with inflation as high as it is, with the federal reserve raising interest rates, it is definitely a possibility. but, as one economist told us, what we are experiencing in the job market, this is not weather recession looks like. we're going to get an even better look at how employment distilling this friday morning, through the labor department released the much anticipated june jobs report. but, until then, i want to leave you with the reminder. that there is actually good economic news out there. and we wanted to be sure you knew. and on that very good, note i want to wish you a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the network of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with us. i will see you at the end of tomorrow. late wit us i will see

we have an entirely different show planned for tonight, but the business -- the former fbi director, james comey and his former deputy, andrew mccabe. both of whom president trump saw as enemies. both of them faced rare, supposedly random, but highly intensive irs audits. you may remember back when then fbi director james comey oversaw the early stages of the investigation into ties between the trump campaign and russia. in the summer of 2016. with questions swirling about those ties, as trump took office, comey dropped a public bombshell in the early days of the trump presidency. >> i've been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi, as part of our counter intelligence mission, is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign, and the russian government. and whether there was any coordination between the

campaign and russia's efforts. >> it would later be revealed that trump had demanded loyalty from comey, and repeatedly pressed him to end the investigation into trump's first national security adviser, michael flynn. after he refused to do so, trump fired comey in shocking fashion. in a remarkable oval office meeting the following day, the day after he fired him, trump told russian diplomats that by firing comey, the previous day, quote, i faced a great pressure, because of russia. that is taken off. around the same time, he all but admitted to lester holt that he had fired comey because of the, quote, made-up russia investigation. with comey gone, andy mccabe became the acting fbi director. in one of his first actions, the very next day, was to open up a counter intelligence investigation into the president, and his ties to

russia out of fears that he too would be fired. and that investigation would be shut down. >> i was very concerned that i was able to put the russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion, that were i removed quickly or reassigned, or fired, the case could not be closed, or vanish into the night without a trace. >> you wanted a documentary record, that those investigations had begun, because you feared that they would be made to go away. >> that's exactly right. >> both comey and mccabe would repeatedly be targeted by president trump, who assailed them in public, and called for their prosecution. the following year, one day before mccabe was scheduled to retire and get the benefits that he had earned on the job, he was fired by the fbi amid accusations that he had lied to justice department officials. charges were never brought, and that case was later dropped. both of these men, whom

president trump saw as some of his political enemies, his top political enemies, both of them ended up intensively audited by the irs. you might be thinking, i've been audited, it's not that crazy. but this particular type of audit is different. according to the new york times, tax lawyers refer to this invasive audit as a, quote, autopsy without the benefit of death. the odds of being selected for that audit in any given year are roughly one out of 30,600. in the end, these audits did not find anything. mccabe told the new york times they owed the government a small amount of money, which they paid. and comey over paid their taxes, leading to a 350-dollar refund. the audit themselves cost the comey's $5,000 in accounting fees. comey had to turn over all of his personal information, bank statements, a copy of his

christmas card that he had the children that he claimed as dependents. how did two of president trump 's top perceived enemies and of facing that kind of an audit? the kind of audit that seems designed to dig up any possible dirt. how does that happen? a spokesperson for president trump said he had, quote, no knowledge of this. but in a statement to the times, cheney -- comey said that we were all thinking. maybe it's a coincidence, or maybe somebody misused the irs to get at a political enemy. given the role trump wants to continue to play in our country, we should know the answer to that question. end quote. >> that we should, and part of the story that i really don't think that we should overlook is how we almost never learned about it. james comey and andrew mccabe had worked together for years, and neither one knew that the other had been audited like this. both after they were fired from the fbi. quote, neither man knew that the other have been audited until they were told by a reporter for the times. that reporter was new york times michael schmidt.

