justice department. according to the chief investigative counsel at the january 6th investigation, quote, the metadata in that draft letter indicates some involvement with the white house communications agency within the drafting or preparation of that letter. the would you say was involved fl that? that wasn't just this guy jeff clark drafting this letter on justice department letterhead telling georgia and other states that they needed to flip the election results? the trump white house was involved in that? here's why that's a head snapping development. after this deposition of jeffrey clark, this sort of failed deposition of jeffrey clark where he refuses to give actual testimony refuses to ask questions. he and his lawyer storm out in the middle. after the transcript of the failed deposition was released by the january 6th investigation this week including this fascinating record of everything they said in the room after jeff clark and his lawyer left, after they publicly released that document this

justice department. according to the chief investigative council, quote, the metadata in that draft letter indicates some involvement with the white house communications agency in the drafting or preparation of that letter. white house was involved in that? telling georgia and other states telling them to flip the results? here is why that is a head snapping development. after this deposition of jeffrey clark, this failed deposition of jeffrey clark where he refuses to answer any questions. he and his lawyer get up and storm out in the middle of it. a the transcript was released this week, including this fascinating record of everything theyin said in the room after jf clark and his lawyer left, after they publically released that document this week, jeff clark surprised everyone by telling theer committee, surprise, actually upon reflection, i'm pleading the fifth. he told them he's going to invoke his fifth amendment rights. surprise? what led him to do that? well, the chair and the vice chair have gon

protecting with that fifth amendment, that's the justice department helping a former justice department official that was not only very high. he was plotting a coup to take over the justice department. to take over the government. to basically wipe out the will of the american people in a free and fair election. this is really, really, deadly serious stuff. and i don't think you can just decide well, it's just too political. less the look in the rearview mirror. i think you've got to take in. and i think -- i'm not kidding here. the idea it took them weeks to charge bannon. wouldn't excuses that? all of the evidence was as plain is and those on my face. it was public evidence. so, the idea that it took so long to charge him is really a bad sign. >> senator claire mccaskill, thank you very much for joining us. really appreciate it. >> you bet. >> thank you. up next, in the last word, your tweets will be the last work. that's next. ever notice how stiff clothes can feel rough on your skin? it's because they rub against you creating friction. and your clothes rub against you all day. for s

evan perez and former justice department spokesperson.walk us through this. >> according to the lawsuit filed today, don, this is the redistricting the republican legislator and governor just put into place in texas vooi la violates section 2 of the voting rights act. they say texas added 4 million people between 2010 and 2020, 95% of that population growth was from hispanic and other minorities and texas gained two congressional districts, both of those new districts were drawn with majority white voters and this according to the justice department affected harris county, of course, which is the houston area, a big area of growth and they say specifically what the republicans were trying to do is die lute the voting power of hispanics and minorities, african americans and other minorities in texas. >> just to be clear, though, it was only last month that the doj challenged texas, a different texas voting law. >> right, this is the second lawsuit voting rights related lawsuit against texas. the last one had to do with voting restrictions

evan perez and former justice department spokesperson. good to have both of you on.ll him evan perez. >> that's right. >> so evan, walk us through this. >> according to the lawsuit filed today, don, this is the redistricting the republican into place in texas violates section 2 of the voting rights act. they cite one specific example. they say texas added 4 million people between 2010 and 2020, 95% of that population growth was from hispanic and other minorities and texas gained two congressional districts, both of those new districts were drawn with majority white voters and this according to the justice department affected harris county, of course, which is the houston area, a big area of growth and they say specifically what the republicans were trying to do was to dilute the voting power of hispanics and minorities, african americans and other minorities in texas. >> just to be clear, though, it was only last month that the doj challenged texas, a different texas voting law. >> right, this is the second lawsuit voting rights related lawsuit against texas. the las

