head of the justice department's civil rights division. we don't have a permanently confirmed civil rights chief yet at the biden justice department, but they've gotten estimable official, pam carlin, who's long been on shortlists and long lists as a potential supreme court nominee. she's did send a tough letter to arizona senate republicans this week asking what exactly they are doing with over 2 million ballots that were cast in the 2020 presidential election. that letter from pamela carlin warning arizona republicans about potential violations of federal law in terms of how they are handling those ballots, how they are literally treating those ballots. they're part of a so-called audit. ballots from a federal election are supposed to be under the direct control of elections officials for 22 months after an election happens. in arizona instead, arizona republicans have given all the ballots to the cyber ninjas, led by its qanon promoting ceo, and they're being -- the ballots are being recounted by people they apparently recruited off of

old justice department. weight to the public interest after all. this involved an investigation into the president of the united states and the attorney general who is willing to essentially lied to the country to conceal and i think the public interest in full disclosure ought to outweigh whatever concern the justice department may have, particularly when the court has read the stock that it isn't an internal deliberation over a legal issue. it's essentially spin. i don't think the biden administration should get in the way. >> mister chairman, our reporting now indicates that they will be appealing the decision. it will be the official position of the maryland justice department that they do want to protect this memo. >> well that's disappointing and if they do persist then i hope that they are not sustained by the court of appeals. i hope that the court of appeals will reject this treaty by the justice department. but again, this is not a typical. when the next executive wants to protect the prerogatives

that's why you're the department of justice. not that the judge say you've been disingenuous with court and the after dates don't merritt credence. you're the department of justice. you're there to do justice. >> in terms of what the justice department should do now, obviously, you disagree with this decision to appeal the judge's ruling. you think that this material should be made public. that will be a source of continued litigation. that will be decided in court ultimately. but what about the substantive question that is at the heart of this, which is the justice department, under the previous president, being confronted with hundreds of pages of detailed evidence about him potentially committing felony obstruction of justice while he was president. we now know because this litigation that the justice department never substantively considered that evidence. should they now substantively consider that evidence? >> well, if you said that you didn't consider the olc policy that a sitting president can't be indicted, so that's not

the justice department under william barr had withheld that. people filed requests for that, an oversight group called crew had filed a foia lawsuit, the justice demurred, said, no we're not going to release that document, that's real legal advice, and we don't release those things to the public. the judge ruled today that that document wasn't real legal advice. she said it wasn't anything the trump era justice department said that that document was. she says they have been disingenuous about this part of the process, too. she says, in fact, william barr decided from the outset that president trump wouldn't be charged with any crimes, and what he had the justice department cook up for him was an after the fact rationalization of that decision that he had already made. and if you do that, that's not some protected, privileged legal advice thing that can be shielded from the public. particularly if you lie to the court about it. because, you know, if you're the u.s. justice department, if you're the attorney general of the united states and you li

throughout the brief filed with the court late last night the justice department the current justice department is just crawling and scraping about how they didn't mean with a sudden how sorry they are in that it looks the way that the judge thought it looks but they didn't mean for it to look that way and now in retrospect they can see how misleading their previous statement seem to the court but really please couldn't they be forgiven for all of that? and i know you think i'm being hyperbolic but this is the actual language from the brief that has now been filed with the court. quote, in retrospect the government acknowledges that it's briefs could've been clear and it deeply regrets the confusion at cost. but the government's counsel did not intend to mislead the court. we regret the language that was in precise and the government's brief and the confusion that it's caused. quote, we regret that we didn't make this distinction clear in our briefing. the government now recognizes that several statements in his briefing were susceptible to an interpretation. these passages could've b

the justice department has indicted a local georgia sheriff for brutalizing prisoners in his care. the department has opened of federal civil rights investigation in the north carolina police shooting case. it will do so in the george floyd killing case as well. today, the daily beast was first to report that the justice department under merrick garland is gonna start bringing lawsuits into this rash of new laws in republican control states. that single out transgender americans for new overt discrimination. if in fact the federal justice department joins that fight on behalf of transgender americans and their civil -- civil rights, that will put that discriminate crusade around the country by republicans on a whole new level in terms of the fight they are going to get. so, new president, new attorney general, a justice department, very much under new management. now, as of today, here is a brand-new decision. this under new justice department is going to have to make. i honestly have no idea where they are going to do about it. one of the burn marks left by the mueller investigatio