i'm not sure if there's any other trump enemies that underwent intensive audits by the irs, but if they, are in their listening, please email my next guest, michael schmidt. joining us now, he is the reporter for the new york times who broke this story. michael, thank you for joining us this evening. we mentioned this particular type of audit as exhaustive and exhausting. can you help us understand how much an audit like this makes the irs asks for, and how much work it is to provide all of the material that they need? >> most audits that the irs do, are set off by an algorithm, or computer that catches something weird in your return. somebody claims a 500,000 square foot home office, there is something weird, something odd and the computer says, hey, and they send you a letter, they say what is going on with this home office? can you help clarify that? you have to explain that individual issue.

that is what most audits look like. they are annoying, people don't like them, they see them as invasive. but they are part of the process for the irs to collect the money that it needs to run the government. a small percentage of audits are done to figure out what the tax gap is. that's the gap between what americans do pay in taxes, and what they should be paying in taxes. so this is a survey of the country, to figure out who isn't paying their taxes. they go out, and the irs says that they randomly pick americans for this. and because they don't know what they are looking for, they have randomly picked these americans, they have to turn over everything in your financial life, to recreate your financial year. to determine whether you understated or overstated everything on your taxes.

so that means, producing receipts. in the case of comey there was a question about a printer cartridge that he had bought two years earlier that he had taken a right off on. and whether he could come up with that receipt, or if there was an amex statement to back that up. as you are pointing out, comey had claimed dependence, to show that those dependents existed, that his children actually existed, he had to present a family christmas card. to the irs. a technical means 15 months to get through this audit, it cost him $5,000 in accounting fees. they needed an accountant to go back and forth with the irs agent who was doing the audit. >> the interesting thing about these audits is you can't really say, you are the irs, you know that i have kids, why don't you handle that? when they ask you for information, you actually have to provide it. the odds of getting selected for one of these random audits is about one in 30,000 and a little bit, according to your article.

the odds that both of these men, who have the same position, back to back, in the same administration, both seen as political enemies of the president in charge, and the irs headed by a man that that president appointed, it just makes it seem less than random. >> we actually don't lay out in the story, what the odds are. we don't know how the irs actually randomly selects these people. whether it is weighted in a way, all we know is that the irs says that they are trying to get a full picture of what the country looks like. they're trying to get people that are w2 employees, people that are maybe making millions of dollars a year. people that may be at the lower end of the economic spectrum. what the numbers in the story show is that one out of how many taxpayers, we are subject to this. here were the numbers. for 2017, the year that they

looked at comey's return, there were 5000 audits of these done on individual taxpayers. that could be a husband and a wife, or a partners together, so it could be a little bit more than 5000 people. but out of 150 million returns. they are randomly picking 5000 people out of 150 million returns. in 2019, the year that mccabe was audited for, there were 8000 returns that were selected by the irs for this, out of 153 or 154 million returns that were from that year. these are very low numbers, and what former irs people that we talked to said, is just that what are the chances that the people atop of the trump's enemies list. people that had overseen some of the most controversial decisions in the fbi's history.

remember, a lot of people blamed comey for the election of hillary clinton. there are a lot of people that look very negatively on the fbi from this period of time. and these two people who are subjected to these audits. >> the defeat of hillary clinton. the current irs commissioner was appointed to his post by donald trump in 2018. ironically, he had written an op-ed in forbes at one point, saying that he didn't think it was necessary for donald trump to have to provide his personal tax returns. that was before he was appointed. what do we know about him and the potential role that he had in this election of these -- >> the irs in response to questions from us say that the commissioner plays no role in this election of this. he had no discussions with the white house, any white house about any particular type of audit, or law enforcement matter.

they pretty forcefully came back and said that on the record to us, they included that in the story. we know that they are somebody that advocated during the 2016 election, that trump should not release his returns. he is an attorney who had dedicated much of his career to helping people that were fighting with the irs. the often wealthy people that were fighting with the irs. we know that biden allowed him to stay in his position. when biden came in, he could've replaced pretty much anybody that he wanted in the executive branch. i think that going along with trying to restore some of the norms, he allowed the fbi director to stay in his position, even though trump had appointed him. and he allowed commissioner reddick to stay in at the irs. his term is scheduled to be expire at the end of this year, towards the end of this year in the fall. biden could've replaced him, but allowed him to stay. >> michael, thank you very much for some excellent reportering.

