i think it's diminished. but i would not go so far as to say that donald trump is dead. it's not just all of those moments, and i really did enjoy the montage, thank you. but it's not just all of this moment that you just played. this is a guy who's been written off for decades. he was -- his casinos were bankrupted, but he was fine. he was dismissed in the 1990s. he was dismissed as an entertainer. he came back over and over and over again. i don't think you can say that he's done, especially because we don't know what the rhonda scent just running. we don't know whether will be any good as a candidate. i think this all comes down to two questions, does anyone actually indict donald trump? which we still, you know,

nothing's changed a from yesterday realistically to your point. there's no legal teeth there. and then what do voters do? when and if there were actual other choices. everything else is just filling in one side of the page. >> you know, one of the points i was making, it's not just the indictments. even before the indictments, the referrals, even before the referrals, there was all this other stuff, there are these polls and there is a sense, even before you voted just a few hours ago, politically diminished. >> and i stand by. that -- >> is he is in fact politically diminished. within trump world, how are they reacting to this reality, or how do they perceive that reality. >> there's a difference between what they will say, and what they'll actually do. and there's different what they actually think and what they will say to him. he is continuing to say everything is fine, to any number of people, which we have seen him do over and over and over through every single crisis that's how he handles things. there are some advisers around him, who acknowledge this is not an ideal facts it. i use the word diminished very specifically, he is shrunken,

basically. this is different now than say, in 2016, this is appointment median elsa signposted tonight, in 2016, voters were familiar with the idea of trump. they had heard about for decades. they were not familiar with who he is, what he's like, the fact that there is a rolling drama around him at all times, and i think there is a sense of fatigue. what that adds up to depends on who he's running against and what else is happening. but i absolutely think that he is a smaller and certainly less powerful figure than he was before. >> look, you can't underestimate just how loyal a lot of his fans -- but also his surrogates and supporters are. i just heard steve bin and say, he's out over the nfts. he was fine with the sedition and the bigotry, but the nfts was like the bridge too far. i'm sure he'll come back around. if trump starts looking like the only candidate. or the strongest candidate.

mike pence just yesterday or today saying, gosh, i hope he hasn't indicted. that would just be a shame. the guys supporters tried to kill you in the capital, donald trump did nothing to stop it. and you don't think he should face any consequences? other guys a lot of people talking a little tough about donald trump, who, when push comes to shove, if desantis doesn't get in, or desantis gets in and look soft among voters, will actually find ways to continue defending donald trump. >> let me say, one thing that i know about donald trump. and i know because i admit i read maggie's book, nothing energizes him like a fight. he has come back, as maggie said, from the dead so many times, and guess what, this here, this referral? this is going to be a fight. you know it's gonna happen on wednesday? when all the underlying materials come out? donald trump's lawyers, perhaps some of his most loyal followers, are going to go through that with a fine tooth comb, they're gonna go of, look here. here's testimony given that was favorable to him. maybe by stephen miller. a lot of people who were trump

sympathizers wanted to testify. it looks like the committee hissed from you. they're gonna go through and say, oh, look cassidy hutchinson testified, here's away she said it slightly differently, when she had a prior lawyer lawyer, therefore her testimonies not to be believed. i think she was quite credible, but watch, i've seen it happen with witnesses. this could energize donald trump. >> let me ask you this way, elie, on the legal side ellen -- >> what's different dome trump tonight than when he woke up this morning? >> two things, first of, all there's now a book, a bible. this document, 160 pages an executive summary, we're all in one fairly concise place, they should've made about one quarter the length, but in one place you could look and say, here is the story of what donald trump did. the other thing is, if i can cheat a little, in two days will be different when we get all the documents, doj is now gonna have all the evidence. doj, for better or for worse, they're going to have facts they don't know. we know doj's been asking the committee for the stuff. and you're gonna have other stuff that may be used to sort of impeach someone with the committee did. >> i agree with you in terms of