the justice department act. as doctors state and state keeps passing increasingly onerous voting rights restrictions. not we as the biden justice department about this tonight, they did point to the departments requests for $33 million in additional funding to help enforce voting rights statutes. this is a real life issue, with real consequences right now and if this is how republicans in the states are going to behave and are going to comport themselves shouldn't we expect a biden justice department to get involved to join this fight somehow. joining us now is better to work, he is the founder of powered by the people, grassroots organization working to mobilize voters in texas, i should tell you tomorrow congressman who work and many others will be hosting a pair of in-person rallies in austin and in houston, to speak up for voting rights, to speak against these bills that are currently racing through the texas state legislature. mr. or work, it's a real pleasure to see you, thank you so much for making time o

minutes ago, the justice department filed a notice of appeal saying the united states department of justiceict of columbi the ruling of judge amy berman jackson, who had ruled that a memo written in the trump justice department for attorney general william barr must be released. the biden justice department is now protecting that memo through the appeals process, trying to keep it as an internal memo. joining us now is neal katyal, former u.s. acting solicitor general and an msnbc contributor. neal, what do you make of this literally not last-minute, but last-hour -- they had about 60 minutes left to file this -- last-hour decision to appeal this ruling that would have otherwise made that memo to william barr public tonight? >> yeah. so, lawrence, i've read the doj filing. it's not an extension. they are seeking to appeal judge jackson. they're saying judge jackson was wrong to order the disclosure of the barr justice department memo. and this is disappointing to me. i think this is the people's memo. i think this is the wrong decision. they're, in fairness, not going to appeal at all. they

>> for the department of justice there are a number of issues. the border patrol and the customs and the department of homeland security. they have the primary responsibility of the border. we have ane large number u.s. attorneys at the border to prosecute the cases that are brought to them with homeland security agents. so part of her budget request was money for that. we do manage the immigration ports with the office of immigration. that is the principal of the increase of money or asking for in this area. that is because the administration took over a million cases backlogged in that system. with additional immigration and part of this increase is to add the judges plus teams of support necessary to exonerate the hearings in those cases. >> okay. as it is noted, the immigration stands over 1.4 million cases. i think youio included that in 25 locations understand that individual waited three years for adjudication and in three locations they will wait overat four years. the previous administration had a case -based metrics as a cases for immigr

these look like terrible abuses of power by the justice department.to be looked into. i hope and believe that the new justice department leadership will take corrective action. >> i hope so too. a member of the steering committee for freedom of the press, a subject obviously very close to my heart. let's turn to the prospects of the new commission of inquiry to investigate the january 6th attack on the u.s. capital. senate republicans may filibuster in the coming days. is this commission dead on arrival? >> no. it isn't. but it's clear that mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy are going to try to kill it anyway they can. i have to say watching that clip of mitch mcconnell saying that after giving careful consideration, he's decided to oppose it. that careful consideration was no more than reading donald trump's statement saying you need to oppose this. it countldn't be more of a contradiction than what he said after the insurrection when he promised to get to the bottom of this. this was negotiated in a bipartisan fashion. it has five democrats and five

the justice department -- i mean needless to say, that is not what the u.s. nt of justice is built for. and now that it's the biden administration, they've let it be known that they are dropping that and twitter does not need to answer that subpoena. the previous administration left behind also a dangling criminal investigation of former president trump's lawyer, rudy giuliani. a document unsealed in that case today reveals that the fbi seized 18 different electronic devices from giuliani's home and office when the fbi executed a search warrant against him last month. the lawyer for the previous president facing potential criminal indictment, having all his electronic devices seized by search warrant, that is not a normal thing that most justice departments have to deal with. just tonight, since we've been on the air n a new court filing, sdny prosecutors say about the search warrants they executed in the rudy case, quote, these searches were the result of an ongoing multi-year grand jury investigation into conduct involving rudy giuliani, victoria toensing, a

