it is possible there department of justice would have a further evidence that could support charges of seditious conspiracy, but that is a judgment that the department of justice will have to make -- >> are you not charging on seditious conspiracy? rep. raskin: seditious conspiracy is not one of the offenses. yes, one of the ones mentioned there. >> there is a few days left of the democratic majority. what is the thinking behind just now, the totality of the committee's legislative recommendations, as well as referrals to the ethics committee, matters that have to be adjudicated by the house and by congress? rep. raskin: i'm not certain -- >> what is the thinking behind waiting until the very end of the democrats' house majority of leasing matters that have to be dealt with by the house? rep. raskin: well, we have obviously been in the process of collecting all the evidence that we can come and we have been moving as quickly as possible. the legislative recommendations we set forward come about a dozen of them are things that can be undertaken by this congress during the lame-duck peri

justice department! this is the final point here before we talk about what the implications are of some of these criminal referrals. this is congressman raskin saying to the justice department, haiti rj, just in case you are not convinced by our precinct haitian, that there is a solid criminal case here to be made here against former president donald trump, you, doj, should know that we already had to present some of our evidence to a federal judge on the score. and when that judge looked at her evidence, he said, oh! yes! there is pretty definitely a crime here. those court proceedings happened earlier this year and march of this year. but the fact that that federal judge has reviewed some of the committee's investigation that indicated that there is likely evidence of felonies committed by president trump and by at least one of his lawyers, john eastman, that matter came up repeatedly in today's hearing. and it is brought up repeatedly and the printed materials, released by the investigators today. and

see there were a number of other people named and that's ultimately going to be up to the department of justice. >> will you guys be filling in the blanks of others? >> that is a judgment that is going to have to be made by the department of justice about whether they have sufficient evidence and probable cause in order to bring charges. we wanted to proceed in such a way that we could feel certain that these were people where evidence exists that they engaged in criminal offenses across -- criminal offenses against the country. our committee, i think we've had our last meeting a couple of minutes ago so i don't know what our legacy is going to be. i hope our legacy will be an unswerving devotion to the rule of law and the constitution. we were charged with dealing with events that were rather unique in american history. no one before, much less a president, has come so close to overthrowing a presidential election. -- election and bypassing the constitution. our legacy would be one that is certified by time, which is that we never encounter anything like this again and that we keep the progres

come on, let's be real here. >> oh, i hope that's right, but remember, the department of justice alsoas been politicized in every administration quite frankly, and now you have as the number two person, lisa monaco. >> not like the former administration, that's not true. >> pardon? >> the department of justice has not been politicized the way it has with the former administration -- >> that's your view. i respect your view. >> that's not just my view. those are the facts. the evidence points -- all evidence points in that direction. >> again, that's your view. >> that's not my view. that's the facts. okay. david, thank you. i appreciate it. john avlon, thank you so much. >>> straight ahead, january 6th committee member congressman adam schiff is going to join us live. what he expects should happen, thaes next. >>> a 6.4 magnitude earthquake that we told you about earlier has shaken humboldt county, california. veronica, i know we were talking earlier about thousands without power because of this. what are you learning so far? >> reporter: yeah, we understand that as of now about 70% o

the select committee has made the following findings with respect to the department of justice. he weeks of neatly following the 2020 election, attorney general bill barr advised president trump the department of justice had not seen any evidence to suppt trump's theory the ection was stolen by fraud. no evidence. over the course of the three meetings and this postelection period, attorney general barr assured president trump the justice department was properly investigating claims of election fraud. he debunked numerous election fraud claims. many of which the president would then go on to repeat publicly. he made clear president trump was doing "a great, great disservice to the country are pursuing that." after attorney general barr's resignation, president trump requested the acting leaderip of the department, jeffrey rosen and chard donogh, "just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and republican congressman." in other words, just tell a small like to put the faÇade of legitimacy on this lie and the republican congressmen and i can distort and destroy and cr