he is a reporter with the new york times, we appreciate you joining us on short notice, after the story was published. turning to our other big story, the one that we were going to start. with a meeting in the oval office. there is a lot of yelling in this meeting, it was a friday night, december 18th, 2020. about a month after the presidential election had been called for joe biden. inside the oval office, president donald trump was in an unscheduled impromptu meeting with some of the most florida election conspiracy theorists in the country. his disgraced former national security adviser mike flynn, who had gone on newsmax to call on trump to declare martial law to seize voting machines and re-run the election. also, their lawyer sydney powell, who is pushing the theory that the election had been hacked by foreign communists, somehow including the deceased former dictator of venezuela. and patrick burnham, the

founder of overstock.com, who was forced to resign from that company when it was revealed that he had had an affair with the convicted russian agent -- he found a new career finding election conspiracy theories. with a group like, that it was bound to be quite a meeting. here is how it was reported what happened inside of the oval office that night, saying quote, sydney powell proposed declaring a national security emergency. granting her and her cabal top secret security clearance, and using the united states government to seize dominion's voting machines. in disbelief, a white house adviser yelled out to an aide in the outer oval oval office, get pat down here immediately! several minutes later, white house counsel pat cipollone walked into the oval office. how will continue to elaborate on a fantastical election narrative involving venezuela, iran, china, and others. right now, people were yelling and cursing cipollone and other officials said that powell's

theories were nonsensical. flynn went berserk. you're quitting! you're a quitter! you're not fighting! he exploded. flynn turned to the president and implored, sir, we need fighters! cipollone, standing his ground amidst this mismatch of conspiracies, said they were totally wrong. he aggressively defended the doj and the fbi, saying that they had looked into every major claim of fraud that had been reported. they were now in our four of a meeting, unprecedented even by the deranged standards of the final day of the trump presidency. got him trump and cipollone, who had frequently butted heads, went at it over whether the authority had the administration had the authority to do it pal was proposing, and quote. by the time cipollone and other white house officials left after midnight, they were quote, fully prepared for the mad possibility that trump might name sydney powell special counsel. giving her the resources of the federal government to propagate,

her wild theories. just on the basis of that meeting alone, december 18th, friday december 18th and 2020. you can understand why the january 6th investigation would want to interview pat cipollone. trump's white house counsel. that is just one of the many crucial meetings in which pat cipollone was in the middle of the days and weeks leading up to january 6th, which is why the january six committee subpoenaed him last week. after their attempts to secure his voluntary cooperation went nowhere, and today, we learned that mr. cipollone who was a lawyer and knows the law, will comply with that subpoena. he will sit for a transcribed videotaped interview with the january 6th investigators this friday. now, pat cipollone met with the committee in april for what was referred to as an informal interview. the new york times reports today that the agreement reached with the committee for that april interview included limits on what he could discuss. what we don't know is that

whether friday's formal interview will be subject to any such limitations. but even under the april agreement, mr. cipollone did talk about one white house oval meeting with trump. a dramatic showdown in which trump tried to install justice offical jeffrey clark as the attorney general. because clark as you recall was promising to get a few if he was installed urging republican legislators to overturn joe biden's win in several states. at that meeting, the entire senior leadership of the trump justice department said they would resign if trump put clark in charge and allowed him to send the letter. >> i made the point that jeff clark is not even competent to serve as the attorney general. he's never been a criminal attorney, never conducted a criminal investigation in his life. he kind of retorted by saying, i've done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil

litigation, environmental litigation and things like that. i said, that's right, you're an environmental lawyer. how about you go back to your office and we'll call you when there's an oil spill? pat cipollone weighed in at one point. i remember saying, that letter that this guy wants to send, that letter is a murder-suicide pact. it's gonna damage everyone if you touch it. and we should have nothing to do with that letter. i don't even want to see that letter again. >> that's pat cipollone right in the thick of it again. and then we have last week's bombshell testimony from the white house aide cassidy hutchinson once again highlighting pat cipollone's central around january 6th. >> on january 3rd, mr. cipollone had approached me knowing that mark had raised the prospect of going up to the capitol on january 6th. mr. cipollone and i had a brief private conversation where he said to me, we need to make sure that this does not happen.

