cassidy hutchinson changed her testimony.liz cheney did encourage her to fire her previous attorney. then, liz cheney did help her find a new attorney. and then liz cheney then try but she did try to get disbarred in georgia and d.c. these are the things she did. just because donald trump attempted to make a phone call that he should be investigated. this is why we are saying. i cannot make that determination but the department of justice can. >> i cannot imagine she has anything to hide they just destroyed a zillion pieces of data and video and so forth and so on. it seems to me nancy pelosi needs to be examined for a number of these people need to be examined. somebody gave orders to try and influence witnesses for somebody gave orders to try to prevent other witnesses from giving timely testimony but somebody called in hollywood to create these productions. barry loudermilk i want to thank you and your staff you have done a great, great service to the american people by this is a fantastic report ship. can get online i enc

cassidy hutchinson's attorney telling nbc news that the claim that hutchinson colluded with cheney ise, ms. hutchinson made the independent decision to part ways with her trump funded lawyer, freeing her to provide candid, truthful and honorable testimony to the january 6 committee about the attack on the capitol, alongside dozens of republican witnesses and law enforcement officers. cheney released a blistering statement of her own on this report and its accusations. we will read it to you in full. it says this, quote, january 6 show donald trump or who he really is, a cruel and vindictive man who allow violent attacks to continue against our capitol and law enforcement officers while he watched on television and refused for hours to instruct his supporters to stand down and leave . the january 6 committee's hearings and report featured scores of republican witnesses, including many of the most senior officials from trump's own white house, campaign and administration. although this testimony was painstakingly set out in thousands of pages of transcripts may public along with a highl

, procured another lawyer for cassidy hutchinson and the like.rom procuring another person to commit perjury. here, all this cheney did was say to cassidy hutchinson, hey, you have got a trope affiliated lawyer who evidently is not letting you tell the truth, here's a list of some other lawyers who could represent you. that is not witness tampering. witness tampering is when you are preventing someone from telling the truth, and here, liz cheney was enabling cassidy hutchinson to tell the truth. >> such an important point. she was trying to enable her to tell the truth publicly to the american people, that's what the objective was here. so, i raised this, but i'm really curious most importantly what you think, as it may be that some of these republicans realize this is a little flimsy, but the question is the point here, and part of the point is to predicate, to justify a doj investigation. i mean, that is not how it is supposed to work, but are you worried that trump's fbi could use this as a pretext to try to launch a probe? >> they could try,

and procured another lawyer for cassidy hutchinson and the like.is true that there is a crime in the statute, 1622, that bars someone from procuring another from committing perjury. here all liz cheney did was say to cassidy hutchinson, you've got a trump-affiliated lawyer who is not letting you tell the truth. here's a list of other lawyers who can represent you. that is not witness tampering. witness tampering is when you're preventing someone from telling the truth, and here liz cheney was enabling cassidy hutchinson to tell the truth. this is not a crime. no way. >> such an important point. she was trying to enable her to tell the truth publicly to the american people. that was what the objective was here. so i raise this, but i'm really curious, most importantly, of what you think. it may be that some of these republicans recognize this is a little flimsy, but part of the -- the question is what's the point here. and part of the point, some of us speculate, is it's to predicate, to justify a doj investigation. i mean, that's not how it's suppo

i mean, we all remember cassidy hutchinson's testimony. we all remember a lot of blockbuster testimony over the course of several months that they were televising these hearings. and i think that what the argument you're hearing from cheney and others on the democratic side are that this is just an effort to satisfy donald trump, to make sure that he feels like his allies on capitol hill are lined up and prepared to go after his enemies. and i do want to point out the kash patel who has been picked by donald trump to lead the fbi, is on capitol hill today meeting with republicans. you can expect that this is going to be something that republicans are going to be pushing him on. i know from his meeting with senator john cornyn, because cornyn told us after the meeting, when i pressed cornyn on, are you confident that kash patel is going to be able to tell donald trump? no. cornyn essentially said, that's a good question, because i think there's still a huge question mark for a lot of members. and this report today, and as well as donald tru

