the justice department needs them. and you know, everyone should put down any sort of turf battles and focus on a full investigation of donald trump and his actions. >> sadie gurman, reporter for "the wall street journal," covering the justice department, david, executive editor of news fort new yorker.com. thanks to the both of you for starting us off tonight. greatly appreciate your time. >>> and new details tonight in the investigation into why members of the secret service deleted their text messages from january 6th. turns out they were told multiple times not just once, but multiple times, not to delete them. former fbi official peter strzok knows a thing or two about recovering deleted text messages. he joins us next. covering delet aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. messages messages he joins us nextouldn't get cov, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance c

on the other hand, the bill barr justice department was anything but a justice department. the rule of law was so flouted that the idea of re-upping something that he put in place is one that i'm not sure if i were at the department i woulde look at with anything other than saying i am not bringing a case against anyone at the white house until such time as i personally approve it no matter how much evidence seems to be accumulated in the january 6th committee hearings. so, you know, i think it's a plus/minus. you know, it probably could have been phrased a lot better and clearer to people at the justice department. >> you've been critical of what seems to be publicly evident about the way justice department prosecutors have pursued january 6th. you've described how in lots of criminal prosecutions it makes sense to sort of approach this from the bottom up, to bring people at the lowest levels on board a as quickly as you can a then pressure them to flip and tell what they know as you move towards bigger firchlt you said while that may be the most appropriate way to approach

this one involving the department of justice. a key focus of our hearing today will be a draft letter that are witnesses here today refused to sign. this letter was written by mr. jeff clark with another department of justice department lawyer, ken kasky. and the letter was to be sent to the leadership of the georgia state legislature. other portions of the legislature that were intended for other states. neither mr. drug nor mr. klulowski had any evidence of widespread electorate and flawed, but they were quite aware of what mr. trump wanted the department to do. jeff clarke met privately with president trump and others in the white house and agreed to assist the president without telling the senior leadership of the department who oversaw him. as you will see, this letter claims that the u.s. department of investigations have, quote, intended fight significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of georgia. in fact, donald trump knew this was a lie there. department

sadie, all start with you, you covered the justice department every day. he spent a lot of time, there is not a lot -- that the attorney general takes questions as he did today, especially for the american people to see it in realtime. he was clearly prepared to respond to the recent criticism that a lot of people have been lobbing at the doj. what did you make of the attorney general's remarks today? >> when i saw there in the attorney general's conference room was a very forceful response. it did not offer a lot of new information about the status of the investigation, but was intended to offer assurances to the american public that this investigation remains a top priority for the justice department, even as it -- the much more public january 6th committee hearings continue to capture republican attention. what we heard today was that the attorney general is insisting that this parallel january 6th committee investigation is not influencing prosecutors work, but it is hard to imagine a situation in which prosecutors hearing much of this testimony for th

this one involving the department of justice. focus of our hearing today will be a draft letter that are witnesses here today refused to sign. this letter was written by mr. jeff clark with another department of justice lawyer, ken klukowski, and the letter was to be sent to the leadership of the georgia state legislature. other versions of the letter were intended for other states. later, mr. clark, nor mr. klukowski, had any evidence of widespread election fraud. but they were quite aware of what mr. trump wanted the department to do. jeff clark met privately with president trump and others in the white house and agreed to assist the president without telling the league -- senior leadership who oversaw him. as you will see, this letter claims that the u.s. department of justices investigations have, quote, identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the state of georgia. in fact, donald trump knew this was a lie. the department of justice had already informed t

but understand, the united states justice department functions on facts, evidence and law. and those are not going to change. so you can have whatever leadership you want, but the departments position is not going to change. >> the presidents white house counsel pat cipollone was also pressed the president do. you remember what his position was? >> i was very supportive of paths baloney throughout these conversations, he was extremely supportive of the justice department. he was consistent. i think you have an impossible job at that time but he did it well and he also cited the judge sided with the justice department on these discussions. >> so let's pause for the second. new year's eve. president trump is talking about seizing voting machines and making the same demands that had already been shot down by former attorney general barr on at least three occasions and why mr. rosen and mr. donoghue on multiple other occasions. claim after claim knocked down. but the president didn't care. the next day chief of staff maurer meadows sent a flurry of emails to you, mr. robin, aski

