the committee's star witness, cassidy hutchinson, you may remember she got a phone call ahead of her deposition with the january 6th investigation, and in that phone call she was told trump's chief of staff knew she was loyal and that she would do the right thing. investigators later released testimony from her in which she described how her trump funded lawyer had attempted to shape her testimony and limit what she was willing to tell the january 6th investigation. cassidy hutchinson says that trump funded lawyer told her, quote, the less you remember, the better. eventually cassidy hutchinson got herself a new lawyer who wasn't on trump's payroll or on the payroll of his campaign, but that allegation about a trump funded lawyer trying to influence the testimony of his purported client now seems quite relevant again. there are now two trump employees charged along with their boss in the classified documents case, the federal criminal case in florida. lawyers for both those men are being paid by legal entities -- excuse me -- by political entities associated with trump. and that rais

perpetuated and that money goes to pay the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses, not just cassidy hutchinsonember very salient things and important conversations that others said they were present for. only cassidy suggested directly she was coached to lie. she indicated her first trump-funded lawyer essentially encouraged her to hold information back and said you don't need to tell them about that, they don't know what you don't know. but we had the suspicion and we articulate this in our report that a lot of the trump-funded lawyers essentially were coaching witnesses to obscure key facts. it seems to be a pattern and it was one that definitely impacted our investigation. >> coaching a witness to lie, coaching a witness to pretend to forget things they don't forget and obscure the facts is a serious matter for a lawyer. lawyers are obviously not supposed to do that. that's potentially a way to get in trouble if you're a lawyer for a lot of different reasons. but in terms of witnesses who are considering their options given that pattern that you just described, what advice would you give ri

cassidy hutchinson says that that trump funded lawyer told her, quote, the less you remember, the better a new lawyer who was not on trump's payroll, or on the payroll of his campaign. but that allegation about a trump funded lawyer trying to influence the testimony of his purported client now seems quite relevant again. there are now two trump employees charged along with their boss and the classified documents case, the federal criminal case in florida. lawyers for both of those men are being paid by legal entities -- or excuse me, by political entities associated with trump. and that raises the question, are those attorneys acting in the interest of their clients? or are they acting in trump's interests? did the trump lawyer who allegedly tried to influence cassidy hutchinson's testimony ever face any consequences for that? what can special counsel jack smith investigators learned potentially from the january 6th investigation in congress, when they went up against this kind of potential witness tampering before. luckily, we have just the person to ask about that. joining us now is ti

it takes somebody with sort of cassidy hutchinson's moral integrity, here the chief judge in d.c. interceded to say you should at least speak to independent counsel before you make a decision that you want to -- >> that's a critical step. >> absolutely. by the way, that happens in mob cases a lot. and of course what happens is as soon as somebody gets independent counsel and advises them, the person is like ah-hah, okay, now i get it. this person may not have my best interest at heart. that's more often than not especially when the government is saying there's potential conflict, responsible counsel is saying i'm out, get somebody else. >> the key phrase is responsible counsel here. stanley woodward is still defending walt nauta, and there's the possibility now that one of his former clients, yucil taveras, will be testifying against one of his current clients, walt nauta because they're taking opposite approaches with regards to this case. one is cooperating with the fed, one is not. how does that work that stanley woodward can't be conflicted out of this? >> as well as let's not

>> so, i think the reference to cassidy hutchinson is such a good one. think it educate people on what is happenisng here in this case. as danya and i know, and our jaded, this happens in the special counsel mueller investigation. it happened in enron. it happened in organized crime cases. this is a standard problem when you're a prosecutor of house counsel. and the problem that money buys influence. just to be clear, there are some lawyers who can be paid by a company, and they do their job. they represent the individual. that's what they're supposed to do. but, i'll give you one quick example, in enron, there was a junior person, the company paid for that person's counsel. when we finish the interview, i remember that person's lawyer turned to the general counsel of meryl lynch and said, it's been an honor representing you. i remember going, that's the problem. that's the issue. >> in that case, did the junior staffer, not like, understand the dynamic at play? >> you have to remember, what's really hard for somebody who is not experienced with the lega

