john eastman has very significant problems. we already know he's under investigation. his phone was seized and so on by the justice department and he, of koourgs, was pushing the creation of false documents to be secured. fake electors. so he's got some serious legal jeopardy there. i think what jack smith is going to be interested in is what was donald trump's role? what did he think? what did he understand? we know mike pence is trying to excuse donald trump at least publicly, even though his aides have been frankly helping build a case against trump. publicly saying he was just following bad legal advice. i think jack smith is going to ask pointed questions to him. part of it is going to be part of the pressure trump was putting on him to go along with the scheme. trump was trying to tell pence i will destroy your political career if you don't go forward. i will regard you as disloyal and i will cut you off. >> it's such a big story and one of our legal eagles, i appreciate you jumping in. i'm joined now by neil, someone who knows his way around the doj, including w

i clerked on the supreme court with john eastman. even then, not all that many people thought he was a peer of the other clerks. certainly in the years that followed, eastman is just on a totally different trajectory. and if there's any view at the garland justice department about people who knew him, i think it would be, god, you should have known better. to do something like this, to corrupt the investigation -- the election the way you did, to say the things you did, that's not just illegal. it's un-american. >> hmm. well, we always welcome different perspectives and yours, so it is interesting to hear your kind of counterpoint on that, neal. as promised, i do want to ask you about the underlying rules. someone who i think is respected, although he comes from the more republican appointee side of doj, jack goldsmith. so many similar names. you know, i read what he writes and some of it is really interesting. he sort of has a procedural almost or constitutional concern about how all these special counsels are being used. he says, th

and even worse, you have john eastman with an email on december 31st. he's claiming to be donald trump's lawyer. they were concerned about donald trump swearing to certain facts about fake election results in georgia. and john eastman in that email says that donald trump knows that these are all faults so he can't really have him swear to the affidavit. what do they do? they file an affidavit in federal court sworn to by donald trump. all one big lie. so i don't see how he gets around corrupt intent. corrupt intent is simply doing something with an improper purpose. clearly the improper purpose was to try to keep himself in power even though he lost the election. >> okay, smarty pants. do you want to retract your theory? >> i didn't say it was a good argument. i said it was an argument. i'm making an argument. >> and nick disspelled it. that was a real actual lesson in brilliance. thank you all very much. coming up, he lied about his resume. he lied about his family. he lied about being jewish. the latest george santos saga, now it is about puppies. why

at the moment, we are hearing from 0livia newton—john's husband, john eastman, who was with 0livia john battling the cancer that claimed her life in august of last year. she was 73 years of age, and she is being remembered at this memorial service in southern australia as a woman who lived an extraordinary life, who was a cultural icon. she was the daughter of a british m15 agent who served during the second world war. she had ambitions to be a vet, but because it was her musical talents that sent her musical talents that sent her into globalfame, best known of course for playing sandy in the film grease in 1978. it was one of the most successful film musicals ever made. it really was, in many eyes, the role that really did define 0livia eyes, the role that really did define olivia newton—john. but before that she really had a successful career as a country singer. later in life having been diagnosed with breast cancer, she became a champion for research and fundraising. so this was a very full life thatis so this was a very full life that is being remembered by many, many people, not o

lindsey graham, rudy, mark meadows, mike flynn, john eastman, cassidy hutchinson, former congressman jody heist, pat cipollone, the governor, brian kemp, newt gingrich. tell me what you make of this, the real bombshell from today is, as patricia's talking about, that this grand jury, a majority found that someone had purgered him or herself in front of them, as well as the fact that they interviewed, it sounds like, an extensive list of experts and officials and found no evidence of fraud. >> yeah, nicolle, so, i think the report today, at least the redacted part we've seen, tells us two things. one, some people committed perjury, and two, there's no evidence that trump won the 2020 election in georgia. so, bill barr would summarize this report as no crimes and trump won, but in the reality-based community in which we live, what this report is saying is that there is a finding by this grand jury of perjury, and the people who testified before this georgia grand jury are a kind of rogue list of folks, people you mentioned, you know, sidney powell, john eastman, mike flynn, people like