it was called that by the justice department in 2014. all that was upended in 2013 by the shelby county decision which invalidated the free clearance requirement. now instead of normal, what we have is the distance department has to file suit every time there is an unconstitutional change in the voting laws that offends the 15th amendment or some other part of the constitution. as a result, your department has to spend a lot more money filing lawsuits to reverse these voting law changes. my correct? -- am i correct? you are muted, sir. ag garland: this is my first one here. you are correct, shelby county and valuated -- invalidated that law that allow that cap -- to continue so it is now the case that the justice department is limited to the affirmative cases which it binds under section two of the act. this does require us to bring individual cases, and that is much more time-consuming. chairman: it reverses the burden of proof. it was not normal during the bulk of my lifetime, if a jurisdiction on it to change voting was, a jurisdiction

it was called that by the justice department in 2014. all that was upended in 2013 by the shelby county decision which invalidated the free clearance requirement. now instead of normal, what we have is the distance department has to file suit every time there is an unconstitutional change in the voting laws that offends the 15th amendment or some other part of the constitution. as a result, your department has to spend a lot more money filing lawsuits to reverse these voting law changes. my correct? -- am i correct? you are muted, sir. ag garland: this is my first one here. you are correct, shelby county and valuated -- invalidated that law that allow that cap -- to continue so it is now the case that the justice department is limited to the affirmative cases which it binds under section two of the act. this does require us to bring individual cases, and that is much more time-consuming. chairman: it reverses the burden of proof. it was not normal during the bulk of my lifetime, if a jurisdiction on it to change voting was, a jurisdiction

justice department tonight, the head of the civil rights department has just sent this letter to theat they are so-called audit of the 2020 presidential election, this recount they're doing of the presidential election result which is being resulted by a company who are qanon supporters, they are warning that that may be in violation of federal law, in part because they have turned over these actual ballots from a federal election to a private company, when ballots are legally required to be under the control of legal officials. interesting way, the people doing this audits say that they may go door to door asking people about their votes and that would constitute voter intimidation, under federal law. again, this record just sent tonight, we don't know what this portends but if the u.s. department is getting involved in this weird recount in arizona that could potentially be a big deal, watch this space. that is going to do it for us tonight. now it's time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> thank you, justice department. i was wondering about that. as we're watching this

a bombshell new report from the "washington post" this morning, the justice department has confirmed that at some point in 2020, when william barr was serving as attorney general, the department of justice secretly obtained the phone records of three "washington post" reporters for calls they made during three months in 2017 while reporting on russia's role in the 2016 presidential election. the subpoenas sought records that would show who the reporters called and how long their conversations lasted. now republicans on the federal elections commission appear to be giving the former president a gift, wielding their power to force the commission to drop the inquiry into whether trump violated campaign finance laws when he directed his then personal attorney, michael cohen, to make a hush money payment to stormy daniels in 2016. the decision came months after an internal report stated that there was reason to believe that trump knowingly and willfully violated campaign finance law. a lot to get to. joining me now, "washington post" reporter, devlin barrett. he is the author of "october s

ideological outlook of the individual committing these alleged crimes is not important to the department of justicet what resources has the department dedicated to identifying and prosecuting the individuals responsible for the violent acts last summer that were aimed at institutions like courthouses and police stations? >> thank you, senator, for the question. as you might expect, i know more about the resources we're putting into january 6th because most of those resources have been put in on my watch during the time i have been here. i wasn't the attorney general nor in the department of justice in the summer, so i'm not completely familiar with the resources that were put in during that period. but the u.s. attorney's offices in both -- the other portland and in minneapolis are continuing to work those cases as are -- as is the fbi field offices in both of those cases. and i have not heard any suggestion that insufficient resources are available for those continuing prosecutions. >> if you could get back to me with more specifics on that, i'd really appreciate it. >> i'll ask my staff to contac