cassidy hutchinson's attorney telling nbc news, that the plane that hutchinson colluded with liz cheney, is quote, preposterous. quote, ms. hutchinson made independent decision to part ways with her donald trump funded lawyer, freeing her to provide candid, truthful, and honorable testimony to the january 6th committee about the attack on the capitol. alongside dozens of republican witnesses, and law enforcement officers. liz cheney, released a blistering statement of her own, in this report against these accusations. to and full. it says this, quote, january 6th showed donald trump for who he really is. a cruel and vindictive man who allowed violent attacks to continue against our capitol, and law enforcement officers, while he watched on television, and refused for hours to instruct his supporters to stand down and leave. the january 6th committee's hearings and report, featured scores of republican witnesses, including many of the most senior officials from donald trump's own white house, his campaign, and administration. all of this testimony was painstakingly set out in thousands o

and cassidy hutchinson that happens with witnesses in every hearing. and what happened here, if you may remember, is that she hutchinson initially had a lawyer paid for by the trump organization who had told her in her account not to be forthcoming. and then she got another lawyer and gave all kinds of details about january 6th, about mark meadows and the like. so the idea here is that she was lying the second time when she gave the fuller account, and that congresswoman cheney somehow was corruptly persuading her to do that. it's something that no self-respecting prosecutor would think about at the doj, but we have the full on orwellian nightmare, possibly, that it's referred over and a trump bondy doj decides, well, maybe we will look into it. and if nothing else, make a lot of trouble for liz cheney, not to mention cassidy hutchinson. >> harry, what about the speech and debate clause? does that shield former congresswoman cheney it's arguable. >> boris. you could go either way. the classic is activities on the house or senate floor. this is related t

this goes back to cassidy hutchinson, how liz cheney convinced cassidy hutchinson to appear before the committee. we saw her, you know, at the start of the program, actually, you know, giving that testimony. jonathan turley, who is a conservative lawyer, a works with fox, has said this about this quote. in my view, cheney was acting as a member of congress in this matter. she had an institutional interest, if not a duty, to pursue witnesses. is he right? >> i mean, if you talk to people around liz cheney, they for the last few weeks, they've been speaking very confidently about essentially bring it on, donald trump, if you're really going to do this. we believe we have the law on our side. we believe we have the facts on our side. and she would have the money on her side to. i mean, the problem with these sort of prosecutions is they get very expensive for the people who are being targeted by them. i think liz cheney would have quite a bit of a legal defense fund. i think the thing to be concerned about is some of these people who are not brand names, who donald trump might go after fo

it accuses cheney of colluding with cassidy hutchinson, who was a former trump white house aide. you know, obviously, her testimony about january 6th was crucial to the investigation. people may remember, you know, her talking about, you know, trump wanting to turn around the the beast, the white house limo, go back to the capitol. just when you look at this, do you see any instances of collusion? >> no. absolutely not. the allegations are nonsense. cassidy hutchinson was committed to telling the truth about what she knew and saw on january 6th and leading up to it, to the point where she felt like she was getting bad advice from her attorney and got rid of that attorney and came seeking advice about about where to go from there. but this is this is a woman who, unlike a lot of the people she worked with at the white house, was committed to to making sure that there was a complete record. and the select committee, of course, had an obligation to get all of that information and provide it to the american people. >> so there was a lawmaker today in the context of this report, tim s

the former trump white house aide cassidy hutchinson easily the star witness during the committee hearings responded saying it fabricates allies and allegations in an attempt to cover up what trump did. joining me now is the congressman of california. i never thought i would see this day. your thoughts? >> this is what he does. he is more emboldened now than ever. >> this report was disgusting and not just about what he said about liz cheney that he would buy into this but when after the police officer who very reluctantly had to defend the chamber and killed ashli babbit and this individual, his life has completely changed. >> he was also protecting him. >> yes. i was in the chamber as we went on the evacuation paths and that shot was fired and how they crashed through the speakers gallery. the people who are most vulnerable where those that were most frail in congress, the least able to move quickly out and they were there in this panic hoping people could help them either with a wheelchair or help them walk down a steep set of stairs we had to go down but this lieutenant has not lived i