this would be legally a terrible idea for us. we have serious legal concerns if we go up to the capitol that day. he then urged me to continue relaying that to mr. meadows because it's my understanding that mr. cipollone thought that mr. meadows was indeed pushing this along with the president. >> and we understand that you also spoke to mr. cipollone on the morning of the sixth as you were about to go to the rally. mr. cipollone said something to you like, make sure the movement to the capitol does not happen. is that correct? >> that's correct. i saw mr. cipollone right

before i walked out on to west executive that morning and mr. cipollone said something to the fact that, please make sure we don't go to the capitol cassidy, keep in touch with me. we are gonna get charged with every crime imaginable if that happens. >> and do you remember which crimes mr. cipollone was concerned with? >> in the days leading up to the sixth, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count. >> so, this friday the january six investigation will get to ask pat cipollone about those conversations. did they happen the way cassidy hutchison says they did? and when we refer to being charged with every crime imaginable, what crimes was he imagining that they or the trump administration or donald trump or or his staff could be charged with? and while pat cipollone will not be testifying publicly, we've learned about another witness that will be. cnn reports that the trump white house deputy press secretary sarah matthews, this woman, has been subpoenaed to testify publicly as soon as next week. she resigned from the white house the night of january six, and last week she publicly defended cassidy hutchison

against attacks by trump allies. matthews has already given a recorded deposition to the committee and the person who led her questioning was this man, john wood, former united states attorney brought on by a senior investigative counsel for the january 6th investigation. we saw him questioning witnesses at a hearing last month. mr. wood led the investigations gold team, which examined trump's involvement in the capitol attack itself, all of which makes him someone with unique insight of what the investigation might learn from pat cipollone and what we should expect from the next public hearing starting next week. luckily, john wood joins us live next. live next. aleve it, and see what's possible.

psst. girl. you can do better. ok. wow. i'm right here. and you can do better, too. at least with your big name wireless carrier. with xfinity mobile, you can get unlimited for $30 per month on the nation's most reliable 5g network. they can even save you hundreds a year on your wireless bill, over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. wow. i can do better. yes, you can. i can do better, too. break free from the big three and switch to xfinity mobile. in addition to the news that the january 6th investigation has secured an interview on this friday with trump's white house counsel pat cipollone, we've also learned that the committee has subpoenaed another white house staffer to testify publicly possibly as early as next week. her name is sarah matthews.

she served as deputy press secretary until her resignation just hours after the attack on the u.s. capitol on january 6th. when she was first deposed before the committee, an investigator named john wood led the questioning. you might remember him from a hearing last month where he cross-examined witnesses about trump's -- together to get mike pence to block the certification of the election. he left his post as senior investigative counsel to launch an independent bid for the united states senate in missouri. given his key role in the investigation, he has visibility that almost no one else has, and to what to expect from future hearings and perhaps from cipollone and sarah matthews. joining us now is john wood, former investigation council of the january six committee.

thank you for being with us tonight, also for taking the time. >> thanks for having me on appreciate it. >> let's talk about sarah matthews for us. what do we expect to hear from her if in fact she turns out to be a witness next week? >> i expect her to be a very credible witness. she is very young but she had an important role within the white house. i led the interview as you said conducted by the staff and i found her to be very credible. so i think she's gonna help fill in some of the gaps in the testimony they've heard so far and i think you're really gonna hear focus on the days leading up to january six and really the minute by minute of january 6th itself. it may not be as explosive as what we heard from cassidy hutchinson but each of these hearings i think will provide additional information that the american people have not heard yet. >> so the committee had heard from pat cipollone in what was called an informal interview. then the cassidy hutchinson stuff came out. what you realize from that and other stories that we keep getting is that pat cipollone was central to a lot of stuff. he was around and by the way his testimony may lead for people to think of him being on the right side of history given what he was continue to argue.

