department because of, you know, this is what the justice department does and he was -- and i thought he was going to pop out of his chair, but anyway, this one is -- it just always comes up, and it does -- it does have a danger of opinion shopping. that is, the white house could go to one or the other and say that it has gotten the opinion that it -- that it needs. indeed this, has happened so that's not hypothetical. two other comments i would make. one is doj is the arbiter of the position of the united states in the courts as steve said. it's doj that has to stand there and -- and defend an administrative action, for example, but there are often disagreements among agencies when one agency taken. and in our administration, seth waxman was spending a ton of time with those agencies trying to get to a common view and sometimes that didn't happen and in the end his opinion prevailed that didn't mean that people didn't go to the white house to say this is wrong. so that does happen. and there are occasions, which is why bob needs to speak la

it is unfortunate members of congress have received only silence in the department of justice regarding the treatment of these defendants based upon concerns arising from statements made under oath. yet the department of justice has not speculated or has not hesitated to speculate about this investigation to their friends in the media. thank congressman gomer, a former judge no less for his commitment to the rule of law and seeking the truth even in the face of much opposition, thank you. >> i want to say one thing. first of all, to the guy that's blowing the whistle, we are not deterred. and so for anyone that is here being an activist and yelling today, here is the statement i need everyone to understand. we will not back down. we will not stop asking questions. we are looking for the truth. we believe the truth can be found by reaching out and answering and asking the right questions to the right people. listen there's another thing, the only people of this country the answers to the questions. >> they need there in wrapping the press conference we need to end up at. >> thank you for

embers of congress of the justice department has not responded to their requests or information here'sortion of that event but. >> we also gave notice of the department of justice that we were coming to ask our questions. as you can see we were not even let in the lobby. as a representative of disick with hundreds of thousands of people, it is unbelievable to me the department of justice will not let us in their lobby to even answer our questions. questions that we have been asking, what in telogen's was available prior to january 6 regarding the influx of people into the district of columbia and their intentions. you see, we already know that intelligence is new. they knew ahead of time there were threats of violence. and i have to tell you as a freshman member of congress that was the fourth day on my job january 6. i was shocked. absolutely shocked at what happened at the capitol. even more so i am shocked that with the intelligence there is going to be violence. the national guard was not present on january 6. on january 5 we know there were pipe bombs at the rnc and the dnc. there

jamie gorelick served as deputy attorney general in the department of justice from 1994 to 1997. before coming to the department, jamie served as general counsel at the department of defense. she's also severed as a member of the bipartisan 9/11 commission. a graduate of harvard law school, jamie serves as a partner at the law firm wilmer hale. steven engel served as assistant attorney general in the department of justice from 2017 to 21. served as a deputy as tap the attorney general in the same office from 2006 to 2009 and previously clerked for supreme court justice anthony kennedy. a graduate of yale law school, steve serves as a partner at the decker law firm. bob bauer served as white house counsel from 2009 to 2011. before serving in the white house he was the adviser to the obama presidential campaign. he reasons entally published a book "after trump" with his co-author brad goldsmith. bob is a professor at the new york university school of law, and so i've prepared a number of questions for our panelists, but as the program moves along i hope you'll also include those of

the deputy attorney general, or the acronym nomenclature of the department of justice that dialogue, is in essence the ceo of the if of justice. and different departments have been organized in different ways. the reno justice department, on my behalf, was organized as a unified ag, dag with everybody reporting to the deputy ag. and the staff was largely unified. the attorney general had a small personal staff, so i ran the front office staff with excellent people including merrick garland, and seth jackson. we had a fabulous group of people in that office. i supervised all of the litigating divisions of the department of justice, and all of the u.s. attorneys. though, many u.s. attorneys thought they only reported to god, not to main justice, but that is for another day. i also had direct oversight of the fbi, the dea, the marshals, the bureau of prisons, and the natural -- naturalization service, which is the current leader department of justice that is happy that it's over, the department of homeland security because it took out a disproportionate amount of time with not a particul

the department of justice has a long history of targeting reporters and misusing surveillance authoritiespass classic basic constitutional protections. president nixon justice department tractors harvest the publication of the pentagon. presidentonrt bush justice department went after the reporters to expose and essays expensive warrantless surveillance program. president obama's justice department charged a reporter, co-conspirator violation of the espionage act. president trump's justice a department refused to have targeted reporters and members focused on investigating russia'sti interference into 226 election. now we know president binds justice department sought to renew at least some secrecy orders associated with this. in each of these cases the department took advantage of outdated policies to make secrecy a norm, not the exception to the rule. these recent cases. to target journalists democratic members of the house of congress and former white house counsel. we have no immediate way of knowing how big the problem is because each case is a company by d.o.j. requested judge impos

