red and fifty million dollars to charity. in fact, subaru is the largest corporate donor to the aspca... ...and the national 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. pain hits fast. so get relief fast. only tylenol rapid release gels have laser drilled holes. they release medicine fast for fast pain relief. and now get relief without a pill with tylenol dissolve packs. relief without the water. i always want to know more about my family history. we sit down at the kitchen table, pull up the ancestry app, drink our coffee looking at all the information, all the tiny details. dad, check this out. colorize it. -look at that. -wow. everyone has color.

look at that afro. that was the style. you had to have it, otherwise you're not cool. see what else we can find here. wow, i'm getting good at this already. give the gift of family at ancestry.

the top of the hour, special of three 60, at the end of a remarkable, remarkable day. >> unbelievably remarkable because there has never as an never ever, been a day like this in -- 250 year history. the house committee making for criminal referrals against a former president. you've got obstructing official proceeding,

defying the united states, making false statements and one of the most -- little in a former president of the united states, aiding or assisting an insurrection. and >> at the center of that all according to the committee, a man even -- described as fixated on winning at any cost, even his legacy. >> he said something 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. >> somewhere, even vince lombardi shaking his head at that one. and making their case today, the committee also hinted at more, outlining possible attempts to sway witness temps demoting by dangling potential employment to one unnamed witness and coaching a client to give misleading answers.

>> for example, one lawyer told the witness, the witness could in certain circumstances tell the committee that -- on that notion, recommendation, you see -- i'm wondering where do you feel the most progress has been made, -- if there has been progress at all? >> what do you say. >> well, the house speaker pelosi and the house senate, the 2. 9 billion dollar requirement to the senate, that was reduced to a 1. 9 billion dollar -- lead by senator leahy who did not approve the 400 additional officers we requested to be in the capital, and another 400 officers -- out to what we call dignitary security. none of that was approved in march of 21 when we submitted that to the -- house and subsequently to the senate.

the only thing was approved was the overtime and the national guard who did a great job of coming in and securing the integration. that was a lot of resources as well as overtime for all the federal agencies that -- hardening of the capital was not in that budget. there was some telephones so every officer now has a telephone and some improvements in communication, and -- the intelligence people the substitute recommendations we made were not implemented because they were not funding the senate, such as -- improving the -- that are available, different -- in the capital those were not funded. >> i find that surprising. thinking about the idea of what you have laid out and what was provided in terms of the -- we will go integrated detail but i want to point this out because republican congressman jim jordan and others have responded by actually blaming speaker pelosi, in fact there

wasn't security present on that day. and i wonder based on your investigation, and of course when you recommended in terms of ways to address any shortcomings, do you think the accusations that have been made by people like congressman jordan are valid? >> well it is a point to be debated. but we also what happened. we had 800 plus uniformed officers at the capitol on duty and the government failed in a way that they did because the security of the capital is a combined effort of the capitol police and all of the police in an around the seat and thank god for the metropolitan police who quickly responded and -- convoluted that slowed down the guard and responded -- that has been documented and hopefully that will change because in all recommendations, that was approved by the house -- that was changed, that was a procedural change that will save time. >> general, thank you so much.

we look forward to reading work on monday shuns. >> and condolences to drew griffin and his family, god bless him. >> that that's very nice of you to say. thank you for making a point of reaching out to his family in that way. i appreciate that. >> reaction and perspective now from the panel, long serving bunch, jamie -- andrew mccabe, andrew let me start with you. you heard general honoré, how should be on the actual ther physical and -- that day, donald trump in the insurrection inside, that is illegitimate issue. >> absolutely it is. jake, i cut this into two different buckets. will the first is of course the physical manpower resources, fences situation at the capitol, i know there are legitimate conversations and debates around what do we want our capital to look like, some people support hard fencing, some people don't, i think an area where you can't debate is the fact that the capitol police have been growing nick

leondra funded undermanned for years. and not supporting the sorts of man power additions to the capitol police that lieutenant general honoré's has suggested it is really just inexplicable. the intelligence failures are an entirely different set of questions that i haven't unfortunately questions that remain completely unanswered to this day. we have heard little to nothing from the agencies involved, i speak principally of the fda and the dhs about any sort of legitimate -- to understand how exactly they allowed this intelligence failure to take place. that ultimately led to the conditions we saw on january 6th. >> and as a resident, a fellow resident of washington d. c., i have been stunned that there have been such failures to anticipate the kind of violence that we saw. i mean i remembered that morning telling my family -- there is going to be a rally, trump rallies have been violent since 2015. who knows what is going to happen? >> at the same time you don't expect the call from coming inside the house, i think they want to focus on the security issue but remember when kevin mccarthy turned on the 9/11 commission he didn't say it was because he wanted to focus on security alone, it was because he wanted to focus on political violence on the left and cities around the countries after black lives matter. there was not necessarily a serious discussion about the scope and how to approach this investigation. and i think what we have now is at least something that is a good, historical record in accounting of what happened that day. so