congress has referred trump to the justice department on criminal charges. and d"the lead" starts right no. the pressure on the justice department which must decide whether to criminally charge the former president for his actions in the capitol insurrection. and the evidence handed over and brand-new witness testimony. a committee member will join me in moments. plus, reaction from republican circles including former vice president mike pence after the mob tried to hunt him down on january 6th inside the capitol. >>> also with a deadline approaching, president biden's growing problem at the border as migrants line up to cross into the u.s. ♪ >>> welcome to "the lead." i'm jake tapper. a bombshell january 6th committee hearing wrapped up two hours ago. the committee referred criminal charges against donald trump to the justice department. these charges including one, obstruction of a criminal proceeding. two, conspiracy to defraud the united states. three, conspiracy to make a false statement, and four, aiding or assisting an insurrection. >> we propose to t

the end that a former president of the united states should be criminally referred to the department of justice effectively a coup. for trying to overturn a free and fair election. however, we all know that this is symbolic. that this is not anything that is immediately actionable by the department of justice. which is conducting its own investigation into january 6 and other issues like mar-a-lago. but it does send a message to the american public that this is what our conclusions have been after all of the work we have done. and donald trump will respond and has responded as he will saying it is aectively a witch hunt. but the evidence will be there for history. >> it is important, indeed. elli, what could you tell us about the two charges, obstruction and conspiracy to defraud the federal government. >> both of them carry here a five year maximum sentence. and they're both written pretty broadly. to cover basically cheating against the united states. so what the official proceeding, somebody acting with improper purpose, lying or using deceit, destroying documents with an attempt to impede t

much remains to be done and the justice department and our partners at e.p.a. will continue to work closely with the community to reach a long-term agreement that can ensure the delivery of reliable, clean drinking water. in doing this work, the department's newly created office of environmental justice will continue to play a critical role in engaging with the community on the ground in jackson. although environmental justice can happen anywhere -- injustice can happen anywhere, communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities often bear the brunt of these harms. as we work to fulfill our responsibility to keep the american people safe, to protect civil rights, we will continue to prioritize cases like this one that will have the greatest impact on communities most burdened by environmental harm. i am very proud the attorneys and investigators and staff whose unwearverring commitment -- unwavering commitment to the rule of law and tiers work resulted yesterday -- tireless work resulted yesterday in these two significant victories for the

after our voluminous hearings and investigations and we are handing this material over to the department of justice. let the department of justice decide whether or if to charge the former president with any of these charges. so i think the justice department doesn't need to get up to speed. we have seen with hundreds of prosecutions of people storming the capitol they've already started in that sense. and they are clearly looking at donald trump and a lot of his could be coconspirators. >> elliott, does the justice department care whether they have a criminal referral? i mean it is not a real thing. >> you know, anderson, i'd go even further saying, talking about caring, i actually think a criminal referral gets in the justice department's way a little bit because it politicizes the work of the justice department even assuming congress is righteous in what they're pursuing with the criminal referral there is still a partisan elected body. and even a bipartisan committee of congress is still a political body that sort of puts the thumb on the scale of the justice department. so imagine if then the

congress has no formal role in justice department decisions. they can make recommendations today. but when it comes to the justice department's decision about bringing charges in the future, i would hope that they would not bring charges against the former president. i don't -- look, as i wrote in my book, i think the president's actions and words on january 6th were reckless. but i don't know that it is criminal to take bad advice from lawyers and so i hope the justice department is careful. >> dana: we'll see on that. >> i want to say i hope the justice department understands the magnitude and the very idea of indicting a former president of the united states. i think that would be terribly divisive in the country at a time when the american people want to see us heal. at this time of year we're all thinking about the most important things in our lives, our faith, family and my hope is the justice department will think very carefully. >> dana: your whole family will be together. all the family is getting together for the first time in three years and that's very exciting. you wr

