i want to bring in cnn's senior legal analyst elie honig, and kim wehle. good evening to both of you. kim, huge subpoena news. the january 6th committee subpoenaed and obtained eric trump and kimberly guilfoyle's phone records, and they issued new subpoenas of trump's top lawyers and advisers, including rudy giuliani. so taking it all together, we're getting close to the top here, don't you think? >> i do think, don, and what's critical is really what's happened last week with the sedition conspiracy charge against some of the insurrectionists. and that's because a conspiracy here requires a meeting of the minds. it's that meeting of the minds that's very hard to prove. we saw this in the first impeachment, you know. the fact that the justice department is now working on this idea that there was an agreement, an agreement to do what? to overturn an election. that's illegal. you don't have to succeed to actually bring -- to be guilty of conconspiracy. but there's two elements of the conspiracy here. one is the lawyers coming up with a cockamamy, fake, unlaw

assistant generally elie honig and special agent pete lakata. i wonder if i can begin with the investigation into the person who left the pipe bombs. we know the resources the fbi has here. are you surprised they haven't been able to make more progress on this investigation in the years since january 6th? >> good morning, jim. i am actually. that device was immediately sent to the fbi laboratory for forensic examination and exploitation. the fact there hasn't been any evidence gleaned from both of those devices with regard to latent prints, dna, hairs and fibers, the device construction, is very surprising. with all respect to the lab, it has nothing to do with their capabilities. it's just not as easy as people think. the fact that it's taken this long means they've exhausted a lot of their resources with regard to forensic evaluation or there just isn't anything significant with regard to latents or dna that's comparable. you're relying on cctv and potential witnesses or accomplices that finally want to report on this individual. >> may also s

let's go to cnn senior justice correspondent evan perez and cnn senior legal analyst, elie honig.alk about this arrest of stewart rhodes. >> yeah, victor and alisyn, this is a major, major step in this investigation. and the arrest today of stewart rhodes and another prominent member of the oath keepers, his name is edward vallejo, his arrest happened in arizona and in rhodes's case, he was in texas. they're now charged with seditious conspiracy and this is a case that the justice department has been hinting at in court filings against some of the other members of the oath keepers who are already facing conspiracy charges that they were building this case. and what you hear -- what you see in the documents that were unsealed today is this allegation that they say that after the november 3, 2020, election that rhodes and these other members of the oath keepers conspired to oppose, by force, the execution of the laws governing the transfer of presidential power by january 20th, 2021. this is a charge that prosecutors have been looking at for some time. merrick garland and the leader

cnn senior legal analyst elie honig joins us now.all this, whether pence would testify. it looks like they're going to forego a formal subpoena for the former vice president. one viewer wants to know what are the legal options for the january 6th committee if it invites a witness to testify, like mike pence, but that witness refuses? i suppose a subpoena could happen, but subpoena a former vice president, that would be something else. >> that is the question. we've been seeing a lot of these informal invitations to testify lately. but the question is what does the committee do when these people politely decline those informal invitations? the committee's recourse is to issue a subpoena. that is a formal command to testify, and then if people still don't testify, the committee has the option to vote to hold these folks in contempt of congress, send it over to doj for potential prosecution. of course, that's exactly what happened with steve bannon who is now being prosecuted by the justice department. and potentially with mark meadows.

let's bring in senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elie honig and director to presidentrump and resigned in december 2020 and voluntarily spoken with republican members of the january 6th committee. let me start with you, elie. let's talk a little bit about the january 6th committee's decision to issue the six recent subpoenas. that's the other piece of this story. you've got on the one hand the trump ag -- excuse me, the new york ag investigation. but you also have subpoenas of eric trump and kimberly guilfoyle. what does this tell you about the pressure on the trump family? >> reporter: well, it tells me a couple things, kasie. with respect to the subpoenas to the four individuals, the three lawyers and boris epshteyn, there is no way this happens without the accompliced conduct of the lawyers. the lawyers were key parts of this. they abused their discretion as lawyers. they told lies. they spread the big lie. there is no way this gets off the ground without the lawyers. it shows me the committee is focused in on that. with respect to the phone subpoenas relating to er