you know, this is the justice department.ically plagued by scanned always. this is the crown jewel of our democracy. it's a place that's historically run in the people's interests, not in the interests of the president. what you have in this decision by the judge amy jackson, who is a meticulous judge, is a statement that, no, barr actually lied to the court and to the american people. she called barr's actions in the litigating position disingenuous, which is something you almost never hear a federal judge say about any litigant, particularly not someone from the justice department, and particularly not the attorney general of the united states. if a federal judge calls your testimony before the congress disingenuous, as she did, i think it's time to start retaining legal counsel, and ideally someone who can save whatever is left of that tattered reputation that you have. >> let me press you there. what does bill barr need legal counsel for? who could try to hold him accountable legally? >> well, i think, you know, this is t

they couldn't try to bring an indictment against trump because there was a justice department policy against indicting any sitting president. but they also said explicitly that that same justice a department policy, quote, also recognizes that a president does not have immunity after he leaves office. well, donald trump has left office. there is no justice department policy protecting him from being indicted now. the statute of limitations has not run on the conduct that was described in the mueller report. and the evidence against him in terms of these multiple seriousv allegations of obstruction of justice, that evidence was in the mueller report obtained and preserved, laid out very orderly, laid out in a very orderly way by mueller's investigators. a federal judge has just ruled within the past two weeks that justice department at the time, they never looked substantively at that evidence while trump was president. they never made a substantive determination as to whether or not criminal charges against trump were warranted. the justice department is now free to make that determin

judge ordered the justice department to release to the public a document that trump justice tried to keep secret for years. document about their decision not to bring criminal charges against trump. judge said she's seen it, although justice department tried to stop her seeing it. she's reviewed it and said the trump justice department lied about what is in the document and wants it released to the public. biden justice department under attorney general merrick garland has to decide whether to appeal or if they will comply and release that document. release of that document and the attending drama about why they lied about it, why they tried to keep that document secret for years, that will obviously put a very hot spotlight back on the question of why trump in fact wasn't charged with obstruction of justice despite all the evidence of it laid out in mueller's investigation. before you look it up, no, statute of limitations isn't up. for what it's worth, statute of limitations for trump's conduct described is generally five-year statute, that was 2017, 2018, 2019. there's still time

we are also watching the justice department today for any sign that they'll appeal the justice court ruling we lead the show with last night. the trump attorney general bill barr was, quote, disingenuous and that he and other trump administration partners basically lied to the court and lied to the public about then attorney general barr's decision to bring federal charges against president trump after the mueller report laid out 10 instances of criminal action. releasing a document the trump department has been trying to keep secret for years. the judge says she's seen that document although the justice department tried to stop her from seeing it. she's seen it, reviewed. the trump justice department lied about what's in that document and now wants it released to the public. the biden justice department now has to decide if they'll appeal that ruling or comply with it and release that document. the release tha of that document and drama about why they liared about it and tried to keep that document secret for years will put a hot spotlight back on the question of why trump in fact w

but that'll be an issue that the justice department needs to resolve.can find the evidence. well, that there's probable cause at least that there is such evidence, in heis either home or business. >> for a raid like to that to make. for warrants to be issued on both his office and his home. what stage of an investigation does it -- does the investigation have to be at? and the confidence that the prosecutors have? >> well, i -- i'm not sure that i can tell you what stage it's at. but -- but the -- on the level of confidence, they have to be pretty darn confident that they have a good-legal case to be made. that these -- these warrants will be challenged. this is not just a lawyer, but the president's lawyer. but any lawyer that has an argument of attorney-client privilege, prosecutors are going to be weary about searching their -- their devices or their homes. so as not to intrude on that privilege. here, they must feel that he was engaged in some crime or fraud, in which case, the privilege doesn't apply. >> is it clear to you, whether giuliani just fl