the impeaching with the committee did. i think are gonna see republicans making a huge push on that. i'm not shirts can be as effective as it might be say, if kevin mccarthy was not drowning in his own leadership fight. i think there's a bunch of x-factors there. the one thing i will say, you made a point and i should mention this before, you're saying nothing energizes donald trump like a fight. that's absolutely true. and he never sounds as sort of engaged as he does in recent days when he's talking about wanting to take on ron desantis. but that's the only time he really sounds engaged. in 2015, he was enjoying himself. there are lot of people who are not enjoying his candidacy, to be clear. but his slash and burn stuff was so much fun for him. is there anything that gives anyone any sense that he's enjoying any of this right now? we haven't seen him in five weeks. >> yeah, it's true. and i think that might be a calculation of ronda sentences. waiting. waiting this out, not giving him exactly what he needs right away. so that for the next two years, it's the trump show all over

again. and he knows run desantis, run desantis knows that the media will follow, and start paying attention if there's a fight between trump and desantis, or trump in someone else. so, maybe he's hanging back for that reason. >> can i bring paris hilton this. >> always. >> i was warning when you're gonna get there. >> didn't she once a, and i'm paraphrasing paris over the first only time, basically, there's nothing worse than being boring. the worst crime in the world is being boring, or something like that. >> and for trump, at a certain point, all of this is just becomes background noise. and if you are a republican, who may believe in much or most or all of the stuff he believes in, he's just exhausting. it's just not worth anymore. >> there was something, and i wrote about this in the book that i wrote, that bill barr, the former attorney general, said to trump in the spring of 2020 when he was trying to coach him on being a more normal candidate. he said that people are tired of the expletive drama. i think there is something to that. i think even his supporters are tired of the drama.

that doesn't mean they won't be with him again, i think they probably will, as long as he has this hold on roughly 30% of the republican party, he's in pretty good shape. and even the polling that shows that there is some erosion. he's definitely decelerating. but he still has that core group. and you can't write him off. >> and the gop hasn't made outreach to other kinds of voters. they've decided against the big tent went all in for trump and have condensed the base over the past six years. so that it is the most purely trump kind of voter. so, they might have a lot of trump support. but it's probably not enough to win another national election. >> two things real quick, of course meghan got that scoop, i got near bill barr, i don't get that scoop. this is a little scary. this is bad twitter stupid nfts. you're talking about real indictments, real consequences. >> just to make clear, what he said the spring of 2020 was after the impeachment involving

-- it was as if this is light and fluffy presidency were nothing else happens. >> also, i would apologize, a purely now for the last time, i confused paris hilton bill barr. it happens. >> maggie, and as he organist's stick around, i will ask you before we do lose you. if there was anything revealed today, whether in these hearings or the summary or the papers that have been released as you biblical through them, was there anything new you think that would be or might be of particular concern, or that adds to the problems that donald trump is facing? >> i don't have an answer to the problems facing, it certainly adds to layers that i think the committee wants the doj to look at. so one thing is that they raise the specter of interfering with witnesses. and they were very vague and how they described it. they didn't touch names to. it they wrote it in a very particular, and i would say, to some extent, peculiar way. given the weight of that potential claim. so that's one thing. i think that this has gotten

very little tension, i've been surprised by. they sort of went out of their way to tweak ivanka trump, and say that she was not direct with them in her testimony. we got to see that in the videos that they showed. we know what they think. they wanted to lay that out, they don't think that she was somebody who is being forthcoming. >> just before we end this, ivanka trump, kayleigh mcenany, and tony renato, they all, elie, made these veiled references to not being as forthcoming as they would like. political, legal, where the line there? >> they're making credibility findings which ordinarily we leave to judges or juries. if you could show you've got the person dead to rights, she said x, we know that she knew it was not x. then your talking perjury. it doesn't elecare anywhere near there. it sounds more like, we didn't really just believe them on the hole. >> that's right. and that sort of my points with the potential for witness, i wouldn't say tampering, but at least sort of influencing. that's a really serious claim. and they made it with not a ton

of specifics behind it and without a criminal referral to. without of criminal referral, that's correct. maggie, thank you. very much. sco delhi, stick around, much more for you coming up. so, in a first, the january six committee recommended for criminal charges against a former president. what can the department of justice do that they couldn't? what can doj do that the committee didn't do? i'm an ask a member of that committee, stay with us for congressman adam schiff, next. congressman adam schiff, next. (vo) after fifteen years of the share the love event, subaru and our retailers have donated over two hundred and fifty million dollars to charity. in fact, subaru is the largest corporate donor toto the aspca.. ...and the national l park foundation. and the largest automotive donor to meals on wheels... ...and make-a-wish. get a new subaru during the share the love event and subaru and our retailers will donate three hundred dollars to charity.