accepting the results of the 2020 presidential election. >> congressman, are you confident the department of justicellow through with criminal referrals? >> i believe they will. i believe they'll take action. i believe the department of justice has to understand what's at stake for the country. again, the washington post today, i believe, there were three retired generals who told the military that they should be prepared in case there's an attempted coup or insurrection in 2024. and i think that's right. listen, if we don't act swiftly and aggressively now, then elections in november of 2022 and certainly the presidential election in 2024 may not look at all like what we've known elections to be in the past. >> how worried are you about that? about that real possibility, the loss of democracy in this country, if we're not following through? >> i'm extremely concerned, you know, as somebody who sat on the intelligence committee, has sat on the intelligence committee since mid 2016, went through both rounds of impeachment, the intelligence committee had a role in those, and then i was at the capitol

otherwise the justice department then starts to appear to be basically helping a former justice departmenticial slowly get away with whatever he was trying to get away with. >> well, i think you are right, lawrence. we should consider the fact, too, that jeffrey clark's superiors at the justice department have already come in and testified, so in terms of any claim of privilege, executive privilege, the fact that those even above him in higher positions did not assert any privilege is pretty telling when someone at a lower level is trying to claim that. they also didn't assert any fifth amendment privilege. now, mr. clark may have a particular reason why he believes that his testimony would incriminate him. again, we'll have to evaluate that as it comes. but should we decide that it is a valid privilege as to certain questions even then it might not be the end of the story. we could explore potentially with the justice department whether there is an order, some form of immunity. i don't want to cross that bridge before we see whether this indication is in good faith or bad faith. so far, i

the justice department's filed suit against the state of texas for violating section ii. of the voting rights act. as the supreme court has observed, the core principle of our democracy is that voters should choose representatives, not the other way around. section ii requires that state voting laws, including laws that drawn electoral maps, provide eligible voters with an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process and to elect representatives of their choosing. the complaint we have filed alleges that texas has violated section ii by redistricting plans that violate the rights of latino and black voters to vot on account of their race, color, membership or language in a minority group. as many of you know in 2013 the supreme court effectively elimit nateed the preclearance provisions of the voafting rights act which had been the department's best tool for pro2ebg9ing voting rights. earlier this year, i noted that this redistricting cycle would be the first since 1960 without the protection of preclearance. i also said that the department should use all av

of the justice department. they have remained frustratingly opaque. but the more evidence that congress uncovered in its work, the more the situation for the doj changes. and if in fact doj is not actively engaged in how referred the former president from a bipartisan committee. we could do two things. it can both nudge the department if the committee has developed sufficient evidence that makes it really unattainable for doj to fail to engage. no matter how hesitant they are. there can be a little bit of a nudge factor. and at the same point, getting a referral from a bipartisan committee could also provide doj with a little bit of cover. that set, the doj certainly is not obligated to follow through on congressional referrals. an often when they have the appearance of being political or just amateur requests, doj feels completely at ease ignoring them. >> thank you to the three of you. it has been the satisfying feeling when you lead the cliffsnotes to the 700 page that you need to cover before an exam. court

the justice department will not stand idly by in the face of unlawful attempts to restrict access tot. >> attorney general merrick garland and the senior justice department official vanita gupta announcing today the justice department will sue the state of texas over that state's new republican drawn electoral maps. we've been covering on this show the ways those new texas congressional maps really flagrantly reduce the number of congressional districts where black and latino voters are in the majority. in their lawsuit filed today the justice department says the new congressional map from republicans, quote, effectively turns back a decade of rapid latino population growth and preserves anglo control of most remaining districts. they asked the court to immediately stop texas from holding any election using these new congressional maps. the justice department asked the court to act on that quickly in time for texas's upcoming primaries which are set to take place in march. depending on how the courts view this challenge from the justice department, it means this case could move relat

justice department to try to protect voting rights in texas the doj making the case the new electoralxas republicans those illegally disadvantaged minorities in order to give extra disproportionate representation to white texas republicans, that's the kind of action the justice department has been taking on voting rights. it is actually the second time they've sued the state of texas in the space of a month. as barton gellman notes in his terrifying new cover story for "the atlantic" magazine while the biden justice department has sometimes shown itself willing to go to court to protect voting rights from attacks by republicans, they haven't been going to court to protect elections themselves, democracy itself. he uses the state of georgia where, quote, the justice department has filed suit to overturn some provisions of the new georgia law but not to challenge the hostile takeover of election authorities. instead the doj's federal lawsuit takes issue with a long list of traditional voter suppression tactics. these provisions make it harder by design for democrats to vote in georgia.

