norm, can doj, would doj try to get them? ?eadows -- again, doj operates in a different way than georgia. you are not going to bring someone in or subpoena them if they might be a target, right? >> it's very unusual in federal prosecutions. it does happen. the department of justice manual has provisions for how you go about it if someone is a target. it's unusual. i doubt that meadows has been called in yet. cipollone is in a completely different category. he has knowledge, his executive privilege claims, as somebody who helped administer those claims in a white house, his executive privilege claims are weak. doj won't put up with the same kind of bargaining that he did with the january 6th committee. just looking at the itinerary of witnesses who we have seen testify publicly, bill barr is going to have important information, he is a willing participant. we've seen the trump campaign individuals who appeared before congress, they are likely to be brought in. and anyone who can establish that donald trump knew he had lost the e

on the one hand you have the statements that doj was surprised by some of the testimony, the doj hasn'ted forward. they've only looked at the alternate elector issue some you have some people saying they're going too slow. at the same time you have these reports of some tension and that doj is asking for all of the transcripts, and the committee saying, no, we want to you narrow your questions. so i've seen both reports. so that's not entirely consistent to me. >> what do you see as the truth? >> you never know what's going on with an investigation, right? criminal investigations, unlike political committees, are conducted in secret. and witnesses are interviewed and witnesses may talk about if they have been contacted or not. but the doj isn't going to report on the status of its investigation. >> well, i'll push you slightly. >> sure. >> you do know sometimes about certain search activities we showed. when people are indicted, you know that. and you can tell from some of the ambient noise, at least what mr. weissman concluded, that they're not going big and broad. they're being very t

i've been critical of doj. i acknowledge there's no way we know everything the doj is doing. there are not a lot of overt signs. there are signs of a slowly expanding investigation, but we're about to hit the blackout period that we all know as doj alums, doj will not indict a major political case within 60 or 90 days, different people learn it different ways, of an election. so we are almost on that time. so if they are going to indict donald trump, there's no sign that any such indictment is imminent. the earliest that's going to be is 2023. when's this trial going to be, 2024, doj is making this unduly difficult on themselves if they ever do get to that point. >> let me ask you on that point, i know we have the unspoken rule of it's the labor day-esque period before the november midterm elections but normally the whole basis behind that, gentlemen is that you're not going to interfere with something that's actually on the ballot. and as much as donald trump does have a big shadow over the midterm elections and whether he'll declare for the 2024 re-election bid, does it mat

it's now clear the doj hasn't been dragging its feet. where it ends up is not entirely certain, but the doj seems to have its march of orders in place. we're going to follow those footsteps and dive into how far the doj has reached into the trump administration. and specifically where federal prosecutors are now focusing their efforts. according to "the washington post," quote, there are two principle tracks of the investigation, unquote. the first, seditious conspiracy. in other words, the same charges the department has brought against defendants in groups like the proud boys and of course the oath keepers, the same groups the january 6th committee attempted to connect to trump in prior hearings. the second, the false elector scheme. now, we can't give this much either. the goal, of course, prevent the certified and legitimate electoral votes from being counted on january 6th. that would have been the official proceeding. that's important context here, as we learn more and more about who investigators are talking with. and we know now

but the doj seems to have its marching orders in place. tonight, we will follow those footsteps and dive into how far the doj has reached into the trump administration and, specifically, where federal prosecutors are now focusing their efforts. according to the washington post, quote, there are two principal tracks of the investigation, unquote. the first, such as conspiracy, in other words, the same charges that the department has brought to defendants and groups like the proud boys and, of course, the oath keepers. the same group of the january six committee attempted to connect trump in prior hearings. the second, the false electors scheme. we cannot give this one short shift either. the goal, of course, to prevent the certified and legitimate electoral votes from being counted on january six. that would have been the official proceeding. that is important context here, as we learn more and more about who investigated talked -- investigators are talking with. we know now that includes cassidy hutchinson, who is apparently cooperating wi