let's bring in former federal prosecutor and cnn senior legal analyst elie honig.nvestigation into the insurrection and all the unrest, really, surrounding january 6th, i want to turn to what happened over the weekend with former pr president trump where he gave a rally in texas outside of houston and done things like this in the past, but suggesting that if he, in fact, did run for president again, that he would likely pardon those who participated in the insurrection. this is as the investigation is going on and as we are getting more and more details about just how dangerous that day proved to be. do you see any links here to obstruction of justice from what we heard from the president. >> biana, this absolutely could be obstruction of justice if the intent, if the purpose behind these statements was to try to dissuade people from cooperating, against donald trump or i should note, anybody else. and several of these january 6th rioters who have been charged have gone on the record and said in court, to judges and papers, the reason they did this is because they

i want to bring in cnn's senior legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor elie honig. joins us now. all right, elie, we know that they've been talking to hundreds of witnesses, but so much of their work happens behind closed doors. where is this going, what are they learning? and this seems incredibly significant. we're learning that someone, maybe multiple people in trump's inner circle, gave the committee firsthand information about what he was doing during those 187 minutes. what is your take on this? >> yeah, paula. that phrase first-hand testimony is so important. it's so telling because what it tells us is this is not just somebody who's learning about what happened afterward, who was briefed on it, who maybe read a memo or read a readout. this is coming from inside the room, and the people in that room were inner, inner sanctum. now who is the person? we don't know. could it be ivanka trump? possibly. you know that presidents are rarely alone, especially at important moment when's they're making important decisions. so, somebody inside that room is giving the co

elie honig. thanks for joining us. we appreciate you.alk about this former meadows top aide outside the oval office as the insurrection was unfolding, and remember, the committee released text exchange from january 6th in a letter to ivanka trump. is someone getting to potus? he has to tell protesters to dissipate. someone is going to get killed. response from white house staff member, i've been trying for the last 30 minutes, literally stormed in outer oval to get him to put out the first one. it's completely insane. so we now know that that was -- in that text message exchange ben williamson responding to the former communications director, alyssa fara. he spent nearly seven hours with investigators and did not take the fifth. how good of a witness is hoe to the committee? how important is this? >> well, let's start with this, don. if this witness, ben williamson on january 6th said, quote, it's completely insane, that shows that he is actually quite sane, and maybe he was one of the very few people in the west wing at the time to noti

cnn's senior legal analyst and former federal state prosecutor elie honig joins me now to answer legalss, why does she have a choice in the matter? >> yeah, jim. so maxwell's position had been that she wanted to keep those names of the john does secret because she was facing criminal charges in a criminal trial, and her fear was that if these names came out, they could draw negative attention and harm her defense. now that her criminal trial is over, however, her position is essentially i don't care anymore, my trial's over. so now the judge is going to have to decide, and this judge has already said potential embarrassment or humiliation to these john does is not enough to keep their names secret. so the judge is going to decide soon, and we may find out who those john does are. >> and on the oath keepers, there was a huge development last week, the leader of the oath keepers is behind bars after pleading not guilty to seditious conspiracy. elie, this is a rare charge from the post-civil war era. and one viewer wants to know at what point does contact relating to january 6th constitut

. >>> let's discuss now with cnn senior legal analyst elie honig for the southern district of new york. elie, good to have you back. today, you and i discussed this many times, the most serious investigation as it relates to the former president and his allies was and is the one in georgia. criminal, looks at specific election interference by trump. i wonder do you put this in a similar category in terms of seriousness? >> i do, jim. first of all, i think the criminal investigations, surveying the landscape of the various legal problems of the former president and those around him, the criminal investigations have to be of the most concern because, of course, they carry the most consequence. now, if we're looking at doj, and georgia, i think, first of all, you always have to be more worried about doj. federal prosecutors tend to have more resources, more ability, better laws to charge under, so i would be more concerned about doj than the georgia, fundamfulton county district attorney, but the question is can they prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt? it is a high bar, as you said be