the problem for the justice department is this. on the one hand, meadows lawyer is right the longstanding rule of the justice department that close advisers to the president, current and form, are immune from testimony and he is citing that privilege. the dc circuit ruled in a separate trump case in the archives but that has to give way to the congressional need for this information. on the other hand, meadows has been cooperative. he was a close adviser to president the president. he does this claim of privilege. i think this is a much tougher call for the justice department than it was in the bannon case. >> i know you've got to go, pete. even those these are not communications with the president, does it still apply? >> then that is the material that he has given and his lawyer says he -- it's -- that's not the problem. the problem for the contempt citation is his refusal to come up and testify and he is rg aing he is absolutely immune on that. that is a longstanding view of the justice department the congress can't haul up the

justice department for federal criminal prosecution for contempt.atte now, that'll be the justice t' department's independent decision, but the house will decide tomorrow to make that referral of him for potential prosecution. mark meadows is a special case here. white house chief of staff is a big deal. it's a high-ranking official, very close to the president throughout the incidents in question. that said, in this investigation he is one of nearly 300 people, 300 witnesses that have been is called by the investigation thus far and asked to provide documents and testimony.ed initially mr. meadows seemed like he was going to comply.e last month he turned over thousands of pages of documents and emails and text messages to the investigation. apparently something like 9,000 pages of documents and records that could help shed light on the attack on the capitol and the overall attempt to keep trump in power after he lost re-election by forcing the results of the election to be reversed.ckl re meadows started off providing documents by the thousands, but then last week, a day before he wa

then it was justice department official named, jeff clark. who donald trump reportedly wanted to install as attorney general so that the u.s. justice department could help bring this effort to -- the overturn results of the election results. he says he intends to plead the fifth in the investigation. which of course, had us wondering, why he feels to need to plead the fifth. if you feel see maybe in some legal jeopardy here. some of what he was involved with was not only benedict arnold-esque, but also criminal. listen to what congresswoman liz cheney had to say about that. >> in the weeks before january six, president trump's appointee at the justice department, informed and repeatedly said, that the president's claims of election fraud were not supported by the evidence. and that the election was not in fact stone. president trump intended to appoint jeffrey clark as attorney general. in part, so that mr. clark could alter the department of justice's conclusion regarding the election. mr. clark has informed this committee that he anticipate

justice department for potential criminal prosecution.visor steve bannon, but those wheels will be put in motion for trump white house chief of staff mark meadows tomorrow morning starting at 9 a.m. that's going to do it for u

the department of justice began looking into the story in 2018 after it got wind of the book. there was not enough evidence to pursuit charges against her who is 87 years old. despite the case being closed, the family of till says it's not going to give up and till continue its quest for justice. joining me is the cousin of mr. till and the co-founder of the emmit till legacy foundation. good morning. you and i have been speaking over the years throughout this entire process. you were very hopeful not for yourself and your family necessarily but for all those people like that young man i spoke to in jackson, mississippi, who wanted to see justice for emmit till. today, that justice has alluded them once again. >> yes. we are very disappointed by the department of justice's decision to close their investigation in the case. that young man should have hope, because i have hope. some of our family members have hope as well. because we know that the woman has not been held accountable for her role in the kidnapping and murder of emmit till as an accomplice. the state of mississippi