i thought about what if those folks did decide to go with what john eastman and people were forcing? the consequences of we will be in the no man's land of what do we do now? it would have been in a big crisis. they're worried about people grabbing their pitchforks. you see that. especially in georgia and down south when people have a strong antigovernment am a local resident of the community and i have a family legacy of the law school here. you can join in, too. i've done a lot of reading on the republican electoral ballots. i am curious to know if the -- is there a statute that prescribes a natural sentence for the people who find them? approximately 100 people around the country assigned phony republican electoral ballots? i would like to see those people get 20 years. can you guys give me some idea of what kind of sentence might result from those who signed them? >> that is pretty specific. >> there is no federal law i am aware of that would have been violated. the question is what state law would have been violated by signing? in discussing this issue with various legal experts

back in october with jerry's's committee was seeking emails from trump's coup lawyer, john eastman, a judge ruled, look to the evidence and ruled that the crime fraud exception applied in that case. there is precedent. now we'll see if the judge agrees with prosecutors on similar exceptions in this case. but of course jack smith isn't the only one investigating trump's wrongdoing. we also have the fulton county georgia investigation into trump's election interference, which also, again, appears to be coming to a close. the special grand jury that was empaneled empowered to look into that interview dozens of witnesses including the aforementioned john eastman, georgia republican governor -- and lindsey graham and rudy giuliani. giuliani specifically received a letter informing him he is a target in that investigation for his role assisting trump's corrupt push to overturn the results of the election in georgia. now about a month ago the fulton county district tierney oversaw this, fani willis said decisions on charges would be imminent. what does that word mean? i don't know anymore. b

he's ear in the room at one point with john eastman. and there's reasonably john eastman might have criminal charges. but really he's the guy who can testify to what trump said into his state of mind into the victories told by his lawyers it's not legal. it doesn't seem trump's squarely in the room of anything who get our vice president mike pence. >> he can uniquely give stuff about trump. that really has to be the case. in terms of marries surmise, i share it, that would be big news if true, because we have been assuming there are far along on mar-a-lago, not so much on january six, but i've got to agree, every week participatory agent says you don't do this until your fairly well along. you don't want to do it twice, that's for sure. and it does suggest, even though it contradicts the best evidence we've had to date, that smith is far along, not just in mar-a-lago button january six as well. >> an interesting point. i guess my final point here would be, whatever precedent is, vis-À-vis privilege and nixon, one of the things we've lea

two of his lawyers, john eastman, and rudy giuliani. and one of his top advocates in the u.s. senate, none other than lindsey graham, who, like trump, called georgia's secretary of state brad raffensperger about altering the results of the election. for his part, though, graham says he is confidence in his own testimony. >> i have no idea. what the plans are. no one's ever talked to be about anything. honest testimony i saw it. i don't know what they're gonna do. >> would there be in touch with your lawyers? >> i have no idea. >> ask them, don't ask me. no one's ever said a word to me. >> do you see this is a closed chapter from your aunt? >> i hope so. let's put it this way. i did what i was asked to do. as honestly as i could with the privileges i had. they were very professional. >> now we really don't know what next up is the fulton county investigation will take. but one atlanta attorney who represented the georgia state assembly in the special grand jury inquiry says that he thinks a trump indictment is likely. quote, there's no chance that willis goes with no indictment

is vigorously pursuing both. >> those people who were there, who stormed the capitol, whiteout john eastmaniuliani, donald trump, would they ever have gotten there? >> absolutely not. they were the last step in a multipart plan to disrupt. mob was launched only after there was an attempt to use the department of justice for improper means to pressure state legislatures to pressure the vice president. it was only when those prior planks of the plan were unsuccessful that the final step was to launch this mob, incite this mob to disrupt the session. >> right, you're laying out a time line, and the evidence you laid out with your colleagues really did show people it was worse than it looked when a woke up on the 7th, which is really saying something. there are many ways to lack at this or count it. i'm going to show ours. this is some of the arrows we put together over time. they're perfectly legal. you could file for lawsuits at the top. states overturning votes. there's an argument on the front end depending how you -- as you two down the line of december, you have pence, the doj interferenc