justice department.publican senators, both privately and publicly, are starting to abandon trump. >> right. >> so, we have all of these factors at once. >> of course, watching congress and the reaction of those republicans today. thank you all very much as we get ready because the gavel it coming down on the historic meeting of the january 6 committee in just a matter of minutes. stay with us because you will see it all right here live on cnn. powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takess eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everyththing, anand i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds. i was born here, i'm from here, and i'm never leaving here. i'm a new york hotel. yeah, i'm ll. 563 feet and

this is unprecedented to refer a former president to the department of justice on criminal charges. e does not have to take this up. we often talk about congress and often flexes its muscles and says we are going to send criminal, and steve bannon has been prosecuted and convicted, and another with peter navarro, and more interesting from a congressional standpoint, referrals to the ethics committee. kevin mccarthy, jim jordan, and perry, and they say the committee failed to respond to his concerns about the legitimacy of the committee. the reason that's intriguing, the ethics committee can start next year, it's a bipartisan committee, under republican control, and to see what they did. republicans next year have said we are going to call on anthony fauci, call in alejandro mayorkas, we want them to comply with subpoenas and these members, including mccarthy and jim jordan, central to the investigations, never complied with those subpoenas. and you have even some republican members of congress, nancy mace, indicated at one point she thought republicans were basically talking out of b

a legal victory for former president trump in the justice department's investigation into his handling of highly classified documents after leaving office. cnn's senior justice correspondent, evan perez, is working the story. what are you hearing tonight, what are you learning? >> well, this was a hearing that happened just a little while ago, this afternoon at the federal court here in washington. judge hole, the chief judge there, was hearing a request from the justice department to hold the former president in contempt of court for not complying with a subpoena that was issued over the summer to turn over all documents. at the end of that hearing, she declined, at least for now, to hold the former president in contempt. instead, what she does was she asked the justice department and the trump team to work harder to come to a resolution, to try to figure out a way to resolve the issues. we don't know whether this is going to be the final answer to this dispute. obviously the problem here is that the justice department believes that there are still documents missing, they believe that

the department of justice is already investigating. the fbi is already investigating. they've already asked the commission to share their evidence. so i don't know how these criminal referrals change much. i think the department of justice will say thank you very much for the referral, thank you for the evidence, we're going to continue to go about our business. in my gut, i think that obstr obstruction charge is probably the one that should frighten the trump team the most. >> today congresswoman luria showed this graphic showing all the people who texted mark meadows urging trump to tell the rioters to go home, including a number of fox news personalities, a number of maga individuals in congress. you're there as well. yours says, mark, he needs to stop this now, can i do anything to help. doesn't this demonstrate that trump knew what he was doing by not telling the rioters to go home? >> again, i think it's some evidence. you used the right word, which is dereliction of duty. i don't think der eleeliction o duty is a crime. i used to defend the president on january 6

, too, if the justice department wants to talk to them.here's no arguing against sitting for the justice department if you've already spilled the beans to the house. and so now the justice department has tools at hand that they can push further if they see fit and there are certain episodes the committee couldn't necessarily get to the bottom of, the situation in the presidential suv, they talked to cassidy hutchinson. those are the sorts of things that i would expect the justice department to want to flesh out. >> the committee is recommending that trump be prevented from ever holding public office again. how does that even work? >> i'm not sure it does. it's a splashy headline but it's not clear there's a viable path. in the report they point to the section of the constitution that says those engaged in insurrection or giving aid or k comfort to our enemies can be barred from having office. it's not clear if there's a process or if it applies to former presidents. we heard liz cheney talk about this on monday as well. that's a message to

but we do not know everything that the justice department knows.epartment does not need criminal referrals from the committee. so given all of that, everything that katie's reporting, where do you think the justice department stands currently in its investigation into the former president, particularly on the january 6th front? >> simone, when i was a prosecutor at the department of justice, we got referrals all the time. but never anything like this. with all of the evidence that the house has compiled against trump, the house staffers who worked on the report included former prosecutors, and fbi agents, so think of the referral as a rolled map with receipts. the receipts include millions of texts and emails, 1000 transcripts of 1000 witnesses being interviewed. people like rudy giuliani, pat cipollone, secret service agents. so you best believe that jack smith, the special counsel, and other loyalists that are at doj are studying, or will study the report as soon as they get it this wednesday. and then make their decision. i still think that mar-

