bob neill who is the chairman of thejustice mp sir bob neill who is the chairman of the justice select committeehow close is that it actually happening?— change this. how close is that it actually happening? it is clear that it is very distressing, _ actually happening? it is clear that it is very distressing, what - actually happening? it is clear that it is very distressing, what the - it is very distressing, what the family— it is very distressing, what the family red _ it is very distressing, what the family red out there, and there is real anqer— family red out there, and there is real anger about the fact some defendants in high—profile cases have _ defendants in high—profile cases have chosen to be behave in this regard _ have chosen to be behave in this regard and — have chosen to be behave in this regard and it is cowardly and disrespectful, and it is able so i totally— disrespectful, and it is able so i totally understand what the family have just — totally understand what the family have just said. the one thing we have _ have just said. the one thing we have to — have just said. the

justice select committee. sir bob, thank you very, very much. ure that killers face real justice. okay it's gbnews.com forward slash gb news.com forward slash justice. gbnews.com forward slash justice. a lot of people , a lot justice. a lot of people, a lot of our viewers, myself , i feel of our viewers, myself, i feel very angry that people like lucy letby and others can hide away in their prison cells whilst victim impact statements are read out and whilst the judge hands down his or her sentence on that. how do you feel about that? firstly, about the fact that? firstly, about the fact that they are now currently not made to attend court. >> i can understand the anger, patrick, and i think that's natural, particularly he got such a deploy as a terrible, terrible offence as this. i mean, the judge got it right when he said it was, you know, malevolence bordering on the sadistic . the good news is, of sadistic. the good news is, of course, real justice has been donein course, real justice has been done in the sense that this woman will never be r

, conservative mp, chair of thejustice with sir bob neill, conservative mp, chair of the justice select committeeking so long to get anywhere on this, bob? it is much harder than it seems at first glance, for some of the reasons that have already been rehearsed, instinctively everybody feels that the behaviour of people like lucy letby and others has been absolutely despicable, and it is in absolutely despicable, and it is in a right depriving the grieving families, victims of murder in particular, that ability to see the whites of the eyes, which i can quite understand. but there is the problem, the caller raised a very serious practical one, the law can�*t compel somebody to be brought to court itself, it is possible that the judge can give a directory for them to be brought up to the dock, provided reasonable force is used, we could certainly strengthen the ability of the judge to order that, but it must ultimately always be the decision of the judge, because of thejudges in charge of decision of the judge, because of the judges in charge of the core, and remember they will often see both the

select committee. i was grateful to see that the department of justice, the special prosecutor was able to get testimonyas a select committee as some witnesses pled the fifth. or didn't show up before us. or invoked privilege. that information has proven based on the bits of it that we've seen in the indictment so far to be really revealing. >> yeah, especially that seems to have come from trump's then chief of staff mark meadows. i don't know how much of our programming you've been watching but earlier today i interviewed mark short vice president pence top aide who preferred to meddle as the rin g leader, meaning he helped run this whole conspiracy that is marc short's words. he noted that since meadows was not referenced in any ways as a coconspirator in the indictment, that says to him that meadows is a cooperating witness. is that your conclusion as well? >> i certainly hope that mark meadows has decided to cooperate, because he does know an awful lot about what was going on in the white house, and about the conversations that were being had. i think if he was a true patriot he would have cooperate

a lot of the indictment mirrored the work that we did on the select committee but i was really grateful to see that the department of justice able to get testimony that we were not able to secure as a select committee as some witnesses pled the fifth or just did not show up before us or even invoked other privileges. that information has proven based on the bits that we have seen in the indictment so far to be truly revealing. >> it does seem to have come from his then chief of staff mark meadows i don't know how much of the programming you have been watching but earlier today, i did interview mark short to the top aid for vice president pentz. he referred to meadows as a ringleader. saying he helped to run this whole conspiracy. he also noted that since he was not referenced in any way as a co-conspirator in the indictment it says that meadows is cooperating as a witness. is that also your conclusion ? >> i certainly hope that mark meadows has decided to cooperate. because he does know an awful lot about what was going on in the white house and about the conversations that were being had. if you was a true patriot he would

something going on also has to do with the judicial overhaul, which is justice minister's refusal to convene the judicial selection committee, which popularly the judges for every single court in israel. under the old reasonableness standards, the supreme court would have been able to say to him, it's extremely unreasonable you won't convene a committee. it means judges cannot be appointed at any level of israel courts. the magistrate court, district court, or the supreme court. and you must convene this committee. but now there is no mechanism for doing that. when we think about something like the implications for israeli democracy even in the short-term, where there already is a shortage of judges, the idea the courts are going to be empty because the justice minister is simply unwilling to convenient the committee that has to select the judges, that's something that can no longer be remedied given the reasonableness standard is gone. this is a very broad action they took. i also want to note many of the cases that the reasonableness standard or actions to which the reasonableness standard has applied, has been cited by f