they are loads and loads ahead of the department of justice on that. and actually, some of that testimony under oath, i am led to believe the department of justice will be making good use of. in other words, it'll be purposeful for them as a investigative tool as they proceed. they won't have to interview a ton of people unless you want to bring in people to the grand jury to make sure the grand jury hears the full story. but those transcripts are really gold for the department of justice and the january 6th committee is so light years ahead of them in terms of gabbard gathering that roadmap. >> carol, as you are gathering information about what was included in the grand jury testimony, what piece of it struck you the most as focusing most clearly on donald trump? is there an oval office moment that the grand jury is studying most closely? >> i think it would be skewing the audiences impression about what we know and don't know to focus on two grand jury appearances, that of two very serious senior pence aides that we know about, we know the details of.

we are now told through our evan perez, is cooperating with the department of justice. 's unclear what that cooperation looks like at this point, but of course, jake, we know about so much of the information she's already provided the committee. it would stand to reason that the department of justice is interested in much of the same material. jake. >> all right, ryan nobles, thanks so much. >> joining us to discuss, preet bharara. we're learning the justice department seems to be getting closer to trump's inner circle, in addition to cassidy hutchinson, we heard of these top officials who worked for vice president pence, mark short, greg jacob. what does this tell you about the doj investigation? >> so, i'm not one to say every time there's a bit of breaking news or a development that it's hugely significant, but this is. this is very, very significant. a lot of people across the spectrum of legal analysts outside the justice department who served in the justice department have been having this debate for some months about why it's the case that we haven't heard about t

i have to get your reaction to this washington post story that the justice department is investigating former president trump's actions as part of its january 6th criminal probe. >> well, i was as surprised as i think you were. obviously the department of justice doesn't report in to the january 6th committee. all we know at this point is what we read in the post article. however, it's very clear from the evidence we have presented that the former president bears responsibility. he summoned the mob. he knew they were armed. he sent them to the capitol to disrupt the electoral count. we know that he was involved in the fake elector scheme. remember when he got on the phone with the romney/the republican chairwoman and handed it off. he want herd to talk about the fake elector scheme. so his hands are in this. i presume that the department of justice will be thorough and find perhaps even more evidence than we have found. >> so some are suggesting, including my guest in the previous segment, ryan goodman, your committee helped push the doj in this direction, there's been action because o

we talk about separately there is the department of justice which is under the president. it is not a part of the united states congress and of course the department of justice would have to bring a criminal charge if there were a basis for that against the former president or some of his close associates like rudy giuliani and some of these, mark meadows that were so embroiled in the crimes that were committed on january 6. host: a viewer described these hearings as a grand jury. they are trying to set the stage for the justice department to then take it over. would you agree? guest: yes and no. i like to think about the hearings as an education for the american people in light of the possibility of a grand jury indictment. that is, we have never seen a president or former president indicted. a lot of people say that is hard to imagine, that that with -- would create a ping-pong effect. i think the point of these hearings is to wake people up to the severity of this. i like to think of them as a play in four acts, planning, execution, cover up, and then i think the fourth

the justice department must prosecute trump. and it is also january 6th committee member and chair of the house committee congressman adam schiff. >> i certainly think that the justice department have more than enough evidence involving the former president. and whether they are ultimately believing it beyond reasonable doubt, that's too early to say. i certainly believe that there is evidence now that would be hard for the department to ignore. >> now, there may be some movement happening at the justice department in response to recent revelations. the new york times report that the explosive testimony from trump white house aide cassidy hutchinson jolted top justice department officials into discussing donald trump's criminal culpability. into the january 6th committee says that they have referred the justice department a case of potential witness tampering by trump himself, in the wake of cassidy hutchinson's testimony. they allegedly tried to call one of the support staff members who is talking to the committee. here's the t

and it is up to the justice department to evaluate those. and even in the contempt cases that have been sent, some of the justice department has prosecuted, and in at least one case, they have not. >> carrie, susan, ryan, thank you all. i appreciate it. more and more revelations coming out on the january six investigation. tonight, the investigation may be on hiatus. tonight, a newly-released video of a top official contradicting the former president. then paying him right there on ththe spot. we'll drive you happppy at carvana. if maga republicans get their way, abortion will be banned nationwide, with no exceptions. medicare and social security will end in five years, with no replacement. elections will be decided by politicians, with no regard for your vote. if maga republicans get back in power, your rights, benefits and freedoms will be in danger. democrats will protect your rights. and the only way to stop maga republicans is to vote for democrats. ff pac is responsible for the content of this ad. i would say that to me an important as