department tried to silence the publication of the pentagon papers. president bush justice department after the reporters without -- about to expose the wireless surveillance programs. president obama's justice department went so far as to charge a reporter as a co-conspirator in violation of the espionage act. president trump's justice department appears to target reporters and members were focused on investigating russia's interference in the 2016 election. and now we know that president biden's justice department sought to renew at least some of the secrecy orders associated with these cases. in each of these cases the department took advantage -- of outdated policies that make secrecy the norm, not the exception to the rule. in fact, these cases appear to have targeted journalist, democratic members of the house of congress and the former white house counsel. we have no immediate way of knowing how big the problem is because each of these cases is accompanied by a doj request judge imposed gag order that prevents anybody from talking about them for years. now we asked t

it is long past this department of justice to right the wrongs of the last one. i worked for the justice department early on in the obama administration and i understand that the integrity of the department is important, and that exactly why this department justice forerucks and the and misdeeds is so misplaced. the best way of the doj is to repute jaz and the protection of the policies pro bobo defen. and so it is well established that they engage in these bipartisan basises, and bipartisan legislation solutions for the challenges that we face. i want to focus in on something that a number of witnesses mentioned earlier from what has been reported over the last few week,ie and secrecy orders have prevented the targets of the mediaun companies from sharing e of the attorney/client privilege, and you touched on this earlier in your testimony with ms. scanlon, and i would like to give you an opportunity to elaborate on anything that is contributing to this property? >> i would say that letting anybody from the media organization to know about the attempt to get and

okay, do you believe that the trump administration followed the department of justice guidelines whenursuing journalists sources in the cases of cnn the new york times and the washington post that were recently revealed. well, the department has said that they did file follow the guidelines. we we don't know there's a lot of information. we don't know. we don't know what information they put before the court in their work applications and the applications before the court to get this information. we'd like to see that we'd like to see what what kind of why a secrecy order was necessary as i mentioned. these were records that are years old that they were looking for in public leak investigations that already been made public so there was no real identity to at least from my perspective. there was no real risk that they having a notice go to the media would have in any way tipped off the subjects of the investigation or allowed anyone to destroy the evidence and and furthermore this this material was was in fact in the possession of the third party data provider wasn't even in the posse

it's impossible to miss why it is that democrats want to give unelected bureaucrats in the department of justice veto power of every state legislature in america. because those unelected bureaucrats are not just principled non-paragons of virtue, instead they are hard radical leftist activists. in 2013 the department of justice inspector general issued a scathing report detailing the politicized nation of the civil rights division. the report criticized that division for ignoring the resumes of qualified attorneys, and hiring attorneys from five left-wing organizations, including the aclu, naacp. moreover, a recent hearing in the house, former lawyer in that division, maureen reirden testified she was shocked how political the conduct of the lawyers were, and some of the dishonesty miss reirden testified to, she said after the court sanctioned d.o.j. with $594,000 for colorado misconduct with aclu and other organizations, continued to work with these organizations. is that consistent with your experience? >> that is. sen. cruz: can you describe the politicalization that you saw when working in t

it's impossible to miss why it is that democrats want to give unelected bureaucrats in the department of justice veto power of every state legislature in america. because those unelected bureaucrats are hard radical leftist activists. in 2013 the department of justice inspector general issued a scathing report detailing the civil rights decision ignoring the resume of qualiied attorneys and hiring from aclu, naacp -- more over a recent hearing in the house, former lawyer in that division, maureen reirden testified she was shocked how political the conduct of the lawyers were and some of the dishonesty miss reirden testified too she said after the court sanctioned d.o.j. with $594,000 for colorado misconduct with aclu and other organizations, continued to work with these organizations. is that consistent with your experience? >> that is. >> can you describe the politicalization that you saw when working in the department of justice. >> mind you, i left in 2012 but was there when it was relevant to the oig report, virtually everything in that report i can corroborate and saw. i know and respect ma