in the shoes of the prosecutors and investigators at the justice department, but one thing chairman thompson used to say in the select committee'shere needs to be top to bottom accountability. accountability under the law that we see the wheels of justice moving forward. but there needs to be accountability for everybody involved in the scheme. so you know, it is very important that there be accountability under the law, but if you go back and look at the select committee's work, read the report, watch the hearings, these are familiar characters but there are a lot more familiar characters as well who are beyond this handful of unindicted coconspirators, lawmakers, officials at the state and local level who were part of this scheme. it's important while this indictment is moving forward to look at the work the select committee did, we have seen a universe of who was involved in the scheme. >> the january 6th committee obviously didn't have as much access to people or evidence as the special counsel has. are there some things in the 45-page indictment that surprised you or what are the things that more impressed you when you read

attention to the work that the select committee did last, year and we know tens of millions of americans did, this is going to be a familiar story. there is information that the justice department was able to get that the select committee wasn't, but my mind goes back to the select committees litigation with, who we think, is an unnamed coconspirator number two, john eastman, where he was trying to protect communications with the president and the select committee made the argument then that there should be a crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege and a federal judge, a year ago last spring, said that there is more likely than not that federal crimes were committed here. seeing this move forward in the indictment is validating for the committee's work but it is also something that, again, folks who have been watching this from the beginning, should not be of surprised to see. >> olivia, you worked in the trump administration. give us your sense. i want you to listen to what colorado congressman jason crow had to say about this. take a listen to this. >> we are being tested to see whether our rule of law, whether our democracy can withstand somebody li

i will actually say the january 6th select committee had him included in some of our conspiracy recommendations to the department of justicereferrals that didn't have teeth to them because it's a committee, it's not a court. but at the same time he's cleary a name even at that point you guys felt you had enough to dig into. you chart this forward. you look at the fact you've got all these apparent trump campaign e-mails, they've got access to trump's twitter account. i mean what more can they say here that the committee hasn't already said? >> it's a great question. the committee recommended four charges to the department of justice. some of those are incapsulated in that indictment, but even without the information you just said the select committee -- or the special counsel probably has, we believe there's enough. i'm really curious to see what else they were able to get especially because of the 30 witnesses that pled the fifth to the select committee, steve bannon who congress held in contempt and was convicted of that. >> mark meadows. >> mark meadows. that's a really good one. we don't know the extent of his involvem

sentiment| echoed by sir neil who chairs the justice select echoed by sir neil who chairs thejustice select committeechange. when the state makes an error it is right and proper that the state accepts that as swiftly as possible and secondly, that the state then doesn't try and put needless obstacles in the way for somebody seeking recompense.— way for somebody seeking recompense. key among the obstacles — recompense. key among the obstacles is _ recompense. key among the obstacles is a _ recompense. key among the obstacles is a new _ recompense. key among the obstacles is a new test - obstacles is a new test introduced in 2014 that means that victims of miscarriages of justice need to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt. ., , ., , doubt. that is an extremely difficult hurdle _ doubt. that is an extremely difficult hurdle to _ doubt. that is an extremely difficult hurdle to meet - doubt. that is an extremely difficult hurdle to meet and| difficult hurdle to meet and thatis difficult hurdle to meet and that is why hardly anyone is now getting compensation anymore. even very serious cases whe

justice anything about that. i was speaking to the chair of thejustice select committee, oversees thejustice department for parliaments like it needs reforms because, actually, for people who have been wrongfully convicted together this torturous process of trying to prove their innocence again does feel very unfair. greater manchester police, those are the ones involved in his conviction in the first place, there has been strong criticism of suppressing evidence, not telling the jury the full picture, he says they basically conducted misconduct. they have not said anything. they have previously apologised for what has happened but they have refused to ever do any interviews to fully answer questions about any of this. thank you very much for taking us through that. the former �*lost prophets' singer and convicted paedophile, ian watkins, has reportedly been stabbed in prison. newspaper reports say he was attacked at hmp wakefield, where he's serving a 29—year sentence for child sex offences. the prison service said police are investigating an incident that happened yesterday. here, two men in their 30s have been bai

justice that informed that prioritization. i do think that the facts that the select committee was able to uncover that came largely from trumpion officials, republicans who wanted the president to win, but do the right thing when they were in a moment of principle, their willingness to come forward and talk to the select committee, and our revelation of those facts to america unquestionably was motivating because, again, facts are what matter, not lawyers but fact and the facts you are compelling, when the department of justice became aware of those facts, they were moved to act. geoff: you will lead investigator for the january 6 committee. that work product created a roadmap in many ways for the january 6 or rather the special counsel january 6 investigation. when you read the indictment, what strikes you as intensely familiar? and what also strikes u.s.? as painting a fuller -- strikes you as new, as painting a fuller picture as to what transpired leading up to the insurrection? tim: the vast majority is familiar. it sounded similar to vice chair cheney's opening statement at our first hearing, the committee's first heari