19 exacerbates the many societal inequities across brazil. >> woodruff: late last night the justice departmentdocument that played an important role in the decision not to charge for president trump with obstruction of justice. our john yang explores. >> yang: judy, the nine-page memo is to then-attorney general william barr from the justice department's office of legal counsel, which provides legal advice to government agencies. barr said it was the basis for his conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence to establish that president trump broke obstruction of justice laws. a watchdog group sued to make it public and earlier this month a judge said it must be released. last night, the justice department released a heavily redacted version and appealed the judge's order to release the rest of it. noah bookbinder is predent and c.e.o. of citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington, or "crew," which sued for the memo's release. mr. bookbinder, thank you so much for joining us. your group filed this suit literally the afternoon of attorney general barr's news conference. what does this

justice department disingenuous. we've always known there's a degree of corruption around bill barr but this puts exclamation point on it. notably she's not first judge in washington, d.c., to call bill barr such thing. reggie walton and emmit sullivan with the mueller report and claim he dropped case against michael flynn for reasons that didn't seem credible. >> want to spend a minute on this word disingenuous, and why the judge went that far but not beyond that, didn't say what i would say, call it a lie. that is because a judge is in a unique position, finder of fact and doesn't want to be in position to be accuser. she recognizes that prosecutors are in the business of accusing, not judges. so that's about as strong a word as a judge in this situation could use, isn't it? >> exactly. she couldn't go further, specific question in the case, a public interest organization was seeking memo that barr used to say -- that he claims he used to say i'm notice going to indict president trump. that's something ordinarily t

since the raid he's blamed the biden administration and said the justice department is politicized and going after him because of their political motivations but on the other hand, he's also admitting and saying that the justice department in late 2019 searched his i cloud without permission. he was in charge then? bill barr and donald trump so the sort of explanation or the push back that this is some kind of political investigation is undermined. >> rudy giuliani contradicting himself. who knew? perspective from daniel gold man in the first impeachment inquiry and questioned ambassador yovanovitch and her removal from office and former federal prosecutor for the southern district of new york investigating giuliani. thanks for being with us. before we get to giuliani specifically, this reporting from cnn that the raid ignited a sense of fear among some in the president's inner circle about the idea things could be coming down the pike. as a former prosecutor, do you think some of those people should be worried? >> well, you never know what a defendant will do in terms of cooperation a

and in her ruling she has ordered the justice department to release documents about that, really soon. by monday. the justice department under new management, under merrick garland could appeal that but if they don't she has ordered them to release the document that the trump administration tried to keep secrets all these years. she's already told us whatever review of that document and of the justice department actions around that time indicated about the process that was followed in terms of deciding whether or not trump would be criminally charge. what she's told us already in the rulings that the justice department didn't substantively consider possibly criminal charges against donald trump despite the evidence that was laid out against him. but of course now they could. and on top of that very pregnant revelation about the former president and his criminal liability, the expected release of that document they want to kept secret, which we think will come out next monday. on top of all of that, late last night we got this new news, that a deal has been reached finally after all th

about noon, police prepared for a planned march on the justice department.e part. however, these were joined by over 3000 others who had been released by the court. police warned the demonstrators to disperse or be arrested. most left peacefully, but 1500 chose to be arrested. final may day action, called for a massive siege of the united states capital. to hold congress hostage, until it ratified a peoples peace treaty with the north vietnamese. by now, 3000 hardwood radicals was all that was left of a may day tribe that had numbered nearly 45,000 days before. >> at 1:00 they mounted the east steps of the capital, to applaud political oratory against the establishment and the war. shortly after the speeches, police again ordered the demonstrators to disperse or be arrested. some 1200 reacted as the tactical manual dictated. no matter what anyone says, no matter what laws we break, we will not leave our action targets until we have succeeded at creating the spector of social chaos. or until we are arrested. they were arrested. the remaining few, who were dra

the department of justice is now open for business and lives will be saved and congressman al green who said the winds of change are blowing across this nation, this as a result of the department of justice now imposing federal charges against the four minneapolis police officers. our omar jimenez has been covering all of this since the very beginning. he's joining us right now. this is an emotional moment for this family and for all of those involved. you heard the nephew and brother of george floyd talk about how, like family members, the members of congress, al green and sheila jackson lee, have been throughout, and how they believe this is a turning point. also, omar, we're also joined by tim alexander, a civil rights attorney and former police detective. he's also a democrat running for u.s. house seat in new jersey. omar, let me begin with you about these federal charges and now the consequence of such and how this is making the george floyd family feel particularly. >> well, for the floyd family, i think we heard in some of this press conference, they're emphasizing this moment i