that is the real story of potential witness tampering in cassidy hutchinson's testimony. trump world lawyer allegedly trying to influence cassidy hutchinson to protect donald trump. but somehow trump and coper is have ative allies are looking at through a fun house mior to claim liz cheney was the one doing the witness tampering. >> but, what we are looking at is why did she change her testimony, what was the catalyst that made her change her testimony and it was the back channel communications with liz cheney that happened around that time. >> as comically backward as the logic is in the allegations, trump's threat against cheney is still very real. and trump's strategy is not about logic or facts necessarily. it is about bullying people less powerful than he is. let me show you what i mean. knit mid-2000 trump sued a journalist who claim he was not a billionaire. a judge tossed the case because it was meritless but trump viewed that lawsuit as a win. trump told the washington post that he knew he couldn't win the suit but brought it anyway to make a point. i spent a cou

in any event, cassidy hutchinson swore under oath.ike other people who wouldn't testify, like donald trump himself. if there's some other story about january 6th out there that could debunk even one factual statement in the 800 plus page report that the january 6th select committee produced, what is it they keep saying that there's something false about it. what's the falsehood? because i haven't seen them contradict a single factual statement or conclusion of the committee. >> yeah, obviously there were a lot of people who testified. i saw one trump aide complaining today about a message that he had sent to to cassidy hutchinson, he said, was being misused or essentially given the wrong context. but but in the scale of all of this and what this looks like in just a few weeks from now, do you believe this is trump laying the groundwork for officials to to try to prosecute liz cheney? >> you know, who knows what it is they want to do? obviously, everything that liz cheney did and the members of the committee did was protected by the sp

there are also some allegations that liz chaney may have conspired with cassidy hutchinson to manufactureppened in that limousine when trump wanted to go to the capitol from the ellipse and stead was forced by the secret service and others to return to the white house. they're arguing, those who are liz chaney detractors, what she was doing was wholly outside the boundaries of her duties as a member of congress. you can expect liz chaney, if and when she is officially investigated, if not prosecuted, to push back strongly on that given those constitutional protections, ana. >> vaughn, what could this mean for the push for kash patel and pam bondi? they may be asked point blank, will you follow the house gop recommendation to open a criminal probe into liz chaney or other trump political rivals? how will they answer? >> reporter: and this is no longer just campaign fodder, of going after his perceived political enemies or one-off comment. two weeks ago he told our kristen welker that liz chaney and members of the january 6 select committee should be jailed and now in this 3:30 a.m. post ca

the report claims she acted as an intermediary between liz cheney and cassidy hutchinson, and griffin said in her statement, quote, this report is full of inaccuracies and innuendo. the report wrongly states, and without any evidence that i acted as an intermediary between cassidy hutchinson and liz cheney for a month, that is not true. you served with barry loudermilk. and liz cheney and liz cheney and matt gaetz. >> and what do you what do you see this as a legitimate report, this letter? no, i haven't read the report. but a couple of things. article one, section six of the u.s. constitution protects members of congress from criminal and civil cases. she was doing her job. this was a liz cheney. this was a select committee. it was approved by the house. they had lots of witnesses. i mean, it's part of the routine. i mean, if you you can't really i mean, this this would be unconstitutional, probably to go against her. the second thing is, and i'm not a lawyer, but if this did go so that she has to be a defendant, think of the people that she could call that refused to testify before

you probably remember white house aide cassidy hutchinson.hrowing a plate against a bar when there was no fraud found. hutchinson is how we learned about the incident in the suv where he allegedly lunged at the secret service agent driving the car when the agent refused to take trump to the capitol so he could march with his supporters and as dramatic as her testimony was in front of the cameras, the battle over her testimony behind closed doors was even more dramatic. she was set up with a trump lawyer to represent her. hutchinson told the january 6th committee that pasantino tried to influence her testimony allegedly telling her things like we just want to focus on protecting the president. and we all know you are loyal. she claims that he told her the less you remember, the better. and urged her not to compile a time line of events. eventually she dropped him and got a new lawyer and gave the jaw dropping testimony we all remember. that is the real story of potential witness tampering in cassidy hutchinson's testimony. a trump world lawyer

a trump world lawyer allegedly trying to influence cassidy hutchinson to protect donald trump.re looking at that story through a fun house mirror to say that liz cheney was the one doing the witness tampering. >> what we're looking at is why did she change her testimony. what was the catalyst that made her change her testimony and it was the back channel communications with liz cheney that happened around that time. >> as comically backward as mills logic is. in the mid-2000s, trump sued a journalist who claimed that trump wasn't actually a billionaire. now a judge ultimately tossed the case because it was meritless but trump still viewed that lawsuit as a win. trump told the washington post that he knew he couldn't win the suit but brought it any way to make a point. i spent a couple of bucks on fees and they spent a whole lot more. i did it to make his life miserable what i'm happy about. trump has said that everyone from liz cheney to kamala harris needs to be prosecuted. by nprs count, trump has made more than 100 threats to prosecute enemies. in all of those cases the fact