so i think the doj is likely to -- i'm not sure that the pence witnesses are all that adverse to dojoint. in other words, i wouldn't be surprised if the sources of these new york times, washington post articles recently weren't the pence witnesses, or their attorneys, pence and trump i think are at odds right now, i would be surprised if they are actually happy to provide testimonies on the doj gives them the offer. >> i think that's a totally defensible intuition. the question is, the next set of witnesses, if they want to go to cipollone and folks like that, they're gonna have to overcome. betsy woodruff swan, renato, thank you both. coming, up senate under democrats pull a legislative fast run on republicans. republicans exacted revenge by screwing sick veterans. not making it up. the truly incredible sequence of events, next. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed

the doj is going to be circumspect of what they have or don't have that's the only way that the doj could have been surprised. this is an institution of the doj that's built to investigate. when you see a witness testifies under oath, that's the end of the long path. the least of which reminding them that they may be in huge trouble for even lying to a federal agent. >> we know how long doj had been working on this. when do you this they feel they have enough to pursue indictments, six months away or a year away? > >> that's always a big question, when and do they have enough the doj is designed to investigate, since their inception, they do not let you know they don't give you a status report on where they are on investigations they remain silent >> kind of like lawyers. like you telling us hey, this happens and this >> people who may have been targets, they may never have known. that's how secretly they are so this whole part about the cassidy hutchinson, shocking the doj, that may be a little bit of a spin on their part it has to be because if she was anywhere on the radar, the doj wou

"outfront" tonight, trump in the doj cross hairs. cnn learning tonight that cassidy hutchinson, the aide to former white house chief of staff mark meadows, is now cooperating with the department of justice's investigation into donald trump's efforts to overturn the election. now, this is a major development, because of course, you know, hutchinson was a key witness for the january 6th committee. her testimony there providing a window into trump's state of mind in the days leading up to, and in those crucial moments of january 6th. she was in the room for some of the most damning and important conversations, including one that shows that trump knew that his rally could turn violent, because his supporters were armed. >> i was in the vicinity of a conversation where i overheard the president say something to the effect of, i don't care if they have weapons, let me people in, they can mar to have the capitol from here. >> knew they were armed and take the mags away, head for the capitol. ty cobb told us, if this isn't insurrection, i do

why do believe doj prosecutors are required to have this reminder?>> i am not exactly sure what the reason was for the deputy attorney general's memo. i do find the language you read to be appropriate and consistent with my experience, that nondisclosure orders should be issued only based on particular facts in a case, where such an order would be justified to protect against danger to a witness, for example. or against the destruction of evidence. >> in june 2021, executives from tech companies and communication providers testified to this committee that there was merely a, quote, rubberstamp process, unquote, for obtaining these gag orders in court. have doj prosecutors have been treating the rubberstamp process as the provider's alleged? >> i can't speak generally to how prosecutors around the country are using those orders. i do agree very much with the policy from the deputy attorney general, that they should be viewed and use only on a case by case basis, where the circumstances wants it? >> lastly mr., also you can meet to conducting a review

doj has every institutional advantage when it comes to investigating something like this.e, merrick garland has been in office since march of 2021, he had at least a four month head start over the committee which was not formed until july 1st, 2021. happy first birthday to the committee. also doj has much more powerful subpoenas, grand jury subpoenas, you either comply or you get locked up. we know that's not the case with congressional subpoenas, we've seen people refuse them with basically no consequence. doj also can use search warrants, wire taps, they can use the threat of prison to gain cooperation. the committee has none of those things and that's why when cassidy hutchinson delivered that powerful testimony the other day, the reporting was from "the new york times" and from cnn afterwards that they were -- that federal prosecutors watched her testimony and were astonished -- astonished by what she said. i'm astonished that they're astonished. there is no excuse for doj not having been on to cassidy hutchinson as a witness many months ago. they got taken by surprise