the other lines of justice department inquiry centered on the effort by a trump era justice departmenteffrey clark, to pressure georgia officials not to certify the states election results. now today, we get this news which strikes me as an honest news, that marc short and greg jacobs, to individually testified to the committee and very high ranking, the highest ranking, you know, people in pence world, essentially. they went before a federal grand jury on friday. how significant is that do you think? >> i think very significant. because it starts to answer the question, what's the justice department doing? >> right. >> the justice department is investigating what went on in the lead up to january 6th. so incessantly they want to talk to the two people who were directly advising the vice president. we are not just helping council him, but we're winces to the instances in which johnny eastman and donald trump were trying to pressure mike pence to take the certification into their own hands. they were witnesses to that. they saw that. they know what was going on. they can provide detaile

the justice department has from the beginning been moving urgently to learn everything we can about thiseryone who is criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. >> attorney general merrick garland in an exclusive interview with lester holt defending the handling of the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. welcome back to "morning joe." it is wednesday, july 27th, jonathan lemire, mike barnicle and katty kay. we'll talk to -- who broke the story on donald trump. more from the attorney general as lester pressed him on whether trump as a future president or future candidate could be prosecuted. >> you said in no incertain terms that no one is above the law. >> yeah. >> that said the indictment of a perhaps candidate for president would arguably tear the country apart. is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here, do you have to think about things like that? >> we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold anyone -- anyone who is criminally responsible for the then-surrounding january 6th, for any attempt

nbc news confirming the justice department is investigating former president trump's actions as part of the criminal probe of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. plus inflation nation. the fed is meeting in hours expected to raise interest rates yet again. what it means for the wallet as fears of a recession mount. on capitol hill as we speak senate democrats are running out of time. a marriage equality bill. will enough republicans get on board to pass it? democratic senator hirono will join us to discuss that effort. wildfires, drought, punishing record heat. is this our new reality? this morning i speak with washington governor jay inslee what we need to do right now to combat the climate crisis. we start with the bombshell new details in the justice department's investigation into the capitol attack. nbc news confirming with an administration official that the doj has been asking questions about former president trump's actions leading up to january 6. the official adds there is not a criminal investigation of mr. trump himself. nbc news reached out to a trump spokespe

upshot of our story is really to show exactly how impactful he's hearings have been on the justice department. it was cassidy hutchinson's testimony that just jolted officials at the department and people working directly with the investigation. she provided information they have not uncovered in their own inquiry and sparked conversations about trump's own criminal culpability and criminal intent leading up to the january 6th riot that had not been happening before. until then prosecutors had only been careful about talking about which was the riot itself and slowly building outward. in the context of whether or not he was a motivating factor for any of the people acting in the course of the crimes they were already sort of looking at or potential crimes they were looking at, but suddenly they had to have more direct conversations about trump. while hutchinson's probably the most visible and most obvious example of this because her testimony was so electrifying, i think it's safe to say that the committee is uncovering evidence in a rapid clip and the justice department is interested in it a

we also know that the justice department was looking into john eastman, jeffrey clark at the justice department, and we also know that they are looking into the extremist groups still, the proud boys and the oath keepers. so the committee, they have talked to lots and lots of witnesses about those very things, about those people. and so right now, we are at a point where the justice department may be dove tailing more and more as time goes on with what the committee has done so far. >> so stephanie, i want to ask you about steve bannon. i just played the audio of him before the election, three days, saying trump is going to declare victory, no matter if he wins or not. obviously you know steve bannon and spent plenty of time in the room with him during the parts of the campaign. what was your reaction when you heard that? and given your knowledge of trump, how confident are you that trump paid attention to what steve bannon was telling him what to do? >> when i heard the audio, it was chilling, and i really hope that all americans listen to it. i wasn't surprised at all. and i think t