cassidy hutchinson got rid of her old lawyer, found a new lawyer and went the committee.se she felt that her prior lawyer, put it in her book -- >> was being -- >> was saying, you know, if you don't -- if -- that you can say that you don't recall something that you actually recall. that's what she said that her lawyer did. what if i recall it? and that -- you can't do that. that's what she says about that lawyer and she went and got another lawyer and then said, here's the stuff i didn't tell you the first time around. there was no -- you know, was no perjury. it's absurd they think they can make this stuff up and throw these allegations of criminal -- of criminality around when the crimes happened right on tv. that were being investigated. we know who did them. >> that's important -- >> and didn't get this trouble -- >> a lot of people went to jail, and look, this goes to the conversation we have had over the past year -- >> say it, michael it. >> preach it. >> the judicial system and others protected him and made excuses for him instead of doing what they would do with

the michael cohens and the cassidy hutchinson of of hutchinson's of the world. they are the most at risk. >> norm eisen, thanks very much for your analysis. and coming up, there's more news we're following. there's reporting that broke first right here on cnn. the house ethics committee reversing course and voting to release its report into former congressman and trump loyalist matt gaetz. stand by. can't fool myself. >> it was the most exciting time in the world. >> his life had extremely joyful moments and some really difficult moments. >> you only come across an artist like luther vandross once in a lifetime. >> luther. never too much new year's day on. >> if you have generalized myasthenia gravis, picture what life could look like with viv. a subcutaneous injection that takes about 30 to 90s, for one thing. could it mean more time for you? viv? it trullo can improve daily abilities and reduce muscle weakness with a treatment plan that's personalized to you. do not use vigata trullo if you have a serious allergy to any of its ingredients. it can cause serious

made the allegation that liz cheney, illegally tampered with cassidy hutchinson, and let's be very clear, liz cheney has denied that the acts that she remembers were illegal, and that she had no role in convincing cassidy hutchinson to replace her counsel before she went and spoke publicly in front of the country on the january 6th select committee there in front of the country, but i think this is for -- for donald trump, that is tacit acknowledgment in his overnight post there of what he wants to take place by kash patel and others, and barry loudermilk, they are willing to do the work to put together a report of what they allege to be misdeeds by congresswoman cheney, which i think it's objective to say the idea that what is being alleged amounts to significant criminalized, it's something that is worth the federal charges is deeply questionable, but for donald trump, an investigation is paramount to the pledge that he made on the campaign trail to go after his perceived enemies. >> let's talk about the cr with the time we have left. let's get into what's imminent. jake you have been

we talk to witnesses and we bring them forth and they testify under oath, as cassidy hutchinson did.ody has accused her, much less proven that she has told anywise. so how exactly did liz cheney in any way suborn perjury or coach false testimony, it is ridiculous. and that is a matter of fact. as a matter of law, of course, everything we did in our legislative capacity, serving in an investigative committee, the january 6th select committee, was protected by the speech and debate clause, which says that when we act as legislators, either legislating or researching, or investigating, we are protected from attack by another branch of the government by the executive branch. so i think that we have got a resilient constitutional structure, obviously it is being put under stress, and these guys do model themselves after putin in russia, and kim jong-un and all the other autocrats and kleptocrats of the world. we are going to model ourselves after prior generations of american patriots who stood up for the constitution and the bill of rights. >> so if you are not worried for liz cheney, yo

this is rooted in cassidy hutchinson firing her trump backed attorney and then asking cheney whether she could recommend one that she could afford that would put her on a payment plan. do you think that that's illegal? >> well, i don't know. i'm not a lawyer. you know, i was a doctor before, so i'd have to ask lawyers whether that's illegal or not. the reality is you can't tamper with witnesses that are going to testify in front of congress or in front of the court, and whether that happened or not, i really don't know. but, you know, congresswoman cheney has her views on the president elect, and she has a right to that. so whether there was criminal activity or not, i really don't don't know. but i think that at this point we should move on and look to the future. but that's not my decision. >> as you know, president trump is not necessarily looking to the future when it comes to going after cheney. do you think president biden should potentially give her a pardon? >> well, that's up to him. i think giving pardons to people who haven't been charged with anything or convicted with an