we are not in the scenario being asked to believe are lying eyes. this was a bunch of people, riot that got out of hand. there were people who are armed, there were people there who had made tactical plans for what they were going to do. more importantly, it was part of this kind of multi prong effort that was going on in the justice department and on the state level and that was going on on social media, all of these things came together on that day. they didn't start on that day. i think that is one thing that the committee tried to really underscore. >> jamie, i have to say i am constantly stunned at how little - - -- >> general, thank

you so much. we look forward to reading work on monday shuns. >> and condolences to drew griffin and his family, god bless him. >> that that's very nice of you to say. thank you for making a point of reaching out to his family in that way. i appreciate that. >> reaction and perspective now from the panel, long serving bunch, jamie -- andrew mccabe, andrew let me start with you. you heard general honoré, how much focus do you think there should be on the actual physical and -- that day, donald trump in the insurrection inside, that is illegitimate issue. >> absolutely it is. jake, i cut this into two different buckets. will the first is of course the physical manpower

resources, fences situation at the capitol, i know there are legitimate conversations and debates around what do we want our capital to look like, some people support hard fencing, some people don't, i think an area where you can't debate is the fact that the capitol police have been growing nick leondra funded undermanned for years. and not supporting the sorts of man power additions to the capitol police that lieutenant general honoré's has suggested it is really just inexplicable. the intelligence failures are an entirely different set of questions that i haven't unfortunately questions that remain completely unanswered to this day. we have heard little to nothing from the agencies involved, i speak principally of the fda and the dhs about any sort of legitimate -- to

understand how exactly they allowed this intelligence failure to take place. that ultimately led to the conditions we saw on january 6th. >> and as a resident, a fellow resident of washington d. c., i have been stunned that there have been such failures to anticipate the kind of violence that we saw. i mean i remembered that morning telling my family -- there is going to be a rally, trump rallies have been violent since 2015. who knows what is going to happen? >> at the same time you don't expect the call from coming inside the house, i think they want to focus on the security issue but remember when kevin mccarthy turned on the 9/11 commission he didn't say it was because he wanted to focus on security alone, it was because he wanted to focus on political violence on the left and cities around the countries after black lives matter. there was not necessarily a serious discussion about the scope and how to approach this investigation. and i think what

we have now is at least something that is a good, historical record in accounting of what happened that day. so we are not in the scenario being asked to believe are lying eyes. this was a bunch of people, riot that got out of hand. there were people who are armed, there were people there who had made tactical plans for what they were going to do. more importantly, it was part of this kind of multi prong effort that was going on in the justice department and on the state level and that was going on on social media, all of these things came together on that day. they didn't start on that day. i think that is one thing that the committee tried to really underscore. >> jamie, i have to say i am constantly stunned at how little the maga folks think in terms of how is this going to look to history. how, the whole idea of oh it is a democrat kangaroo court here, we know there are two republicans on it including quite conservative republicans in specially liz

cheney. we know most of the people that testified are not only republicans, they are maga republicans. all of that is his nonsense. history won't record this as a witch hunt committee aid it will be bipartisan and this is what they found. >> the ability to rationalize both about the committee and frankly about what happened that day is nothing short of remarkable. the number of people who seem to believe, oh it was just a couple of bad apples, it got out of control. people who stand with donald trump are standing with donald trump. i do think these hearings have had an incremental value in chipping away at some people. but people don't believe what they don't want to believe. >> it is not about convincing the people who are hard-core conspiracy theorists, the peak thing about being in a conspiracy is everything fits the narrative. it is not just about justice, it is about every civil investigation happening to donald trump is part of this bog that is out to get him. it doesn't matter the details of any given one, what they are saying is we are on the right side of history and he makes them feel that way. what is important and i think that you are underscoring is at the margins, the independent voters, the people who are saying okay, maybe enough. and maybe no copycats, maybe we are done with this. i think that is significant in an era when all of our elections are so close. every one of those people really matters. >> you mentioned earlier today the january six committee is giving sort of a roadmap to the justice department of where they think there is a lot of information. but, it is also possible that conducting something these interviews, conducting some of this evidence, not under the purview of the justice department might