>> i think -- look, there are people who served in each of the relevant departments, the department of defense, the department of justiceshould all be called. whether some of them try to string it out with litigation, that may happen, but i think there are going to know quite a few people who have their own reasons, their reasons having to do with their own reputations, for testifying. and that will put pressure on the other people around them, because, for example, if jeff rosen, who was the acting attorney general at the end of the trump administration, testifies, people who were surrounding him will not have their story told if they don't testify. and i think that will put pressure on them, as it should. >> former deputy attorney general jamie garland, it's really good to talk to you. i preebt your insights. thank you. >>> the bar scene could be more of a proving ground in the age of covid. we'll explain that next. someone once told me, that i should get used to people staring. so i did. it's okay, you can stare. when you're a two-time gold medalist, it comes with the territory. mission control, we are go for launch.

point of etiquette when actually, it's abluabsolutely essential to the functioning and the department of justiceeople they can believe in the results of the criminal justice system instead of thinking it's subject to politics. here we have the president of the internet attacking the department of justice in our democracy in the same swath. >> and, you know, both rosen and donohue, frankly, they could end up testifying before congress for really a number of the investigations. the doj waived executive privilege. what questions do they need to answer now that they don't have a muzzle so to speak of privilege? >> this will be a fascinating piece of testimony if we ever get to hear it and i'm sure our representatives in congress will be asking things like exactly what did the president say to you? what did you think he meant by making those statements? how did you react to that? did you tell him in response? they will parse through every detail of this conversation really to shed light on the president's intent. what was he trying to accomplish with this pressure campaign on the department of justic

am i correct that the biden department of justice filed a letter with the supreme court in which the den department of justice reviewed its prior brief in that case and said, and i quote, the department has now concluded that, although it does not disagree with the conclusion int that brief that neither arizona measure violet section two result test. so thet. biden d.o.j. explicitly agrees arizona law prohibit ballot harvesting did not violate the voting rights act is that right? >> that is correct senator. >> explained to me how democratsio are saying this is a horrible radical right-wing crazy conclusion that upholding theor arizona law cannot be done consistent with the voting rights act. is the biden department of justice and crazy right wing radical group? >> probably not but time will tell. i feel confident we can predict they are not rated yet it seems erratic were getting from her democratic colleague does not match reality. mr. chairman ask unanimous consent the letter filed by the biden department of justice and the burn of educates explicitly agreeing the arizona laws shoul

s. department of justice in these efforts. we now have microsoft stepping up and calling for reform and an end to the overuse of these gag orders. they want to essentially stop these orders that prevent companies from informing users that their information has been requested and not telling users that their information has been handed over to government officials. this is more of what tom, bert said. if law enforcement wanted to secretly search your physical office, they had to meet a heightened standards required to get a so called speak and peek warrant. however, today, if law enforcement wants to secretly search your virtual office in the cloud, they just serve a boilerplate warrant and secrecy order on your cloud provider that prevents notice to you. and so the reforms that were called for by microsoft include limiting gag orders to 90 days, not having them be carried out for a long amount of time. furthermore, the company has called for secrecy orders to be the rare exception and not the rule when the department of justice

rosen, is it true the department of justice, that chief of staff mark meadows designated the department of justice as the lead at religions each to coordinate security leading up to january 6? mr. rosen: i don't think that is accurate. representative: doj was not the lead agency? mr. rosen: doj had responsibilities for coordinating intelligence and information sharing with respect to federal agencies, dhs, interior, dod and ourselves. there have been very robust information sharing and intelligence sharing activities with metropolitan police having a joint operations command center and the fbi having a washington field office post where representatives of all police organizations and federal agencies were participating. representative: nailing down who was in charge as been like trying to nail jell-o to a wall. and the old adage, when everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge, appears to be what happened january 6. mr. rosen: i don't think that is right. representative: reclaiming my time. this appears to be a keystone cops operation when it comes to the executive ranch and pointing f

in the results of the criminal-justice system, instead of thinking it's just subject to politics. so, here, we have the president of the internet attacking the departmenth, rosen and donoghue, frankly, they could end up testifying before congress for, really, a number of the investigations. so, the doj, as you know, has now waived executive privilege. so, what questions do they need to answer, now that they don't have that muzzle, so to speak, of privilege on them now? >> well, you know, there -- this will be a fascinating piece of testimony, if we ever get to hear it. and i'm sure that our -- our representatives in congress will be asking them things like exactly what did the president say to you? what did you think he meant by -- by making those statements? how did you react to that? what did you tell him, in response? so, they're going to parse through every detail of this conversation. really, to shed light on the president's intent. what was he trying to accomplish with this pressure campaign on the department of justice? and i think the -- you know, the end result will be to expose, yet, another abuse of the office of the presidency. >> andrew mc