cassidy hutchinson gave everybody a crash course on what happens in this kind of political case.ving handled those at the beginning of my career, where house counsel is not looking out for the interests of the person who they represent. and so here the person wisely got separate counsel. we saw the exact same thing with cassidy hutchinson where she gave testimony about what her forward counsel advise her to do, which was according to her, obstruct justice. here with independent counsel, you have somebody who has flipped and is clearly an insider saying what it is that the three charged defendants -- that is mr. trump, mr. nauta, and mr. deoliveira, did in connection with the obstruction scheme. it's not surprising that you would have more than those three people. in fact i suspect there are quite a few more. and this is how you make a case. you do that, but it is really important that people have independent counsel. >> and andrew weissman, the fact that he is telling the truth with what sounds like a public defender, does that change how the government approaches mr. nauta, who

here's the conversation as cassidy hutchinson related. >> so he had said something to the effect of,le to know we lost, mark. this is embarrassing. figure it out. we need to figure it out. i don't want people to know we lost. >> you all at the january 6th committee talked to her. presumably, she's going to end up on the stand and say that in front of a jury. so it's going to be difficult to even maintain that, right? that he thought he won. because he didn't. >> i think there are multiple witnesses who will say there were statements that he made, sometimes just in passing, that the people recognized that he knew that he lost. that's one that you hear from ms. hutchinson. i'm sure if mark meadows is cooperating witness, if he takes the stand, he would have additional evidence to that. you also have in the indictment general milley's statement that we'll pass this on to the next guy. these statements, again, show his state of mind, that he knew he lost, and he was clinging on to stay in office. >> maya, let me ask you about this post. we asked tom nichols about it, but i want to ask yo

kersley, with cassidy hutchinson, she had a lawyer that was provided to her by this trump world.elt like that lawyer was counseling her not to be fully honest. she got a new lawyer, and gave this explicit testimony. my understanding of meadow's legal counsel, and i don't have that name in front of me, that he's not in the trump world. he's not a person who's got a trump lawyer with him right now, which also makes him seem like independent at least, or floating out there. not in the kind of cover of trump world. >> yeah, i think several of trump's other codefendants are finding themselves in that same situation. look at what's happening with jenna ellis. i think a lot of these codefendants are about to find that trump is not going to hold on to everyone if it means saving himself. he's willing to throw anyone else under the bus if it means getting himself out of this prosecution. and i think that is why so early on in this case, we are already seeing signs that these codefendants are turning on each other. but they are willing to point the finger, because they no longer have that

and like cassidy hutchinson, her explanation made a lot of sense and she came across as very crediblet to put on somebody who had previously lied or told a different story. >> clint, of course, i want to ask you about what is happening in fulton county, georgia, where you were a prosecutor for decades. what do you think that trump surrender is going to look like? we hear authorities stressing it's going to be the usual procedures. but i wonder if there are some that maybe are not going to be used, a physical search, a medical check, some things. what do you think? >> well, certainly i think there is nothing unusual about this case. i think it is historically significant on a very, very high level. and while certainly fulton county and atlanta has seen its share of really high-profile defendants and cases, i think this one has made its way to the top of that stack. certainly through the secret service and the coordination with the fulton county sheriff's department, they will come up with a protocol that will safely ensure that the former president is able to get in and get out very sm

lisa, i want to play you some sound from cassidy hutchinson testifying about what trump said in this case, and get your thoughts on the other side. >> is it your understanding that president trump asked mark meadows to speak with roger stone and general food when on january 5th? >> that is correct, that is my understanding. >> ms. hutchinson, is it your understanding that mr. meadows called mr. stone on the fifth? >> i am under the impression that mr. meadows did complete a call to both mr. stone and general flynn the evening of the fifth. >> now, we can't automatically say, lisa, that anybody who was on a phone call the day before the terrorist attack of january 6th is inherently guilty, but if you know roger stone was there and you know eastman was part of putting together this ridiculous pot, doesn't this also sort of draw additional lines about how many people were intimately involved? you can't say, i had no idea what was going to happen, if all of these people were involved in a series of phone calls, tags, and everything else like that right before the terrorist attack, right?