have made some of the departments jobs harder in some ways. >> no question. when you are conducting an investigation and congress is looking at the same activity you, never want them to beat you to a witness. the prosecutors want to be the first and only people to interview a witness, to control who has access to that person because you don't want that witness putting out potentially conflicting statements recorded statements, statements under oath. we have the reverse situation now. you have hundreds of witnesses who have been interviewed by the committee, under oath, who doj may not even know about. the strength trip scripts are out there, they potentially holds all sorts of problems, create issues for the department. the department now has a big job ahead of them trying to get their hands on that material and understand what exactly the sort of quality or issues do they have with witnesses that will likely be -- prove these cases in court. >> it will be public right? >> that's right. >> back with the panel shortly, but next the former by previous presidents reaction and to that, from a former advanced -- olivia troye will join us and leader, the legal hot water at the former president will be -- long before this committee decided to make its own referrals today. that and more at this special that and more at this special that and more at this special that and more at this special that and more at this special that and more at this special

that and more at this special that and more at this special -- - - it■s hard eating health.

unless you happen to be a dog. some people get it, and some people can get it bad. and for those who do get it bad, it may be because they have a high-risk factor. such as heart disease, diabetes, being overweight, asthma, or smoking. even if symptoms feel mild, these factors can increase your risk of covid-19 turning severe. so, if you're at high risk and test positive, don't wait.

ask your healthcare provider right away if an authorized oral treatment is right for you. 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. when cold symptoms keep you up, try vicks nyquil severe. just one dose starts to relieve 9 of your worst cold and flu symptoms, to help take you from 9 to none.

for max-strength nighttime relief, nyquil severe. if you still have symptoms of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis or active psoriatic arthritis after a tnf blocker like humira or enbrel, rinvoq is different and may help. stand up to your symptoms with rinvoq. rinvoq is a once-daily pill that tackles pain, stiffness, swelling. for some, rinvoq significantly reduces ra and psa fatigue. it can stop further irreversible joint damage. and rinvoq can leave skin clear or almost clear in psa. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. ask your rheumatologist for rinvoq.

rinvoq. make it your mission. learn how abbvie could help you save. my dad was a hard worker. he used to do side jobs installing windows, charging something like a hundred bucks a window when other guys were charging four to five-hundred bucks. he just didn't wanna do that. he was proud of the price he was charging. ♪ my dad instilled in me, always put the people before the money. be proud of offering a good product at a fair price. i think he'd be extremely proud of me, yeah. ♪ former vice president pence today said his old boss should not face charges based on today select committee referral. he said that today on, where else? fox. and he also said this. >> i will say from very early on, i have been disappointed in the partisan nature of the select committee on capitol

hill. to have a committee that was literally appointed in its entirety by the democratic speaker of the house, really violates the history and tradition of the congress of the united states. this select committee from the very beginning has represented kind of a partisan taint that i think it is one of the reasons why so few americans are paying much attention to what will happen today or to the results are recommendations of this committee. >> keeping them honest, the former vice president there is being disingenuous at best to the extent that the select committee lacks members appointed by kevin mccarthy. it does have two republican members, adam kinzinger and liz cheney. that is because mccarthy decided to withdraw members. and i could go on and on. but let's talk with olivia -- and counterterrorism adviser to mike president pence -- he keeps on doing this.

he is smart. he knows this is disingenuous. there was a move to have a bipartisan commission like the 9/11 commission. and mccarthy pushed back and made demands. pelosi gave him everything. and then he said no, i don't want to get all. then, there was a committee who put witnesses to this on the committee like jim jordan. pelosi said you can't put these two witnesses on, but these for you can put on. he went through everybody. why does he do this? he is defending the same folks who are yelling, hang mike pence. >> it is absolutely ridiculous and honestly it is offensive to all the people that i worked with and the trump white house who came forward and testify. these are true republicans who are all in on the administration for the most part who are up there,

testifying truthfully and also, liz cheney, come on, that is partisan? she is as conservative as mike pence. they're on the same level of that and so i think once again, even though donald trump sent an entire moffitt is direction and put him at great risk by the lies that he was peddling, he is still defending him and it is infuriating for me to watch this because as someone who worked for him, got to know him on a personal level and i actually believed in him and belief that he was actually a good person at heart. and he really cares about this country. i think it just shows cowardice. and it shows a lack of leadership. and it's for someone who wants to run possibly for 2024. i don't think he is distinguishing himself in any way. >> he did call trump's actions reckless, which i guess is the bare minimum you could say, given the fact that literally, his wife and daughter were put in harm's way because of the president demonizing him to the crowd. he stopped short of blaming trump. he said i don't know that it's criminal to take that advice