he's agreed to testify before the committee on friday. i'm assuming that's a product of cassidy hutchinson's testimony. so many references were made to things he said in legal exposure he was worried about. >> i think it's a combination of things. there were weeks of back and forth between the committee and mr. cipollone's lawyers to try to get him into talk on the record. discussions and negotiations about possible accommodations because i think for mr. cipollone some of the information that he has, has legitimate privilege concerns. but a lot of the information he has is clearly not privileged. it was important that he end up testifying before the committee on the record and videotaped so the american people can see it. i'm really glad to see that that's coming together this friday so that hopefully the committee will sell some of the key clips of that interview during the hearing next week. so it's important the american people hear from him. you are right about the cassidy hutchinson point.

i think one of the reasons why mr. cipollone's testimony is so important that on some of the things cassidy hutchinson testified about, mr. cipollone was in the room and he will be able to either corroborate or reject some of the testimony she gave. which one of those he does will be very important in telling us how credible cassidy hutchinson was, because to me she appeared very credible. >> one of the things she said about pat cipollone is that he had come to her and said don't let this happen, don't let them go to the capitol. we will be charged with every crime imaginable. does that statement if it holds to be true, does that take away the executive privilege or any kind of privilege that pat cipollone has? because obviously lawyers can't be engaged in the commission of crimes. the lawyer warns about the possible commission of a crime, is that priviledged information or can he testify against that?

>> i say the conversation that he had with him is probably not privileged to begin with. i don't think you have to find an exception. to get communications a may have had with the president. so if he said mister president you should not go to the capitol because here the reasons are why would be illegal, i think that would be privileged. but him just saying to another staffer that he says it might violate every law imaginable, i don't think that that itself is privileged, so the executive privilege has some gray areas. but at its core is that senior staff should be able to give candidate advice to the president without becoming public. but i think the comments that mr. cipollone may have given to somebody like cassidy haugen's are probably not privileged. in previous, instance they had cited the puck cipollone allegedly did raise legal concerns over trump's actions before and during january six. i guess it's going to be important for the committee to get him on the record, confirming or denying specific statements that he is been said to have been made. like when we are just

discussing. >> that's exactly right. i think that he said earlier that pat cipollone may turn out to be on the right side of history. i think he will. i think that from everything that i have seen, he was one of the good guys here, in that he tried to stop president trump. in some cases, he did stop president trump from doing some things that could've been harmful to the country. i have heard other people saying that he could be the john dean of this investigation. he is different than john dean in a very important respect, which is that john dean was actually involved in some of the wrongdoing. here, i haven't seen any evidence that path cipollone was involved in any of the wrongdoing, in fact he tried to stop it. but he is similar to john dean in the sense that not only does he have the same position, white house counsel, but he was right there in the room when so many of these conversations took place. he could turn out to be a very central witness to this entire

investigation. >> you've had a really good seat to these hearings, you've fine right in them. what is the biggest revelation out of the hearing so far for you? >> i think that the biggest revelation in general is just how close we came to having a constitutional crisis that was even worse than the one that we had on january 6th, believe it or not. january 6th was absolutely horrible, both in terms of what it meant for the functioning of our government, and of course for the people who were injured or killed. it could've been far worse. our democracy is very fragile. there were some things that a few people, when these cases who are serving donald trump, and appointed by donald trump were able to stop downtime from doing, they could've made it even worse. the pressure that he tried to put on the department of justice ultimately was unsuccessful, because his justice department senior officials threatened to quit. he tried to place pressure on state officials, who were republicans. they stood up to him, and said,

mister president, we voted for you but we cannot change the outcome of the election. these are the kinds of things, and of course, the vice president himself, saying no to the president. saying that he would not change the outcome of the election. in each of those examples, our system held, but just barely. our system is very fragile. that's the key takeaway. >> and but for a few people here you just mentioned, who did make choices to be on the right side of history the system might not have held. and you have left your work on -- your very important work on the committee to make a run for -- as an independent, for missouri's open senate seat. is part of this motivated by the realization you've had about how close we came to losing democracy? is this your brick in the wall that you can put? >> it is. i feel like our country is more divided than it has ever been, during my lifetime. we've gotten to the point where our democracy is at risk.