they could be held in contempt and, eventually, prosecuted for defying a court order. >> elie honig and >> thanks, john. >>> join jake tapper and anderson cooper for a gathering inside the capitol with police, lawmakers, and leaders, live from the capitol january 6th, one year later. it begins thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. >>> bad blood. theranos founder elizabeth holmes found guilty of four out of 11 charges. how many years she faces in prison. >>> he is a far-right prime minister with a hard line stance on immigration, the media, and the judicial system. donald trump just endorsed him. we'll roll the tape next. ♪ got my hair ♪ ♪ got my head ♪ ♪ got my brains ♪ ♪ got my ears ♪ ♪ got my heart ♪ ♪ got my soul ♪ ♪ got my mouth ♪ ♪ i got life ♪ the livingoom slash yoga shanti slash regional office slash... and this is the basement slash panic room. maybe what your family needs is a vacation home slash vacation home. find yours on the vrbo app. it■s hard eating healthy. unless you happen to be a dog. ♪ limu emu... & doug ♪ ♪ superpowers from a spider bite? i could use some help showin

let's go to cnn's senior legal analyst elie honig, former federal prosecutor for the southern district of new york. this is just bonkers stuff. if the former president had actually gone through with this executive order back in december of 2020, it would not have been remotely legal, right? >> no, jim, n-0, no way. absolutely not. everything in this memo is wrong, dangerous, not remotely legal. if you look at this draft executive order it's dressed up with legal language, heretofores there, citations. it is all bunk. first of all, the military, the department of defense absolutely does not have the power constitutionally or otherwise to seize control of voting rvoting. i actually doubt the military would have followed that order, and second of all appointment of special counsel as the executive order calls for would have been completely illegal. it would have violated the special counsel regulations. i think the committee needs to get to the bottom of this. who drafted this memo? who ordered that it be drafted and how far did it get? because god forbid if this had been issued, it would

. >> cnn senior legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor elie honig is with us now.makes sense considering the scope of this committee that they want to speak with rudy giuliani. >> yeah, victor, it's about time. i mean, this is a move equal pa parts obvious and over due. rudy giuliani was in the middle of all of this. he's the dark heart and soul of the hire coup attempt. he's one of the first to advocate the big lie. he did it in front of any legal filing he could get in front of. present at strategy meetings with donald trump, at the willard hotel war room in the days leading up to january 6th, and of course he spoke at the rally itself. he was the one who said we want trial by combat. if you're the committee, you should be looking directly at rudy giuliani. >> rudy giuliani hasn't seemed very bound by rules lately, and so my guess is he won't comply, and then what does the committee do? >> i think there's a 0% chance rudy giuliani does not comply. there's two ways he can do that. he can take the 5th, he's legally entitled to do that. he's under investigation by t

let's bring in chief political analyst gloria borger and elie honig.t makes sense they want to speak with him. the significance now. and there are a couple of nuggets in this letter that's released, this press release about what they already know about his engagement with the former president. >> and what they already know is what he's said publicly. he's told colleagues that he had disagreements with the president. he told news organizations as much. and so what the committee is saying here in their letter is, as is readily apparent, all this information bears directly on president trump's state of mind during the january 6th attack as the violence was under way. so he is somebody who is a firsthand witness here who spoke with the president, who argued with the president. he's a leader, a republican leader in the congress. and they believe that his testimony is hugely important to them to say, okay, what was the president's state of mind? now, obviously, there's a privilege issue here because he was talking to the president. the president is going to

here to discuss is someone who literally wrote the book on bill barr, cnn senior legal analyst eli honiguy that barr doesn't know much? in this case, the point is not up to bill barr. that's up to the committee. we have heard this response from a lot of people. they have said don't mind me, i don't have anything useful to you. that's not up to the witnesses, that's up to the committee. bill barr was a attorney general through a crucial time, at the big lie really took hold. the committee is looking beyond january 6th, they're looking before and after that. >> and barr did ultimately come out and reject the conspiracies before he resigned. he even told a reporter that it was all b.s. you heard zoe lofgren say he's willing to help them find the truth. do you think he's likely doing everything he can? >> on the one hand, he's in the midst of what -- coming out and saying these claims about election fraud were, quote, b.s., is an important step forward. by the way, that's something the committee way want him to testify about. did doj find any evidence of election fraud? the answer should be