from lawyers. it is of the bad advice is criminal advice. why? because he wants to be president? what is the reason? >> i think it is political craven this. i think that's what it is. when i see this, i kind of want to say, what are you actually running? for it almost feels like he's running for vice president again to donald trump. because i feel like he is continuing to pander to this man, who quite frankly, his supporters want nothing to do with him. there is no benefit of this. and really, it is a disservice to the country to continue to kind of behave that way and say it is reckless. it was more than that. it was an attempt to overturn an election. a lot of enablers came together and were part of this. and you should be, as a person who had to make a really, hopefully the right decision, and he did make the right decision, to uphold the constitution, that he was a

hero. he made the right decision. he did his job. and i kept wanting him to come forward and say, hey, this is really what happened. this is where we are. we need to move away from this. he does not want to do that. i think it is because he believes that somehow that voting bloc that is supporting donald trump is going to come back to him. i don't see that coming back to him at all. >> i think he is pitching himself as trump without trump. trump policies without the nastiness. but i don't know that he is negotiating it correctly. olivia troye, thank you so much. >> seriously. >> olivia troye, thank you so much. i am wondering -- he might be running for president. where is this level? if somebody is saying and

claiming to have you hung with your family, i don't understand why there is not more rage or anger, why that person is still getting the deference? >> listen. i will always give mike pence credit for what he did on january 6th. but i think any red blooded american if their families threatened, if their life is threatened, they will react. they will show some a motion, some anger, and even as someone who knows and respects mike pence, it is so bizarre and a little hard to see this tepid kind of criticism of him at this point. especially just real quick, if he wants to run against donald trump, you need to be ready to take him on. and he is not willing to, clearly. >> i think if mike france had left the capitol and gotten in a fistfight with donald trump at the oval office, a lot of people would, say wow, i like mike pence. he did what i would've. one you go in there -- the secret service would have to separate me from the president at that point. and i think that people see this and say, that is a little tepid. that is a nice word to say. mike pence, he is midwest nice. but a little bit too nice. >> i am from minnesota. i am midwest nice. that is not the same thing. >> it really isn't.

and he did the right thing. he did the right thing. in the annals of history -- why can't he owned that? i understand people from politics not wanting to own stupid stuff that they do. and the unlawful stuff that they do. but he just refuses to own it sometimes. the other thing about him is that as much as i agree with alyssa that he deserves a lot of credit for he did that day, he was a hero that day, the fact of the matter is, he deserves some blame. because he had his own individual responsibility as a candidate on the ballot in 2022 you can see that election. and he should have done that. you know, by the latest, december 16th when the electors voted. so, he is actually partially responsible. >> i did think they pushed back a lot internally. >> yeah, but he should've said outright, we lost. i am sorry the president declined to acknowledge that. but we lost! >> i agree with you and i think you need to figure out who he is and what he stands for because when you get in a republican primary, say donald trump is there on the stage with you and you know that donald trump has called you a name to your face, something that upset of anna, et cetera, what are you going to do. will you say on the one hand

and on the other hand -- know. what you did was correct. and courageous. because i'm sure he had death threats out the was who after that. and stick with it. >> that is not mike pence. >> these guys were 40 feet away. and the secret service protected him. >> i have been standing with mike pence when he has prove -- he has forcefully and bravely and strongly -- the fact that he cannot dedicate that level of strength and it just standing up for the constitution to the former president, it will be his undoing. if he wants a political future, he needs to call a spade a spade, donald trump tried to overthrow the government, he is unfit for office, and call him out and move on. >> hold on. i'm sorry. >> on the 24th -- they will never happen. >> what are you saying? in what way is the so distinct? i'm imagining him as, to use

your were tepid, are you saying that vladimir putin was able to -- >> we were in singapore wants and he called him out in meddling in the election to his face, off camera. he has that capacity. but he is shrinking into his worst instincts. like he is somehow going to win the die hard maga. and he never will. >> at a time when the president was saying that he believed putin, that there was not any meddling in the election -- >> therein lies the challenge of working for donald trump. >> how did that go? -- >> a common thread. thing >> i would like to say again, mike pence, and i think we all mario agree on this table, he is a good american, i just wish we would've seen a little bit more fire, a little more owning it and kind of coming down and saying, look, before the election, we lost -- let's just move forward. i wish i could see more anger. >> let's not single him out. many other republicans have not said anything as well. mike pence is obviously the

poster child we are talking about right now, but why is this strange dance happening. why is it so difficult to have a full-throated commendation -- because there is political baggage going into an election season. when we think, cut the court. >> you need to plan the democrats here. this is a game that -- >> hold on. >> this is a game offense was playing. it is a game they all play. oh, if we only had more republicans on the committee, well guess what? you could've had more republicans. i would argue, if you had more republicans on the committee, maybe you would not be able to say, we did not have our point of view. >> even the former president at one point in time spoke up about this point and said, why are we asking more questions? why are we cross examining people? why are we doing this? and you don't get that.