nowhere is that democracy -- then in missouri u.s. senate race. i am a republican, running as an independent, but lifelong republican. my party is poised to nominate a disgraced governor because of the blackmail scandal involving his mistress. and his since been accused of abusing his ex wife and child. he is still leading in the polls. he is unfit to serve in the u. s. senate, and we need an alternative. i would best represent the views and values of missouri voters, which by in large are mainstream views. they tend to be right-of-center, but most people are within the mainstream, and reject the two extremes on the left and right. >> one of the things that was valuable about you being in the committee, the buzz was that because you are a republican, because you're a conservative, you might be able to back channel to get a lot of republicans to testify before the committee. and actually, most of the interesting testimony has come from the republicans. is that your work, and do you think that is important work?

do you think there are enough republicans that have come forward and say i am a conservative, a lifelong republican like you have said, but this is democracy, this is not partisan politics. >> i certainly can't take credit for the many successes of the committee, but as the successes greatly outnumber the ones where they have come up short, there have been a through very prominent people who have refused to testify. but the vast majority of the people that the committee is trying to talk to have cooperated. either voluntarily, or because they got a subpoena. as you pointed out, most of those are republicans, a lot of them are people who were appointed by and worked for donald trump, but they came forward and they did their civic duty, and they told the truth. that is why, so far in this investigation, it has been such a success in terms of finding out what happened, and now conveying it through these hearings to the american people. >> john wood, good to speak to you tonight., john wood is an independent candidate for the

senate race in missouri. former senior investigative counsel for the january 6th committee, and we appreciate your time. >> thanks for having me on ali. >> up next, an interview with the district attorney investigating donald trump's investigation -- in georgia. ion -- in georgia forget social events and weekend getaways. if you've had chickenpox, the virus that causes shingles is already inside of you.

i was injured in a car crash. i had no idea how much my case was worth. i called the barnes firm. if you can't admire joe biden when a truck hit my son, i had so many questions about his case. i called the barnes firm.

it was the best call i could've made. your case is often worth more than insuran call the barnes firm to find out i could've made. what your case could be worth. we will help get you the best result possible. ♪ the barnes firm, injury attorneys ♪ call one eight hundred,est resul eight million ♪ as a person, then you've probably got the problem. you need to do some of self-evaluation. what's not to like? he is the nicest person i think i've ever met. >> is that the right? >> he's as good of a man as god has ever created.

a good man as god ever created. >> that was south carolina senator lindsey graham getting emotional about his relationship with then vice president joe biden, back in 2015. here is again on january 6th of last, year speaking with a reporter for the new york times after the attack on the u.s. capitol. >> what this does is there will be a rallying effect for a while, where this country, says we're better than this. >> and biden will help with that, right? >> yeah, totally. he'll maybe be the best person to have, right? >> i mean, how mad can you get at joe biden? >> how mad can you get a joe biden? those words became more interesting as we learned that between the 2020 election and january 6th, senator graham made calls to key election officials in key states, the donald trump lost. most notably, the georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger just days after the election.