i am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem. >> but according to white house aide cassidy hutchinsonoffice with gaining traction. >> think about what might happen in the final 15 days of your presidency if we don't do this. there is already talked about invoking the 25th amendment. you need this as cover. >> even then, he still refused to admit the election was over. >> this election is now over. congress has certified the results. i do not want to say the elections are over. i just want to say congress has certified the results without saying the election is over, okay? >> that video just showed you that even after every single constitutional process had been completed, and after over 60 quarts had heard his challenges and rejected them, he still refused. it it was fundamentally a rejection of the rule of law. america cannot sustain itself if we have in a commander-in- chief who is at war with the rule of law. >> coming up -- >> i want the american people to look at these hearings and understand how close we came that day to losing that self- governance. >> this is our -- >> the bat

it's not cassidy hutchinson, which i know is being floated around a lot because the way m which act 90itten in the indictment yesterday makes clear that was a co-conspirator and cassie hutchinson under no definition is a co-conspirator. this is someone in on the plot. could be patrick burns, could be general michael flynn, maybe linwood or sidney powell. there was a lot of speculation at this point. so hard to say. these charges were brought under a conspiracy and rico set of charges in which that doctrine is tailor made to encourage flipping. that's almost half the point of these specific crimes is to force people to flip it. so she is wielding a very powerful weapon against whoever number 20 is, as well as the other 30 people who are unindicted co-conspirators in the indictment. so i think fani willis is saying today ours goes to 30. >> do you have any feeling about this unindicted co-conspirator, do you have any theories about who it might be? >> sure, nicole. first of all, trials are a series of stories and this is a good story. okay, this is where a lot of the roles people play dr

> the january 6 committee discovered text messages sent during and following the meeting by cassidy hutchinson the committee hearing in june, describing the meeting as unhinged. she also snapped this photograph of mark meadows escorting rudy giuliani from the white house, to make sure he did not get back into the mansion. >> you tweeted, quote, somehow the committee testimony featured live underplayed how crazy that december 18 meeting was. how was it underplayed? >> because donald trump faded into the background, as this was all being described. one of the ways in which donald trump has escaped a lot of accountability over time, is he gets people fighting with each other. and that's what people focus on. he considered extreme, really unprecedented actions. now, he didn't take them, but he was unwilling to foreclose options until the last possible second, no matter how extreme and potentially dangerous they were. >> i remember talking to you after that meeting, and you were shaking. >> i was. and it was, frankly, it took a little bit of process exactly what had happened. but i remember getting

cassidy hutchinson is in the same category.with this every time bill barr who i think was one of the most damaging people to ever hold the office of attorney general in our country's history, says something about the strength of the government's case about donald trump, of course it's news because he was such a willing accomplice, but i struggle with the coming late to protecting democracy, coming late to calling a lie a lie, in bill par's case coming late to calling bs, bs. where does in your case showing grace for those people come from? >> the better late than never slogan or saying is the optimist's way of looking at it. you know, the piss mist -- i guess that's the optimistic way of looking at it but the pessimistic way was you should have done it from the beginning. >> right. >> and the realist part is where i'm at. i'm mad at you for not doing it earlier but i'm glad you did it. that's how democracy works, you're allowed to have different opinions within the law. oppress people as much as you want within the law but once

are there are people other staff people are such as are cassidy hutchinson who testified before the january 6 committee? how this going to testify against him? basically all of the testimony here is going to come from trump's own employees and own people who are working within the right hours at the turn. some experts still argue that this is not the strongest case against mr. trump. though, do you agree? no, not at all. this is an extremely strong case. they've got them on tape in georgia 3 or 4 times. or they've got testimony by extremely reputable people. the trump called i such as rusty bowers in arizona. and they've got him saying things to various people, including the german of the republican party to get her involved with this fake alexis or scheme. all roads lead back to donald trump. he's on tape. i use talk to other people. he's made public pronouncements about this fraud when in fact there's going to be testimony that immediately prior to making those statements. he was told by his menus that there was no such fraud. sure with the case here is the overwhelming donald trump's att

cassidy hutchinson, others heard him say he lost.ond, it doesn't matter in terms of the charges, even if he thinks he won. that doesn't mean you can go in and try to forestall the vote and have, you know, and let loose the marauders. and third, because basically this is going to come down to an overarching course of conduct that ends with january 6th itself, and his inaction during those days -- during that hour and a half will speak volumes. finally, he can't testify. if you think about it, it's tricky how even he gets his not very believable version of it in. >> carol, donald trump has embraced where he finds himself today. he certainly on one hand appears to be rattled by the flurry of legal charges that may be coming at him in georgia potentially, certainly in florida, and even d.c. and manhattan. but he also relishes this by going to his voters, even as we saw over the weekend at the campaign rallies in erie, pennsylvania and elsewhere, saying he's taking the fall, taking this hit because if it's not him, they could be going aft