then you have john eastman pushing the fraudulent elector plot to a government body, the georgia senate. >> in the early decades of our nation's history, most state legislatures selected their state's presidential electors themselves. i don't think it's just nour authority to do that, but quite frankly i think you have a duty to do that, to protect the integrity of the election here in georgia. >> a duty. you don't often see that video all the time. there's a lot of different things going on. that is the lawyer for the president of the united states at the time, donald trump's lawyer eastman telling a government body they have a duty to steal the election. and the interference with the january 6th certification which legal sli more of a federal than state issue, you have the makings of a chargeable conspiracy. when i tell you tonight that nothing coming out of georgia suggests that trump will be indicted, i'm not talking about whether he should be or there's evidence. i'm just telling you georgia doesn't look like they're charging this conspiracy. if they did, people like eastman and me

and particularly meetings on january 4th and 5th with john eastman where apparently john eastman told president, was encouraging the fake electors, to set aside counting certain states and to delay and then some question about whether or not that was lawful or not. and trump and the reason that's important is if trump is going to try and claim that he acted on the basis of advice of counsel, you need to know what those discussions were in terms of saying is this lawful, isn't it? the reason we know about all those conversations is because mike pence ran an editorial at the begin of november last year about all of these meetings in advance of his book coming out where he talked about all that. you can't very well go into a grand jury and claim executive privilege when everything you're trying to claim privilege is something you talked about in your book and in the "wall street journal" three months ago. i think these are absolutely critical discussions that are really going to show not only where pence might have been a victim but also explore those areas where trump might try to use h

obviously, our focus has to be on trump individuals like john eastman, jeffrey clark. but how important is these prosecutions for seditious conspiracy, this rarely charged but to me kind of appropriately targeted charge of the oath keepers and now the proud boys in terms of the making sure this never happens again? >> i think that's exactly it. the charging of such serious charges signals that the justice department that, the american people, take an attack on our democracy, on our capital, as one among the most serious offenses that it is possible to commit. i think part of the justice department thinking, and they are exactly right, yes, they could've charged simply battery or they could have charged trespass. none of those things would have been sufficient to equate with the seriousness of this. nor would it have been an adequate deterrent to others. and a big part of what we did in the jerry six committee with the justice department is doing in bringing people to justice is an effort to deter a future attack. one of the takeaways we hope people got from our hearing

they are going av rudy guliani, and john eastman and joe de and now two lawyers related to documentse. have you seen anything like this? >> they claim to be defending the constitution, they claim to be defend thing documents and the security of the nation, while they are steam rolling the bill of rights, attorney-client privilege is crucial. the crime fraud exception is very rare. it is not to be regular. mass murderers, terrorists, what have you, attorney-klein privilege is rarely pierced when it applies to them. yet it has been pierced in a serial nature. when it applies to donald trump, republican, and republican legislators and legislatures, i'll be right back. you need. with the money we saved, we tried electric unicycles. i think i've got it! doggy-paddle! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ after advil. feeling better? on top of the worlddddd!!! before advil. advil targets pain at the source of inflammation. when pain comes for you, come back fast with advil liqui-gels. dude, what're you doing? i'm protecting my car. that's too much work. weathe

trump attorneys john eastman and rudy giuliani were subpoenaed to testify by the fulton county district attorney in georgia about their involvement in trump's scheme to overturn election results in that state. the d.a. also subpoenaed three other lawyers whose names you may remember from the january 6th hearings. all of them appeared before the special grand jury in fulton county. at the same time those subpoenas went out, the fulton county d.a. also subpoenaed senator lindsey graham, again, related to his involvement in that scheme. for context ten days after the 2020 election, senator graham placed a phone call to georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger. the georgia secretary of state told "the washington post" at the time he was stunned by graham's request to toss out huge swaths of legally cast ballots, and a few days later senator graham denied he'd ever said such thing. instead he said he wanted to talk about the process for future elections. >> did you or did you not ask him to throw out votes? >> no. i talked to him about how you verify signatures. i suggested he go forwar