-- you could affect people. maybe not jim jordan, maybe not the people that they wanted, you could've had very smart people asking tough questions. you could've peeled back the union on some of the stuff and maybe made it more balance. i don't think the outcome would've been different. i think we would be exactly where we are today. the january 6th commission would issue the same report. you would've had a little bit more bipartisanship on this whole thing. >> do you agree? >> i don't think we would have had -- yeah, i don't think we would've had more bipartisanship. i honestly don't. i do think you, that kind of hearing would have worked in the 70s -- i don't think it really works today so i do like the way it came out and there will be plenty of time to look through these transcripts and see what it was that the committee didn't put into the report if there is something there, we will see it. >> that is what we're far publicans want to do now. they want their own hearings. they will go through the transcripts. they will have an opportunity to read everything. >> for real bipartisanship, you could've had that. you could've had cross examinations. asked tough questions of people -- >> it was strategically unwise for mccarthy tonight that republicans. i think it is still biting him right now as he is trying to

get the speakership. to georgia's point, i'm not sure what a committee would have looked like. you would've had one speaking from one sheet of music and the other completely unrelated. d -- >> like he did and the iran contra committee -- >> i don't know if you have people who will do a cross-examination if the themselves -- that is the name of the game. thank you everyone. and look, you have until january for a new -- >> a lot of people, 30% of the republican party, still believe that very strongly. they say this report, they say the truth part -- where the indictment on biden? that is merrick garland. he will have a big challenge if he wants any credibility, there better be indictment -- >> there is merrick garland and jack smith will oversee these criminal referrals likely. coming up soon and more on this. thank you. the doj does not read any referrals to prosecute donald trump -- but it does seem to need evidence this committee has. and an update on where the effort to get that stands along

with the many investigations going around the -- we will talk about all that next. ♪ ♪ i see an amazing place. feels like a dream. a place of many wonders... and full of life. i open my eyes: earth is our pandora. ♪ ♪

vo: palantir software. empowers scuderia ferrari to make critical decisions a split second faster. palantir. data driven enterprise accelerator. research shows people remember commercials with nostalgia. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's one that'll really take you back. wow! what'd you get, ryan? it's customized home insurance from liberty mutual!!! what does it do, bud? it customizes our home insurance

so we only pay for what we need! and what did you get, mike? i got a bike. ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ if you run a small business,

you need the most from every investment. that's why comcast business gives you more. more innovation... with our new gig-speed wi-fi, plus unlimited data. more speed... from the largest, fastest, reliable network... and more savings- up to 60% a year on comcast business mobile. all from the company that powers more businesses than any other provider. get started with fast speeds and advanced security for $69.99 a month for 12 months. plus ask how to get up to a $750 prepaid card with qualifying internet.

>> so, criminal referrals from congress are largely symbolic, right? they carry no actual legal weight. that's probably the only good news for donald trump today, because he is still in very serious legal jeopardy. the justice department has already been investing the former presidents role on january 6th, and not to mention the classified documents were found at his home. special counsel jack smith has issued a flurry of subpoenas, moving very quickly since he's been appointed just last month. i want to turn now to cnn's evan brand, with more on the doj's ongoing probes and push for access into the evidence of the january 6th committee. evan, it's been a heck of a day, heck of a ten plus hearings. so, how are these criminal referrals going to fit in this massive scope of the overall

doj investigation? >> well, laura, i think the justice department investigation is moving to an impasse. we've seen though very recently a bunch of subpoenas going out in this investigation, the investigation of the department has into the effort to overturn the elections. and what we can discern, at least, from the subpoenas we've seen in the last few weeks is that they're focused a lot on what the former presidents role was on trying to get people in these states to the fake electors, i try to find a way for him to stay in power, despite losing the election. so, this is where you see a lot of what the committee has turned up really aligning with the justice department has been doing on its own separately. now we'll see whether that leads, where those roads lead, you know, we don't know whether the former president himself is gonna be charged, or whether it's just people around him who were involved in that effort.