every justice department will do exactly this, every normal justice department, i should say. and even after trump 70 golf extravaganza today, it seems that trump would want to fly home with the saudis and i come back home to the united states because he's gonna have to face the music. not just civilly, in terms of these lawsuits by the police officers that you mentioned, but criminally it looks like as well. >> neil, it looks like a vivid example between we a justice department and the congressional here. a congressional hearing works largely on cooperation, and if you invoke executive privilege with, them it's too difficult for them to get in a fight to dismantle, that illegal. fide whereas the justice department is poised and ready to go, right into the courtroom next door to fight it out and strip that executive privilege away. >> that's right to appoint, but that 8 to 1 decision i mentioned before where trump lost executive privilege was fought by congress, so both can do, it you're absolutely right, lawrence. that is a practical matter, the justice department is more to

trump aide's phone records. >> this is a major escalation when we depart we know about the justice department's investigation. that investigation may finally be gaining steam. last month, many agents in multiple states with some surge search warrants without scheme. that included john eastman and trump department official jeffrey clark. last week, two top aides to former vice president mike pence testified to a federal grand jury, the two highest ranking former highest ranking trump official known to cooperate with prosecutors. we have this new reporting from the new york times that has included some damning emails among those trump officials regarding that they fake elector scheme. we're remember how that scheme was supposed to work for -- purporting to be the real and to a collectors for that state, claiming that trump won their state when he did not. and they said these fake elector certificates to washington with the hope that on january 6th, 2021, mike pence would use them to overturn biden's win and hand election to trump. when we talk about this plot, we shorthanded as the fake elector s

also a series and sort of a grab bag of fraud in which they could have used the department of justice to try to block that proceeding, but also to try to use the department of justice in other levers of the government to defraud the american public, to push a criminal agreement that involved pushing a big lie and trying to overturn the results of the election. the other thing we learned and this was the startling thing to me was that the justice department had obtained the phone records of senior and top aides, senior and junior aides in the trump white house to include mark meadows, the former chief of staff and that those records were obtained last april while the january 6th committee was chugging along and doing work and before the january 6th committee began its hearings. >> that's amazing. carol, we tried to piece together a time line of our own because that nugget about mark meadows' phone records is so interesting in terms of the time line for when the justice department decided not to prosecute him the way they have steve bannon. let me just put that up and go through some of

and late today, the lawyer for a former department of justice -- former department of justice staffer said his client is also cooperating. so, it's potentially significant because he worked with jeffrey clark, this guy, who the former president wanted to make acting attorney general to help carry out his election scheme. and clark, according to the reporting, seemed willing. prosecutors are preparing for a court battle to force former white house officials to testify about what the former president said and did on and around january 6th. first, select committee member and california democratic congresswoman zoe lofgren joins us. congresswoman, i know you can't get into specifics. in term of these latest witnesses, can you say the focus on conversations among trump administration officials about possible invoking the 25th amendment, was that the focus? >> well, as we've said pubic wly in our hearings, the 25th amendment was a focus of the committee. it's not the only focus. it's pretty clear from the evidence that the speech given by the president on the 7th of january was motivated la

the justice department is preparing for. that's some legalese and procedural stuff, but this is really a very, very big deal because this puts the investigation squarely in the white house looking at donald trump's statements and actions themselves. it also is something that's very aggressive for the justice department to want to prepare for a court fight knowing that donald trump is probably going to challenge this in court. it's something the mueller investigation didn't even do when they were trying to get access to what was going on. we are seeing this now coming about, looking for it, related to january 6th in this criminal investigation. >> it's very significant, indeed. you have some new reporting, i understand, involving someone with ties to jeffrey clark and john eastman and this individual is cooperating with federal authorities. tell us about that. >> that's right. so this is a lawyer named ken klukowski, he was a direct report to jeffrey clark at the justice department when clarke was trying to draft some letters

life are, - justice department life are, this is— justice department life are, this is one _ justicedecisions they could possibly— agonising decisions they could possibly take _ agonising decisions they could possibly take and _ agonising decisions they could possibly take and they- agonising decisions they could possibly take and they are - possibly take and they are going _ possibly take and they are going to _ possibly take and they are going to have _ possibly take and they are going to have to _ possibly take and they are going to have to take - possibly take and they are going to have to take a . possibly take and they are i going to have to take a damn possibly take and they are - going to have to take a damn a lot of— going to have to take a damn a lot of evidence _ going to have to take a damn a lot of evidence together- going to have to take a damn a lot of evidence together so - lot of evidence together so no-one _ lot of evidence together so no-one can_ lot of evidence together so no—one can disagree - lot of evidence together so no—one can disagree with i lot of evidence