i didn't part the department of justice. use they have all kinds of allegations that sounds like it turned out to be totally worded. there's an atmosphere there that affected the 2018 midterms. >> that's exactly right. at the point is real simple. if the excuse for not going forward -- a book we are talking search warrants, grand jury subpoenas. they progress in their investigation enough to get down to the ready nitty-gritty take it to the grandd jury. but we don't want to put our thumb on the rail and impact the election, but they did it? you got that from big tax sensor a sponsorship for sure and we also got it from the left-wing media we don't need to get it from the department of justice. they put their thumb on the scale by not taking like telling the american people the truth. that we need to get to the bottom of that, you add the phones in there and steve mentioned that hillary's wiped shoulder and this is bond to all-american devices so far. it's a two-tier system. i can guarantee you this, if they were to point to g

the fact that they weren't directly pressuring the department of justice is almost meaningless in the context of what this reporting reflects which is that trump, again, didn't want anything from the justice department. all he wanted was to make a statement that would allow him to have running on his completely made-up claims of the fact the election was corrupt and, again, i think the sighting of jim jordan, if investigators were not interested in not knowing his role this should take their degree of interest up another couple of notches. and the imperative nature of getting that man under oath including a subpoena if necessary if he ignores or resists the subpoena i think is essential to figuring out. he was in the middle of something and we only know partially what he was in the middle of. i want to know more. >> and harry litman, john is asserting they were not dumb enough to mettle meddle in the justice department but whose job is to look at all the things congressional allies were doing to undermine the election result that days later resulted in the deadly insurrection? >> righ

justice department employee. he, you know, at one time he was the u.s. attorney in brooklyn. he has been a senior aide in the justice department. at the time of these notes are taken. he has been a senior aide inside the justice department for the trump administration. he's had to run interference and sort of play internal track cop a little bit on these contentious issues involving trump in the election. so he also gets wrapped up in, if you remember, the fights between president trump and the state of georgia over the count. and he has to navigate doj's you know essentially staying out as best they can from that fight. so he keeps touching these very complicated, very tricky issues. i think you are right, the notes are taken for a reason. they were taken because he feels there need to be some kind of record that this is going on. and importantly, he needs to preserve as much what trump said, which is what we are focusing on. i think from the justice department's view, they need to preserve what they said and they did. that very important, you can see, in rosen's public and praft statements. >> yes. devlin barrett, thank you very much. >> th

i am the department of justice. the multiple federal agents covered up in the south abuse and child molestation. no one seems to give a damn about these little girls. here's another disturbing reminder of what these victims could have been going through. when i was 13, just the kid laying on a table, i miss you. and you, for your ungloved hand all over my rear and slipped into the most private area of my body. i did not know that at the same time, larry was penetrating me. usa gee, was systematically burying reports of sexual assault against member coaches in a file cabinet instead of reporting them. why did you make me hate the one thing i loved so much? why did you take my dreams away from me? you lie to me and manipulated me to think that when you treated me, you were closing your eyes because you had been working hard when you are really touching me, an innocent child to pleasure itself. and who knows how long the of be i would have kept turning a blind eye on this disgrace if it wasn't for a detailed investigati

i didn't see the department of justice saying we'd better be hands off going into the midterm because they had all kinds of allegations about donald trump, stuff that turned out to be totally false floating out in the atmosphere there that effective the 2018 midterms. >> that's exactly right and the point is real simple. the excuse for not going forward -- we are talking search warrants, grand jury subpoenas so they have progressed in their investigation enough to actually get down to the nitty-gritty and take it to the grand jury and instead of doing that, they said we don't want to put our thumb on the scale and impact the election, but they did. they did by not letting the american people know the truth. we got that from big tech censorship for sure and we also got it from the left-wing media, but we don't need to get it from the department of justice. they put their thumb on the scale by not telling the american people the truth and we really need to get to the bottom of that and you add the phones in their and steve mentioned hillary's wiped server, you get all of those things an

and the justice department is only the beginning. we -- we see the criminality ofdepartment and involves the white house, involves possibly people in the pentagon, and homeland security. so there is a lot more investigation that has to be done >> so, barbara, you were both prosecutors. there is always a danger when you look at that list that liz talked about -- i want to put up a screen from "the washington post" about people who might be called. there is a danger of too much, right? mark meadows as liz talked about, maybe the kushners with white house aides, kevin mccarthy himself, the senator tommy tubberville. and jim jordan who admitted he talked to trump that day. how do you manage all this information in a way that is succinct and meaningful and gets us to the bottom of who was behind this, and what did people in power do to help the insurrectionists? >> prosecutors would look methodically as going up the chain in a case like this. start with the people closest around trump, but who have the -- the more likelihood to speak to you than others who might be will