let's break it down with cnn senior legal analyst elie honig. llo, elie. >> happy new year, don. >> just tonight, lawyers for the trump children have responded to the subpoena saying that new york attorney general letitia james is trying to leverage a civil investigation to help the criminal investigation led by the manhattan d.a.'s office. they say that the subpoena should be quashed. will they get their way? >> well, don, i'm going to say something i don't say too often, which is donald trump's lawyers have a point here. it is very difficult to quash a subpoena. let's start with that. but they make two arguments. first they say letitia james is on both sides of this, right? there's a civil investigation that the attorney general is doing. then there's a criminal investigation that the attorney general is doing with the district attorney. and they're saying she's trying to use the civil process, she asked them to give a civil subpoena because she can't do that on the criminal side because if she did that on the criminal side, ivanka trump and do

senior legal analyst elie honig joins us.ajor supreme court decision and a victory for the january 6th committee and we are talking about activity logs, schedules, speech notes, three pages of handwritten notes from the then-white house chief of staff mark meadows. so what can they get from this? >> well, don, what makes these documents so potentially important and powerful is that they are contemporaneous documents. this shows what people were doing, saying, thinking, reacting on january 6th. this is before they had the talking points in place. this is before the spin kicked in. this is before people had to start going down to mar-a-lago to kiss the ring. this is the unvarnished reaction on the spot. these documents can be telling whether it's prosecutors or in this case congressional investigators. these documents could be really key. >> what does that decision mean from the supreme court for the future of executive privilege? >> yeah, so, one of the interesting things about executive privilege is we don't know that much ab

. >>> i want to bring in elel elie honig. let's talk about what's happening with the former president's daughter. the january 6th committee wants to know a whole lot from ivanka that's going to free up evidence about his actions then. rudy giuliani, there is more, there is more, right? his attorney involved with putting up fake electors according to sources. when does he face the biggest legal peril here? >> well, don, that's a lot of legal peril and a lot of different forms. we are talking civil and congressional and people associated with him. the biggest risk is down in georgia from the fulton county district attorney. we are talking about potential criminal charges there. that's a whole different ball game than the civil kind of charges he's looking at from the new york attorney general or whatever may come out of congress which is damaging but you don't go to prison for that. the move of asking for this special grand jury is a big step forward for the da. it shows the da is getting very serious about this investigation a

. >> joining us now, cnn senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor elie honig. elie, this is a really interesting letter that has been sent to kevin mccarthy. it specifically -- it is one of those things where maybe someone isn't going to answer the question, but the question is going to tell you a lot. >> yeah, brianna, they're making two key statements in this really interesting five-page letter that the committee sent to kevin mccarthy. the first thing is they want to know from kevin mccarthy what did you know about donald trump's state of mind as this attack unfolded. we all know that kevin mccarthy had this really important phone call. he's inside the capitol, while it is being ransacked, he gets on the phone with donald trump and says call off your people. is donald trump displeased by what's happening? no. he's angry that kevin mccarthy is upset by what's happening. that's really revealing. the committee made a point of saying, hey, kevin, we know this. the other thing the committee is interested in, whether there was some effort to tamper with kevin mccar

i want to go straight to elie honig, former prosecutor. is, first of all? is -- any chance of a mistrial here when you have a few counts they couldn't reach a verdict when they did in fact reach a guilty or not guilty verdict on the -- on the vast majority of them? >> well, erin, there could be a mis mistrial as to those three counts but as a practical matter, this is a big win for the prosecution. crushing loss for elizabeth homes. she has been convicted now on a wide-ranging conspiracy and on specific frauds totaling over $100 million. that is a win for the prosecution. >> it's important you say even if there is a mistrial, on the ones they didn't reach a verdict on, not the ones they did. each by the way, could carry a 20-year sentence. but let me ask you about something because, you know, when i did the math. they found her guilty on charges of wire fraud adding up to, what, $144 million. not guilty on one adding up to $1.1 million, right? so, the -- in terms of the numbers here, it was -- it was -- the big numbers were guilty. >> exact