the day you get your clearchoice dental implants makes every day... a "let's dig in" day... mm. ...a "chow down" day... a "take a 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. when a cold comes on strong, knock it out with vicks dayquil severe. just one dose starts to relieve 9 of your worst cold and flu symptoms. to help take you from 9 to none. power through with vicks dayquil severe.

[sfx: stomach gurgling] it's nothing... sounds like something. ♪ when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, ♪ ♪ upset stomach, diarrhea. ♪ pepto bismol coats and soothes for fast relief... when you need it most.

an historic day on capitol hill. the bipartisan january six committee referring former president trump to the justice department on for criminal charges. inciting or aiding an insurrection, obstruction of official conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud the united states and conspiracy to make false statements. joining me now is democratic congressman, adam schiff, of california. a member of the select committee. congressman, thanks so much for being with us. so, based on the information publicly available, which of your referrals do you think the department of justice is already the furthest along in? >> well, this is speculation on

my part, i have to think that the issue the charges relating to the obstruction of the joint session, the interference with the joint session, the conspiracy to defraud the united states. those would be, i think, probably top of mind for the justice department. but they also need to look at the most serious charge, that is the incitement of insurrection. the aid and comforting of people committing an act of rebellion or insurrection. that is, you know, certainly not a charges it's brought very often. never been brought before against a former president. but nonetheless, the facts here are very much on point. i imagine some of those other statutes are probably further along, at least in their evidence gathering. and their assessment. >> which charged you think has the strongest evidence? >> that's very difficult. i think the evidence is pretty strong. certainly strong enough to warrant our referring it to the

justice department. there were other charges that we looked at and others that we think the justice department may have more evidence than we do. out of those four, the evidence looks to be pretty strong. certainly, if they hadn't begun an investigation, of the former president on the basis of those charges, i think it's a sufficient basis to do. so >> let's pick one of the charges. let's take the insurrection charge. when you think the strongest evidence is with that? >> look, he brought this mob to the capitol. he understood that they were armed. when he was told they would go through the metal detectors, his answer was, take them metal tech turns down. they're not here to hurt me. he understood they were there to hurt someone. he was more than happy to have them march on the capitol, knowing they were armed. his only frustration and indignation was that he couldn't go with them. and when the violence began, he made it worse.

by attacking his own vice president. all the people around him understood just how that was pouring gasoline on the fire. and i think he understood that as well. and then you have the extraordinary dereliction of duty. we sat by and did nothing while this man was taking place. and then afterwards, telling them how much he loves them. even now, talking about pardoning them. to me, that's pretty powerful evidence. certainly giving aid and comfort to those engaged in insurrection. >> so, you've noted that the department of justice has the ability to get answers from people that you could not. so, specifically, which witnesses have they spoken with that you think could prove to be the most important? and what would you ask these people if you had the chance? >> a number of witnesses that are misleading the public reports, of people that appeared to be going before the grand jury. who refused to come and testify before us. now, i don't know they're saying in the grand jury. and maybe they're invoking a bunch of privileges that don't apply just as some of them did

for us. but i think they probably view the congress is as much more of a paper tiger and its ability to enforce subpoenas. the justice department is something different. so, my guess is they're getting more answers from some of these witnesses than we could. in terms of the questions i would want to ask, i would want to ask about conversations involving the president. what they heard. i would want to ask about other potential coconspirators and what they were involved in. many of those conversations are not covered by any privilege, depending on who is engaging in them and who else was in the room. but we were not able to get answers, and i think the justice department can. >> parts of lonely, who is white house counsel, did answer questions before he was deposed by wall. but he drew some lines as to what he would not answer. presumably with the og. those lines don't exist. so, what questions from him would you want answers to? >> well, you know, he will assert, the white house counselor, some of those lines

