this is the section that dan goldman is talking about. in those first days of january, the command center, trump allies were calling members of republican dominated learns in swing states that eastman had spotlighted in his memos. they included pennsylvania, georgia, arizona, encouraging them to convene special session to investigate fraud and reassign votes from biden to trump. what's amaze being the eastman memo is how much of it actually was implemented. that was detailed in his memo that took place. the delay is what the memo called for. that took place. but for mike pence staying on the premises and going back inside the eastman memo could have had the effect of overturning the vote. >> exactly right, nicole. thanks for having me on to talk about this. it was certainly a team effort from my colleagues tamme hamburger and browne and swin and i. as soon as liz cheney mentioned the war room in her remarks about danon's contempt vote, we started diving into the machinations and how they tried to operationalize eastman's memo. i don't thi

do you share dan goldman's concern that because we've heard nothing of anyone representing anyone goingess i have a somewhat different view on this. i mean, i don't think you can use the baseline of the last four years, because i think two things happened in that baseline. one is career people in the government got disgusted with what was happening at the justice department and other places and leaked information, and i just don't think that's occurring right now. and the second thing is that the justice department and government officials themselves were providing information, and again, i don't know that's happening here, so you know, merrick garland is just about the most cautious, principled, careful person in this town, so it's possible that he has an investigation that hasn't, you know, gone public, that hasn't actually started to interview witnesses that would create the kind of defense attorney leaks that you're talking about. i don't know. i do agree with dan, absolutely, that an investigation has to take place, and i'm willing to -- i've been willing to give merrick garland th

how has goldman's approach to tech investing and scouting early-stage companies changed? dan changed quite a bit as the technology landscape has changed. i looked back before my time. i have been here forever. we took microsoft public in the 80's when it was a $350 million company. it is amazing to think about the long heritage of what we have done with technology but what changed 15 years ago, 10 or 15 years ago and our approach to the business was we realized companies were starting small and getting big fast. we had to go earlier into the lifecycle to start building relationships. we wanted to be there when they were small. they need to merge with other companies and that accelerated their lifecycle. years after founding the companies, they were important companies to us in franchise and we started doing things like this. and finding our ways to meet these companies. emily: is it more about the people than the idea or their trends you're staying away from and going does doubling down on? dan: we are doubling down on technology. what an exciting time to be in the business.

how has goldman's approach to tech investing and scouting early-stage companies changed? danit changed quite a bit as the technology landscape has changed. i looked back before my time. i have been here forever. we took microsoft public in the 1980's when it was a $350 -- $350 million company. what changed 15 years ago in our approach to the business was we realized these companies were starting small and getting big very fast. we had to go earlier into their lifecycle to start building relationships because we wanted to be there when they were small and when they quickly grew. the need to emerge with other companies accelerated their lifecycle. one or two years after fending, they were important to us and our franchise. we started throwing conferences for earlier stage companies. we started building relationships earlier. finding our way in the communities to meet these companies. emily: are there any trends you are doubling dell on or is it more about the people than the idea? >> we are doubling down on everything in technology. what an exciting time to be in the business.

dan >> i think karen is correct. the morgan stanley thing is interesting. goldman sachs will be tomorrow morning.n them. we were focused on the interest margins. i'm kind of more in that camp less than the money banks to this point >> guy, i know you watch closing bell closely and religiously >> religiously >> the valuation of morgan stanley versus black rock, the valuation of morgan stanley is considerably lower should it reflect more of the strength in the as set management business? >> i think so. i have a memory like an elephant it has to be over a year or so ago that dan nathan pointed out morgan stanley had the best looking chart out there. a couple of years i would not have said that, but they have morphed into something a lot of people are aspiring towards, three distinct business units. i think they are growing into it i think we trade through the 195-ish and i think it will deservedly grow. >>> jim cramer sticking by one big name he said be patient with this turn around story. sign up for the investment club newsletter details on the screen. >>> and sheila bair is worried about a financ

daniel goldman, the majority counsel for the first impeachment trial of donald trump and also a former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. he is an msnbc legal analyst. and dan, i want to start with you on that liz cheney point where she says mr. bannon's and mr. trump's privilege arguments do appear to reveal they suggest that president trump was personally involved in the planning and execution of january 6th. what was your reaction to that point? >> that's a great point. it's similar to what you would refer to as an adverse inference to someone who takes the fifth amendment in a civil case and basically the law is that you could use that assertion of the fifth amendment, you can't use it against them in a criminal case but take an inference against them in a similar case. it's a similar idea in impeachment we said every time you obstruct, you are essentially admitting that you have incup tory evidence and that's exactly what liz cheney is saying. she is saying you cannot assert executive privilege unless you have relevant information to our committee, which is investigating january 6th. so by the fact that you are asserting some executive privilege over d