. >>> i want to get straight to cnn's senior legal analyst elie honig and also laura coates. lau good evening to both of you. elie, i'm going to start with you. this text from hannity on january 5th says it all right here. i am very worried about the next 48 hours. what do you think hannity knows? >> well, don, what's clear from these texts is sean hannity was right in the mix here. he was serving as an adviser, as an interested party, as a cheerleader really for the president and his administration. and i think it makes perfect sense that the committee wants to ask sean hannity just that question. what did you miean by this text? who did you speak to before this text? what did you do after? one interesting thing the committee does in its letter to sean hannity, is they show him, we have the receipts. we have dozens of texts you're in, and they quote him to sean hannity. they make very clear why they are and should be interested in talking to him. >> laura, hannity texted this to mark meadows on december 31st, and i quote. we can't lose the entire white house counsel's office.

let's break it down with cnn's senior legal analyst, elie honig. her in that q&a, but it was significant because it is so unusual, right, for the justice department to confirm even just confirm an investigation. >> i want people to understand how extraordinarily rare it is for her to tell evan. when you're trained as a prosecutor, anytime you're asked about an ongoing investigation, it's cannot confirm or deny, cannot comment on a pending matter. we've heard that from doj countless times. normal doj policy is to not confirm or deny anything except in extraordinary circumstances. this was a conscious decision and i think what's going on here is they understand. they operate in the real world and every once in a while, the justice department has to reassure the american people we're aware of this. we're on it. we're taking a look at it. >> we don't know when they started their investigation. still, here we are. a year later. bottom line, do these fake certificates constitute a federal crime? >> i can see ways they could. i'm going to do what prosecut

joining us now, maggie haberman, of "the new york times," and cnn legal analyst elie honig. maggie, your reaction from what mccarthy said this year compared to what he's saying now. >> it's interesting. we know mccarthy had a phone call with donald trump during the riot that was taking place, mccarthy trying to explain to the then-president that people were coming in his windows, and trump saying i guess they're not as angry as you are. we know that mccarthy was interested in some kind of a censure. but he was putting out not just that trump deserved some blame, but that he admitted some responsibility. trump never did, so mccarthy and other republicans changed their own tunes instead. >> mccarthy claims there's nothing, in his words, that he can provide to the committee. but just listening to his own words, that's clearly not true. >> it's complete nonsense, and it's simply not true. this new piece of tape, where mccarthy says donald trump acknowledged that he has some responsibility, that's extraordinarily powerful evidence. that's an admission of some culpability by donal

. >> elie honig and asha rangappa, thanks so much for spending time with us. >>> with tensions threatening in eastern europe president biden trying to clarify a statement that he made yesterday suggesting that a minor incursion by russia would elicit less of a response from the u.s. than a full-scale invasion of ukraine. what he's saying now next. you gotta hustle. you gotta go the extra mile. make a name for yourself. have a firm grip. always dress for success. and you gotta show 'em who's boss. thanks for coming in. we'll get back to you. hustle, sure, but for what matters. when you do, it leads to amazing. welcome to the next level. the all-new lexus nx. ♪ narrator: on a faraway beach, the generation called "our greatest" saved the world from tyranny. in an office we know as "oval," a new-generation president faced down an imminent threat of nuclear war. on a bridge in selma, alabama, the preacher of his time marched us straight to passing voting rights for every american. at a gate in west berlin, a late-generation american president demanded an enemy superpower tear down a wall and li

joining us now cnn's senior legal analyst elie honig. this is a little known act for move people.e attention. the law was passed shortly after the civil war to protect black americans and even lawmakers from being terrorized as i understand it by the kkk. they were trying to influence elections and trying to intimidate congress so how does that law now apply to january 6th? >> erica is this is an obscure and old law. the allegation here is that donald trump's goal in what he did on january 6th was trying to obstruct a governmental function, specifically trying to stop congress from counting the electoral votes. now the defense from donald trump, the primary defense is, well, i'm immune because what i was doing that day was within the scope of my job as president of the united states. of course, there's two big problems with that. one is it's hard to imagine how it could be within the scope of the president to incite a mob, to kick off a attack on the capitol. the other thing is if you follow the proceeding, which is happening right now and i've been following, it donald trump's la