and trying to make the case of the justice department. and the justice department have to consider, are they ready to press this in court? what are the chances of winning in court? how long will it take? that's part of the calculus that we have to entertain after all, we're almost two years into this, and we're still litigating some of these issues. sadly, this is a tried and true tactic of donald trump, which is to delay and delay and delay and hope the justice delay will be just adult denied. so, i think it'll be a process of a different kind of negotiation with these witnesses. i think the department of justice will have a lot more leverage. and they can move much more quickly than the congress. >> so, you know the bar is obviously high though not insurmountable. to conduct -- convict attorneys for their actions. what evidence have you seen about rudy giuliani specifically that prompted the criminal referral for him. >> look, rudy giuliani was well aware that there was no

evidence to support these bogus claims of fraud that they were making in courts all over the land. and he was also well aware of what the president was intending to do on january 6th in terms of those conversations with cassidy hutchinson, for example. he went before the state legislatures, making unsupported false claims of fraud, you saw the testimony that he gave in georgia. and so, he was deeply involved in an effort, i think, to defraud a conspiracy to defraud. as well as the conspiracy to make false statements. conspiracy to interfere with the joint session of congress. so, i think there is evidence along those lines as well. >> congressman adam schiff, we appreciate your time tonight, thank so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> this might be the last january 6th committee hearing, but they managed to deliver some new details. my panelists here it will show you some of what we only learned today, after this.

get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund,

even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds. every day, more dog people are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food.

after my car accident, wondnder whahatmy c cas. so i called the barnes firm. i'm rich barnes. youour cidedentase e woh than insurance offered? call the barnes firm now to find out. yoyou ght t beurprpris call the barnes firm now when that car hit my motorcycle, yoyou ght t beurprpris insurance wasn't fair. so i called the barnes firm,

it was the best call i could've made. call the barnes firm now, and find out what your case could be worth. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million there were no pieces of evidence released today in the file january 6th committee hearing, including the list of weapons confiscated ahead of former president trump's speech on january 6th. look at this list, 260 knives or bleed, 242 canisters of pepper spray. 30 batons blunt instruments. 18 tasers. 18 bought brass knuckles. 17 misleading items including scissors or needles. six pieces of body armor. three gas masks. here with me now, john miller, cnn's chief law enforcement and

intelligence analyst. s.e. cupp in elie honig. back with us. john, that's quite a list there. buttons not the average thing that people carry around. this was a group of people that donald trump spoke to riled up and then basically said, let's march to the capitol. the question here is, is that illegal or, as i suspect that he will ultimately argue if it kits to a court of law, just reckless. the reason this is interesting, is today mike pence did an interview, i don't see president trump charged. what he said was reckless. what's the distinction here? >> that's really interesting. because it takes us all the way back to watergate. in the legal sense, reckless is you are disregarding what could be caused by your statements or actions, reckless disregard for what could occur. where is criminal is usually this is the intent to cause exactly what's gonna happen and what happened. that boils down to going back to what watergate, what are they, no wonder they know it.

who is in on this. so, what the committee has done is, they have set the table for their conversations between close aides to the president about what to do and how on january 6th. now, who can tie that together and what amounts, this is elise department, of criminal conspiracy versus just pouring gasoline on the fire to see what would happen. >> is there an actual legal point there? >> so, the legal test for when the speech cross the line? because our first amendment is very broad. it should be, especially in the area of political speech. but basically, what the law says, it's intended to incite and likely to incite. i think likely to incite is the stronger argument, it did. look, -- was that in his head? and recklessness is not enough, generally speaking, under the criminal law, you have to show some more specific purpose. >> can we pull up the hope hicks sound by. there's one thing we did hear today was hope hicks, who worked in many different capacities for former president trump, who was interviewed really after the final previous