really important point. and >> and also we're putting a lot of emphasis on the idiomatic referral, a criminal referral. but given that this is a congressional committee versus prosecutors who have the ultimate discretion to do something about recommendations, let alone what they're already doing, the real value is not the referral, i mean from the doj, it's the information. the information is the currency. the thousands of hours or however much witness testimony et cetera, that's what they're really looking to perhaps capitalize on or supplement but they already have, right. >> absolutely, and look, they've been asking for these transcripts of these thousands of pages of interviews, hundreds of witnesses who have come in and a lot of these witnesses, some of them sat for 11, 12 hours of testimony. this is extremely valuable to prosecutors. it will supplement the things they've already gathered. some cases though, some of these witnesses have not yet spoken to the fbi.

so, you know, for the people who have, they want to see whether the answers are different from what they provided to the fbi. and if not, you know, they can try to use that to gather up additional information. >> so important to think about where things go from here and what they will ultimately use it for. evan perez, thank you so much. >> thanks. >> insight now into trump's legal peril on the man who blew the whistle on return exxon. john dean, former white house counsel and cnn contributor. john, put this in perspective. what are these criminal referrals mean for the justice department? and what do they mean for the history books? >> well, the big referral of course is donald trump. that's unprecedented. we've never had a president referred to the department of justice for potential criminal prosecution by any measure in our history. so, that's a big deal. the other ones, they are all going to be looked at with a very squinting eye by the

department of justice. they will not be influenced necessarily by the fact that congress has made that suggestion. but they also won't be ignored, jake. so, it really educate the public and the department of justice is aware of that. so, they're going to be very cognizant of trying to answer the question of why this person should or shouldn't be prosecuted. and i think a lot of these people will be prosecuted. >> how much did it strike you that chairman bennie thompson referred to the peripherals as, quote, a roadmap to justice? did that remind you at all of watergate? because as you know back then, special prosecutor leondra risky provided congress with a so-called roadmap that was actually kept under seal for 44 years. >> yes, it was actually kind of -- i heard that in his opening remarks, he referred to the fact that this was a roadmap. and indeed, i think from what he described and what i read so far in the summary of the report, it very much is a

roadmap because these roads now have been traveled for 18 months by this committee. they know the way. so, justice will look at that. and i think it's an apt description. and it's ironic, because as you say, it was the special prosecutor advising the congress during watergate, when they were kind of fumbling how to deal with nixon and what they should look at, and the roadmap made it very clear to the house judiciary committee, which was the impeachment committee, what they should be looking at and where they should be focusing. i don't think that's the case here. i think this is a bigger roadmap than the watergate example. but yet, i think it's an important one. >> as a former white house counsel, could you help us read between the lines of the summary released by the committee? what are they signaling to the justice department when they write something like, quote, the committee believes that the white house counsel, pat cipollone, gave a particularly important account of the events of january 6th, unquote?

what does that tell you about the importance, the day, placed on cipollone, as opposed to other witnesses they very clearly considered evasive and not fully cooperating, like tony ornato or kayleigh mcenany? >> well, apparently this report throughout gives credibility assessments of many, many witnesses, which is important to the department because if a witness dissemble in front of the congress still want to know that. that isn't a very reliable witness. that also maybe somebody who can be prosecuted or squeezed if they have important information. so, all those will be signals to the department. and i'll be a record for them to study and pursue their own case. they make their own judgments though, very much so. yet they will have this additional material. cipollone is probably one of the key witnesses going forward if both the documents case out

of mar-a-lago and the january 6th case go forward into trials. >> former president trump today use the same language we've heard from nixon's press secretary, ron ziegler, in july 1974, calling this a kangaroo court. does the evidence presented by the january 6th committee overwhelm the partisan talking points, the way it ultimately did with watergate? it was the political climate today so polarized, in a way the nixon white house couldn't even imagine? there was no -- one can imagine if nixon had a survived, if he had this republican congress and news organizations like fox fighting for him, despite his crimes. >> very true, it's a very different climate today. but also, donald trump is a very different character in a supporting cast is very different than those involved in watergate, barr maybe gordon lady as an exception. but i think the climate will --

to answer your basic question, this was not a kangaroo court. i think they went out of their way to be fair. and i think they, as the footnotes indicate in the summary, they have documented everything they have said. they have solid material, witnesses statements, sworn testimony, or hard documents and tax documents and things of that nature to support the contentions they're making. so, this isn't a kangaroo court, how kangaroo court does not deal with such detail. >> all right, john dean, thanks so much, appreciated. jamie gangel, audi cornish, and andrew mccabe, and jamie, let me start with what he just talked about, the fact that this executive summary, and i assume the full report on wednesday, assessing the credibility of different witnesses, telling people this is who we think is telling the truth and this is who we think is less reliable. now, they don't call people liars the way that we might,