we're getting all sorts of signals that the department of justice investigation is intensifying. and when you hear attorney general merrick garland in that interview, he makes clear that this is one of the most important and wide ranging investigations in the department's history. he emphasizes that no one is above the law. and he also said that they will hold anyone accountable who is attempting to interfere with the transfer of power. there have been a number of significant steps that the department has taken in recent weeks. one of the most significant is bringing before a federal grand jury vice president mike pence's former chief of staff and also bringing before that grand jury pence's former counsel greg jacob. those two were in the room with pence on a number of occasions in several key meetings. and as we have learned from the "washington post," a number of questions have focused on trump's role in the fake elector scheme, his role in the pressure campaign against mike pence to have him not certify the election to transfer the victory and affirming biden's victory, a numb

while we know that the justice department had been looking at a lot of people around trump, the degreeprosecutors' interest in himself is new. d.o.j. is not officially commenting. i want to bring in justice correspondent pete william, lisa rubins. pete, what are we learning? >> the investigator is interested in what mr. trump told others and said about, a, the efforts to get the slates of electors from states that president biden won, get those slates sent to the archives, get them on to the floor of the house when the vote were counted and then, b, try to persuade vice president mike pence either to honor those alternate slates or not count any votes from the disputed states. either way of course that would have given mr. trump the electoral college victory. at least that was the plan. so they want to know what the president was saying and doing about those things. so that's the first thing that we learned. and the second thing we learned is the administration officials have also confirmed that the justice department obtained telephone records of some senior white house officials, inc

the department of justice you made clear, have made clear in other shows, moving far too slowly. what do you think the d.o.j. should be doing? if you were the a. g., what would you be doing right now? >> well, i don't want to suggest that i know what's going on inside. there and it may that they're doing a lot more work than is apparent to the eyes. but i think a few things that may be happening is members of the oathkeepers and the proud boys, trying to connect up roger stone, donald trump and the others to the physical attack on the capitol. i think that is useful. i would think, after prosecuting and convicting steve bannon, i would put in the grand jury. there, if he tries his shenanigans of pretending he doesn't know, he can show up, or asserting executive privilege, he can be jailed for refusing to comply. he can be given use immunity. so he's not exempt from prosecution. but he is exempt from having his statements used against him. but he would be compelled to testify, and answer the questions about why he said tomorrow, all hell is going to break loose. those are just som

the justice department has from the beginning been moving urgently to learn everything we can about thisiod and to bring to justice everybody who is criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another which is the fundamental element of our democracy. >> so, paul, if the january 6th committee is providing a road map, and i don't know if -- if merrick garland -- i don't know if he needs waze or google maps, congressman swalwell said we have a very, very clear map. what will it take for the doj to open up that map and follow through to conclusion, or are they sort of fumbling around in google? what's it going to take for them to finally take the steps that many of us feel they should have taken months ago? >> jason, the attorney general's statements to lester holt were a lot of wah, wah, wah. merrick garland was talking softly but saying nothing new. that was on purpose i think. the justice department doesn't make statements about its investigations until it brings charges, but here's the tension. prosecutors are not supposed to let

. ♪♪ >>> the justice department has from the beginning been moving urgently to learn everything we canut this period and to bring to justice everybody who is criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, which is the fundamental element of our democracy. >> attorney general merrick garland addressing criticism that the department of justice is not moving fast enough in its investigation of january 6th. we have new reporting from "the washington post" that says that federal prosecutors have now turned their attention to donald trump. >>> meanwhile, the former president made his first trip back to washington since leaving office. in a long-winded speech he hit some of his favorite topics and again hinted at a 2024 presidential campaign. >>> and on capitol hill, congress is up against the clock. lawmakers have a lot they want to get done before their summer break. ♪♪ >>> good morning. welcome to "way too early" on this wednesday, july 27th. i'm jonathan lemire. thanks for being with us. >>> we'll begin with the latest in the