hearing that we heard from the january six committee. this is the first time we saw her testimony, there was this pretty interesting discussions she revealed. >> i was becoming increasingly concerned that we were damaging his legacy. >> what did the president tell you in response to what you just described? >> he said something along the lines of, you know, nobody will care about my legacy if i lose. so, that won't matter. the only thing that matters is winning. >> at all costs. when anyway you can. through all the investigations, we've learned that that was clearly how trump was approaching this election. i can't get over, and this is crazy, we don't hear a lot from

hope hicks, it was new both in the content and in the presentation. >> and notar voice sounded like. >> i know. she's kept very quiet, she kept quiet through the administration in post. i can't put my head inside the space of someone who thought this was what was gonna damage his legacy. like, it had already been damaged by the sexism and the bigotry the racism the antisemitism, the two impeachments. all the bad stuff, they thought he was still intact? until the insurrection. i don't know if she thinks that way, but that's clearly what she was thinking at the time. this is going to damage your legacy. and i somehow have the ability to stop you or make it better. that's wild to me. >> she was alone, there was those cabinet officials that only was resign at that point. >> many of them. >> that was the final straw. elie, in the previous segment, i spoke to congressman adam schiff. and i asked what i thought was a really, really good question.

bubba -- about the fact that doj, in front of a grand jury, can get answers from people that congress could not. and one of the people i was thinking about was pat cipollone, who cnn has reporters now testified before the grand jury. this was the moment before the january 6th committee, and people can see are sort of limited way it was, watch. >> who on staff did not want people to leave the capitol? >> on the staff? >> in the white house. >> i can't think of anybody. on that day who didn't people to get out of the the capital. particularly, once the violent started. >> what about the president? >> i will she said the staff.

so i answer. >> i said in the white house. >> oh, i apologize, i who else on the staff. >> so, he didn't answer the what about the president question there. in front of the grand jury? >> we have had to enter that question? >> what he's doing in that clip we just saw this hiding behind executive privilege. i don't mean to say in a derogatory way, it is a real privilege, the difference though is, according to reporting by our evan perez and our doj team, doj's had this fight. they've gone to a judge, under seal, which is appropriate because we're in the grand jury, which was to be doing things under seal, meaning in secret. and they've argued over executive privilege and the judge has ruled in favor of doj, meaning, that question we just saw pep cipollone not answer, he should be answering at the grand jury. so, doj will get that information. the other thing and adam schiff is right about this, doj has way more powerful tools to enforce the subpoenas. we're used to a year and half of people casually blowing off

the january 6th committee subpoenas, and little if anything happening to them. that is not gonna fly. the answer that question is a big deal. >> it is. >> the answers that pets employee can provide, there are big deal. >> he was willing to go right up to what everyone said except the president. that's what you want to know. >> this gets to, john, and you've got a really interesting take on this, there's just a vast difference between that way the january 6th committee went about investigating and questioning then you will get from the fbi or federal prosecutors. >> i mean, in general, the fbi likes to investigate everything they can. and then interview the targets. which gives them the advantage of knowing all the answers that they're going to get, which ones are gonna be truth, which ones are gonna be lies, so, elect interview targets last. in this case, well it is not the way that the fbi or prosecutor would necessarily have gone about it, now, they have this enormous bank of what people would say if they were asked these questions.

and they will have the results of their investigation, so, in a way, well it's not the way they would've done it, they're walking into this case with a lot more information than they usually start out with, not counting what they already know. >> john miller, as he, capela honig. thank you all very much. >> it wasn't the grinch, it was a real life thief. a woman caught going through a christmas presents under the tree in robert de niro's house. stay with us. stay with us. ♪ ♪ i see an amazing place. feels like a dream. a place of many wonders... and fufull of life. i open my eyes: earth is our pandora. ♪ ♪ psoriasis really messes with you.

try. hope. fail. no one should suffer like that. i started cosentyx®. five years clear. realeople with psoriasis look and feebetter with cosentyx. don't use if you're lergic to cosentyx. before starting get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infection, some serious and a lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. tell your doctor if your crohn's disease symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reaction may occur. best move i've ever made. ask your dermatologist about cosentyx®. ugh, this rental car is so boring to drive. let's be honest. the rent-a-car industry is the definition of boring. and the reason can be found in the name itself. rent - a - car? you don't want a friend. you want the friend. you don't want a job. you want the job. the is always over a. that's why we don't offer a car. we offer the car. ( ♪ ) sixt. rent the car. [sfx: stomach gurgling] it's nothing...