we saw it with the january 6th committee, and cassidy hutchinson. they were telling her to not recall events that happened. she did very well recall. and what did she do? she did the right thing, which is switch lawyers. so she was defending her best interests and not trump's best interest. >> when you look at this, gene, this is essentially one of the thing thats i can imagine is going to make the prosecutors raise their eyebrows on something and say, that's interesting. so, your co-defendant in this important case, in fulton county, is a fund-raiser for it? and there's also the bond agreement that you can't actually talk about the facts of the case. is this going to make you nervous? >> as a defense attorney, would make me very nervous. as a prosecutor, i'm salivating. >> i knew it. i knew it. my mouth was watering, as well. >> the reason is this. you go to trial and what is a jury going to hear? they're going to hear that all these people sitting together at the table, are being funded by the lead guy, donald trump. and there's probably going to

beaten and lawmakers ran, there was white house chief of staff mark meadows telling his aid cassidy hutchinsono her testimony -- >> there is a lot going on, cass, but i don't know. things might get real real bad on january 6. that evening was the first moment that i remember feeling scared. >> reporter: this is about donald trump and about actually going after him once again. >> reporter: if anyone knew then president trump's plans for the lost election, it might have been meadows. >> i just want to find 11,780 votes. >> reporter: after all he joined that phone call when trump leaned on the top georgian official to overturn his loss there. >> we believe not every vote or fair vote and legal vote was counted. >> reporter: the latest indictment notes at one point meadows told trump the georgia officials were doing an exemplary job, but one day later trump called them terrible people cuffiovering up fraud. >> ultimate checkses and balance is the congress pap. >> reporter: and jim jordan messaged meadows insisting that mike pence should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitut

cassidy hutchinson gave us explicit testimony about she waa given sort of trump appointed counsel, and she actually said she asked who's paying for my counsel. and her counsel if this is true completely and ethically says says don't worry your pretty little head about it. which is unreal. she wash entitled to know abou it. that is a way money keeps everybody in line and inside the tent. the first thing i said when i saw there were 18g codefendant here as we saw there are two in the documents case is how do you keepdo these people in line because in the georgia case those are all potential cooperators because there is no federal pardon with respect to those case. those people are really facing realtime, and the proof on some of them looks really strong. so he needs to be able to sort of figure out how is he going t be able to do that, and money and supporting them in terms of their counsel is one way to do that. he's learned his lesson from michael l cohen where when we we prosecuting him in the mueller investigation the spigot was turned off andn he felt abandoned, and so that's the do

look, cassidy hutchinson i think is the most excellent example of how when people see the light and they have those come to jesus moments when they realize trump legal fees are not gonna be paid, this is a long haul. i want to give an example. there is a legal case being tried but they're trying to pick a jury right now. it's from the 2022 indictments for gangs and murders et cetera. it's like -- it's multiple codefendants. they are on month nine. can you imagine with the legal fees are going to be for this case? it's going to be a lot. i have sympathy for them, frankly. you lie down with dogs you get up with police. this is the problem you have when you're trying to negotiate in this way. >> i guess, scott, my question here, to katie's point about the duration, how much is this gonna cost? i guess you can't say, but it's going to be a lot of money,? >> it's a high-profile matter. there are several codefendants. it will be super it's expensive. you have a very good lawyer who does white-collar from a big firm, doesn't have to be a big firm but it could be millions of dollars. but here's

cassidy hutchinson testified, but afterwards, she had to go into hiding and had security. there is only so much of the government can do in protecting people. there is a witness protection program, but you can't put everybody in that program and there is no way that you can guard against every crazy not out there who might try to do something. >> nick, i want to talk to you about the public's right to see this, to know about this, this is a defendant like we have never had before in our country's history. not only was he the president, but he is a leading gop presidential candidate, and a former reality tv showman. is your argument against televising the trial, or live, streaming it because of who is on trial? >> absolutely. this makes all the difference in the world. it is not just a danger to the witnesses, but, let's face, it there is one thing that donald trump excels at and that is reality tv. and if there is any way that he can use this trial to appeal to his partisans, to put a wrench into the trial by virtue of appealing to the wider television audience, he is goin