that's in my mind the only way the doj could have been surprised. because chuck, this is an institution, the doj, that was built to investigate. it was built to persuade witnesses to come in and talk to them or to testify. i mean, when you see a witness testify under oath, that's kind of the end of the long path. the doj has so many tools to get somebody to come in and bear their soul, reminding them they may be in huge trouble for lying to a federal agent. >> we know how long doj has been working on this. when do you think they would have enough to pursue indictments, six months, a year? >> that's the big question, when and do they have enough? the doj was designed to investigate, and for what, since their inception, they do not let you know. they don't give a status report on where they are with investigations. they remain silent, and sometimes you or anyone else -- >> that's why we need people like you to tell us this happened, this happened. >> people who may be targets may never known they were target it is the doj declines to indict. that's ho

it's doj's job to hold him accountable. i have to believe that we still live in a country where that is possible. >> last night, i'm sure you heard rachael show a copy of an election sensitivities member that garland sent to doj, back in may, pretty much saying that no one is allowed to investigate anyone connected to a presidential candidate without his permission. i know you have thoughts on this. what might they be? >> so i think it's really understandable that seeing a bar memo being carried over into this administration would raise alarm. but i don't have that level of concern around this memo. career prosecutors know that if you want to open any investigation of this nature, you've already got to go through something called the public integrity unit, up in main justice in washington d. c., for prior permission and approval. and that's not just a check the box kind of approval. it's important for prosecutors and the folks in main justice to have a back and forth, to talk about the evidence, to make sure that allegation

the doj has vast ability t more. in the last few years, congressional subpoena forget it, i am not showing up it is up to congress to go through questionable abilities to enforce those subpoenas meanwhile, the doj, it enforces the subpoena and they can go to a judge and get search warrant which is more powerful they know what they are looking at >> let's take their surprise at the word that she flew under the radar. it does seem they got a lot of effort on the people when went after the capitol. they got a lot of effort on some of the far-right violent groups. they're doing something on the electorate front it does not look like they penetrated the west wing do you think that's a garland decision >> it is a garland decision. the doj is going to be circumspect of what they have or don't have that's the only way that the be. this is an institution oo inves. when you see a witness path. the least of which reminding them that they may be in huge trouble for even lying to a federal agent. >> we know how long doj had been

first of all, doj has vastly superior resources and expertise. 10,000 federal prosecutors, the entire fbi and other law enforcement apparatus. fulton county d.a., i admire the effort but they have a grand total of about 50 attorneys and they don't special liize in comx fraud cases. but if a county d.a. tries to indict a former president, first move that former president will make is to go to the federal court and say no, no, you can't do that under our constitution. you can't have elected partisan local county level d.a.s indicting people for anything that touches on the presidency. i know norm will say, yeah, but that argument doesn't gfly here but we don't know because it has never been raised. no one has ever tried to indict a former president. and beyond dispute, that is an argument that can only be made against a county level d.a., not against d.o.j. so that is why doj only has the institutional credibility and i think legal standing to make this kind of case. >> norm, he teed it up for you. i'll give you the final thought. >> elie, if doj h

questions are growing about what is happening at the doj? democratic senator from minnesota, amy klobuchar. thanks for joining. >> good to be on again. i need to get to your reaction about the news tonight about trump placing this call to the staffer? someone he would not usually communicate. with. >> i certainly hope that they speak with him. to me you have a line employee working the white house, doing their job. you find out that the former president is calling them on the phone. we don't know the details. your great reporters just pointed out. the fact is, witness intimidation, tampering, is a federal crime. if you have a corrupt intent in trying to persuade someone, sounds familiar. sounds like someone we know, don. the focus of it is to try to intimidate them in terms of their testimony. that's a crime. of course it has to be looked into. we will not know the exact facts. the committee is doing the right thing and having this information over to the justice department. i will say, this last hearing, there were things i didn't know. the