>> the department of justice does not conduct its investigations in public.that's for a couple reasons. one is to protect those who may be within the scope of the investigation, in other words, those who may be ultimately accused, as well as to protect the integrity of the investigation. i'm not going to talk about the trajectory and the direction of the ongoing investigation into the events of january 6th in the days leading up to it. >> you made some comments earlier based on questions asked by mr. jeffries and mr. raskin that were, you know, inside what you are actually investigating. that's why i had to ask that. let me just move on. is what speaker pelosi knew regarding potential threats in her preparation, or lack thereof, something that is off the table? is that something that could be investigated as well by the og? >> i'm not gonna discuss anything about that ongoing investigation. when i can tell you is, it's our obligation at the justice department to uphold the rule of law. it's what distinguishes us from dictatorships and autocracies. a central t

one of those factors that you mentioned facing the justice department is the midterm elections. year, but there are justice department guidelines in police when there are politically sensitive investigations, and taking any kind of overt steps close to the election. that could be the execution of a search warrant or certainly the announcement of criminal charges. you know, that is all to ensure that the justice department doesn't put a thumb on the scale in any investigation that could be politically sensitive. so, you know, the former officials tell us that the cutoff for that is about 60 days out from the election, so we're getting close now on the calendar on whether they might make a decision. but they can wait until november. jim, poppy? >> we'll be watching closely. we know you will too. thanks so much. >>> federal grand juries in texas have indicted four men in what investigators call the deadliest human smuggling incident in u.s. history. you may remember, 53 migrants died last month after being trapped inside a sweltering tractor trailer. more than a dozen others were f

the justice department has from the beginning been moving urgently to learn everything we can about this period and to bring to justice everybody who is criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. >> you said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law. >> yeah. >> that said, the indictment of a former president, of a perhaps candidate for president would arguably tear the country apart. is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here? do you have to think about things like that? >> we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold everyone, anyone who is criminally responsible for the events surrounding january 6th, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable. that's what we do. we don't pay any attention to other issues with respect to that. >> if donald trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don't move forward? >> i'll say again that we will hold accountable anyon

the unit works closely with the civil rights division in the department of justice that has prosecuted some of the most heinous terrorist attacks in recent years using the federal hate crime statute. having spent 18 years myself as a career department of justice attorney and prosecutor, i know that our workforce is committed to the constitution and to ensuring equal and impartial justice. we prosecute cases based on the facts and the law without regard to ideology and politics. our national strength comes from our founding values. these include the rule of law, freedom of speech and freedom of association. and we will uphold these values as we safeguard of the american people from threats to the safety and national security. i appreciate the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you for your testimony. we will proceedd under the five-minute testimony and recognize myself for five minutes. january 6th, 2021 the administrative office of the courts released a statement dating back to early 2020 unrelated. however there was in march of this year that

the department issues. >> the national security division is a broad array of components the justice department has as a part of that to ensure people who serve on local school boards or other. >> you think they rise to the level of the national security division at the department of justice? >> it's possible there could be a threat or act of violence against somebody in the local office whether it's the city council or school board that might reflect a domestic violent extremism. >> is it appropriate to use the patriot act against parents? >> it's a variety of tools. i can't talk about it in the abstract. >> did they recommend the use and describe that the action of the school board is the equivalent to domestic terrorism proceeding the memo issued by the department of justice? >> usi don't know. >> you don't know that there is a memorandum by the national school board association referring to domestic terrorism and the use of the patriot act prior to the attorney general issuing a memorandum directly targeting and focusing on school boards, you don't know? >> i've heard you and others make re

i am wondering about the internal structure of the department of justice. and how it has worked to try to address this threat in the country. i know that after 9/11 the department redefined its mission and priorities to focus on counterterrorism, this included the formation of the anti-terrorism advisory council and the terrorism task force. have these existing structures created in the wake of 9/11 been adopted to address white supremacists violent radicalization and the new domestic terror threat? or are there other structures that you have innovated in order to respond? >> i think it is a very important question, i do believe that we are adapting. the national security division as others have pointed out was formed in 2006 to accommodate the threat from al-qaeda and particular. we have evolved over time and built the ability to go after cyberattacks. we have increased the transparency. the domestic you raised about domestic terrorism. this year i established a domestic terrorism unit to increase the focus on the types of threats we face from domestic viol