the dusters -- the justice department can move much more quickly. we were batting about 50% when we made a criminal referral for contempt in terms of what the department prosecutes. they can move more swiftly if it appears based on the reports. they have moved more swiftly and obtained testimony for people who have refused to cooperate with us. none of us know what the character of that testimony is, the long, short of it is they possess evidence we don't have and the cumulative impact for justice with those that have broken the law. >> the department of justice has their own report -- how is that not a focus of this report of this investigation? rep. schiff: it has been a focus of our investigation. material releasing later this week on that very issue, the nature of the intelligence that agencies have whether it was shared or not shared, agreements acted upon or not acted upon, the coordination or lack of coordination with law enforcement. >> did the committee come across any testimony that further corroborated kassidy hudson's testimony about the

the right to give immunity, after having ten days notice to the department of justice, and then the departmentf on doing that for at least 20 days. it gives them a total of 30 days to get at the end of the tins together. this is something we did during watergate, before john been testified. we were in touch with the senate, which was doing the investigation. and in the possibility that he would get immunity, put together the evidence so that we could prove that any prosecution that we went forward with was based on evidence we had before his testimony. the other thing that makes this not as powerful tool is that anybody can be prosecuted for perjury. so if any witness lies, and remember how much evidence there is about what the truth is, if they don't tell the truth in that testimony, they'll be prosecuted for perjury before congress. so it's not as strong a remedy as maybe the house would like, but it's an impediment. it will cause a problem. it will make a problem to prosecution. >> hunter, picking up on jill's point, with the committee shuddering in january, what could senate democrats to?

so he would weaponize the justice department.at, also, on the docket tomorrow, voting to refer for house ethics investigation your fellow members of congress, some of them? >> we will also be considering what's the propose remedy for members of congress who ignore a congressional subpoena as well as the evidence that was so pertinent to our investigation and why we wanted to bring them in. so that will be something we'll be considering tomorrow. we have weighed what is the remedy for members of chronic? is it a criminal referral to another branch of government? or is it better that the congress police its own? >> censure? >> censure is something we considered, ethics referrals is something we've considered. we'll be disclosing tomorrow what our decision is. >> former president trump is under other investigations, you alluded to the one in georgia from the district attorney of the county there. that georgia grand jury is winding down its investigation into trump's role in trying to get the secretary of state to find enough votes t

but does that need to be part of the calculation for a justice department? because there are a whole host of implications beyond donald trump to a justice department. >> right. i mean there is already a special counsel for a reason here and that is one way that they're handling it. but i wanted to note one thing that is an enduring consequence of january 6, and that is already happened and that is the changes in the election laws around the country. that various states have made because of the president's misinformation. also in the omnibus that perhaps will pass in the next couple of days is the electoral accountability act which makes it clear that the vice president's role is ceremonial and makes it a bit higher, the congressional which would require lawmakers to -- to object to state electors. so there are things that are very much going to be a part of american life for a while as a result of what happened in the lead-up and january 6. >> i'm going to give you a chance next time to pipe on that. but thank you so much to all of you. >> no problem. >>> st

the justice department now has to decide who will file charges. in their final, hearing cnn decided focus on trump's direct involvement in a scheme to overturn the 2020 election. paving the way for the violence of the u.s. capitol 2020. one trump's campaign called the committees work a partisan witch hunt. more details now from cnn correspondent sara -- >> the house select committee investigating january six convening publicly one last time. >> he lost the 2020 election and moved it. in the, and he summoned a mob to washington, and knowing that they were armed and angry. pointed them to the capitol, and told them to fight like. >> and laying out its case that former president donald trump would ultimately be responsible for the attack on the u.s. capital. >> no man who would behave that way at that moment in time can ever serve in any position of authority in our nation, again. he isn't fit for any office. >> the committee referring for crimes to the justice department. that they say the former president committed while trying to stay in the white

