so when devlin uses that phrase "quietly working," knowing what we know now and that great reporting by him and the folks at the "washington post" and pete williams where do you imagine this is and what is quietly working? >> chris, i think the department of justice is probably much farther along in their criminal investigation of the insurrection, not just the foot soldiers, but the command structure of the insurrection, than any of us know. great reporting is exactly right by devlin and the others on that by line and, you know, i listened to carol very specifically this morning when she said witnesses, plural, have been asked the following questions in the grand jury about donald trump. lots of questions about donald trump. i think it's important for the viewers to know that even though the prosecutors are bound by grand jury secrecy, the witnesses are not. now, we instruct our witnesses that it's probably not smart to talk publicly about what goes on in the grand jury, but they are permitted to and it looks like some of them are. and what i have to say, chris, is all of the data p

for a long time while the doj probe was clearly under way, and devlin's reporting showed us, as much as we're learning about what was happening, this probe was under way probably for months before now. and i think what we saw more publicly was happening in fulton county, which was this tightening ring around the president's inner circle. and that probe in some ways may be more of a threat to trump directly because it involved his direct phone call to the secretary of state there to try to ask him to find enough votes for him to flip the results. i think that one, in particular, is one to watch. as we watch people cycling in and out of the grand jury there. >> senators on both sides of the aisle are weighing in on the precedent of prosecuting a former president. let's listen be to some of them. >> i would say a former president should not be above the law. >> a historical precedent would be set by this type of prosecution. >> news flash. it will be controversial. >> we'll see. you know, how much the law becomes a political tool. it's a dangerous thing to do. i'll withhold judgment unt

devlin let me start with you. you and your colleagues at the post reports that there were two principal tack tracks of the departments investigation. what are they, and how those doj's interest in trump's actions come into play? >> the simplest way to say it is that one tracks basically the riot and his high up as it goes. so that is questions of obstructing a congressional proceeding, and you know, some people have already been charged, we, knell with crimes of serious and seditious conspiracy. obviously one thing prosecutors want to understand is how high up does that activity go. the other track, where you've seen a lot of investigative to activity very recently, is the investigation into this false electoral scheme. this effort to, at the last minute, undo biden's election victory. and that is where we have seen questioning in the grand jury, that's where we've seen subpoenas and search warrants. it has been very active lately. >> and charles, the washington post story is very clear in saying that by the quest

we devlin have some pretty bad unhealthy air quality. a lot of that staying aloft. we will continue to monitor our air quality because we do of course have our on fire here at pittsburgh. it has been burning for several days now. air-quality right now is between good and moderate. that advisory will remain in place through tomorrow. for the eastern county area. because of the possibility of some pockets of smoke at times. from the drifting breeze. this talk about your temperatures. into the overnight hours. it is really nice right now. well, quite a range. 57 in san francisco. if you scoot in a bit, san jose right at 67. not really getting much cooling but the temperature difference is pretty similar to yesterday's overnight lows. a little more noticeable during the day. let's look at the temperature trend. we're going to wake up to some of that clout coverage around the coastline. overnight, expect clear skies. the south bay temperatures in the 50s. satellite and radar paints the perfect picture of what is going on. we are pretty much clear right now. we could see

devlin barrett covers the justice department for the washington post. people may be confused here because the headline last week was bannon said he was willing to testify before the committee, and yet this contempt trial is underway. how do people understand what's going on here? >> a lot of what you saw bannon doing last week and the week before, you have to see in context of him trying to delay his trial. he did make the offer to testify before the committee, but it was such a last minute thing. the events that led to this trial all came last year. what prosecutors and the judge have said to bannon's last-minute offers is it is too late. you refused to cooperate with the committee, allegedly, and now there is a trial over how that happened. john: is a possible outcome that he will cooperate and comply with the subpoena? >> one of the ironies of charging someone with contempt of congress is it's really just a punishment. if anything, it's less likely he will end up testifying to the committee because there is now a potential conviction or appeal of leg

his roommate was colonel larry devlin who had been a staff officer with patton in the war. he was a retread from the first war when he was in the navy then he saw the light and came over to the army for the second war. he was a colonel. he was a tremendous tremendous human being. and he said when he saw the movie. he said kim. i thought it was the old man himself. that's how good george c. scott got the movie, but you have to be very careful. of certain factors in the movie because the technical advisor was general of the army, omar bradley. and there is a scene in there just before the start of the german counteroffensive in in the battle of the bulge. where bradley phones patent and he says george i got to pull that tenth armored division from you and he says, oh brad. i'm got a bridge across this our river into germany. you got to let me go through. no george. i got to have that something's going on up north and we got ike wants all of us to meet it for done tomorrow morning. be there at 10:00 sharp. well the verdun meeting took place. and that part of it is accurate. bu

let's bring in devlin barrett, he helped break the story. we knew the d.o.j.n the january 6th riot but the fact that president trump's actions are now under scrutiny would seem to take this to a whole new level. >> thanks, john. i think it's significant by this reason. seeing bit by bit they are looking at some of trump's lawyers for pushing the fake elector plans but they are also gathering information about what trump told his lawyers to do. and obviously that's important. you want to understand, ok, to the degree we have concerns about this behavior and what might have happened, we need to know what their marching orders were. a question they have been asking witnesses. >> john: over the past few weeks, listening to your colleague on the story this morning, suggesting that over the past few weeks started to detect a shift here, which i guess culminated in recent appearances before the grand jury, mark short, and attorney greg jenkins. >> receipt. and what you have seen in the last, you know, several weeks to a month is that a lot of what was going on in thi

yeah, and if you look at those two subpoenas, which my colleagues, devlin barrett and yvette sanchezted online on "the washington post" website, the subpoenas that went to these republican state lawmakers, they're very interesting and they provide further guidance and suggest the direction that the department of justice is going in. they specifically ask for any communications with any members of the legislative and executive branch that these people were having in order to try to implement the fake elector plan, and so i imagine that jacob and short were providing further context as to their communications with people like john eastman, boris epstein, rudy giuliani, some of the people mentioned in those emails that maggie haberman and luke broadwell published. i think that, you know, what is so troubling i think for the january 6th committee and a part of their entire thesis that this is a slow rolling insurrection that is still playing out is that maybe greg jacob's theory that this would not fly in the supreme court isn't actually something that still stands in this hyperpoliticiz

is very important about the question is this, what i picked up from sources or what my colleagues, devlinnternal sources is that that debate is real. that concern about the high bar of prosecuting a former president, not a sitting president, even a former president is huge. it weighs heavily on the department of justice. it weighs heavily on merrick garland and the sense that i'm getting is there's a lot of discussion about how overwhelming is the evidence and how overwhelming does it have to be for us to go down the road of even conceptually considering, charging and prosecuting a former president. that's never happened before in our history. so as for your point about small charge or large charge, you know, i'd like to stay away from that because, you know, you may remember bill clinton struck a deal with the independent council to avoid being charged with something relatively small in the big scheme of things, lying to investigators. i don't know whether small charge or large charge is the issue here. i think the issue is deafening, overwhelming evidence that is so striking and so comp