the justice department told till's family, there is insufficient evidence to prove she lied. >> even we don't feel like we got justice, we feel we need to move forward to these hate crimes don't couldn't to be done and no justice is found. >> the justice department said there is still considerable doubt of the woman's version of what happened in 1955. >>> still to come, the latest side effect of the pandemic. blood pressure readings went up last year. the group hit the hardest. pand. blood pressure readings went up last year. the group hit the hardest. >>> a look at today's forecast in some cities around >>> here is a look at the forecast in some cities around the country. >> this couple knows how to do christmas right. they clinched a german world record for the most christmas trees in one place. just take a their festive display. they set up 444 trees decorated from top to bottom. no two trees are the same. the couple has themes including storm troopers and superheroes. they decked the halls with more than 10,000 ornaments and more than 300 strings of lights. >>> on cbs money watch

similarly there's no evidence that the justice department isn't investigating. in the best traditions of the justice department, they have remained frustratingly opaque. but the more evidence that congress uncovers in its work, the more the situation for d.o.j. changes. and if in fact d.o.j. is not actively engaged, a referral to d.o.j. along criminal lines on the former president from a bipartisan committee could do two things. it could both nudge the department, if the committee has developed sufficient evidence that makes it really untenable for d.o.j. to fail to engage, no matter how hesitant they are, there could be a little bit of a nudge factor. and at the same point getting a referral from a bipartisan committee could also provide d.o.j. with a little bit of cover. that said, though, d.o.j. certainly is not obligated to follow through on congressional referrals and d.o.j. feels completely at ease ignoring them. >> we covered a lot of ground there. courtney, amy, joyce, i really appreciate your time tonight. coming up, one of the world's top vaccine exper

. >> reporter: the department of justice has the final say on whether meadows will face charges. and his case is not as straight forward as steve bannon's who the department moved quickly to indict. but they believe they've built a strong case. >> the supreme court has made very clear that executive privilege is not execute and that's exactly what mr. meadows is claiming. the fact he sent all these documents shows he understands that he doesn't enjoy absolute privilege. >> reporter: behind the cameras today, the committee pressed on. interviewing several witnesses, including dustin stockton, a key rally organizer and keith kellogg, former vice president mike pence's national security adviser. kellogg was in the oval office on january 6th and the committee believes he has direct knowledge of trump's conduct on that day. could take several weeks before the department of justice acts on this criminal contempt referral once they receive it. but it's pretty clear the committee has moved on from getting the information that they're seeking from mark meadows. the committee chairman benni

the second is the justice department. she's saying if we find criminal activity, we will deliver it to your doorstep and referral and then it's up to you to act. so far the justice department is relctant to investigate the former president so we'll see what happens depending what the committee finds. >> we'll talk about that later. there is pressure from people that say the justice department should be doing more about this. urban red liner, it is tuesday now. it blends together after awhile. it tuesday. there are a lot of people who have either wrapped things up or are wrapping things up and heading out to travel. we've got a lot of mixed messaging out there about whether people should and how they should handle it if you're vaccinated and boosted. what's your best advice? >> my best advice in this raging, surging omicron is this. this will not be a free and open holiday time for us. we need to be particularly careful. we're not going anywhere where there is not established that every single person there is fully vaccina

and i do think that the justice department is going to be looking carefully. as you know, hr halderman ended up going to prison after watergate for obstruction of justice, for perjury. so just because you were chief of staff doesn't get you off the hook. and just because you were once president of the united states doesn't get you off the hook if there were crimes being committed. so i think we're getting into very serious terrain here, and i don't think it's possible to unring this bell now that this information is coming flooding out. >> quick final question. you've already told us that you don't think that meadows has a strong claim here for executive privilege. whatever that claim is, it's stronger than the claim that bannon had, right? >> absolutely. steve bannon put over to the side because he wasn't even a ent federal employee. mark meadows, although he was, i think it's pretty weak. i think he's playing with fire here. he could end up just like hr halderman and end up going to prison and that wouldn't be a good outcome for anyone. unless he decides to p