they're bringing things to the justice department's attention.ll review it, see it, consider it maybe. but at the end of the day the decision of whether to proceed with charges all comes down to whether the justice department believes they can win -- convince a jury of the facts that are charged beyond a reasonable doubt. that's it. and while it's beautiful and compelling and persuasive and there might be a nice report from congress, at the end of the day it doesn't have equal weight. >> elliott, when it comes to the three charges the committee is expected to announce, how serious are they? >> insurrection is very, very serious. that's why it's been charged so few times in american history. and even if you remember the clive and lundy, the rancher in nevada, who literally took arm against the u.s. government, was not charged with insurrection. the other two, you have a path to charging the president or others around him, obstructing congress with the intent to do and conspiracy to defraud the united states. those last two i talked about have a fi

the department of justice has great investigators, great agents. the statutes to be applicable. if the committee really wants to help the department of justice, i presume they do, there are a couple ways to do that. telling the department of justice what charges it ought to bring isn't that helpful. giving the department of justice the testimony and evidence could be helpful. that's one thing they wanted all along, the transcripts of the testimony of the various witnesses with whom the committee spoke. there's a large ongoing invest. i believe the justice department will make principle decisions. it doesn't need the committee's recommendation. that's not to say that the committee didn't do a good job. they did. but proving something in a hearing room is different than the federal court. the first thing is easier. the second thing is much harder. >> chuck, i take what you said 100% because you know the justice department and how they think. they are not sequestered like a jury in a hotel room some place. the justice department did hear and see what h

mark meadows, john eastman, jeffrey clark, former top justice department official who tried to help jumpion. rudy giuliani and other trump lawyers. in your sense -- >> yeah. >> -- will the special counsel and the justice team welcome new information from congress? or do they think we got this? >> we know they got this because they were working on this even prior to congress taking the steps. all of the investigative actions that the justice department is doing is happening independent of congress. the job that congress is decides not just something wrong happened but do they think it's provable by the justice department. they got to decide amongst themselves how much they want to provide. i'm sure they uncovered a lot of conduct that might be legal but shady. and the justice department probably wouldn't take it up as a crime. >> but the committee, depending on where your point of reference is, thought the justice department was moving too slowly. maybe they were thinking they did it privately and we're seeing more of it. the committee believes they have sufficient material? >> the commit

official jeff clark to insult to them in sold the oath they take insult the justice department itselfe string of fifth amendment answers that he gave in these transcripts and with what they know he actually did? >> i share your views that at the department this is going to be if you had to think about somebody who is going to be focused on other than donald trump it is going to be jeffrey clark because it is going to be viewed as such an attack on the department and the rule of law and what it stands for that it's going to seem personal in that sense and what it means for jeffrey clark is that if he's thinking that he possibly could get immunity for his testimony, you know, i'm just thinking of putting my hat on as a prosecutor and this is true for neil and jill, there is no way in god's green earth that i would want to immunize him, we are going to make a criminal case and he is going to be prosecuted and if he wants to cooperate after that fine, but not before that, precisely because he is so denigrated what the department stands for that you would really feel like that has to be vi

host: we seen the committee refer other criminal referrals to the justice department, the justice department took some, did not take others. what is the process like in determining what is done with that? guest: number one, as said, i think a lot over the last 24 to 36 hours -- the fact of the referral is of no consequence. the justice department, traditional way -- there have been blips along the way, including under the trump administration, is an institution that prides itself on independence. it prides itself on holding itself to very tough standards and frankly, it knows the federal judges before whom lawyers appear will hold that to very tough standards. what there will be is an independent review of the evidence that is sent over, the transcripts and documents, in conjunction with the evidence the justice department lawyers have already amassed. the analysis will be independent of whether or not seven members of the congressional committee, however smart they are, and some members of the committee are not just smart, but very good lawyers. there will be an independent test, that test