it accuses her of colluding with cassidy hutchinson, the former white house aide who became the committee'star witness as it examined donald j. trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. i listened to this long interview trump did last week where he said that investigating people wasn't going to be a priority. now it appears to be what's going on well, this is from congress. >> this is not from president trump. >> and this liz cheney's behavior is very concerning. >> so cassidy hutchinson is somebody who worked in the white house after january 6th. >> she continued to work for trump, and then all of a sudden, she had a meeting with, uh, alyssa farah. >> and then no longer was in support and came out and testified against president trump. >> and so just tell us what happened. >> who is communication? give us those emails. >> and so that's something that congress is looking into. >> this is not something that president trump is looking into. >> and and if there's nothing wrong, then there's nothing wrong. >> so, maria, liz cheney's response to this was, quote, their allegations do not ref

there is no way that we you could have had access to cassidy hutchinson or mark milley or others if itng time republican, and she certainly retained the information from ms. hutchinson which she provided earlier, and she explained the reason for that. she did not come forward, because she was afraid to, and not until she had independent counsel that she did. ms. cheney did not make that up, but she was reporting what we heard from a very important witness. and so the report that says she should be referred for criminal conduct allegations is not founded. >> and what about the fact that cassidy hutchinson and liz cheney are being the subject of allegations. >> well, ms. cheney was a very visible person of the committee, and she attention. she is a very good lawyer, and asks very good question, and she is involved in the day-to-day work of the committee. she is a public servant, and she did her very best to try to get the facts and circumstances of what informed the attack on the capital. but because of how been, she isg rod. >> everyone stay tuned the, because we will look at who the tr

. >> cassidy hutchinson. >> adam schiff. >> members of congress' january 6th committee. >> oprah. >>>> cap'n crunch. >> mr. potato head. >> everyne!

subcommittee revealed that former congress moon liz cheney tempered with at least one witness, cassidy hutchinson, by communicating with hutchinson without hutchinson's attorneys knowledge. this happened on the encrypted signal app. should she be prosecuted? >> potentially. they need to look at this because they need to understand why they didn't allow republicans on the committee but why are they destroying documents? that's the allegation. if that's true that needs to be fully investigated and potentially prosecuted. wear you inappropriately interacting with people, dealing with congress is different than the courts. it certainly doesn't smell right and it's worthy of further investigation. >> trace: back to "the washington post", the headline is rfk jr. tries to build momentum for his candidacy on capitol hill. it goes on to read republicans say they were reassured by their talks with kennedy, brushing aside questions about how the prominent vaccine sceptic could affect americans vaccine access if confirmed. they keep lying about this were they are like he wants to revoke the polio vaccine. it

federal laws specifically by allegedly tampering with witness and former trump white house aid cassidy hutchinson. her lawyer has called these allegations preposterous and cheney has defended the legality of the probe. what are your thoughts? >> i think whoever is doing this is just sick in the head. we all know that was a duly constituted committee headed by our good friend. they did the work. they had a right and responsibility to interview any witness. that is not tampering that is preparing people in order to be coherent when they are going to speak to the american people. i thought they did a great job. i am not happy with the way it has been responded to by members of the legislature. but the fact of the matter is they did what they were responsible for and they did a great job and we need to stop the grand standing. i think that's all this is. something looking to make a headline. i don't think it has any kind of legal water in which to float. >> while we still have time, the house ethics committee secretly released this month to release its report into matt gaetz conduct in office. he fac

including former white house counsel pat cipollone and mark meadows, cassidy hutchinson and fbi director christopher wray. the man who still has three more years in his term who patel is hoping to replace. think about that. that guy trump picked to lead the fbi talks repeatedly about going after the deep state. he literally has a list. that on its own should send a chill up the spine of every person who cares about the rule of law in this country. today we also learned a whole lot more about trump's pick for secretary of defense, fox news host pete hegseth. the new yorker released a jaw- dropping piece this morning about hegseth. i want to read a few paragraphs because it captures it. as i am reading it, hold in your mind that the person i am talking about in being described in the pieces trump's choice to lead the department of defense. here we go. , quote, a previously undisclosed whistle blower report of his tenure as the president of concerned veterans for america from 2013 until 2016 describes as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity. the detailed seven-