and all of it comes amid an on going department of justice probe into patterns and practices at the departmentinging in more police to deal with the issue now while they there are efforts to reform the police in the long run again all year after george floyd was murdered on that video now seen countless times around the world. >>> we should note george floyd's brother and family attorney will join us exclusively in the next hour. >>> the state department warning americans not to travel to japan just weeks ahead of the tokyo olympics. what does this mean for the future of the games? >>> plus, together again. a family reunited after coronavirus restrictions trapped in new jersey man in india. he and his wife will join us next. the new samsung galaxy s21 this looks different. it is. show me. just hit record! see that? you're filming in 8k. that's cinema quality. so... you can pull photos straight from video. impressive. but will it last a whole trip? you'll have battery all day. and then more. this is different. told you. ♪ we've got 'em on the ropes. the billionaires buying elections. the corpor

i mean, from the last justice department, to this one?ust today, we learned that before trump left office, his attorney general will -- bill barr got correspondent from barbara starr at cnn. we recently learned that under barr, they did that two to washington reporters in russia as well. the justin department is now no longer doing that. and they are letting it be known, that the last justice department did this, and it was all approved under bill barr, and not under the current administration. but they have to let that information be known, now and they have to clean up after it. these organizations are obviously very angry that it happened. we also learned that under bill barr, the justice department subpoenaed twitter to try to get the identity who of someone who had been sending funny treats -- tweets. congressman nunes. congressman nunes. he demanded that twitter says who had been mean to devin. now that it's the biden administration, they let it know they are dropping. that would've doesn't need to answer that subpoena. the previous

this is the justice department arguing before a court that some justice department legal opinions needrtment so that lawyers can give honest advice to an attorney general. notably, the judge in this case was very unhappy with the prior arguments that had been made by the justice department and so in the justice department's new filing with the court, they fall on their sword. they apologize. they say we didn't mean to mislead the court in this, and so -- >> the memo, to be clear, the memo is actually -- it would explain what? it would explain why bill barr did not proceed with saying, yeah, this was obstruction, right? >> exactly. what the prior justice department under attorney general barr was arguing was that they had given advice to the attorney general not to pursue prosecution for the former president for obstruction. and so now what they are arguing is that some parts of that memo can be released, but some parts of it have to be advice the lawyers can give to the attorney general that deponeon't get out the public view. >> in addition to this, don mcgahn will now testify behind

think of that, what this administration and this department of justice is doing is shining a bright lightwhat i think is very mischievous behavior of the trump administration's department of justice. >> we're going to have a bit more on that in a moment. >>> but first, happening this hour, cities across the country rallying for voting rights in honor of the late john lewis. it comes as a growing number of states are advancing bills that would make it harder for people to vote, including in florida. last hour, florida congresswoman stephanie murphy telling me this move was shameful. >> if you have good ideas and good values to go to the public with, then you shouldn't be afraid of having all americans who are eligible vote, and what the florida governor is doing is trying to prohibit people from voting. they're trying to win by changing the rules as opposed to allowing american democracy to operate the way it should. >>> also new today, the divide in the republican party growing deeper. two of the most controversial republicans, marjorie taylor greene and matt gaetz, bashing members of the

the joy of movement. >>> this week, a federal judge rejected the justice department's attempts to keepecret a memo from former attorney general bill barr. >> the memo, specifically about the decision not to charge former president trump with obstruction of justice of the mueller investigation was, the judge says, misleading. cnn's senior legal affairs correspondent paula reid joins us with the latest. paula, reading this, there's a little legalese in this. tell us exactly what it alleges barr did here and why it's significant. >> so this is significant because it's so rare for a federal judge to accuse a former attorney general and the justice department of misleading the court. she comes pretty close to accusing them of a cover-up. now this whole issue arose in a lawsuit by a government transparency group that says, it doesn't fully trust the official story that came out of the barr justice department during the mueller investigation and they want certain documents, including this memo that was finalized on the same day that the former attorney general briefed congress on the mueller