that is the big importance for the justice department., having these three referral charges, the insurrection, impeding on unofficial proceeding, interfering pro-official official proceeding of congress, defrauding the united states, are three charges that will probably be familiar for the justice department, especially the last two. we have seen people brought in among the nearly 1000 defendants being charged with obstructing official proceeding of congress, we also, of course, have seen the defrauding the united states charge in many, many instances. the one that will probably be a little problematic for prosecutors is the insurrection charge. it is a law that dates back to the reconstruction era. it is not something there is a lot of case law for. for the justice department, anderson, they have their ongoing investigation. so, there is a lot of things they are already aware of. they are very, very, very interested in seeing the evidence this committee has turned out. >> what impact would it have on the justice department, if any? >> it

why did the committee do that instead of referrals to the justice department?> well, because we think that this is something that is a house matter. ultimately those members didn't want to meet their obligations. they are members of the house and will be members of the house in the future. we feel that we had a responsibility to send that over to ethics. these are lawful subpoenas that they didn't want to comply with. they are fact witnesses in the information that we were seeking. the fact they chose to ignore us and avoid us we think speaks volumes and is important for the house ethics committee to take a look at. >> so send it to the ethics committee even though they won't face any repercussions from the committee? >> well, that's up to the committee, but we feel that we've met our obligations in this regard. >> let me pause there. it's up to the committee, but you know very well, sir, the makeup of this committee equally divided between democrats and republicans, so there's no expectation that they will face consequences. how does this not say that members

even with that, the justice department is not satisfied. they believe that there is still possibly could be more documents in donald trump's possession, and that's where this new proceeding comes in, where the justice department is asking a federal judge in washington, d.c. to hold donald trump and his office as the former president in contempt of court. of course, we don't know exactly how this will be resolved, but it is yet another chapter in this ongoing struggle for the justice department to try and get back everything that donald trump may have kept after the presidency. >> yeah, the legal issues keep escalating for trump. what is the timeline, katelyn, on when this could all happen? >> as i said, this is under seal. so we don't know exactly how fast it could be resolved. this is one of those things that may with resolved quite quickly. this is a judge that moves quite fast. this is a criminal investigation, so the pressure is on for special counsel jack smith to get some resolutions. but, wolf, we do know that there is a hearing set

what do these referrals mean for the justice department and for the history books? e've never had a president be referred to the department of justice for potential criminal prosecution by any measure in our history. so that's a big deal. the other ones will be looked at with a very squinting eye by the department of justice. they will not be influenced necessarily by the fact that congress has made that suggestion. they also won't be ignored. it really educates the public and the department of justice is we are of it. so they will try to answer the question of why this person should or shouldn't be prosecuted. and i think a lot of them will be prosecuted. >> how much did it strike that you chairman benny thompson referred to the referrals as a road map to justice? did that remind you at all of watergate? back then, the special prosecutor jaworski had a road ma'am that was kept under seal for 44 years. >> yes. i heard that in his opening remarks. he referred to the fact that this was a road map. and indeed, i think, from what he described, what i've read so far in th

do you think any of these others are cooperating with the department of justice? >> i think the department of justice has greater powers than even congress does to compel these people to participate and gather more information. and, so, we wanted to point them down that path without necessarily naming the specifics because we were stymied. there were a lot of people we wanted to get testimony from to build the evidence around that we just weren't able to get access to. >> so, in the report you included a detail. and this was that the former trump campaign manager bill stepien said he locked his office, which was glass. and he locked it because he no longer wanted to hear the lie from rudy giuliani. he didn't want rudy giuliani coming in anymore and that, quote, sure enough, mayor giuliani tried to get in my office and ordering her, speaking of his assistant, to unlock the door, and she didn't do that. how much more information and new details will we and the doj, i should note the doj because they haven't seen the transcripts that you're going to release this week.