raffensperger told the washington post that he was stunned that during a conversation, senator graham had appeared to suggest that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. in public, senator graham has brushed that call off as nothing more than him being interested in election security. >> why is the senator from south carolina calling the secretary of state of georgia, anyway? >> because the future of the country hangs in the balance. i have talked doug in arizona, i have talked to the people in nevada, you've week we've got contest all of the nation. >> can you clarify this conversation that you had the secretary of state in georgia, did you or did you not ask him to throw out ballots? >> no, that's ridiculous. i talk to him how to verify signatures. >> as much as i wish it were not the case, my colleague interviewing senator graham, garrett hague, does not have subpoena power. there's a big difference how much of a story you might share with a reporter and how much of a stare you have to share with

a prosecutor, and a grand jury if you are under oath. brad raffensperger test -- his account of what happened to fulton county fani willis's grand jury. he spoke for five hours about his infamous phone call with trump, and presumably his interactions with the south carolina senator as well. it is a fairly thorough investigation, i'm sure they got to the part about senator lindsey graham. so what about senator lindsey graham of south carolina? he was among seven trump allies subpoenaed yesterday by that same district attorney, fani willis. you might think that because senator graham's supposed interest in the election integrity, he would be very interested in cooperating with the district attorney willis's investigation. into the efforts to overturn the 2020 election in georgia. but today, senator graham and his lawyer said that he will not comply. they he said that the investigations is a fishing expedition -- and then senator graham plans to go to court and challenge the subpoena.

today, my colleague got an exclusive interview with the fulton county district attorney fani willis, and got her response to what she will do about witnesses who defy subpoenas, and specifically about senator lindsey graham. >> if you are met with resistance, how will you respond to that? if you're met with resistance to people who say they do not want to come testify? >> nobody wants to come to the prosecutors party, that's part of the work that we do. we will take it before a judge, and he will make a ruling if we have a legal right to bring him before the court, but i'm been a trial lawyer for a long time. most times, people don't want to come. that's why you have the power of the state and the power to subpoena people, and bring them here. >> lindsey graham actually put out a statement just since we have been sitting here. essentially saying that this is all politics, fulton county's engaging in a fishing expedition and working in concert with the january 6th committee in washington. do you want to respond to that, him calling it a fishing expedition, saying this is

nothing but, politics? >> we do have to gain from politics? it's an inaccurate estimation. it is somebody that does not understand the seriousness of what we are doing. i hope they don't come and testify truthfully before the grand jury. i hope that he will come and testify truthfully before the grand jury. and if not, that's why prosecutors have the power of the state to bring people in. strong words from the fulton county district attorney and again, lindsey graham is just one of seven trump allies that were subpoenaed yesterday. we will have more from that interview including what may be in store for donald trump after the break. te the break. check out angi.com today. angi... and done. your record label is taking off. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates

matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

we talked about drawing ire and getting threats. have you gotten threats specifically because of your investigation into the former president? >> yes and a lot of racist comments and foolishness. i'm a black woman and i'm proud to be a black woman, so insulting me with racial slurs, maybe it entertains them, this is no consequence to me. >> that's fulton county attorney general fani willis and an exclusive interview with our correspondent blaine alexander earlier today. talking with threats she's facing as the lead investigator -- the district attorney also talked about where the investigation goes from here. >> could we expect to possibly see additional subpoenas from people in former president trump's inner circle or trump associates? >> yes.

>> are we talking about family members? are we talking about former white house officials? >> we'll just have to see where the investigation leads us, but i think that people thought that we came into this as some kind of game. this is not a game at all. what i am doing is very serious, it's very important work and we are going to do our due diligence and making sure that we look at all aspects of the case. and so all you see is a prosecutor doing her due diligence. i had a team that was here that was investigating, that was speaking to people. some people decided that they wanted a subpoena to talk to us. it was enough people where i thought it was important to bring them before a special purpose grand jury where they could gain the information, and the special purpose grand jury could advise them.