what we see under the biden department of justice andmerer mak -- merrick garland, police departmento be handled with federal civil rights prosecutions and we should note, john, not only are there indictments against the four officers involved in george floyd's murder, there is a complaint filed in terms of a pattern and practice investigation that will take place with respect to the minneapolis police department, as well. >> talk to me about the sequencing of the additional state trials and the appeal and the federal cases. do you think this is something the federal prosecutors will want to take to trial or is there a chance maybe for playing out? >> so a lot of moving parts here, john. the next thing that will happen is the state trial of the other three officers set for august. this changes the strategic calculations a bit for both sides. if you are on the defendant eastside now, you're thinking wow, we got to win our state cases and derek chauvin of course has been convicted and then we have to beat these federal cases. it's already hard enough for a defendant to get a not guilty

lawyer, your credibility is basically the most important quality that a lawyer in the justice department the fact that this was -- the judge's memo is not just directed at attorney general bar as an individual. what she was saying is he was disingenuous, but also the department of justice was disingenuous to her. that has consequences for every attorney, justice department attorney that walks into, not only her courtroom, but other courtrooms all around the country. >> what can we all learn from this memo at this point? >> the memo itself is the context of what she's saying now, it has to be released. what it's going to reveal is information that was provided to attorney general barr regarding what his strategy was, what his thinking was in making the decision not to prosecute former president trump for obstruction. remember, all this came out of special counsel mueller's investigation into whether the president obstructed the investigation into interference in the 2016 election. at the time the attorney general had decided not to prosecute the president, and what the judge is saying is

he has not responded, and the justice department here, the current justice department, anderson, has done under the trump administration. >> so it's not known what evidence was offered by the department of justice to obtain these records? >> exactly right. all of this was done in court under seal, and in secret. so presumably they had to make a case as to why they needed these records, and as to why they didn't need to notify cnn or our pentagon correspondent, barbara starr, but all of that is still under seal. we are not privy to it. we don't have access to it. it's all secret. >> also just, you know, just recently revealed that three "washington post" reporters were told this month that they had their records obtained during the trump administration. >> right. so this is what makes this even more significant, this news coming out today about barbara starr's records. it was just a few weeks ago that we learned that three "washington post" reporters had their records obtained from also in 2017, and this is significant because this is the second time in just a few weeks that we've lea

the department of justice is strengthening its partnership with the community to prevent these crimes. in addition to its other work to take on violent extremism and domestic terrorism. and with the new law, this new law, the department of justice and our entire administration is going to step up. right now thanks critical problem of hate crimes being underreported. it stems from two challenges. first, there's a lack of resources and training for state and local law enforcement to accurately identify and report hate crimes to the f.b.i. secondly, for more people and communities of color, there are language and cultural barriers on how to communicate what's happening to them. this law is going make a difference. for example, the department of justice will issue clear guidance for state city and tribal and law enforcement agencies on how to establish online reporting of hate crimes. it will work with the department of health and human services to raise public awareness of covid-19 hate crimes that occurred during pandemic. also be a devoted official at the department of justice whose so

first, it's a bold move by the justice department to send a strong message that the federal governmentback in the business of enforcing civil rights and holding police departments accountable. and second, i think the feds may be trying to encourage these three officers charged with aiding and abetting to work out a joint plea bargain on both the federal and the state charges. prosecutors are throwing the book at these cops, and that may encourage them to plead guilty, try to get a lower sentence on both the state and federal charges. >> so, what could the trial look like for these other three officers with this consideration of these new charges? >> yasmin, it's going to be harder for prosecutors to convict the three officers for aiding and abetting than it was for them to get the murder conviction of chauvin. they have better defenses and a jury might have more sympathy for them. two of the officers were rookie cops. officer thao says that he never put his hands on mr. floyd. those aren't technical defenses, but jurors are often sympathetic to police officers in difficult situations.