sounds like something. ♪ when you have nausea, heartburn, indigestion, ♪ ♪ upset stomach, diarrhea. ♪ pepto bismol coats and soothes for fast relief... when you need it most.

i was hit by a car and needed help. i called the barnes firm. that was the best call i could've made. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to know how much their accident case is let our injury attorneys know he how much their accident cget the best result possible.

i had no idea how much i wamy case was worth. c call the barnes firm to find out what your case could be worth. we will help get you the best result possible. ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ the new york police department arrested a woman from breaking into robert de niro's home early this morning, that is according to a law enforcement source who says the woman did not interact with the actor, but police say, she is one of the top five burglars in the precinct.

john miller has been digging into the story, walk us through exactly what happened here? >> so, it's 2:45 in the morning. this is when i would usually be on the way home. the 19th precinct special the anti crime public safety unit is driving around, and they see a woman who seems to be checking the doors of commercial places, and they say, is that shimmies? because she's supposed to be in jail. she's a known burglar in the precinct. they keep her under surveillance, she goes down some stairs, into kind of a town house. and doesn't come out. when they follow up and look down the stairs, they see there's a forced entry, the windows broken, the doors open. and there, amidst all the presents and an ipad and other things, is one of the most prolific burglars in the precinct, who has broken in. so, they take or into custody. robert de niro upstairs, he's asleep. he does know anything about this till the pull police wake-up hears all this activity.

there's other people at home. >> so, let's deal with the de niro aspect first, any sign that she knew she was bringing into the de niro house? >> no idea in all likelihood, because she had been looking at other places, looking for an opening, according to the narrative of police watching her up to that point. you know, she just found down the stairs place that wasn't easy to see from the street, where she could allegedly break a window and make an entry. >> so, he was safe by all accounts. >> and according to my sources, she used a metal pipe. there's video of this from the security system. so, you know, de niro has another movie. >> so, the thing is, with the suspect, you say a known burglar. she has been charged with doing this a lot of times? >> so, she has an extensive criminal record. but she has been charged with burglary, larceny, possession of stolen property, 20 felony

arrests, a dozen misdemeanor arrests. but if you look at the cadence of it, this is apparently if all the charges were true, what he does for a living. she's a professional burglar. >> a professional burglar, and it could highlight, again, still more questions. with the bail system in new york. explain. >> so, under the criminal justice reform act that was passed in 2020 or enacted in 2020, it says that judges could not impose bail on a number of cases, burglary was one of them. and they adjusted it to say, certain burglaries you could. but the point is, even when they impose bill, it has to be in the least restrictive circumstances for pre trial release. and if they impose bail, it has to be a bill that the defendant can't afford. so, basically, the bill for someone who can show no means other than being a burglar, it's going to be very low. this is why you have this

machine that just the wheels turn every day, people get arrested, they come out the other side and they come out not in custody. when she was arrested, she had two outstanding warrants for cases she hadn't shown up yet. she had been arrested in december 847 burglaries and then december 13th for two more in queens. so, she had been just arrested for multiple burglaries, let out, and then arrested formatively burglaries and then caught a burglary. if you get the idea that the system is turning people out, not in, that's what's going on. >> the change to the law that was initially enacted, judges can impose bill for burglary. but by and large, hadn't been. is that was being found? >> the judges know the system pretty well. but they know that the intent of the law is, they're supposed to impose the least restrictive pretrial conditions possible. so, if it's pale, if the person doesn't have resources that are documented, it has to be very

low bill. if it can be no bill, it should be supervised release, which is checking in with your probation officer every six weeks. if you get caught again, that was bad, now check-in and every three weeks. there is are definite's, look, in 49 states, of america, the judge can consider dangerousness, meaning, what is your likelihood that while you're on release are gonna come at the same kind of crime again. you can tell by persons pattern. new york is the only state where that is not the case. judges are not allowed to consider dangerousness and threat to the public. just weather will return to court. >> let me ask you, again, this is quite literally a may be a first world problem in the area where robert in your lives, but if someone can just walk in to your apartment building or complex through a basement door, that's a problem, yes? >> yes. but i mean, there's a security system. in this case, the alarm us off. but the body was on. but the door was locked.