. >> cassidy hutchinson. >> adam schiff. >> members of congress' january 6th committee. >> oprah. >> the statue of liberty. >> cap'n crunch. >> mr. potato head. >> everyne! >> announcer: it's "the late show with stephen colbert!" tonight... drunk in gov! kate mckinnon! and peter sarsgaard! featuring louis cato and "the late show" band. and now, live on tape from the ed sullivan theater in new york city, it's stephen colbert! ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] >> stephen: thank you, everybody. have a good one. please have a seat, my friends. welcome one and all to "the late show." i'm your host, stephen colbert. [cheering] it sounds like you're all in a holly-jolly mood, and i'm glad to hear it because we're counting down to everyone's favorite holiday: jack in the box's annual fast food fest, the 24 days of jackmas! [cheers and applause] personally, i try to keep jackmas in my heart all year 'round. and then clear it from my browser history. now, get your mind out of the gutter, because, again, the 24 days of jackmas is nothing more than a seasonal holiday deal at jack in the box. you know th

bondi remained involved in the background throughout the whole period to the point that cassidy hutchinson talked about how bondi tried to influence her testimony. pam texted me that night and said something to the effect of "susie, matt schlapp and i had dinner at potus. call matt next week he has a job for you that we all think you'd be great in. you are the best. keep up the good work. love and miss you. hutchinson also described what bondi and two others said to her quote, what they said to me is, as long as i continue to be a team player they know that i am on the team. i'm doing the right thing. i am protecting who i need to protect, you know, i will continue to stay in good graces in trump world. and now, as trump has reportedly said he wants the doj to revive the examination of the 2020 election and wants those involved on the january 6th committee to be put in jail. it will be left to bondi as the attorney general to see it through. like i said, the stench remains. joining me now is the cofounder of the senica project and msnbc political analysts. david i will start with you. we a

there is concern for people like cassidy hutchinson, the witnesses that testified and effectively beingused of perjuring themselves or mistaking or distorting the truth. that is also a high bar for a criminal investigation. you have to prove that intent. i think it is very likely that republicans will try and push this all, if only to make life difficult for the january 6th committee. >> how legitimate is the threat against the committee members? how can kash patel, if confirmed as head of the fbi and pam bondi confirmed as attorney general, how would they play into trump's threats? >> i don't think they will. i think what republicans will do is open up congressional investigations and dragged all of these people through the process again and try to catch them under oath. i don't think bringing charges is number one. i think having the hearings and frankly creating typical trump style, a lot of smoking mirrors , to keep people distracted. but the findings, they can refer charges to doj but they can't really do anything. i think this is all about congressional hearings more so than when

defense secretary who is the one who told donald trump you cannot shoot citizens in the leg, cassidy hutchinsonave young woman and braver than anybody who testified in the january 6th committee, she's on the list. so those senators are probably scared to death of getting on the list, as well. you know, i assume, have met kash patel. what do you make of this nomination and the clear terror that it is unleashing in washington? >> well, i think that these republican senators and everyone familiar with the name kash patel also know the danger that he poses and that is because it is a well known thing in these inner circles by anyone who worked with kash. i worked with kash in the white house. i was mike pence's counter terrorism adviser. so i had to coordinate with kash a lot. kash patel is a delusional liar. let me be very clear about that and he would lie about intelligence. he would lie about making things up on operations. i think mark esper has talked about that, as well where he put the lives of navy s.e.a.l.s at risk in nigeria. these were things that were happening in real time, when he was

if you look at the enemies well, the absurdity of going after fix like cassidy hutchinson should be clearrdon all of them. >> michael, this -- i think the essence of this debate if you will that's happening largely inside the democratic party is how aggressive -- how aggressive should democrats be in both focusing on trump and trying to stop him and putting up guardrails to the extent they can as the party in the minority in all three branches of government. you know, it bears mentioning that tonight we finally -- the election is finally over, we know what the house majority is, republicans hold the house by five seats. but with matt gaetz, elise stefanik and michael walz leaving their seats it's a two-seat majority. one republican, one rogue republican could sink their chances of doing trump's bidding. the question is like how -- you know, how do you think democrats should position themselves as a party governing in the minority, with a republican majority that is that slim? are there opportunities there, or does the sort of magnetism i guess -- the pull of trump basically kill any poten