we saw this in cassidy hutchinson's case. she was not able to share what she wanted to. >> that happened, we knew that de oliveira, they had gone through his phone, seized it, he had not be charged. it was when the indictment came down, we spoke to sources at the time who said tavares, who was known as employee number four, he's the it worker at the center of this, that he had spoken to investigators. then it was later we learned about woodward and the fact he had changed attorneys there. woodward is someone who represents not just people in this case. he's representing people in other investigations surrounding trump as well. he's very close and involved. i don't see him leaving all this. we'll see if the judge rules that it is a conflict for him to represent nauta as well because essentially what prosecutors are saying is that if tavares, this employee who used to be represented by woodward gets on the stan, then woodward would be questioning him under cross-examination. he could possibly incriminate nauta. >> we learned th

and then you've got people like cassidy hutchinson, who worked in the white house, who after she eventestified on the january six committee, had to go into hiding with security. i mean, this is not a game. donald trump has absolutely no compassion and no concern for peoples safety. >> the inflection point that we are at as a country, in terms of the level of erosion of trust that exists in our democratic institutions, the criminal justice system being one of them, absolutely calls for some level of transparency. >> let me just say this. in some ways there's a bit of courage before the house course. we don't have a trial date yet. and i think both of these are totally legitimate arguments. i tend to favor transparency, i'm a journalist, but i hear what you're saying. >> the press has got to cover these trials a lot better. >> for the snow tub substitute for tv. let me just say, this independent of that, the fact of the menace that hangs over this is just this inescapable fact. even if you don't broadcast the trial. here's the ad that's running. it's currently, apparently, running in at

differing accounts about how far along the justice department was before the report or before cassidy hutchinson testifies, but at the end of the day it was hard when i was reading the indictment not to think not only had we heard -- read this before but we heard it before. and the work of the committee and what they did, they really helped tell the entire story in a way that even folks like myself that were covering january 6th, it opened my eyes to new things. it was hard not to see everything in that indictment through the lens of the committee. >> well, and what the committee so effectively did was they went to state -- they -- mike slack's reporting on jack smith's final investigations was that jack smith was tying up loose ends around state of mind. jared kushner was one of those interviews. mike pence was in there. mark meadows. what the committee did visually through taped depositions, by taking stepien and mashing him against ivanka and bill barr, there was knowledge of falsity. first line of the first count is knowledge of falsity. that's -- >> 100%. >> they functioned as though they w

and sarah matthews in addition to cassidy hutchinson who testified before the january 6th committee. of this money appears to be going to the stated purpose of this pac. and, you know, this is now very cautiously being pointed out, you know, by a sum of trump's opponents, as i saw last night on twitter, x, whatever they're calling it now, the desantis super pac was attacking trump's campaign manager, his chief strategist over the amount of money going to lawyers, but, you know, this comes like way too lately. and after they brought in nine figures to go to trump's various legal bills, and to be used, no doubt, to influence people in his orbit, and try to prevent them from speaking out about various indictments. >> i wonder for you, given the context, the history of what we know here, when you see that trump aligned groups continue to pay legal bills for, quote, friends and allies, what that signals to you. >> look, i think it's really troubling. i think it's something that jack smith's working on getting to the bottom of. because it's not like, you know, you sometimes have a situatio

i was recalling some information we got from cassidy hutchinson where she said at some point during her cooperation with the committee sheer got a call from another staffer in the white house who said, just so you know, the big guy is reading transcripts. she was told directly. this was secondhand. president trump was following the progress of our investigation and presumably from defense lawyers from which he or his political action committee paid was accessing investigative material. we had a number of witnesses who did receive third party payment of legal fees. not inappropriate. it raises the question as to whether the duty of loyalty is. cassidy was most dramatic example of that. she fired the trump lawyer because she alleges he told her, they don't know what you don't know. you don't want to go there when it comes to that dust-up in the presidential limousine. of witnesses ot paid for by the save america pac. the legal fees paid for by the trump folks who didn't remember things. other them squarery in ther middle of. >> we have six unindicted, unnamed co-conspirator, none of whom