he was a former justice department official. really done something wrong and i think that that is a line that congress has asked the justice department to lay down again and again and now we're just starting to see that happen. >> neil, talk about jeffrey clark. it's not hyperbole anymore to describe him as sort of the coup plotter at doj. >> i think you're right to say he's the legal architect of this. at least according to the draft letter. this guy wrote a letter saying basically, using the -- justice department, trying to send it saying that the georgia election results were wrong and so on to the point to which this has been debunked by analysts, courts, anyone with a brain. so yet he wanted to use his status as a justice department official to try and get the department to do this. and it's one thing if the acting attorney general wants to do this. it's another if you're jeffrey clark. he's kind of a constitutional nobody. he's well out of his lane. he's doing so for one reason. he's sucking up to donald trump to try and be

we've got a difference within the department of justice. you're a lawyer within the department of justice, you're covered by the office of professional responsibility. i want to point out a couple of differences within the office of professional responsibility between o.p.r., as it's called, and the office of inspector general. these don't reflect any idea that one is bad and the other one isn't. they're just different. the office of professional responsibility does operate on a confidential basis. it operates in secret, and i don't use that term denigratingly. it's there to perform a specific, highly specialized role. lawyers have a separate set of ethical rules and standards they're expected to abide by. the department of justice, employing a lot of lawyers, wants to make sure there is some degree of consistency and discipline within the practice of law. they want to make sure that the relative interests of the privacy, the professionalism of the attorney can be balanced with their other investigative demands. but the inspector general ha

he was not just a department of justice employee. he was at the top of the justice department.ontention with trump to be the attorney general. and for him now apparently to take a position that if he is forth coming with the committee and testifies and answers questions, he may be implicated in criminal activity, it's a pretty breathtaking thing. but then again, we saw a lot of that during the trump administration. >> he comes in this weekend and takes the fifth, is this going to be a televised hearing? because i almost feel like it's incumbent upon those of you who are in our government to let us see our former justice department official taking the fifth. if he does that, is he going to have to do that televised? >> well, the deposition will be private like the other depositions. and we'll ask him a series of questions on a number of topics of deep interest to the committee. he will be required to identify as to each question the basis of any refusal to testify. now, he has given us in his prior appearance before the committee a litany of reasons, i think all bogus, as to why

they bombarded the justice department with dubious claims of voting irregularities.y pressured members of state legislatures to conduct audits that would cast doubt on the election process. they plotted to disrupt the certification on january 6 of joseph r. biden's victory. and as we just heard from professor tribe, that plot was a criminal plot. >> well, i think we saw over time that the former president was very impressed with strong men like duterte and putin and xi jinping and kim jong-un. these were the people that he looked to and lauded, really, and spoke in very complimentary terms about while turning his back on our traditional allies that supported democracy with us. so should come as no surprise really he was emulating them. and we saw even his own legal team put together a 36-slide power point on how to keep him in power and what people could do and were presenting that evidently to members of congress. so to see that this was a coordinated effort to overturn the will of the american people really now comes as no surprise. >> what has been your reaction t

a trump appointee at the department of justice. according to multiple sources, mr. clark was asked by then-president trump to take over the role of attorney general. in part, so he could issue a series of letters falsely suggesting that the department of justice believed that the presidential election may have been stolen. of course, this happened after the department had repeatedly informed president trump that his allegations of a stolen election were not true. and were not supported by the evidence. and this happened after dozens of courts had ruled against president trump and his election-fraud claims. and this happened after the electoral college certified the results of the election as our constitution requires. we are a nation of laws, and our justice department has a solemn obligation to truth and justice. imagine what would have happened if all the trump-appointed leaders at the justice department had supported clark, and had corruptly issued those false letters. imagine what january 6th would have been, then. an even more profound constitutional crisis. but