the doj doesn't have that same deadline. plus, trump lost his one legal challenge on privilege fairly quickly. and there's one other thing that seems to be missing. it's kevin mccarthy's memory of conversation with one specific white house aide. you recognize her. it's cassidy hutchinson. >> she testified under oath and saying that you called her after donald trump said that -- urged his -- told his supporters that they were going to go to the capitol. and you were concerned about those remarks and said, don't come up here. figure it out. don't come up here. she said that under oath. did you tell her that? and why were you concerned about the prospects of donald trump coming to the capitol on january 6th? >> i don't recall talking that day. i recall talking to dan scavino. i recall talking to jared. i recall talk lg to trump. that's what i talked on television too. if i talked to her, i don't remember it. if it was coming up here, i don't think i wanted a lot of people coming up to the capitol. but i don't remember are the c

it does seem like they have been doing a lot of the doj's work for them. you can look and say, this is an unprecedented circumstance, and that's why we should be cautious. but it's an unpresence departmented for a president to try to overturn an election. that's getting ahead of ourselves. but what's clear is laws exist for a reason, and there also needs to be accountability when it comes to an attempt to shred our constitution and overturn an election. >> i think the goal of the committee has always been two-fold. part has been to tee up for the department of justice to say we're going to let you decide what you can do. but the other goal is persuading the american public. we know tens of millions of americans are viewing these hearings and watching them. i believe the fact that the vast majority of the witnesses are republicans. cassidy hutchinson liked donald trump and wanted to work for him. so hearing from those women i think is incredibly important because it shows they were lied to too as with us the public. >> when you say you think it is swaying t

is he sending a message in saying that to the doj? committee think that there needs to be an investigation, based at the justice department, targeting trump himself as an individual. the question about sort of the technicalities of whether or not to make a criminal referral, formally asking the doj to bring charges against trump is something kind of the side lines, and not really itself the key issue for the committee. the key issue for these numbers, being that they believe they've found evidence that merits, at least, a criminal investigation targeting trump. what we know is already going on is that the justice department is engaged in a wide ranging probe that's touching on a host of people who are just one degree of separation away from the former president. the way targeting jeff clark, who of course was a senior doj official, who tried to move forward within the department to help advance trump's plan, but was really a watershed moment for people close to the former president, because it showed that this wasn't this doj probe wa

that this information, the doj is pushing the committee answer the committee pushing the doj. should the doj already have this information? this is an investigative unit of the government? they're leading from behind, isn't this backwards? >> okay. first of all, i'm a former prosecutor, they're not gonna be put on everything they're doing. they have charged over 850 people. and i know from white collar cases we worked on, from those people, when you charge people on the bottom up, you get information. and then you use that and you use that and you use that to get to a higher level people. unfortunately, we don't know everything they're doing. what we do know is that both things have to act in concert, in my mind. you have the investigations going on and you've also got a public hearing, a reckoning. a lot of people thought, oh, this is over. i don't hear about this again. and instead, i think, very clearly, this committee out of the house, bipartisan committee, has made it really clear why this still matters to our democracy. well donald trump is still out there, still out the

to try to tape over doj. i think the proof, on donald trump, is stronger, as to some of those than others. the call to raffensperger being the most direct proof, we have him on tape for an hour, browbeating the sky. i think on the other side of it, i think his involvement with the eastman piece we just heard. is on the thinner side of evidence. >> 11,780 votes -- something like that. thank you both, i appreciated. so we have heard liz cheney and adam kinzinger standing up for the truth on the january 6th hearings. but their party seems determined to turn a blind eye to everything we have seen. or they maga or die? um, oh wow. um, the future is, uh, what's ahead of us. i dodon't get it. yeah. maybe thisis will help. so now we're in the present. and now... we're in the future. the all-electric chevy bolt euv with available super cruise™ for hands-free driving. - dad. - yeah? do fish get thirsty? eh. find new answers. find new roads. chevrolet. research shows that people remember ads with young people having a g