not andrew, but the way that we might, you know, over a drink or two. but for instance, when it comes to former white house deputy chief of staff tony ornato, -- >> don't recall, don't recall, don't recall. >> the select committee found multiple parts of ornato's testimony questionable. that's what i'm saying. we don't think he's telling us the truth. the select committee finds difficult to believe that neither mark meadows nor ornado told trump, as was their job, about the intelligence that was emerging as the january 6th rally approached. they're saying they think meadow is a liar, they think ornato is a liar, they're not saying it like, that but that's the message they're conveying. >> no question about it. look, there's a lot of loose ends that will be very interesting to see when we get these transcripts. we will see a transcript of tony ornato's testimony. and my understanding is there's a lot of don't recall there.

and that was a problem for a lot of other witnesses. the committee also pointed out that former president daughter, ivanka trump, and his press spokesman kayleigh mcenany were less than forthcoming and their testimony. we're going to see that as well. >> that's again, just for our viewers at home, that's code for we think that they're lying. we think the -- they're not telling us things that we think that they know. >> the code is -- think of it a different way, if we had been calling it a roadmap the whole times, these are the signs, these are the signpost that say hey, maybe you should look here, hey, maybe it's a place to pump the brakes, hey, maybe this is the place to. pause >> no question about it. we've talked over the last two years about the big lie, which is donald trump continuing to push that the election had been stolen, which was not true. these are the little lies. these are the sins of omission. but there -- i am told by sources that the

committee that they're very obvious when you see the transcripts. >> and what is the message conveyed to the department of justice when they see the roadsides, as audi calls them, oh, we think kayleigh mcenany doesn't tell the truth, does that mean oh, let's not bother talk in her? what does it mean? >> no, but it gives you sort of the background and the granularity and the impressions that investigators got from their interview that otherwise you wouldn't have going into a coal interview going into interview with someone like kayleigh mcenany or avoca trump. that's what makes the roadmap more granularity, more details, more in formative. it's not going to get you to the end, you know what your destination is you know you would have to do work together. but it's a health full signed to say think twice about what this person is saying. we've been down the road with him already. we found them to be not co-optive, not forthcoming, or flat, out we don't think they told us the truth. >> do you think it's also

because one of the things we know that genie men love to do, is when the can't get them on the crime, they get them online to the fbi, right? >> [laughter] >> i mean, no offense, no offense, but i know you guys love that. we can't get you on the crimes. so we're going to get you on lying about the crime. it's one of your favorite tricks. do you think they're saying you could probably get these guys on obstruction of justice? lying to the fbi? >> i think they probably don't need to highlight that technique, to the folks there calling up this investigation. but the fact is, that is a very, very powerful piece of leverage that federal investigators haven't any interview environment. you know, you cannot tell a lie to a federal agent in the course of an interview. >> may i give you one word to look for when we get to the transcripts tony ornato and others? the word peacefully. i'm told that when we see these transcripts, in very odd ways, all of a sudden, tony ornato and others are making this point over and over again.

well, president trump said he was going to peacefully do it. >> they keep inserting the word -- >> peacefully. my sources say it looks like very obvious coaching. you would know this better than anyone. >> listen, kayleigh mcenany as well. >> right. >> her response to see more like actual talking points than responses questions. those are tells, giveaways, that this person is not only being not forthcoming, but they've been coached or instructed or pushed in a certain direction to answer this way. we should also be consistent with some of the things we've heard conflicted potential representation that folks have. >> thanks everyone, we can go home. now up next, we remember our friend and our colleague drew griffin.

(customer) hi? (burke) happy anniversary. (customer) for what? (burke) every year you're with us, you get fifty dollars toward your home deductible. it's a policy perk for being a farmers customer. (customer) do i have to do anything? (burke) nothing. (customer) nothing? (burke) nothing. (customer) nothing? (burke) nothing. (customer) hmm, that is really something. (burke) you get a whole lot of something with farmers policy perks. see ya. (kid) may i have a balloon, too? (burke) sure. your parents have maintained a farmers home policy for twelve consecutive months, right? ♪ we are farmers. bum-pa-dum, bum-bum-bum-bum ♪ how many rooms are in there? should we go check it out? yeah. we get to stay here all weekend! when you stay at a vrbo... i call doing the door code! ...the host doesn't stay with you. it looks exactly like the picture. because without privacy in your vacation home... it's a full log cabin guys. ...it isn't really a vacation... we can snuggle up by the fire.