scott perry is not to be confused with rick perry who would probably rather abolish the department of justiceinto the department of insurrection. that is scott perry. he is the guy who worked with jeffrey clark of the justice department to try and flawed a coup. and it's not surprising that he is afraid to cooperate. the theme of all of these stories is that these people are refusing to go and tell the truth under oath because they are afraid of what congress might find. and you have to break every norm in the book to reach we're scott perry is. this is his own body saying, congress. saying we want to know what happened. just tell us what happened. and with the? it makes fake argument after fake argument about how the january six committee is illegitimate and all sorts of nonsense about inflation. it has nothing to do with it. the bottom line is, you are there and tell the truth about what happened. and if you feel like you did nothing wrong, then you should have nothing to hide. >> so neil, for my parents who are watching this tonight, at some point they are going to say, this is united stat

now the justice department is stepping in here. sue here, why justice thinks that latino voters in particular in texas are having a raw deal on the maps? >> yeah. i mean, the numbers tell you a strong story. 95% of texas's huge population growth over the last ten years came from black and hispanic voters. but the districts are very much supporting republican voters, typically white voters with just zero of these opportunity districts or majority/minority districts that often boost and help voters of color elect the representatives of their choice. the fact that there are more white majority districts or white plurality districts in these maps is what the justice department is taking issue with. the fact that they have not drawn in new hispanic majority districts. that's pretty much at issue here. this is 4 million people in texas. pretty stunning numbers that sort of suggest there was as they allege, intent. intent to draw discriminatory maps. you see -- excuse me. they're going for discriminatory intent in this lawsuit. that's pret

this is going to be a decision made by the department of justice.hen you have the full house of representatives representeding prosecution of steve bannon, the justice department took quite a bit of time to evaluate it on its own even though that was a fairly straight forward case. anything that comes up here is going to be a department of justice decision. however, it is worth noting within the past couple weeks, two federal judges in washington have said that the effort to interfere with the electoral college is potentially a criminal obstruction of justice and that could expand the circle of criminality beyond the people inside the capitol. the people who organized and support i'd it. but that's going to be a decision for the justice department to make. they are not, i don't think, going to pay a lot of attention to what congress does or does not recommend. >> guys, thank you very much. >>> coming up, the covid surge in disrupting sports across the country. i'll get an inside perspective from an nba player who is calling on the league to pause. t

members of congress, the president of the united states, you have huge criminal referrals to the department of justicefusal to cooperate with your committee, but if you do uncover information that suggests criminal activity, will your committee issue criminal referrals to the department of justice for sitting members of congress or the president of the united states? >> the committee will follow the facts. and if we do our job, and we get as much information as possible to tell the full and complete narrative on what happened in january 5th and 6th and the planning and coordination and lead-up to that, the assault on democracy we saw, if we do our job we're going to tell that story and if there are additional details that need to be turned over to authorities, we will do that. we're not closing any door, but at this point we're having a lot of those conversations, we are hearing from witnesses like the ones you just played, from last evening. we're gathering that material, and you're building the document of evidence that's going to be needed to tell the full and complete story. >> congressman, i want

that would be the justice department.ere to get ten steps ahead and that referral would be in the justice department's hands, how rare would it be to prosecute a former president? >> it would be very rare. you have to remember a referral on something like this is different than the referral for contempt of congress. there congress is saying you know, this person disobeyed our request, our subpoena. we want them held in contempt. and there's a federal law that says the justice department must consider that. there's no such federal law if congress refers and says we think the president obstructed congress here and tried to interfere with our vote count, that has no legal weight. and it probably wouldn't be telling the justice department anything it doesn't already know. plus there is this rule of federal prosecution that says you shouldn't bring a charge unless you believe there's at least a 50% chance that a jury would convict. the justice department would have to consider how serious is a case by saying the president's fa

this has become a big thing for the biden justice department and the state of texas on a lot. texas, if it's going to turn blue or not, one thing hanging out there. back from the karl rove days, thinking about maybe by 2024. look, this is a central issue of the population change in texas. now this is guaranteed to be at center stage of all the races going on in texas, the governor's race and attorney general's race and this is a big challenge for the biden justice department. they have done very little, if anything on voting rights. this is something that they will try to make a point here. we'll see if it works. it's uncertain, of course. >> and, of course, the whole reason this is on the justice department congress hasn't acted. you heard merrick garland when he filed suit that this is something that congress can fix. pass a law, pass the john lewis bill and this is something democrats have been trying to do for a long time. stuck in the senate. can't get the 60 votes needed to clear that threshold and fix this issue to sort of stop this so the justice department wouldn't ha