republicans are now claiming improper communication between cheney and cassidy hutchinson. testimony came together? >> yeah, absolutely false allegation, alex. thanks for having me, and thanks for the question. ms. hutchinson changed lawyers. she told the committee that she had additional information beyond that which she had offered, and she told us that she didn't offer it before because she had a lawyer that was hired and paid for by affiliates of the former president. she got a new lawyer, and she gave additional information. that's not witness tampering. that's the evolution of a witness feeling more comfortable with different representation and coming forth with additional information. so the allegation cheney or anyone else somehow suborned perjury or encouraged a witness to say something that's not true just has now foundation. and the report doesn't even provide a foundation. it just kind of states without supporting evidence this notion that somehow ms. cheney coached ms. hutchinson to lie. again, absolutely false. >> a witness who has every legal and constitution

investigation of liz cheney for what they call witness tampering because of her conversations with cassidy hutchinsonthat testimony was being approached in the january 6th committee. >> you know, this is like back to separation of powers 101. there actually is a rule for legislative immunity that protects people in congress from being bullied by the executive branch of government for acts that they do in their legislative duties, like for instance, operating the january 6th commission. so the whole thing just kind of makes no sense from the very beginning. and if you're a prosecutor, you know that you don't start by saying that you should, you know, indict this person and then go looking for a charge. every prosecutor who puts a case together talks to the witness first, right? >> mm-hmm. >> every lawyer who puts a witness on the stand talks to the witnesses first. every witness who's ever appeared in a legislative committee has been spoken to by the side that called them first so you know what they're going to say and you -- it's not witness tampering, it's trial prep. and if you don't understand the

bar against her for communicating with his client, cassidy hutchinson, before -- without him when hejust incredible. miranda, we need to have you back real soon to talk more about this. we so appreciate your time this morning, miranda devine from "the new york post." that'll do it for us on "sunday morning futures." i'll see you tomorrow morning on "mornings with maria" on fox business. have a great sunday, everybody. ♪ ♪ howard: in a if few moments, lara trump will be her

investigated for allegedly improper dealings with the house january 6th committee and marley witness cassidy hutchinsonell, i think this is going to play out. i think they're going to go and look at what did that committee do, how did they do it, did they destroy records? look, going to court is far different than going before congress. i used to chair the oversight committee, and it is different when you come and testify and how you do things there. was it in violation of house rules? i think the house has to lead out on that. the president has said perhaps the fbi would look at some of the forensics and how things happened. we'll see how that a plays itself out, but there are a lot of legitimate questions that i think congressman jordan, congressman if comer as chairman in the committee as well as potentially the fbi are going to look at. howard: laura, liz cheney said the report fabricates lies in an attempt to cover up what donald trump did. and it goes to this thing that was a big issue in the campaign although obviously, again, trump winning by a healthy margin the electoral college which is, is

bar against her for communicating with his client, cassidy hutchinson, before -- without him when heto testify. maria: wow. this is just incredible. miranda, we need to have you back real soon to talk more about this. we so appreciate your time this morning, miranda devine from "the new york post." that'll do it for us on "sunday confident. measured. ready. the markets, like life, will turn and challenge us. but when emotions run high, we stay grounded. with the hcm buyline, we work to empower investors, in navigating market volatility and complex conditions. we provide a diverse portfolio with proprietary mutual funds and etfs aimed at growth and preservation. so you can invest with confidence. visit howard c.m. funds dot com. ♪ female: the polls do not indicate a clear winner.