cassidy hutchinson. how important was her testimony? because it was sort of, her testimony broke the dam and in many ways brought us here tonight. cassidy, who was essentially a lowest level staff level staffer and made history. >> it was pivotal. and it still has salient today. what happened to her, she had a trump lawyer, the trump was paying for. she went in the deposition. he urged her to lie, and then she came out and felt terrible about it, got a new lawyer, told the truth, and that did break the dam, as you say. we are now in a situation in which the trump back spent 20 plus million in the first six months on legal fees, including furnishing many of the suspects or witnesses here with their own lawyers. it's sort of been a full employment act for a couple of them in particular. and you have to worry that there's a similar impact here, especially in mar-a-lago. though i know that's not the focus tonight. >> peter, the january six hearing, really, the evidence that was gathered, brought us here tonight. we were just talking about it

or as you just heard cassidy hutchinson describe defend doing nothing on january 6th to get trump toers. mark meadows was trump's dream chief of staff, especially during those crucial final days in office. in a role often described as gatekeeper, it seems as though mark meadows served as much more of an enabler. the now twice impeached, four times indicted ex-president of these united states. in brand-new opinion piece in "the new york times," it was concluded, quote, it was mr. meadows' critical failure to tell the president what he didn't want to hear that helped lead to the country's greatest political scandal and his own precipitous fall. the piece was written chris whipler, a book all about white house chiefs of staff. a flashing red light for what a second trump term could look like. whipple rights there. quote, mr. trump has already signaled that in a second term, his department and cabinet officers would be expected to blindly obey orders. his director of national intelligence would tell him only what he wants to hear. and his attorney general would prosecute mr. trump's poli

>> that's the hard part because we know what cassidy hutchinson told the committee. what she said was the president knew the people in the audience were armed. he said, let them come in, they're not here to harm me. raises the question, who were they there to harm? then he said to those people, go to the capitol, i'm coming with you, we're going to solve this thing. if that doesn't amount to insurrection, right, what does it amount to? you got to ask yourself, if it is okay to bring up the first amendment concerns with the defrauding the united states, why not raise the insurrection point, what is going on here? if he has a weak first amendment case, how does it not undermine his other case as well. >> in a conversation on january 1st, the then vice president mike pence told trump that he didn't think there was a constitutional basis for the vice president changing the election results, doing what trump was pressuring his vice president to do, and in response trump told pence, quote, you are too honest. how beneficial is that to prosecutors as they're trying to prove

see instances, including even in the congressional investigation, where a witness, such as cassidy hutchinsonll get a new attorney and then become much more forthcoming. that's exactly what we saw in the documents case, where the prosecutors now say witnesses have changed their previous statements and corrected false statements, provided now more incriminating evidence. and if you look at fani willis' other racketeering cases, not related to january 6th, those also have started with a bunch of defendants, got a bunch of guilty pleas and ended with the more serious targets. and, i would suspect that's where this is headed. >> let's talk about how quickly these trials are going to go actually to court. there is this sort of speedy trial idea. donald trump doesn't seem to want one. he wants a trial to be basically never. push it off, push it off and push it off. kenneth chesebro tried the fact that he does want a speedy trial. he demanded a speedy trial. chesebro's case would have to likely be tried by the end of october or he could simply be acquitted of the charges if he doesn't get the speedy

2022, john kelly says trump wanted to get the irs on james comey and also in 2022, cassidy hutchinsony is thick. we see this a lot with trump and his world. it's almost saying it's like projecting out what maybe they have been doing on to other people. >> and the argument from trump and his allies isn't that the department of justice shouldn't be weaponized. it's saying we should weaponize the justice department against liberals. he says i'm going to be your candidate of are the ri bugs and go after the biden crime family and the democrats that have been weaponizing government for a long time. this is a revenge strategy he's taking. it seems to be what animates the base of his party. it seems to be why you're hearing this from other republicans because they know that a number of voters within the republican party are animated by this. they are energized by the idea we could use government for our end and our enemies and trump did that during his first term. he's pledging to do it openly if he wins another term. >> it is interesting there's this undercurrent of using the underdog. now

cassidy hutchinson is the other person who shifted the way she cooperated once she got her own lawyer. mr. meadows haa lawyer who i learned from my producer jonathan today, the same last name as side show bob's last name. but having his own lawyer seems to me to have helped him a lot on the federal side. what do you make of his attempts to move his fulton county case to the federal side as well? >> well, i think -- as a legal strategy, i think it's a good one. before he decides if i were his lawyer, before deciding what to do with that case, i would want to know, can i get rid of it completely? as far as whether that's a supported move, i don't think so. the idea that, i think what's critical here is if mark meadows as chief of staff wasn't allowed to engage in political activity while he was acting as chief of staff. here when candidate trump was trying to overturn the election results, any support he received from mark meadows was not in a government capacity. it was in a political capacity. so i think that's going to fail. but i think it makes sense from a strategy position to move