a referral does not require the doj to do anything. doj does not need anything from the committee in order to investigate. in fact, according to the new reporting, they are investigating and they are investigating donald trump. so that is absolutely right, by merrick garland. and you mentioned jamie raskin. it is interesting he was on early with derek barnett. i was onset with her. and it seems quite clear to me that jamie raskin saying the same thing, that he believes a criminal referral will not help merrick garland maintain the veneer of impartiality, and will not be productive in anyway. so it actually seems to me that they're on the same page. and as a former prosecutor, i concur. >> merrick garland, i think, for me the most important thing that stood out, he seemed to say that it doesn't not matter if donald trump wants, again does not matter if he runs again former president of the united states. again, reentering that no one is above the law. he used, norm, the term without fear or favor. >> while, so don, that is what a prosec

roll what role will play in the doj investigation?ible for us to know. >> so congresswoman, by my count at least four of your colleagues, liz cheney, adam kinzinger, adam schiff and elaine luria have all suggested in recent days the trump's conduct as revealed in the hearings, does merit criminal investigation by the department of justice. is your view the same? >> sure. i do think it does merit investigation. now whether there is sufficient evidence to get a conviction, that's for the prosecutors to weigh. but there is certainly much that needs to be looked at in great detail by the department of justice, no question about that. >> so, one issue that has been a point of debate. merrick garland, the attorney general speaking earlier today addressed it, the idea of a criminal referral from your committee to the doj. he said, well it's up to the committee, it's not going to affect their investigation. some committee members are torn on this. of the change of you on this? should the committee make a definitive statement at the end of you

we don't know whether doj may have missed out on pat cipollone. you never want your witnesses being questioned outside of your control. you don't want them creating this other testimony that can later be used against them. you have to think about a jury here. it's a big enough leap to ask a jury to conviction for the first time in our history, unanimously, 12 to 0 a former president. if a day comes when donald trump declares his candidacy, now you're asking a jury to convict a front runner, a nominee, and your task gets that much more difficult. there are signs this investigation is slowly expanding. the slow pace is hurting doj's own cause. >> the slow seems to be the key caveat there. the justice department did release new details alleging that members of the oath keepers brought spexplosives to the d.c area and had a death wish of georgia election officials. all the defendants have pleaded n not guilty and denied the allegations, but give us an idea of how you separate the possible culpability of these extremist groups but also former president

to try to pressure legislators and take over the doj. the proof of donald trump is stronger than some of those. on the other side of it, his involvement with the eastman piece that we just heard is on the thinner side of evidence. >> 11,000 780 million. something like that. >> we have heard liz cheney standing up for the truth of the generate six hearings. but, their party seems determined to turn a blind eye to everything we have seen. are they maga? no matter what, we go on. biofreeze. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a mont

i think it is extraordinarily important that the doj call his bluff.saying that he is going to run, even making it official, that should not be a reason for him not to be prosecuted or indicted. it would just be an insult to the rule of law. that does not mean that he is not going to try. donald has used to methods. he has won out the clock, he has outspent his opponent. that should not be allowed here. if on top of those two things he is able to use the excuse that he is running for office again, i think that answers the question if anyone is above the law in america. the answer would be yes. we cannot allow that to happen. i am seriously hoping that garland is keeping a close eye on things. they could be coming down on the side of the rule of law. >> they released a new video crystallizing when they see is an inevitable face-off between your uncle and around desantis. let's take a quick look. >> ron is running against them -- later he is laughing at you. he is going against you. by the time you fight back, it will be too late. >> mary, your uncle's n

while the doj's case was short, bannon's it turns out, is zero. no defense.ay his lawyers actually made it official. they are folding. they will not all any witnesses or mount any legal defense, and that means bannon's lawyers rested, which sparks the judge confirming that directly with mr. bannon, the defendant, that he is waving the option and right to testify in his own defense. bannon responding, yes, your. now, there is a strategy here. in court, the burden is on the prosecutors to prove their case them must come up with enough evidence. the defendants don't have a burden in this system to prove anything or provide witnesses or evidence, so this has become this week a kind of legal game of chicken. the doj prosecutors confidently conveying to the jury they're basically arguing bannon's guilt is so obvious it could be proven in two days with two witnesses -- simple. now, bannon's defense is rebutting that by trying to convey to the jury that they think there's actually nothing to debate here, no details to discuss, because they argue it's not about facts.