let's discuss with supreme court analyst jean and elie honig. it's a 6-3 conservative court.ll need at least two conservatives to join them. naturally all eyes are on chief justice roberts, i would assume. >> that's right. at least chief justice roeshts. he's a good barometer on where the court is headed on this one. it was quite a dramatic morning at the court. went for nearly four hours, jake, for the first time the justices themselves were wearing masks. that hadn't happened during oral arguments before and between covid in the snow, only about eight reporters in the room with law clerks and others. so a lot of tension. a lot of drama and i think what we heard and we'll know when they eventually rule is that they are not interested in upholding what the osha requirement that would be on some 80 million workers. private businesses to either have vaccinations or testing. chief justice roberts, to your question, talked about congressional power over agency power and state police powers. his message seemed to be that osha had gone too far. at one point he said we've never had

let's talk about this with elie honig, author of "hatchet man how bill barr broke the prosecutor's codeed the justice department." you say what? >> newt gingrich's comments were wrong, dangerous, idiotic, crazy. i could probably keep going on. this probably does not need to be said. everything he said there is wrong. there is nothing that anybody on the january 6th committee has done that is remotely illegal or criminal. also, again, this shouldn't need to be said, congress does not get to charge people. he seemed to suggest, all these people will go to jail. the justice department brings charges. i think we see newt gingrich trying to become a mini donald trump. he's attacking the people who had the gall to investigate in the first place. that it's a dangerous thing we are seeing more and more of. >> it is false, absurd, and dangerous. the last one probably being the most important. >> reporter: yeah. absolutely. again, donald trump set the playbook here. remember john durham, that name? this is the guy who donald trump and bill barr put in place to investigate robert mueller's investi

joining me now cnn political commentator, charlie dent and elie honig.mittee outhineen lines a lot of reported points before, during, and after the insurrection including telling mark meadows the scheme to object to certifying the electoral votes was doomed to fail. it made clear he knew about the president's intentions to try to overturn the election. this is a big deal. >> yeah, it is a big deal, and i think kevin mccarthy said the right things on that day when he pushed back very hard against the former president, you know, calling him out for his role in the insurrection, but i think we have to view kevin mccarthy's actions through the lens of how does this all affect his bid to become the house speaker. with representatives jim jordan and scott perry not cooperating with the committee, you have to remember it was jim jordan and the freedom caucus back in 2015 that prevented kevin mccarthy from ascending to the speaker role after john boehner announceann announced his resignation. i think kevin mccarthy is doing everything to make sure that hard righ

. >> well, ryan nobles, gloria borger, elie honig, thank you for helping us understand this breaking news. "the lead" with jake tapper starts right now. >>> might the u.s. be about to turn a covid corner? "the lead" starts right now. covid cases could -- could be peaking in parts of the u.s. which means they could -- could -- be coming down soon. this as top health experts warn every american could end up being exposed to omicron. >>> plus, the january 6th committee just invited a new ghost their party. they're asking the top house republican kevin mccarthy if he feels like voluntarily cooperating. >>> and match point for novak djokovic. a decision on the tennis star's fate in the australian open could come at any moment. >>> hello and welcome to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. we begin in our health lead. a new warning from the top health experts. today dr. anthony fauci, and the acting fda commissioner say omicron is so efficient at spreading that almost everyone in the u.s. will at least be exposed to it. even if you're vaccinated and boosted. that does not mean, of course, that ever

i want to bring in our chief political correspondent, dana bash, and elie honig. only a few of them, but apparently dozens of text messages to the white house from sean hannity. how significant is that? >> those texts are very revealing. . hannity is a fact witness any way you cut this. before these events happened and while january 6th happened. he's an obvious person. any prosecutor, any investigator would go right to that and say that's a person i need to speak with. he's a journalist so there are first amendment concerns, but the distinction here, they don't seem to be looking at anything that has to do with hannity's journalistic capabilities. they're not asking about his sources. they're asking about his communications with the white house. >> you know, dana, this is someone who mr. trump's, one of his biggest defenders in public. how credible is it to see what was going on behind the scenes? he was raising the alarm just ahead of the january 6th attack, urging the then president to stop talking about the election. >> he was one of so many people we know abo