justice department. this was not a criminalized event. in fact, the police officer helped to save lives. they have disposed of that investigation. the police officer was in the right and a sensitive moment in american history. you asked about the equivalence between 2020 unrest and january 6. that has been a relevant argument in some defenses from january 6. they have cited this, saying they feel like they are being treated differently, unfairly, charged or penalized. disproportionately, compared to those. we have seen prosecutors and judges push past that argument, saying there is asymmetry here. in part because the democracy was at risk that day. the structure of american government was at risk that day, any particularly flagyl state -- fragile state. this day was unprecedented. a unique american moment. there really is no comparison. host: let's hear from the independent-minded. caller: i just thought -- it was exposed by beating out texts to several powerhouses, including laura ingraham. pleading for meadows -- it bothers me the most.

the justice department needs to get louder.ing anything to create an apparatus at the justice department that makes clear they're going toepi encouraging >> won't the supreme court say, we defer to the state ledge shay legislature? the constitution defers to states, for the most part, on how they count votes and send their electors. >> it may, but that's not an answer to federal statutes on fraud, deception, manipulation of a federal election. i don't think creating state authority that says you have the right to reach in and do something is going to -- the supreme court is going to read that to say, and you get a free pass on every federal statute on criminal prosecution. >> this is kind of like trump. trump just did things out in the open. he just said things publicly which richard nixon or others would do privately. then investigators would find that and bring charges. if a state legislature is just saying publicly, we have the power to run over the local election officials, we have the power to roll over the secretary of st

the question is what that add up to at the department of justice. this committee issuing a referral with have huge reverberations in the institutional dynamics in the meanings of president's actions vis-a-vis the department of justice. >> you would think it would be something difficult for justice department to not address in some way given the largeness of that question. if you remember back all the way to 2017, the democrats and republicans on capitol hill were holding up the nominations of top justice department officials, including rod rosen stein, the deputy attorney general. and what happened was is that pressure became so great and they demanded -- what they were demanding was answers about what was going on with the russia investigation. and it was to unlock rosen stein's nomination, to get him confirmed that the fbi director at the time, james b. comey, testified before congress and acknowledged the fact that there was this investigation. he briefed lawmakers in private and he publicly went out and said it at a congressional hearing. that cr

justice department to keep trump in power after he lost. but in this formal report that was just released a couple hours ago tonight, the fact that the investigation is willing to go out formally and say that among the people they believe he collaborated with were multiple members of congress, serving members of congress, that's news. we will see what we learn tomorrow when they are expected to vote to send mr. clark's case to the justice department for criminal prosecution. that will put the justice department in the position of having to decide whether or not they're going to bring formal criminal proceedings against somebody who very recently was a senior official at that same department. that meeting tomorrow where the january 6th investigation is going to take the vote as to whether or not they're going to refer clark for prosecution, that meeting is going to be open to the public so we'll see what we can glean from that. we'll be watching closely. >> cnn was first to report today as well that trump white house chief of staff mark mead

the justice department no longer planning payouts to settle lawsuits with migrant families, familiest were victimized by the trump white house's family separation policy. i want to bring in cnn's evan perez. etch, there were negotiations, so how did this reversal come about? >> well, the justice department is not saying exactly why they are no longer doing this, but you can see what happened in the past few weeks with the criticism coming from not only members of coming but also on right wing television, you know, assailing the president for pursuing this course of action which was, as you remember, payments of up to 450,000 for these families, you know, whose children were taken away from them. now the justice department says that they are discontinuing those talks according to the lawyers on the other side. we've got a response from the aclu just a few minutes ago. they say the u.s. government deliberately bowsed young children and yet the biden administration has allowed politics to stand in the waive making it right, and that's shameful. bholt tom line, ana, one of the things we