you say the doj could flip meadows in order to gety him t turn on donald trump. it's the kind of language we heard during the mueller investigation, paul manafort, michael flynn. what crime would markat meadowse charged with or not charged with as part of any kind of deal to get him to flip? >> so i think one of the ways in which he's very criminally exposed of the very crimes carol leonnig outlined herself, the same crimesar he worked basical hand in hand with president trump. he ran point on some of these issues for the fake electors. he ran point on trying to influence pence as well. so the issue is that he has even greater exposure in some senses than trump because there's also evidence in the record from the january 6th committee that meadows knew trump lost. he says to bill barr. he told me. trump will come around because he understands that he lost. meadows knew that pence didn't have the authority to do anything but count the votes. that's from mark short's testimony. so meadows has a lot of exposure for the core crimes. the justice department says we str

the doj is supposed to do their work in private. thank you for your time.ppreciate it. >>> rudy giuliani, well, he may not be feeling peachy keen tonight about his next trip to georgia. a judge ordering him to appear before a grand jury there. what it means next. worth is givin g the people who build it a solid foundation. wealthth is shutting down the office for mike's retirement t party. worth is giving the employee who spent half hisis life with you, the party of a lifetime. ♪ ♪ wealth is watching your business grow. worth is watching your employees grow with it. ♪ ♪ only two things are forever: love and liberty mutual customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. if anyone objects to this marriage... (emu squawks) kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ my active psoriatic arthritis can slow me down. now, skyrizi helps me get going by treating my skin and joints. along with significantly clearer skin, skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and s

the doj does not need a criminal referral in order to do its business.om the committee, which is a problem. there's definitely a solid foundation, i think, that the committee has now given the public and doj. and i think the committee has really given us evidence, more than we even expected when we headed into these committee hearings. they haven't just sort of recycled the same old things that were already known. for example, cassidy hutchinson's testimony last week, i think, is new to doj reportedly, and extremely powerful as to donald trump's knowledge and intent. and i think all that is very useful to prosecutors. >> what more do they have to do in a court of law that's different from what's playing out in the public? you mentioned cassidy hutchinson's testimony, but what is the difference between what she had to say that was shocking to all of us and what they would have to do to actually bring and win a criminal case? >> yeah, this is such an important distinction, abby. so while cassidy hutchinson's testimony was remarkable, compelling, and, in my

but is the doj going about its probe the right way?formly u.s. attorney, as. well i know you were deputy ag, as. well both of, you very, very well versed in where we are right now. do you buy the notion of being patient? , and prosecutors know we are supposed to be perfect and have no time to be. they have a lot more time in the average, case right? >> i think we have to be patient with the justice department, but i do think there is an important step that the attorney general could make. probably should make known, which is i think inevitably, at some point, this investigation has to have a look at people in the immediate, inner circle of donald trump. donald trump, very well might run for president of the united states against joe biden. that makes this as political as it can conceivably be. you can take some of the politics out of it, i think the attorney general should appoint a special counsel that can be as written politics of someone can be. looking into anyone closeness so seated with donald trump. >> i mean, that -- having mue