joining us now with more, well elie honig, former assistant u.s.rney for the southern district of new york and ronald omary. this is different. we all knew about how rudy giuliani was bringing boke us claims to court and then taking his chances. hoping to get lucky in court. didn't work. but coming up with a list of fake electors and people who are opposing as electors, how is that not a crime or been prosecuted yet. >> it is a great question that i share, alisyn. it is entirely unsurprising that rudy giuliani was at the center of all this. we see this from sen states tlx is no way that seven different groups of people independently decided to do this. it looked very much like this was result of a centralized effort and it turns out rudy giuliani was right at the center of it. and if we talk about is this a crime. let me sort of put it this way. it is under crime to submit any false documents to a governmental entity. whether it is a false application for a driver's license, a false social media benefits application, a false tax return. here we're

let's bring in kruyswijker, now, the former fbi director and legal analyst elie honig, former generalrosecutor. gentlemen, good evening to both of you. look, i don't want to sound hyperbolic, but i mean, chris, these people sound a little -- it sounds a little scary. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> welcome back now. a quick update on our breaking news out of australia, the immigration minister has canceled the visa of unvaccinated tennis star novak djokovic for the second time. alex hawk says he used his personal power to do so because it's in the public's best interest, and the government is firmly committed to protecting borders, particularly in relation to the pandemic. now djokovic is expected to challenge the decision in court ahead of the australian open, which starts on monday. we are closely following this breaking news story. we'll have live reports later in the show. >>> now let's go straight to our tennis expert. ben ben rothenberg joins us. have you had a chance to eyeball the statement? give us your reaction. >> yeah, i think the statement is pretty clear, but also relat

let's go to elie honig, former assistant u.s.trict of new york and david becker, who was a prosecutor in the voting section of the justice department's civil rights division. so, ellie, let me start with the plot that paula was laying out. 14 people tied to that subpoena. they are obviously not going to get all 14 to cooperate and it is a long process but do you think they will get a few? and is a few or a handful enough? >> yeah, erin, there is so much here and one thing we have seen this week is that the committee is really focused laser like on these fake electoral certificates and rightly so because on one level, those certificates are evidence of a broader plot to overthrow this election. but also, more narrowly, in my view, those certificates are the cleanest example yet we've seen of a potential federal crime. now, it is one thing to have talks, conversations. at some point, they cross a line into a criminal conspiracy. where that line is perhaps is debatable. however, it is a federal crime to submit a false document to th

outfront now, gloria borger, our chief political analyst and elie honig who wrote "mahatchet man, howode and corrupted the justice department." gloria, criminal is why this is getting attention because it is a criminal procedure. she said she expects to decide on whether to bring charges against trump in the first half of 2022. so it took a while to get to this point, but now it looks like it's going to move relatively quickly. what do you read into that now that she can now seat a special grand jury? >> well, erin, any person who is a subject of a specially convened grand jury has legitimate cause for concern. this is serious stuff. this is a natural and necessary step forward in the investigation. it does not guarantee any particular outcome. what's different between today and yesterday is now the d.a. has subpoena power. i don't know -- i can't for the life of me figure out why it took a year for her to do this, but now she has the ability to force people to testify, to force people to turn over evidence. by the way, we've all gotten used to people casually brushing off congression

bush and elie honig. so, don, let me start with you because you have raised the alarm about the justice department. it was concerned that they don't appear to be investigating trump or other high-level officials for their roles in the insurrection. so today, you hear the attorney general say that he, quote, remains committed to holding all january 6th perpetrators at any level accountable under law, whether they were present that day or were, otherwise, criminally responsible. in the context of every word in that prepared statement being chosen with such care and specificity, did garland reassure you today or not? >> he did. he did. i thought it was a very strong statement, and i thought he was really clear, and you -- you played back the key parts of it. they're basically looking hard and going to put all the resources necessary into investigating, at every level up to the top and ultimately the judgment that's got to be made is going to have to be, as he said, a judgment based on the facts that they are