it's not the first time that we have seen this in trump world, we saw it with cassidy hutchinson duringuary six hearings. we've seen this throughout history with what we typically referred to as criminal enterprises where the balls provide you as a lawyer, and then the lawyer's loyalty appears to be discipline other than the individual client. so mr. taveras has his own lawyer now, he a provided apparently truthful testimony, it implicates the boss, it's the bosses problem not taveras problem. >> thank you so much for clearing this up, because it kind of got lost in the weed because a lot of other stuff has been going on in georgia, but it's very, very important development in the gut mar-a-lago case. glen gardner, bradley moss, we appreciate you tonight. coming, up keep your eye on 2024 as we follow donald trump being prosecuted for allegedly illegal actions to subvert this result of the 2020 election. republicans are, right now, working to you state and local power to suppress the vote and subvert elections next time. this week, this texas state supreme court dealt a major blow to vot

cassidy hutchinson gave us explicit testimony about how she was given trump appointed counsel. and she actually said, she asked, who is paying for my counsel? and her counsel, if this is true, completely unethically said don't worry your pretty little head about it. which is unreal. she was entitled to know that. so that is the way in which money can be used to keep everybody in line and inside the tent. and with the first thing i said when i saw that there were 18 codefendants here, as we saw, there are two in the documents case, is how do you keep these people in line, because in the georgia case, these are all potential cooperators, because there is no federal pardon with respect to those cases. those people are really facing real time and the proof on some of them looks really strong. so, he needs to be able to figure out how is he going to do that. and money, supporting them in terms of their counsel, is one way to do that. he's learned his lesson from michael cohen, who when we were prosecuting him in the mueller investigation, the spigot was turned off, and he felt aband

before, i think the defining image of mark meadows is going to be the one that was painted by cassidy hutchinsonny before the committee. of a white house chief of staff, who is hiding in his office, sitting on his couch, scrolling through his phone, as a violent mob launched an assault on the capitol, chanting hang mike pence. sadly, i think that's going to be his defining image. >> yeah, i think you're absolutely right about that. that is certainly how he will be remembered throughout all of this. chris -- , tim mulvey, and jessica levinson, thank you to the three of you, greatly appreciate your time and insights this evening. ahead, a rule of law means nothing to the republican presidential primary. we're gonna tell you about that, next. next i don't. new cascade platinum plus has me doing dishes... differently. scrub? soak? nope. i just scrape, load and i'm done. only platinum plus is bigger. with double the dawn grease fighting power and double the scrubbing power. for a no rewash clean... and a cabinet ready shine. rewash? not in my house. upgrade to new cascade platinum plus. dare to dish

january six committee is not part of this indictment at all, including this conversation between cassidy hutchinson and white house chief of staff mike meadows. >> driving back to the white house, i remember does the president really think he lost? and he said a lot of times he'll tell me that he lost, but he wants to keep fighting it. he thinks there might be enough to overturn the election, but he has pretty much other acknowledge that he has lost. >> you're not gonna see testimony like that of the trial. january six committee was able to present evidence publicly like that that might not even be admissible in the trial, that might be hearsay, for example. there is this committee was able to allow witnesses to tell him narrative story in a way that made clear sense to an audience without being peppered by questions and lawyers objections. in the areas where the january six committees presentation overlaps with what will be the criminal trial in this case the geniuses committees presentation is probably more clear and more human and more compelling than what we might hear in court. here is a piece

cassidy hutchinson who was his assistant provided us with a lot of information and insight into exactlyin the white house in the months before january 6th. and i imagine that mark meadows will be able to provide even more detail about what was going on, and what the former president was doing as he was moving towards january 6th. >> representative, dozens of house democrats are pushing for trump's federal trials to be televised, and they are going that this would bolster public acceptance of the outcome. now, you are just a national security specialist at the department of defense. would it be more important for national security reasons for trials to be televised, or would it be more important for it not to be televised? >> the need for transparency, it would be good to see it televised. but i leave that decision up to the department of justice and to the courts. i do think, no, that i worry about the use of this case to continue to divide americans and to continue to stoke anger against the institutions and against the individuals who are seeking accountability. we know from our janua