the justice department doesn't have to, you know, doesn't have to adhere to it.t's a pretty powerful one that they believe a crime was committed and maybe even more powerful by the fact that they announced it the morning members of law enforcement were getting congressional gold medals for their valor on january 6th. that was, i think, not an accident at all. and a very effective bit of stagecraft on the part of the committee. now, you know, what could it be? we don't know. you know, certainly from watching the hearings it appears that witness tampering or obstruction of justice department a-- justice. anyone who might have been working in concert with could be referred for a crime -- for a criminal offense. finally last thing, it's not just crimes here that can be referred. for instance, individuals who are attorneys could be referred to bar associations and put their law license in jeopardy if they engaged in mischief or wrongdoing. this is certainly a powerful statement by kjs. >> elliot, this could get to really what has -- if you sum it all up, and it is har

asked the justice department department can investigate anything. there has been no conclusion or charges against president trump by the justice department. >> the supreme court put a temporary block on the removal of a trump era immigration policy, put in place in 2020 to reduce the spread of covid-19. they allow for the swift deportation of asylum-seekers caught at the u.s.-mexico border . republican led states have been calling to keep the policy in place. our correspondent joins us live from washington, d.c. this is a temporary block does it signal the court is likely to rule against the biden at ministration ending these expulsions? >> no, it doesn't necessarily mean this is the chief justice john roberts saying, let us keep this in place for now. he wants the justices to weigh in and he wants it done quickly, it seems. title 42 at the beginning of the pandemic, donald trump was very anti-immigration, used a health code to say we can stop everyone coming to the border. everyone gets turned around and are not allowed to apply for asylum. there h

i think at the start of the january 6th select committee investigation, concurrent with the department justicetment of justice would be prepared to do. but because of the fact the committee laid out. because of the interviews. the damning testimony. it has in fact made a difference. karen also talked about the importance of accountability. i have a sense for my interview that it is important for the former president to be held accountable. and members of congress. i do think though there is a question of if that barr will be met for the members and former president. but again. jack smith is on the case. >> and on the point. you pressed him heart of the issue of the ethics committee referrals. he's essentially saying that yeah, the way you put. the law of silent as to what you can do about members of congress when they do something like that. the ethics committee should not be silent. but i don't think he is raising expectations that they will ultimately actually do anything. simone sanders towns of, host of simone. the person who got this exclusive interview tonight. someone thank you. thank y

the department of justice is not there to just prosecute felons in state cases. the department of justice and my conception should be there to take on the tough cases and the case that's threaten the fabric of our society. >> matt gaetz denies the allegations. but again, that makes the evidence your client produce all the more fascinating. can you take us inside some of the election fraud and the other evidence provided that maybe didn't get as much attention? you believe there is also some reporting that mr. gaetz was wrapped up with the proud boys around a state election. can you talk about some of the other evidence that your client shared about mr. gaetz? >> i threw out tidbits for you all and you just have to follow the breadcrumbs. yesterday when talking about election fraud, i -- or generally his cooperation, i said starts in seminole county but extends to tallahassee and washington, d.c., and broward county. and i think -- i can't go into too many details. there is obviously open information. there was a proud boy activity in the 2018, during the 2018 elec

once the justice department says so people will believe it.is only the johnny's theory through the justice department. the is the clue between those two segments. >> ken klukowski, affective, lee brought in for a surgical strike. he said, he's there for a little while, before he tries go into the private sector. that's later in the transcript. he did not have long term plans for the justice department. he had a mission to fulfill, by his own admittance. the other thing, part of the share of concluding has his transcript is wild's, it did not affect me at all. there's a reason that the media, an american public, were given the cassidy hutchinson testimony, about the ways in which trump appointees, and trump affiliates, were coached to say, i do not recall when they were under pressure to give damning evidence against donald trump. are you reading these tea leaves the same way? the fact that we are primed with this knowledge from cassidy hutchison, and then given a transcript from someone. where he says, repeatedly, i do not recall, i don't reca