but she broke in. i think, you know, if you look at those people who do this for a living, that's what they're doing. there are checking every night. 25% of burglars in new york city or arrested again within 60 days of the last burglary charge, which suggests there's a bunch of burglaries in between whether not caught. >> bonus question, favor de niro movie? >> i would say goodfellas. >> that's the right answer, taxi driver the other option. are you still for me? >> if you look at me? talk to me? >> john miller, they carry. much >> guilty again. harvey weinstein found guilty on some charges and yet another sexual salt trial. we'll tell you the details, right after this. right after this. for much more than just a car. (vo) through the share the love event, subaru retailers have supported over seventeen hundred hometown charitieses. (phil) have i witnessssed and seen the impact of what we do? you bet i have. (kathryn) we have worked with so many amazing causes and made a difference. (vo) by the end of this year, subaru and our retailers

will have donated over two hundred and fifty million dollars to charity. (brent) it's about more than just selling cars. (phil) the subaru share the love event going on now.

this cough. [sfx: coughs] this'll help. vicks vaporub? vicks vaporub's ...medicated vapors go straight to the source of your cough... ...so you can relieve your cough to breathe easier. vicks vaporub. fast-acting cough relief. new tonight, a california jury reached a verdict in the sexual assault trial of former film mogul, however weinstein. the jury found him guilty of three out of seven counts at a

los angeles trial, where prosecutors argued that he used his hollywood influence to lure women into private meetings and then assault them. guilty verdicts include forceable rape, and all stem from the assault of a woman in february 2013. weinstein was found not guilty of one count of sexual battery, and three counts of ended in a hung jury. the verdict comes after 41 hours of deliberations over a period of ten days, he faces up to 24 additional years in prison, weinstein is already serving a 23 year sentence for a sexual assault conviction in new york. next, the january six committee refers donald trump to the justice department on for criminal charges. the ball is now in their court. it is far from a slam dunk, though, that's next.

i'm a laidback mediterranean hotel, looking for someone with simple needs. just a room, with a view. of rolling portuguese vineyards. a meal... of fresh, season cuisine. exercise... in the crisp countryside air. and pets... i have a herd of horses. if you too share these simple needs, i may be your perfect somewhere. ♪

i'm a performing artist. so a healthy diet is one of the most important things. i also feel the same way about my dog. we got her the farmer's dog sent in the mail. it was all fresh. i want my dog to have a healthy and long life. the farmer's dog helps that out. see the benefits of fresh food at betterforthem.com

all eyes on the justice

department tonight. this after the january six committee formally recommended for criminal charges against former president trump, this is how congressman jamie raskin made their case. >> we propose to the committee, advancing referrals where the gravity of the specific offense, the severity of its actual harm and the central city of the offender, to the overall design of the unlawful scheme to overthrow the election compel us to speak. ours is not a system of justice where footsoldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass. >> so, that remains to be seen. but referring a former president for criminal prosecution is something that has never happened before. and now it is up to the department of justice to decide whether or not to indict, what to do with this. i want to bring in cnn senior political analyst, john avlon,

also lori brown marshall, constitutional law professor at john j college of criminal justice. cnn political analyst -- and national political reporter for the new york times. and former fbi deputy director, andrew mccabe. john, i want to start with you. last hour i said be -- talk about the historical context. what's the point. there is none. this has never happened in history. >> that's right. >> there's never been a referral of criminal referral to the justice department for former president of the united states. instead of asking for the political context, or the historical context, what about the historical significance? >> well, i think the two things are connected. first, it's not a reminder that we are in uncharted territory. even the founders didn't imagine that a president of the united states would be someone who would foment an insurrection. even the civil war degeneration did not anticipate that. here's where historical -- as we head for a long time together. since january 6th. i mean, what hangs over this isn't just the unprecedented nature. but the charge of insurrection, which itself is in the wake of the civil war. the fact