beaten and lawmakers ran, there was white house chief of staff mark meadows telling his aide cassidy hutchinsonlot going on, cass, but, i don't know, things might get real, real bad on january 6th. that evening was the first moment that i remember feeling scared. >> this is about donald trump and about actually going after him once again. >> reporter: although meadows dismissed the committee's work early on, if anyone knew then president trump's plans for the lost election, it might have been meadows. >> i just want to find 11,780 votes. >> reporter: after all, he joined that phone call when trump leaned on georgia's top election official to overturn his loss there. >> we believe that not every vote or fair vote and legal vote was counted. >> reporter: the latest indictment notes at one point meadows told trump the georgia officials were doing an exemplary job, but one day later trump called them terrible people covering up fraud anyway. >> the ultimate check and balance is the united states congress. >> reporter: on january 5th, congressman jim jordan messaged meadows, insisting vice president

. >> i think of the cassidy hutchinson who while being asked to tell the truth was being pressured bynt trump's political circle to do the opposite of that. so i think he has a long history of putting pressure those two don't have the ability to protect themselves and i think the special counsel's highlighting what truly is a real concern here. >> if they don't get their way in terms of the judge's order, what can the prosecutors do to protect these witnesses who won't, i presume, have police protection or anything else. what can they do if they don't get their way with this judge? >> what i suspect is this will be an issue that will be revisited probably several times over with the judge, wherever she comes down initially, i think president biden has sewn he has an inability fol loing court orders and this will be the beginning of the conversation with the judge and not the end. >> what do you make of the florida judge. her ruling which she didn't seem to quite understand why there was a second grand jury. i feel like i could why there was. does it make you suspicious that she questi

. >> have you spoken to cassidy hutchinson?nything on january 6th, guys. >> lots of no comments. what does that response and the fact that he is not named as a coconspirator in the indictment signal to you? >> yeah, he doesn't appear to be any of the six coconspirators. many are identifiable as you alluded to. mr. meadows is a key figure in this. he was at the total epicenter of all of the plots, some of them pursued, some of them not. we know from the january 6th committee investigation some of the message he received and sent. so he's a key witness no matter what. he could be a star witness. all we know, if you want to be as careful as possible, is that this indictment doesn't view him as a coconspirator. we don't know why. we don't know whether that involves cooperation and/or whether a superseding or later set of indictments could change his legal status. if you want to go beyond the most careful reading and look at the evidence and the signals, it appears the special counsel has some cooperating witnesses who were in the r

and imagine a more junior person, people like cassidy hutchinson, seeing what's going on, think of court officers, jurors, families of witnesses, law enforcement officers, judges and their families, let alone the prosecutors and their families. this is a way to say that is not what discovery is for. discovery is not to give you information to try to attack those people. this is a rule of law country. and that is the reason for this back and forth that you saw over the weekend and what is at stake here. >> neal katyal, so, accompanying this filing outside of the courtroom, donald trump has attacked the judge in the case, as he apparently always does, if it's a judge that he has not appointed. he is attacking jack smith repeatedly. and you see in the filing john lauro doing to joe biden's words exactly what jack smith predicts they will do with the evidence in this case if they get to release it publicly, which will take five words out of a 15 word line that some witnesses said completely distorted and put it out there and try to sell it for the public. and then, jack smith's terms, among

you know, donald trump is telling them his supporters to fight, and according to cassidy hutchinson,f them are armed and they don't have any metal detectors. leave them there, they are not going to hurt me. a lot of the speech that was done at that time, yes, is it protected by the first amendment? i think that it is a really tough question. i assume that is why the special counsel didn't charge it. but that doesn't mean that it should be considered as to whether or not there is any kind of treat pile detention that should be appropriate at the former president at some point in particular, if he continues with his intimidation tactics on social media of potential jurors, witnesses, and the judges and prosecutors in the cases. >> i do wonder if the legal peril is really starting to dawn on him. the washington post notes today that trump now adds my opinion or what i think to his claims about the stolen election. that is the one who's may be listening to the advice of his lawyers. >> he was supposed to have a press conference on monday where he was going to present the report of 100 pa