congress has, has no formal role in justice department decisions. they can make recommendations today but when it comes to their decision about, about, about bringing charges in the future, i would hope they would not bring charges against the former president. i don't, look, as i wrote in my book, i think his actions and words on january 6 were reckless. but i don't know that it's criminal to take bad advice from lawyers. host: again, former vice president mike pence yesterday before the criminal referrals came from the january 6 committee. as reaction from some members of congress, ed markey says that the american people today are in debt to the committee for their work to uncover and document the fraud committed and violence stoke by donald trump and it's clear he belongs in a jailhouse, not the white house. a representative from new jersey saying that they were the first to demand the trump prosecution and if we fail to hold him accountable, future january 6's will happen and we lurch towards authoritarian rule. they are expected to ask for a pu

for prosecution by the justice department. cassidy hutchinson's testimony reveals another point that standing alone would've been enough to get that lawyer disbarred in most restrictions in this country. he refused to tell her who was paying him to represent her. here is how cassidy hutchison described her very first words with a criminal defense lawyer of that trump world provided. page 21. on monday, february 7th 2022. i received a call in the afternoon from stephen passantino. i had never worked with stephen. we don't really overlap. and i never really heard of him. i also know is that he -- he had called to let me know that he was my attorney. and was a brief call. let him know that and i was like i probably should sign an engagement letter and he said no no no, we are not doing that. we'll have you taken care of. i said, i remember asking him. i don't have to sign an engagement letter? because that was sort of the first alarm bell in my head that went off because i want something in writing for myself because i already ha

lawmakers revealed that the committee is sending four cfl referrals for the justice department for with the trump to inciting an insur recollection, amongovers. minority leader kevin makar any and representativities and any biggs, jim in order -- jordan and scott perry were included for "failing to comply with subpoenas. " here's a criminal from maryland explaining the actions. >> we've gone where the facts and the law lead us and inescapably they lead us here. yamiche: the report also citizen one than, donald trump, is to blame for the capitol attack and 245 he should be barred from ever holding elected office again. in a statement trump lashed out at the committee and that accused lawmakers of carrying out a witch-hunt against him. joining me, scott macfarlaneer occasional important for cbs news, ryan reilly, justice reporter for n news and seung mini kim, white house reporter for the associated press and mar that are. thank you all for being here. scott, let's dive into this week and this report. what's your biggest stake wave and the names including not just perspective trump but so

at the justice department's ability to compel their testimony. it is highly sensitive to go after information from a sitting member of congress. but they're not being targeted because their members of congress. they're being targeted because of the conduct, the conversations with donald trump on january 6th. so, i don't see how you investigate this case without talking to them. and maybe their witnesses, maybe their defendants. we'll see how that shakes out. >> charlie, before we. go just a big picture question. the degree to which generally six committee exceeded expectations and the degree to which there added in terms of the information landscape around january 6th. how much they actually changed? for broader swap the american public. let's hear assessment there. >> i think they did a good job. they surprise a lot of people who thought they already know this stuff. the video was on tv for all to see. the media reconstruction the events that day. so trump was openly urging those people to go pressure congress. and say the rules didn't apply. th

that's where the department of justice comes. it, though, the january 6th committee meet a criminal referral to the department of justice. anyone can do that. i can make a criminal referral to the department of justice. there's probably has more weight and lives certainly got the documents this time to say look, this is where you should be looking. and this is what you should be looking at. but we already know the department of justice has got an investigation ongoing or we don't know where it's gone. who had spoken to or hope born. it was gone. and hundreds of thousands of airline passengers flying in and out of the u. k. a facing delays or disruptions over the christmas weekend after border force work has started 8 days of strike action over pay and conditions. military personnel has been drafted in to try to minimize delays at the airport. that brings you up to speed with all of our top stories. the bottom line with steve clemens, is the program coming out next? i'll see you soon. ah. i am steve clements and i have a question t