the types of things that they had first and knowledge of, the conversation with donald trump and john eastman, who was told when that this plot was illegal, how much to donald trump know in that conversation that it was illegal? was that made clear? dan so i expect those will be the type of questions they would want to posed to mister pence. >> charlie, before i get to you, quickly go to the point about executive privilege. is there a legal argument that the vice president can make here to basically reject cooperating with the subpoena? and if you try to do with the january six committee, what with the consequences of that to especially vista gator, special counsel investigator be? >> he has no winning legal argument on the executive privilege front. and he would be pointless to make. it i think it would be only delay knelt about outcome would be mike pence appearing before the grand jury. >> let me read for you something from the associated press. the extraordinary scenario of a former vice president potentially testifying against his former boss criminal investigation comes as pence conside

rudy giuliani and john eastman, senator lindsey graham, and former trump national security advisor michael flynn. these are just some of the dozens of witnesses that a special grand jury could be accusing of certain crimes here and one of the most potentially explosive questions will be does the grand jury suggest that a group of people who are involved in a pattern of multiple crimes all related to one another with the end goal of overturning the 2020 election, could this be another faunae willis and rico case? joining us now is barbara mcquade and professor at the university of michigan school of law. barb, thank you for being here on this night of all things legal. i've got to ask you every time i read a story about faunae willis, the word rico is in the story because of her record on this and because of the speculation that maybe she will try and turn this into a rico case as it concerns trump and the 2020 election. does that look like maybe what could happen to you? i mean where do you land on that question? >> i think there's a very good reason, alex, that people talking about a rico

county da's going to indict not just trump, but almost certainly it seems to me mark meadows, maybe john eastman, rudy giuliani. this is the huge event people have been clamoring for for a year. >> okay, let's listen to a little bit more of what she said, right here, to show how you are reading these tea leaves. they're not subtle. >> okay. >> is it -- what you say, when it comes to there are indictments recommended, of course, is it more than 12 people? is it more than 20 people? >> i think if you look at the page numbers of the report, there is about six pages in the middle that got cut out. allow for spacing, it's not a short list. >> not a short list? >> [laughter] >> when it comes to 75 witnesses, it's not, i assume of course, it's not 75. people would you characterize it as 28 people? >> i cannot say i counted. >> [laughter] okay. more than a dozen i think i heard you say in another interview. >> i believe so. it's probably a good assumption. >> cavon, what are you hearing here? >> yeah, you know, i relate, first of all, for her wanting to share this with the american people. because this

or so people, including the governor of georgia, brian kemp, former attorneys rudy giuliani and john eastmanure adviser michael flynn. all of them on the list along with countless others. "outfront" now, ty cobb former white house lawyer. i really appreciate your time. the portions put out, much of the report has not been released yet. trump is declaring victory, saying thank you to the special grand jury and the great state of georgia for your patriotism and courage. total exoneration. of course they did say the charges could be recommended, although there was nothing about him in the portions they put out. do you think he is speaking too soon? >> oh, absolutely, erin. nice to be with you. yes, trump is speaking way too soon. i think -- i think whoever put out that statement may have been trying to curry favor with the former president. likewise, i think our friend norm eisen who thinks this is some significant death knell is speaking too soon. i think the reality is you got to wait for the facts, and there are no facts in here. the only facts that you have are the number of the good citize