the department of justice is warning states of exactly what's going. and they will keep counting, storing, messing with the ballots until there is nothing left of the balance. until nothing -- no one can prove anything. >> that sounds about right. that will continue and it's exactly what they want, to cast doubt on the fear -- free and fair elections. sometimes they used to try to hide it, now they are not. it's very clearly a problem in these communities. congress needs to step in. we wanted to put a spotlight on what was going on, and i tip my hat to these local election officials. the one you showed there, and each of them talked about the threats they had against them. against them, their families, loved ones. that shouldn't be the case. these individuals, they really are the bedrock of democracy that we have back home. thousands of them across the country administering our election laws. they deserve to do the work without intimidation. >> i don't know if you had a chance to see devin barrett and his recording of the washington post and donald tru

that -- that would be the -- the department of justice sort of going out of its way to shield him. ere is other questions about whether the -- the -- the department of justice should be more aggressive in actually wielding whether prosecutorial powers or others, liz, on something like the wilbur ross case. which again, like, i get how thorny that is. i get that prosecutions, for, you know, misleading or perjury of congress are not that common. roger stone, obviously, was convicted of that. so, i understand the hesitancy there. but at the same time, it does look like impunity for people at the top, a little bit. what do you think? >> absolutely. i mean, it's not so hard. just stop and think about an attorney general of the united states. he was prosecuted and pleaded guilty, act of lying to congress, and he was convicted. he served a -- he had a suspended sentence but there was accountability. there was no question that he wasn't going to be dealt with because the evidence was very clear about that. in the nixon administration, in watergate, what you had was accountability. yes, nixo

for example, attorney general merrick garland announced that the united states department of justice is going to be using its authorities to challenge the onslaughts of state laws undermining voting rights in old and new ways. focus will be on dismantling grace and discriminatory laws like the recent challenge to george's vicious anti-voting law. the department of justice will do so with the voting rights division that is doubling in size and enforcement. civil rights groups and other organizations announced their plans to stay vigilant and challenge the odious laws in the courts. republican led state legislator wants to allow partisan poll watchers to intimidate voters and impartial poll workers. they want voters to dive further and be able to be at a position where they wonder who's watching them and intimidating. to way longer to vote. to drive a hell of a lot -- excuse me, a long way to get the bow. they want to make it so inconvenient that they hope people don't vote it all. that's what this is about. this year alone, 17 states have enacted, not just proposed, but enacted 28 new

we talk about the independence of the department of justice. rtz not talking about some act of institutional etiquette. it's vitally important that the department maintains independence from the white house so that all americans can believe in the results of the criminal justice system. so we know that the criminal justice system isn't being used for political purposes. here you have the president of the united states pushing the acting attorney general to do exactly that, to lie to the american people, to undercut a lawful election, to undermine democracy, to try to overturn the will of the people all for his own personal benefit. >> this conversation took place after bill barr had resigned from the office of attorney general. barr told "the atlantic" last month that trump was livid with him when he revealed that the justice department had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud. quote, my suspicion all the way along was that there was nothing there, it was all bull -- barr told "the atlantic." rosen and donahue had to know that this was go

just two weeks before the vote was certified by congress, trump pressured the department of justice toublic. pushing top officials at doj to declare that the 2020 election was, quote, corrupt. that is according to records from a december phone call between trump, the former acting attorney general jeffrey rosen and rich donahue to document the conversation. according to those notes, he told the president to, quote, understand that the doj can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election. it doesn't work that way. trump reportedly responded, quote, i don't expect you to do that. just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressmen. other words, trump was asking the top law enforcement agency to sacrifice its own credibility to legitimize his election lies and continue to push his baseless claims despite being told the major allegations are not supported by evidence. in fact, the officials put it quite bluntly saying, much of the information you're getting is false. for instance, trump claimed on that call that the error ra

what do you make of today's announced by the department of justice? ell, there is a lot of elements from it that i think are important that go beyond trump himself. i think it establishes that the congress has a supervisory role to play with the executive branch, particularly around whether or not the president has financial conflicts of interest that can compromise how he or she might conduct their affairs while in office. i think it put a firm check on a previous department of justice ruling in 2019 under barr that i think essentially tried to establish the idea that the congress was only on a fishing expedition and had no super str supervisory role to play, which wasn't keep with the traditional view that the executive branch should be independent from congressional oversight. i think it's a seminal development here po except potential think as they are putting into print in the modern era like up trump or any president with financial conflicts of interest needs to be supervised more closely because it can corrupt or compromise policy making. and i