...is it? wow, oh my- [birds chirping] seatgeek presents the high-fives-strangers guy. seatgeek got him a great deal on tickets,

so he can focus on what he does best: smacking palms. seatgeek handles the tickets, so fans can fan.

>> a story i never want to tell. our colleague and friend drew griffin passed away over the weekend. drew, as you knew, was an outstanding journalist. what you may not have known that he wasn't even better human being. and in this business, tv journalism, that is a rare

quality. and though he would hate to hear anyone say it, preferring that his work say everything that needs to be set, drew griffin truly was one of the good guys, the best. in fact, not just at cnn, but in life. he was tireless, he was honest, he was self effacing, he was utterly devoted to his family. every producer who ever worked with him would tell you that on the road, drew was always thinking about the fastest and best way to do the story so he can return home to them. he do the work, he do it better than anyone, but he couldn't wait to get home. and often, his work change government. his investigation into charity fraud resulted in a nearly 25 million dollar settlement with one of the largest direct mail operators in the united states. his investigation into the way the veterans administration was run sparked a complete overhaul of va leadership. it changed the way veterans receive the care they need and

deserve. drew and his team earned a peabody award for that work. and he actually went to the ceremony, one of the rare exceptions he made, to the life he preferred, which was away from the spotlight, allergic to acolytes. but drawn to the work, drawn to the cause, and once his work truly counted so much for. it showed in his talent for getting people to talk to him, which is frankly legendary, matched only by a snack from getting answers from those who did not wanted to give those answers to anyone. unless you try to interview someone who doesn't want to talk to, you can't truly appreciate how difficult it is. drew was a master. fearless, even when the person in question was a senator caught in the act of doing the very thing he had just spoken out against, getting cozy with high dollar lobbyist after publicly chastising that same kind of business as usual. >> i just want to ask you why they're so important? you're not the only man who

does this. >> yeah, i didn't really consent to an interview right. now >> while, i'm just wondering -- ask you a few questions about why you have these, why you have these kinds of -- with obvious? >> politicians raise funds, and this is what i do. >> -- spoke so eloquently about the disconnect would not be represented. >> -- thank you very much. thanks a lot. >> as good as drew was with the chase, he was just as good at confronting lies with facts. >> why do you continue to push the lie that the 2020 election was stolen? >> it's not a lie. it's the facts. >> you don't have a -- >> drew was levelheaded, surefooted, a truly genuine human being. and where a business where cynicism is paramount, his sincerity has shown through. his wife margaret, his three

children ella, louis, and miles, his two grandchildren, your all and our thoughts tonight. drew griffin was just 60 years old. laura? >> so important to really address and think about his legacy. and i just remember, you know, i'm pretty new to this business. and he would take the time to write me the nicest emails of encouragement. and just to say words of wisdom, words of advice, or just job well done. and to share an exchange in the work that he had done as an informal mentor in those ways. all never forget it. and i'll never forget the work that he is done. so, i'm so glad to honor him tonight. and i think only of his family. >> yeah, one of the things i think about with him is he had no partisan allegiances whatsoever. >> yeah. >> he didn't care if you are corrupt or you are lying or full of crap, he was coming after you. it did not matter what party

evil onto or even if you belong to a party. he didn't care. the news continues. cnn tonight with john berman's next, right after a quick break. to do side jobs installing windows, charging something like a hundred bucks a window when other guys were charging four to five-hundred bucks. he just didn't wanna do that. he was proud of the price he was charging. ♪ my dad instilled in me, always put the people before the money. be proud of offering a good product at a fair price. i think he'd be extremely proud of me, yeah. ♪ detect this: living with hiv, i learned i can stay undetectable with fewer medicines.

that's why i switched to dovato. dovato is for some adults who are starting hiv-1 treatment or replacing their current hiv-1 regimen. detect this: no other complete hiv pill uses fewer medicines to help keep you undetectable than dovato. detect this: most hiv pills contain 3 or 4 medicines. dovato is as effective with just 2. research shows people who take hiv treatment as prescribed and get to and stay undetectable can no longer transmit hiv through sex. don't take dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients, or if you take dofetilide. taking dovato with dofetilide can cause serious or life-threatening side effects. hepatitis b can become harder to treat while on dovato. don't stop dovato without talking to your doctor, as your hepatitis b may worsen or become life-threatening. serious or life-threatening side effects can occur, including allergic reactions, lactic acid buildup, and liver problems. if you have a rash or other allergic reaction symptoms, stop dovato and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have kidney or liver problems,