are implicated in a elector scheme and she made it pretty clear, mark meadows, rudy giuliani, john eastmansmic event heard around the country and the world when -- >> yeah? >> i wanted to ask you about that because you can talk about the details of what emily kohrs wanted to discuss and not discuss in talking with me and others in interviews and there are those in general if a dozen-plus people are indicted and how big of a deal is that? >> humongous, gigantic. i mean, think about it, with the president itself has never happened. so for starters that would be especially after the last couple of years a really gigantic event in and of itselves and that's what happens in watergate and put them together. you would ask originally and what is she going to do because she's not bound by their recommendations and it is a profound surprise to be departing from them more than marginally. we heard yes and they're chewing it over and it was to say something after kohrs came out, and it's been a couple of months and they ought to be very close to their decisions and they've seen evidence and they're no

if you all noticed, john eastman's name not being on that list of people who appeared before the grand jury. he did appear, but he pleaded the fifth multiple times which is why he did not ultimately testify. charles coleman and tia mitchell, thank you both. >> up next on "the reidout," ahead of the epa vows to hold norfolk southern accountable for the toxic derailment in ohio as emotions spill over at a town hall meeting of concerned citizens. senator sherrod brown who has made that same pledge joins me next. why are 93% of sleep number sleepers very satisfied with their bed? maybe it's because you can gently raise your partner's head to help relieve snoring. so, you can both stay comfortable all night. and now, save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. ends monday. my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue

of them the vice presidents counselors within the vice presidents chief of staff is with them john eastman is in the room. but that phone call uniquely belongs to mike pence as a unique area of testimony where he has authority. >> that's exactly right. as with many criminal syndicates, there is often other witnesses to crimes and the like. but trump really did run the white house like a mob operation. sometimes he had his hand -- carrying out stuff, but some like this generally sixth what, he was directly pressuring the vice president. we know about some of it. but we don't know about all of it. and that is why i think what jack smith, the special counsel, did tonight is so important. look, presidents have been subpoenaed before. thomas jefferson was subpoenaed in 1807. burner and burr -- nixon four tapes, watergate, and clinton was subpoenaed for testimony relating to whitewater and the monica lewinsky piece of that investigation. but vice presidents i'm not sure ever have. spiro agnew, i remember, the u.s. attorney -- the federal prosecutor got the remarks, the bank records voluntarily f

electoral votes and overturn the 2020 election in trump's favor, at the suggestion of trump's advisor, john eastmanpretation of the electoral county act that he was peddling. he was shocked at the investigation and that the vice president has absolutely no authority to do that. early the next morning pence's advisor were seeking not just ludicrous guidance but it's help in the form of a public statement. quickly in only after his son sent him instructions on how to create a tweet thread put out a series of seven tweets saying in no uncertain terms that the vice president only appropriate path forward was to certify the vote. he tweeted, in part, the only power of the vice president under the vice president's to faithfully count the electoral college votes as they have been cast. that, apparently, was all mike pence needed to see in order to do the right unlawful thing. days later, president -- put out a statement saying why he was certifying the president for the rightful winner, joseph r. biden. in the statement, pence cited judge luttig and his legal advice. judge luttig consistently provided sou

. >> we've got lindsey graham who has testified, rudy giuliani, current governor brian kemp, john eastman, a trump attorney, cassidy hutchinson, whose testimony is significant because she was in the white house at the time as an assistant to mark meadows. there are a lot of potential people potentially at play. this investigation is so broad, it looks into this idea of a conspiracy. there's so much that is not in these documents. i keep coming back to that. it is almost telling in some ways how little there was that was released. >> yeah, i think that this is also because they are trying to protect what is very clearly an ongoing investigation. we saw the district attorney in court last month, she was arguing against the release of this report. she said charging decisions are imminent, she kept referring to future defendants when she was speaking in court. so she was definitely sending the signal that indictments are likely to come. and in my previous conversations with her in other interviews, she's laid out the potential of pursuing a racketeering case. that there were lots of other pie