of this year. the justice department began to process of handing the documents but this is the latest batch. now, the justice department said that former officials are allowed to testify and they're not going to evoke executive privilege. congress now has far more accessed information than it ever had during the trump administration about the former presidents behavior. we're going to see the justice department allow information to flow, we're gonna see congress price to get everything it can, documents and testimonies. >> the language used by donald trump in his phone call to the justice department had similarities through the language of donald trump used in his phone call with president of the ukraine. i'm gonna read what he said, to the call with zelensky. i would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and ukraine knows a lot about it. i would like you to have the attorney general call your people and i would like you to get to the bottom of it. there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to fin

the department of justice viewed it as such they didn't want to make a decision on the merritts of the is sued for all kinds of crazy things all the time. on the other hand in this particular case, there is no question that what congress brooks who was doing was inciting the crowd to basically storm the capitol. here is the word, he used the word patriots and he used the word kicking ass. particularly when you put that in the context of what donald trump said and what rudy giuliani said about trial by combat, i mean this whole -- you put all of these people together in terms of what they were saying to this crowd, they were basically inciting them to go up to the capitol and riot the place. it is exactly what they did. what they say is what you expected to be the end results. obviously the department of justice is not going to defend somebody who's trying to overthrow the united states government. that's in itself seems to be would be a pretty common sense notion that someone came at you and tried to murder you and shot you in the arms, you are not going to fund his legal battle or not

s. department of justice. and we now have microsoft stepping up and calling for big reforms in these secret gag orders and how they are conducted. here's some of what we heard from tom bert. if one unfortunately wanted to secretly search your physical office, it had to meet the heightened standards required to get a so called speak and peek warrant. however, today a law enforcement wants to secretly search your virtual office in the cloud. they just serve a boilerplate warrant and secrecy order on your cloud provider. that prevents notice to you. microsoft now calls for there to be a 90 day limit on the gag orders. it also called for the gag orders to be the exception rather than the rule when acquiring information. and they would like that after 90 days, the person whose data has been received by the us government could then be informed of it, that it would not be a secret or gag order that they would find out. their information had been handed over. at least 90 days afterwards. now it's important to note that

s. department of justice. this are, these are orders essentially where the tech companies are asked to hand over the data and the private information of journalists, politicians, as well as ordinary citizens. now, according to tom berg, microsoft receives on average, around $2400.00 to $3500.00 such orders every year that comes out to roughly $7.00 to $10.00 such orders per day. here's some of what he said. most shocking is just how routine secrecy orders have become when law enforcement targets and americans e mail text messages or other sensitive data stored in the cloud. now, according to what was testified, the trump era department of justice was acquiring the information of journalists because it was investigating potential links of classified information that were going on. now this presents a problem because it prevents journalists from being able to promise the security and the privacy of their sources. those who hand over information risk having the us government find out that they did it. and those wh

we're here, last night, we were talking about the fate of the rule of law, and particularly in the period where the justice department changed hands from william barr's, and then the final days of the trump administration, which jeff rosen to merrick garland. last night we were critical of the fact that justice department has, according to reporting, declined to prosecute trump secretary of commerce. that was according to reporting from both the associated press and government executive. that decision, not to prosecute, came after the commerce department own specter general found that he had lied to congress about a citizenship question that he wanted to add to the 2020 census. we have an important update to that story, the 18 government executive have both issued corrections, clarifying that in fact it was the trump justice department that made the decision not to prosecute ross, not the biden administration, which is of course a very big difference, because it is right in line with the things that we were talking about generally last night about the rule of law in the trump era, and what is to be done about the cri

justice department, you drive this car. crash it through the windows of the bank window and the vault. and i'll take it from here. so much damage would have happened, had the justice department carried this out. i shudder to think of what more would have happened on january 6th. a day that i lived through, as well as my colleagues and the whole nation lived through. and a lot of people remain traumatized, as a consequence. >> congressman, good to see you tonight. there will be some interesting reading for you and your fellow committee members. congressman raja krishnamoorthi. >>> much more to get to on this friday night. including a live conversation with beto o'rourke and reverend william barber. up next, we are going to be talking with an emergency room doctor from one of the states hardest hit by covid right now. stay with us. hardest hit by covid right now stay with us battling sensitive skin, we switched to tide hygienic clean free. it's gentle on her skin, and out cleans our old free detergent. tide hygienic clean free. hypoallergenic and safe for s