the doj had his answer today. normally that would have been higher in the top of the show, but as mentioned there's a lot going on. they call it a last-ditch attempt to try to avoid accountability. so neal stays with us as i walk through this part. talking about waives privilege, which makes it harder for other indicted trump aide peter navarro to continue with his strategy. you may recall mr. navarro has a whole case understood cut by his suppose buddy bannen and his former boss, which may have him more upset than the day he was arrested. >> i was on my way to nashville today. what did they do? they didn't call me. instead of calling me and say, hey, we need you down at court, we've got a warrant for you. i would have gladly come. what did they do? they intercepted me getting on the plane and then they put me in handcuffs, they bring me here. they put me in leg irans. they put me in a cell. that's punitive wham they did to me today violated the constitution. >> fact check -- false. those agents had a warrant. no

have you heard back from anyone at doj? >> i have. can't really talk about it.inside and people who have recently left. >> very interesting, all of it, which is why we wanted to hear from you on this big day. appreciate you coming on "the beat," mr. weissman. >> glad to be here. >> absolutely. >>> when we come back, we turn to the filmmaker embedded with the proud boys we do that next. h the proud boys we do that next mission control, we are go for launch. ♪ um, she's eating the rocket. ♪ lunchables! built to be eaten. ♪ bubbles bubbles bubbles bubbles there are bubbles everywhere! as an expedia member you earn points on top of your airline miles. so you can go see even more of all the world's bubbles. to a child, this is what conflict looks like. children in ukraine are caught in the crossfire of war, forced to flee their homes. a steady stream of refugees has been coming across all day. it's basically cold. lacking clean water and sanitation. exposed to injury, hunger. exhausted and shell shocked from what they've been through. every dollar y

and you told us that doj folks responded. stay with me here as we remind everyone about the other pieces of news here, because the doj also got the phone records of these top officials, including mark meadows, who successfully ducked the house committee. then you have, as mentioned, that interesting agee garland interview with lester holt. let's listen to a bunch of that. >> there has been a lot of criticism, a lot of pressure that the doj is behind the power curve, behind the committee, not moving quickly enough on what appears to be solid evidence in some cases. >> as i said, we have been moving urgently since the very beginning. we have a huge number of prosecutors and agents working on these cases. it is the fundamental tenant of what we do as prosecutors and investigators is to do it outside of the public eye. >> andrew. >> so, i think everything he said is there. you know, i would have some follow-ups to that. i doubt he would answer them, but i think that he's somewhat highlighted the nature of the investigation becaus

or to leave doj.ring on a thousand stories, making an analogy to the saturday night massacre in 1973 when president nixon ordered attorney general elliot richardson to fire archibald cox as special counsel investigating watergate." another step outlined in his memo, "task your new white house counsel with identifying how the powers of the presidency can be used to ensure that the people receive a fair election count. if that can be done. our little band of lawyers is working on a memo that explains exactly what you can do. the media will call this martial law, but that's fake news, a concept with which you are familiar." so, recap of what you are hearing here from this lawyer to the pillow guy. fire your acting a.g., a move olson knew would draw parallels to nixon's saturday night massacre, and then b, declare martial law. that's all. wow. the "times" notes that the 1/6 select committee is exploring olson's role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. another conspiracy theorist giving the ex-pre

beyond mark short and greg j jacob. >> and reached out to by the doj. i don't know about the extent of their cooperation. the grand jury investigation, the doj investigation is very different than the january 6th one which is all in the public eye. we kind of see it play out in realtime, and i think there's been a bit of a false sense that doj is moving too slowly and hasn't been working behind the scenes. from what i understand, that isn't the case, and as evidenced frankly by the fact that mark short is probably the most senior official they're going to get without having to really compel someone like a mark meadows or a pat cipollone to testify. i know they have made outreach to at least one individual who was in the broader trump orbit. >> and you had told us before about you're friends with cassidy hutchinson, is that who it is? >> it was not cassidy. i have not spoken to her about if she's been reached out to by doj, or cooperating. that would be a question for her. it was someone else in the broader network who i would consider mid level, that co