that would be trump favorites, including a mutual -- giuliani and john eastman. senator lindsey graham, and former trump national security adviser, michael flynn. these are just some of the dozens of witnesses have special grand jury accusing of certain crimes here, and some of the most explosive questions will be, that is the grand jury's guess that a group of people involved in a pattern of multiple crimes, all related to one another, with the end goal of overturning the 2020 election? could this be another fani willis rico case? joining us now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan, and director of michigan school of law. thank you for being here on this illegal -- -- this night of all things legal. i have to ask you, every time that i read a story about fani willis, the word rico is in the story, because of her record on this. and it's because of the speculation that she might have tried to turn this into a rico case, as it concerns trump and the 2020 election. does that look like what could happen to you? where do you l

we saw this with regard to john eastman's conversations with donald trump where that privilege was piercedin nature, that they were furthering a crime, so it was beyond the scope. so it appears the attorney-client privilege. that seems to be the strategy here that when evan corcoran was acting as trump's lawyer in the mar-a-lago case, he was acting more as an agent or an associate than someone simply providing legal advice. it may be that privilege can be breached in that context. >> lastly and briefly this does appear to be a bit of an escalation from the special counsel. an aggressive move like this, what does that tell you about where the investigation is and where it's going? >> i think both of these cases, jonathan, the evan corcoran subpoena, and the mike pence subpoena, tell us that they're close to the end. typically before you take a drastic step like this and go after someone this high up you want to have gathered as much information as you can from every other source to demonstrate that you must get this testimony that you've exhausted all other methods. and so it seems to me th

about -- beginning to talk about challenging the vote and those key meetings in january involving john eastmanome of the people who were putting together this plan to try to overturn the election. so all of those things are now open for prosecutors to ask him about. >> all right. evan, thank you very much. of course as you get more information, i know you'll give it to us. ryan goodman and john dean are out front with me now. ryan, let's just start with this. the former vice president of the united states, subpoenaed by the special counsel related to the former president of the united states. right? it's an incredible moment in and of itself. pence is somebody, right, that the january 6th committee had eventually just said, let go. but the special counsel is taking the accessory step, they're going to a subpoena. what is the significance of that at this point? >> so it's historically significant moment as you describe. and he is an important witness for the justice department and he is one of the unknowns. in the sense they already know what other pence senior aides told the january 6th commit

now, we know pence himself has publicly shared how the mastermind behind this plot, john eastman, didn't even fully buy into it himself. describing an oval office meeting between them and trump on january 4th claiming, quote, i turned to the president, who was distracted and said, mr. president, did you hear that? even your lawyer doesn't think i have the authority to return electoral votes. and we know that when "the new york times" reported on pence's response the next day, trump put out a statement, not only calling it fake news, but claiming that he and pence were in total agreement that pence did indeed have the power to act. as we learned from the january 6th committee hearings, that was a surprise to pence and his team. >> we were shocked and disappointed because whoever had written and put that statement out, it was categorically untrue. >> we know the pressure only intensified in the final hours before congress was to certify the votes. that morning, trump and pence had one final call before pence headed off to the capitol and it was anything but civil. >> it was a different ton

fact, i'm going to put up the list, these are some of the people, mark meadows is among them, john eastmanbrian kemp, giuliani, i can't imagine brian kemp being willing to lie for donald trump, but what do you make of the notion that people, some lawyers, who might be willing to lie for donald trump? and risk going to prison. >> it doesn't -- it doesn't surprise me as much as it may be surprising you. the question becomes whether or not they were lying to cover up something that they thought might be more incriminating for either him or someone else. that they may have been rolling the dice. and hoping against hope that they would not get caught in doing so. you know, this whole thing is incredibly fraught for everyone involved because it appears that crimes not only were committed but that the special grand jury is going to suggest that some people be charged with those crimes. and that is really, really significant. and i think that the fact that fani willis basically said she agreed with the judge's take today and that she was not going to appeal the judge's decision means that her char