so that's the process we're in. >> might we see a subpoena of the former president himself? >> anything is possible. >> so we're not ruling out that it is possible? >> yes. >> i know in a recent interview he estimated that it could wrap up by the end of the summer that could bring the decision on indictments sometime in the fall. is that still accurate? >> i think that is still a realistic goal with the progress that we are making. >> all right, there is a lot in there that we need to break down. luckily, i've got just the person to speak with. joining us now is tamar hallerman, a senior reporter for the atlanta journal constitutional, the broke the news this week that the fulton county for with the district attorney was speaking had subpoenaed numbers of trump's legal team including senator lindsey graham. miss hallerman, thank you for being with. us >> thank you for being having me. >> you just heard some of what the da decided to say. she did quite a bit to say. one is your when you think about her acknowledging the

possibilities of subpoenas other for president trump or his inner circle? >> it's both surprising and not surprising. she's long told us here in georgia that she is willing to potentially subpoena president trump and potentially indict him if she feels like elements of the crime have been met. at the same time, it is still a shocking possibility because there is no precedent for this in u.s. history. no u.s. president as ever been indicted for a crime. the fact that she's moving up towards the pyramid getting closer to donald trump is certainly notable. i think the timeline she mentioned being done by the end of the summer, i'll be curious if should be able to stick to that especially what we heard today from senator graham saying that he plans to fight the subpoena in court. >> and senator lindsey graham's attorney said they have prepared to do that. the district attorney seems prepared for that fight. what's your sense of how that's going to work? >> my understanding is that there is going to be hearings in the states jurisdiction where the people live. lindsey graham being in south

carolina or potentially washington, d. c., depending where he served. john eastman being in new mexico, rudy giuliani being in new york. they'll have a hearing with a local superior judge their, or if they are claiming some sort of attorney-client privilege, legislative immunity, they can argue their case, there will also be a representative from the da's office who will be arguing why those folks are necessary material witnesses and must be brought to atlanta to testify. >> what do you make of da willis saying that she is making progress and the timeline does seem to be about a decision about an indictment by fall. i think what dwight alexander was getting at there that anyone who is thinking this is political as that anyone will think it's more political third indictment of donald trump or anyone in circle in the fall prior to the midterm elections. >> absolutely, and that's a criticism you've heard from republicans for months here in georgia. they believe this is a partisan witch hunt that's being designed for maximum political

effectiveness for the democrats. da willis has long denied that, she's saying she's not in the evidence taker prosecutors to wear leads. she says there are no kind of outcomes in her mind. that said, she did kind of pause or at least delay bringing in witnesses until after our may primaries here in georgia, and i think she also mentioned to your reporter today that should this not be resolved by october which is when georgia begins early voting, she will also pause until after the elections are passed just to prevent the perception that she is playing politics. no matter what she does, people will accuse her of playing politics. >> tamara, thank you for being with us. tamara hallerman. we will be right back. hallerman we will be right back.

to finally lose 80 pounds and keep it off with golo is amazing. i've been maintaining. the weight is gone and it's never coming back. with golo, i've not only kept off the weight but i'm happier, i'm healthier,

and i have a new lease on life. golo is the only thing that will let you lose weight and keep it off. who loses 138 pounds in nine months? i did! golo's a lifestyle change and you make the change and it stays off. (soft music) this is xfinity rewards. our way of showing our appreciation. with rewards of all shapes and sizes. [ cheers ] are we actually going? yes!! and once in a lifetime moments. two tickets to nascar! yes! find rewards like these and so many more in the xfinity app. today, we learned the identity of the seven victims killed in the last weekends last shooting in highland park, illinois.

he's been identified as 69 -year-old eduardo vallow. he was pronounced eta atm, today, surrounded by his family. members of his family, including his wife who was injured in the shooting spree, he joins the list of seven people who were murdered by the highland park gunman. those who killed range in age from 35 to 88. they leave behind devastated families, including a two -year-old toddler whose parents were both killed, as well as a terrified community. pray for those lives lost in the shooting, the gunman has been charged with seven counts of first degree murder. prosecutors say that they don't plan on stopping there. that does it for us tonight, we will see you again tomorrow. that's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell, good evening. >> good evening. hearing the details of those murders, the awful reputation of it is the most absurd part of it. >> and unlike politics, but you know a lot about, or at the things that we cover. you get better at it evy