i heard that from a doj official that there was tremendous surprise that day. there was some frustration, they have asked as you mentioned, for all of the transcript of the january 6th committee. they don't have, them but they would like to have, them but garland has adopted this very slow, cautious strategy. i think that in the end, the process would be that these prosecutors and his deputies would recommend an action against trump. either to prosecute or not prosecute. and then it comes down to garland, would he override that recommendation if the team that has carried out this investigation calls for trump's being indicted, will garland defy them or follow them? i think that most people that i know who no garland say that he would go along with that recommendation. this is all moving very slowly, and i'm not sure that will happen anytime soon. >> i want to get to the issue of the line of prosecutors in a moment. sadie, i want to go back to something that you reported over the weekend, that the justice department is adding prosecutors and resources to its inv

and let's remember, doj doesn't have the same sort of clock ticking over its head that the committee does. the doj work will go on until they feel they have reached the end of it. >> andrew, the reason i asked the question the way i did is because, listen, any of you can correct me if i'm wrong. if you look at what's happening with the fake electors, i think that is probably maybe the major legal case here, people putting up these fake electors, which is obviously illegal. if the question surrounding that would be similar, if not the same questions about the former president, and maybe people are reading too much into it. am i off on that, andrew? >> i don't think you are, don. i think it's -- as we have seen with the committee testimony over the last couple of weeks, it's really and to pull one thing, like the fake elector efforts out of this overall effort to overturn the results to have election. i see we talked about this many times as a hub and spoke conspiracy. you can think of that in terms of the intent of this conspiracy as well. we know what they were trying to do. it just

doj looks to conduct, it investigates potential crimes. something that you never do as a prosecutor's say, for, instance let's go get donald trump. we're not a country that believes in the locking up approach to criminal prosecutions. we're focused on crimes. and as doj investigates crimes, the people that you might want to talk to during an investigation, tend to fall into three groups. there are witnesses, people who have information to you and that is helpful to you, and uncovering the truth. there are subjects those are people whose conduct falls loosely within the parameters of the crime investigating, they may actually be criminally responsible for that, you don't know for certain, that's why you're investigating, and then there are targets. those are people who you have evidence against, and who you intend as prosecutor to bring charges against, so you're looking at all of that as a prosecutor, investigating conduct to determine who's responsible, and who should be charged. >> we'll have to leave it there, former u.s. attorney joyce

weigmann, there are certain specific provisions taken by doj and dhs against drones. so, why do you need to waive all of title 18, and why not keep the existing waivers in place? >> it helps us interoperate with them if we have the same authority, so that is one. two is, while you are correct that our current authority for dhs and doj only extends to certain provisions in title 18, and we have been able to use that effectively thus far, we can't predict in a changing technology landscape that other statutes wouldn't come into play in the future. if there is new technology that will get a new statute, so we think the cleanest approach, since we don't think law enforcement is using the technology we have talked about today to prevent threats should be criminal at all. so, there should not be a criminal provision they are subject to rather than just a few statutes. we are happy to discuss that with the committee if that is not their view, but we think it is cleaner to have the same authority dod has, which is a full suite. >> do you have examples, where have you needed t

do you guys call joe biden the big guy at the doj? >> it's important understand why we don't speak about cases outside of the courtroom. >> by the way, i know i -- >> may answer the question? >> it's about hunter biden. you guys have no problem leaking about other stuff. but you've got no problem going out and tagging parents at school board meetings as a national security threat, but when all of the facts, and all of the law before you regarding the corruption of hunter biden, you don't want to speak to that at all, and it's precisely why you've got folks that are talking to senator grassley about. it boeheim harvest, so ten days after by -- takes hunter biden to china, ten days after, this long toiling venture of hunter biden, he can't get off the drone, ten days after they go, he automatically gets approved. so for -- have you guys looked into that? >> and i'm going to talk about any ongoing investigation. >> you know who else is talking? tony bubble in ski, who told the world that joe biden was cut in on a ccp energy deal that was