he talks about those key meetings at the oval office in early january where john eastman, the lawyer who came up with this idea of pence just throwing out the election results and, you know, essentially impeding the transfer of power, those key meetings are things that the justice department wants a lot more detail of. now, the -- you know, i think the first thing you're going to have is mike pence is going to comply with the subpoena. he's been negotiating for months. and they have at least a first pass where they talk about the things that are in the book already. and then the justice department can look and say, well, we want more than that. and you've already kind of opened the door, and that's where donald trump and his legal team have the opportunity to come in and fight -- and i think certainly the justice department and pence's team believe that donald trump will do that eventually and take it all the way to the supreme court. >> so put this into context, elliott. you have this special counsel demanding testimony and documents through the power of a subpoena, that's a brig de

happens on january 4th, and this is the infamous oval office meeting where the president's lawyer john eastman lays out this harebrained idea about stealing the election and how pence is going to play a role in this. here's what pence writes about it, i turned to the president who was distracted and said, quote, mr. president, did you hear that? even your lawyer doesn't think i have the authority to return electoral votes. the president noted. if i'm a prosecutor, i'm going to say, okay, he nodded but what did he say? tell me everything about that. you're going to probe deeper. you want to understand the president's intent, his mind-set at that time, all of that is going to be important as the special counsel is trying to figure out exactly what happened. >> tali, how much is state of mind a part of this? >> it's a huge part of it, and it can only be determined through the kinds of questions that laura talked about, which is why it's certainly not enough to say, well, he wrote about it in that op-ed or he's going to write about it in his book. they are going to -- if it were me in the room, i

how many of those people actually had direct contact with either donald trump, rudy giuliani, john eastman, where mark meadows? those are the big four that are going down on this indictment. >> nick, thank you very much. we'll keep you on speed dial. everybody else, stick around, if you would. next, we're gonna show you the difference between what the war in ukraine looks like here in the u.s., and what the russian people are hearing on tv. this cough. [sfx: coughs] this'll help. vicks vaporub? vicks vaporub's ...medicated vapors go strait to the source of your cough... ...so you can relieve your cough to breathe easier. vicks vaporub. fast-acting cough relief. julian's about to learn that free food is a personal eating trigger. no it isn't. yes it is. and that's just a bit of psychology julian learned from noom weight. sign up now at noom.com lomita feed is 101 years old this year and counting. i'm bill lockwood, current caretaker and owner. when covid hit, we had some challenges like a lot of businesses did. i heard about the payroll tax refund, it allowed us to keep the amount of people

trump is something that's going to be dressed up the other way, which is, no, i was hearing from john eastman there is a legal argument here to what the vice president could do, so i did not think this was criminal. i thought i was having a, quote, intellectual debate about what his role and powers could be as the head of the senate. now, we all know that that is commonly referred to as, like, poppycock. that is just not what happened -- >> i'm going to let david respond. >> andrew, that would be trump's argument, right? >> yeah, yeah. >> that he was relying on eastman, and it's not trump who can assert the speech and debate clause privilege. it would be pence who has said he knew what he was being asked to do was unconstitutional. >> yeah, but i think when he's saying, i as a sitting, you know, member of the legislature was having a discussion with the president of the united states about what he thought my powers could be, i disagreed. that's why i got outside counsel, got a former judge. but he was setting forth a different argument. that would be the -- look, i'm trying to say what the be

trump coup plotter john eastman was searched by the authorities but he and giuliani and other republicaniring for you for the first time. >> we're currently watching individuals who stormed the capitol on january 6th, some who broke the law have gone to jail. the individuals that influenced these people to act this way i time. are we going to see people do time for the fact that they committed a crime? >> if you have a conspiracy and you have the pawns here doing it and the pawns are going to jail, and that's not a left/right thing, that's just a you were caught trespassing, you were caught obstructing a proceeding of the government, do you even go after the king? right? that's the fundamental question in all of this because i think at the end of the day, the insurrection was a national security and democratic scandal of historic proportions. and if you only go after the so-called little guys, then to quote a writer that i really like, a failed coup that goes unpunished becomes a training exercise. >> that's right. >> so that's, i think, the biggest -- yes, factual legal question that th