matter what the committee achieves as adam schiff and others pointed the finger, where is the justice department? where is the justice system in looking at this beyond the foot soldiers who actually invaded the capitol. >> kim, after learning the committee is getting information from communications companies, meadows says that he is done playing ball. why do you think his mind changed? i wonder who it could be. >> i agree with ron that with what is happening with ban fan in violation of the subpoenas that didn't do one thing in compliance. meadows is in a different posture. close to the president i agree the claims of executive privilege are not going to hold after what happened with nixon in which the supreme court said listen, they need to investigate wrongdoing out weighs executive privilege but doesn't mean this won't be slowed down. number two, is his lawyer has compiled in part so their argument will be it's going to -- it would be hard to prove willful contempt so he has a number of things in his favor. he has this book going out and trump angry with him and knows that the republicans cou

the former superiors at the justice department did not hide. mr. rosen, mr. donahue, the answer to select committee questions for hours about the very same topics we would like to address. many others have done the same. there is nothing a stringer about congress seeking the testimony of a former executive branch official. the white house chief of staff is cooperating with our investigation. i have considered your clocks objections and rejected him. he was provided the opportunity to return to the deposition and he refused to do so. around 8:00 last evening, mr. clark's attorney read a letter to the committee. another in a long series of long letters stating that mr. clark now intends to assert his fifth amendment privilege against incriminating himself in this process. he offers no pacific basis for that search. he offers no facts that would allow the committee to consider it. mr. clark had the opportunity to assert this privilege in response to questions we intended to ask him in the november 5 deposition. he declined to do so. he walked out. this is a last

it will go to the justice department, which will decide whether to charge former president trump's chiefr thousands of documents, including text messages from that riot. >>> how does oakland solve the crime problems? you see it there. requesting cops and resources. specifically the mayor wants more chp officers and license plate readers. nbc bay area, cheryl herd has reactions from one community church leader. >> we've been begging to help and begging the mayor for help. then it seemed like our efforts were falling on deaf ears. >> reporter: in east oakland, he says finally his prayers may be answered soon. he's responding to the letter to the governor asking to help combat violent crime. he says the request is well over due. >> right now we're concerned about the shootings on the streets of oakland, in our community every day and every night. >> reporter: today the mayor's letter explained to the governor that oakland needs a chp presence on the street. he told him car license plate readers, stationed at on and off ramps would gather information to solve crimes, like the fatal shooting

russian troll farm was charged with impeding and impairing the federal election commission, the department of justice, and the department of state. that's not that exotic. i've charged that statute myself as a federal prosecutor for impeding and impairing the irs, for instance. and so, while it might not be appropriate for those assaulting cops, it would absolutely be appropriate for those who orchestrated an attempted coup. >> chuck rosenburg, former u.s. attorney, former senior fbi official, senior justice department official. chuck, your clarity is unimpeachble, forget the phrase, and always great to have you here. thank you for your clarity, your help over the course of the week. thank you for being here tonight. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> much more to come here tonight, stay with us. fight back fast with tums chewy bites. fast heartburn relief in every bite. crunchy outside, chewy inside. ♪ tums, tums, tums, tums ♪ tums chewy bites are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? what if your clothes could stay fresh for weeks? now they can. downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters

clark's former superiors at the justice department did not hide. mr. rosen, mr. donahue, the -- and they answered the select committees questions for hours about the very same topics we would like to address. many others have done the same. there is nothing extraordinary [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] himself in this process. he offers no pacific basis for that search. he offers no facts that would allow the committee to consider it. mr. clark had the opportunity to assert this privilege in response to questions we intended to ask him in the november 5 deposition. he declined to do so. he walked out. this is a last-ditch attempt to delay the committee proceedings. however, for the minute privilege, even though mr. clark previously had the opportunity to make these names on the record, the select committee will provide him another chance to do so. i have informed mr. clark attorney that i am willing to convene another deposition if mr. clark with assert that p