she said they referred the case to the department of justice. ey are sharing more information between the committee and department of justice. we will see how the case -- department of justice is able to build a case. but they are under a lot of pressure. >> patsy pallone set for eight hours -- pat sipple only sat for eight hours. we saw testimony this week. how significant of a figure is the former white house counsel? >> he's providing an enormous amount of intelligence and insight about what was happening leading up to and the j -- day of january 6. there were questions whether he would testify or vote executive privilege. might be in a better position to adjudicate on what is new and what we have learned. it seems a lot of the facts, we have kind of known. there were great reporting from the times. but they are tying it all together. i like how they talked about different avenues, different lines of attacks on the president. the big question is how much are weearning new things or are the proving things that are already new? i would be curiou

sometimes, the justice department will pay for, it but that's usually when the justice department itselfwe can't defend for a particular reason. here, it looks like this is all driven by the secret service, not by the department. >> robert, should the current white house be taking a more aggressive stance, and the secret service controversy? i mean, at the very least, it's hugely damaging to the reputation of the agency. >> yes, stephanie, no doubt. it's damaging. i think this white house is in a particular interesting situation as the secret service continues to operate in and around the white house, and protect the president. i agree with neal, they have got to call in the senior members. they've got a call and the leader of the secret service. remember too, there is federal records protection involved in this regardless, whether they got a text that said, hey, we are switching your phones, so protect your texts. we went through a whole presidential campaign around federal records. so, i think everybody is pretty clear about what happens and what has to be preserved. the notion that so

i don't think i've ever seen the justice department to that before. in essence say that what the committee is trying to do is appropriate that -- meadows has only qualified immunity in the house has its necessary burden to get access to the information. it speaks some from him. with regard to the decision not to prosecute him on the contempt itself, i voice thought that that meant something else the justice department wanted to do with meadows, that there was another angle they wanted to pursue with him. i may be wrong, but my guess is that in the list of people close to the president who potentially have some credible liability, mark meadows is near the top of the list. >> look, the overstock.com former ceo, or as pets apollo any likes to call him, the oversaw person, he talked to the committee today about that december 18th meeting, that wild meeting at the white house, and here's what he said -- >> i was the one who pulled it together, frankly, so another reason why any charges should be made, i surprise trump inside the oval office, and i didn't f

klukowski is now cooperating with the justice department.earched several weeks ago and now fully cooperating. we have a statement from his lawyer, who says we've been fully cooperating with the justice department and with the select committee, and we will continue with that cooperation. he now adds, jake, to the number of people who are cooperating. of course, we know cassidy hutchinson has been cooperating with justice department prosecutors. and it really gives you a sense that prosecutors are trying to make sure they talk to as many people as possible who were involved in this effort to prevent the transfer of power. >> evan, you have new reporting on actions that prosecutors are preparing to take to force former white house officials to testify about trump's conversations and actions around january 6th. >> reporter: right. jake, this is about executive privilege, and we know that the prosecutors are trying to go deeper into the ranks of former white house officials, people who would have had direct interactions, direct conversations with

i think this department of justice, unlike the department of justice under the former president and former attorney general, bill barr, it's insulated away from any political influence. i think that's important. i trust the career prosecutors at the department of justice to make the right decisions, based on the facts and the law. you know, it's important for us probably to refrain from piling on that any further. obviously, as you know, we had a trial in the senate you're and a half ago that made very clear the president's culpability of the constitutional crime that he was charged with and ultimately there is a bipartisan vote in favor of conviction under the constitution in terms of the two third requirement, nonetheless, the most bipartisan vote for conviction in the history of presidential impeachments. whether or not the president or other individuals committed federal crimes, those are decisions that the department of justice is gonna have to make. they need to make those free from any political influence. >> we're running a little bit out of time in this block, will pick up the con

this as the justice department weighs possible charges against the president's son.ront." >> reporter: the emails posted by a right wing operative on the internet have long been used as a political weapon against joe biden. but it's his son that is facing potential charges. prosecutors in delaware are narrowing in on potential tax violations in their investigation of hunter biden. these e-mails, authenticated for cnn, reveal hunter biden was warned about deep debts and years of back taxes. this, despite having a lavish income that included as much as $50,000 a month for sitting on the board of barisma, the ukrainian energy company. a 2019 spread sheet sent to biden from his assistant, details more than $500,000 in bills due or past due, including hundreds of thousands in taxes over several years. the emails show he knew he was delinquent. october 2018, his accountant wrote, they are late. noting that biden had missed an already extended tax filing deadline of october 15th. two weeks later, your 2017 tax returns are still unfiled, the accountant reminded biden. the ne