leading up to that day, and the meetings and contacts that both trump and other coup plotters, like john eastman, seen here being searched by the fbi, what they might have said privately. we do know that a dozen lawmakers who met with trump, at least one meeting occurred on december 21st, and an attendee described that huddle as friendly withpence's involvement. >> it was a very friendly meeting. vice president pence was there. in fact, vice president pence encouraged the debate. he said the debate is something that needed to happen and laid out his plans to entertain that. unfortunately, violence and riots obstructed the work that we wanted to do. >> violence got in the way. that's the same argument used by trump aide peter navaro. the argument was that these plotters had a peaceful plan to still steal the election, but that it didn't involve violence. and then the attack interfered with their bloodless coup plan. well, the special counsel can probe that claim, and look at what pence says about what he told the people on your screen and others, and what was covered in the meetings. what will pe

testified, including trump allies lying rudy giuliani, senator lindsey graham, michael flynn and john eastman. cnn's manu raju got reaction from senator graham a short time ago. >> are you confident in your testimony? >> yes. >> you haven't heard from them after that? >> no. >> what's your reaction to the general recommendation? >> there you go. we're covering all the angles with cnn's sara murray, kristen holmes and evan perez. sara, let me start with you. what are we learning from this grand jury report? >> these are really just snippets. the meat of what we want to know is who, if anyone, they recommended for criminal charges. of course that is not part of what we got today. the judge made clear that he thought it was too premature in the interest of fairness and due process to release that. we did get the introduction, conclusion and concerns about perjury. we also got a point the grand jury felt they needed to note, they said we find by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election. that's in

we will find out things, and in addition, mehdi, to the people you named upfront, there is also john eastmaned, mike flynn who testified, and number two only to trump, mark meadows. now, it would be an awfully silly order if when the report, those three sections come out on thursday, the introduction says here -- is our report, and the conclusion says, there was a report. i think that there is, you know, there's likely to be something like, we recommend that indictment of 17 individuals, for example, for the reasons below. and the targets are that numerous. we also found out today, by the way, that the chair of the republican in georgia has said he's not going to try to run again. so, i think that is probably fall out for this, because she also has given target letters to many people, including state officials. so, we will get a glimmer on thursday. and i think that speculation will be rife, and then, we come into this, tomorrow, we have a very good point about legal evidence, whatever that means. by the way, all the facts and the case are really well put out in tamar's podcast called breakd

trump, john eastman, and others for violating title 18, section 371.s statute makes it a crime to conspire to defraud the united states. in other words, to make an agreement to impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful functions of the united states government by deceitful or dishonest means. third, we make the referral based on title 18, section 1001, which makes it unlufl to low noeingly and willfully make materially false statements to the federal government. the evidence clearly suggests that president trump conspired with others to submit slates of fake electors to congress and the national archives. we believe that this evidence we set fourth in our report is more than sufficient for a criminal referral of former president donald j. trump and others in connection with this offense. >> it's only been one month since the department of justice has had access to all of the evidence that the committee marshaled. and it was -- it was volumes and volumes. but it's been over two years, right? january 6th has come and gone. it's been two years and one month.

reporting that what has been disclosed are communications he had with people like jeffrey clark, with john eastman investigators want to see is how much people were aware of what they were doing, any sort of knowledge or intent that what they was doing was wrong or against the law, whether or not people were cautioning that something shouldn't be done or not to do something or that if something were to be done to say it one way or not the other. so you want two main things out of this, nicolle. you want to know what was occurring, the sort of events as they took place and transpired, and then you also want to see as best you can from these very private and close conversations what people were thinking behind the things they were doing. >> glenn, let me show you what pete's talking about. these are the categories as the judge has deemed of what's on perry's phone. so they're documents that fall under the category of the congressman's contacts with colleagues about legislation and votes, which her decision is that those should remain shielded. right? how are we going to vote on infrastructure? speak