there are people who maybe ought to get a pardon like cassidy hutchinson. >> yes, used to work for marke are several people on that list of potential targets who certainly could not afford half a million dollars in legal fees to pay for a defense if they go after her. >> and last quick question. you obviously have covered president biden for a long time. he is certainly at his heart an institutionalist, a waeb wave of preemptive pardons would certainly be a break from the norm. do you think it's something he would consider? >> yeah, i do. i expect to see on the last week of "way too early," you and i would do flashbacks of my prior appearances but i guess not. >> they're still working on the montage, the clips. we can run that later or perhaps in january after ali takes over and the show's in good hands and a look back at some of our fondest moments. mike, we always appreciate it. we'll see you in a few minutes. our thanks as always. next up here democratic congressman jerry connelly will be the next ranking member on the house oversight committee. we'll play for you his comments about

cassidy hutchinson testifying in the investigation into the january 6th attack on the capitol.blicans in the house accusing fellow republican liz cheney of colluding with the former white house aide to modify her testimony. cheney assigned to the committee as one of two republicans, a 128 page report from the house subcommittee on oversight said congress should question the former congresswoman for witness tampering. so it's a house investigation into a house investigation. trump's choice to run america's health agencies robert f kennedy jr continues to try to woo senators who will decide whether or not to approve him. kennedy has unusual, sometimes straight up wrong ideas about vaccines, 5g, wireless fluoride and other topics. what i was excited to hear him about is get away from guessing and do facts, do science, get behind the science and stay with it. and don't be guessing. at the end of the day, he doesn't believe that we all need to be guinea pigs, that we need to. we need to find out that actually work first. now, of course, federal regulators don't make americans guinea

think of someone like cassidy hutchinson, who put her career, frankly her physical safety given the threats now faces, on the line by going in front of the january 6th commission. she shouldn't face vindictive prosecution. so, the president has the power to do that. he needs to lay out these categories with some degree of specificity. but it can cover the entire period of time that donald trump was in office. to be clear, it is not an admission that these people have committed any wrong doing. in fact, he can say in the pardon i do not believe these people have done anything wrong. however, they have been threatened. and in order to maintain the proposition that the justice department is not weaponized to use a phrase that the republicans love, i think president biden would say that these people are deserving of protection. we need to stop this cycle of retribution. now, people don't have to accept the pardon if they don't want to. and there are many instances in which trump may seek to harass people going forward. he may try to audit them. he may try to send out subpoenas. he may try to co

you spoke out, cassidy hutchinson spoke out, liz cheney was recently attacked by donald trump with threatsovernment would do. how do you view these now vows of retribution by the incoming administration and have you been in touch with any of those people you worked with and what do you say to people in the country looking at this and saying, gosh, is it unsafe, is it scary to speak up? >> it's definitely a calculation when you choose to peek out knowing there's potential retribution or harassment coming your way, things of that nature. but looking back, i definitely wouldn't have done anything differently. i think i stood on principle and there's something to be said for that, but i'm definitely in communication with some of those folks about what the second trump administration is going to look like for us, but i think at the same time, trump was put back into office by millions and millions of americans, not because they want to see him get revenge on his political enemies. maybe there's a small fraction of americans who feel that way, but it was because of things like the border, of gro

investigated for witness tampering and colluding with the former white house aide and star witness, cassidy hutchinsonessional oversight committee. you know, from the house ethics committee when you look at barry loudermill. i know him. i know he had issues with the security and i read the 120 page report, alex, it is crazy i actually read it but there is no evidence of that. not only is there no evidence, most of it is conjecture, innuendo and hearsay. they have no data to back up these types of, i would say, gosh, they are referrals. they made a criminal referral on liz cheney. i think it is ludicrous. when you read the report, it is incredible how different it is from the january 6 report and how little evidence there is to back that up. i think that is what people need to do. the need to go read that 120 page report, see how many times they use the word may, sugar that is probably what they met. it is not a great way to do an investigation, especially to have the data, the metadata, to back that up. what you see right now, they're going after liz, it is a ridiculous thing for republicans to do. i

they accuse her of obstructing justice by talking cassidy hutchinson into telling the truth.is that her trump paid for lawyer has persuaded her to say i don't remember anything, and then she had a moment of conscious way she came in and said actually, i do remember more things. and under oath described in vivid detail what she observed. their conclusions that she lied is based solely on the fact that it was contradicted or not supported by other witnesses. so this is an absolute concoction with no basis in fact or law, it really does seem to be just an effort to smear her name and to send a message to others that if you cross donald trump you, too, will find yourself in the crosshairs. >> you know, joyce, considering all that we are hearing, somebody like judge beryl howell talking about there should not be an attempt to rewrite what happened on january 6th, don't you think that it is underscores the importance for an attorney general merrick garland, then, to release, with very little redaction, and with as much transparency as possible, jack smith special counsel reports af