ginni thomas, the conservative activist and wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas, met today with the january 6th select house committee are told that she cooperated, that she answered every question but chairman bennie thompson has also told reporters that she still believes the election was stolen, jake so after everything we know, ginni thomas is still an election denier. >> i would like to thank a great woman named ginni thomas do you know ginni thomas [ cheers and applause she's a great woman. the wife of a great man, justice clarence thomas, for her courage and strength she said that she still believes that 2020 election was stolen. she didn't say, "oh, well, i'd like not to get involved of course it was a wonderful election." it was a rigged and stolen election >> seth: i do like trump's impressions of other people because they're all the same regardless of who he is talking about. doesn't matter if it's joe biden or ginni thomas. i'd love to see his "snl" audition "next i'll be doing my harry styles impression. okay, here we go 'hi, my name is harry styles [ laughter ] i do songs and spit on chris pine.' [ ligh

information sharing, between the district attorney, the house january 6th select committee, and perhaps even the department of justiceust to share information perhaps request documents that may come up from time to time, perhaps in the medium related to one investigation or another. but at the end of the day, what d.a. willis is saying is, she's running her own race. her investigation is her investigation, she's not necessarily allowing it to be influenced by what the department justice was looking into. he is not thinking that they have to be in concert with each other. she, and again, her investigation, she said, it's been two and a half years. i think what she's also saying is, i put in the work myself. i don't necessarily need a copy jacks mitt. >> barb, matt, tÉa, as always, thank you so much for getting us started. up next, one of the investigators on the january 6th committee lays out how he would put trump on trial. plus, to tennessee democrats expelled from the state house for demanding gun safety, they are now back in their seats. where do they go from here? i will ask one of them. and this latest indictmen

select committee's report. anyone who paid attention to the work the select committee did, we know tens of millions of americans did, this will be a very familiar story. there is information that the justice department was able to get. my mind goes back, where he was trying to protect communications with the president. this is a year ago, last spring, that it was more likely than not, that federal crimes have been committed herement seeing this move forward in the indictment is certainly validating for the committee's work. but it is also something that again, folks who have been watching this from the beginning shouldn't be surprised to see. >> olivia, you worked in the trump administration. give us your sense. i want you to hear what jason crow had to say about this. >> we are being tested to see if our rule of law can withstand someone like donald trump and his supporters. we can't be looking at predetermined outcomes. >> will our country pass that test? >> i'm concerned. to be honest. i'm worried about what the future holds. i'm worried about statements being made from the political parolty i have supported most of my lifetime. when you continue to understood mine the judicial system.

committee made to the department of justice.— department ofjustice. and after the referrals from _ department ofjustice. and after the referrals from the _ department ofjustice. and after the referrals from the selectofjustice. and after the | referrals from the select committee, special counciljack smith then conducted his own investigation to see what he had, and that process took another eight months or so? we ave took another eight months or so? - gave him all transcript of our interviews, all documents we obtained, so again, there was a pretty strong evidentiary foundation upon which he could build. he took that and has taken some additional steps, he's gotten access to additional information that has only made the possible criminal case stronger. we are already at the point in the end of our process, which was the very first couple of days of this year, that there was evidence of criminal conduct, and in the eight months, the special council has continued to pursue those facts, my suggestion is he's only gotten more.— those facts, my suggestion is he's only gotten more. take us through the charges _ only gotten more. take us through the charges again, _ only gotten more. take us through the c

justice department, geoffrey clark is another conspirator. these names were identified specifically over the course of the select committee work.tandably named as co—conspirators in this indictment. it may be they are ultimately charged. the fact that it's only president trump charged now doesn't mean that is the final statement. there could be additional people, like those co—conspirators as this moves forward. do you think they should be charged? i think they have exposure, absolutely, and unless they are cooperating, a lot of times what happens in a conspiracy, people try to essentially get leniency in exchange for information. that could be happening and if it hasn't happened, it might still happen. absolutely. as we found and as the indictment lays out, they absolutely have culpability as co—conspirators in devising and implementing this multistage plan to disrupt the transfer of power. in the indictment, the special counsel office seems to point to the former vice president mike pence as being a key witness in putting together their case. you didn't have in your enquiry the ability to interview and speak to the former vic

now we're going to talk now to sir bob neill, who is the chairman of the commons justice select was with select committee only a few days ago in bromley. >> was with bromley, >> he was with me in bromley, weren't you, that's your weren't you, bob? that's your constituency in fact, sir bob neill again. constituency in fact, sir bob nei good again. constituency in fact, sir bob nei good to again. constituency in fact, sir bob nei good to see 1. constituency in fact, sir bob nei good to see you. >> good to see you. >> and lovely see you. he >> and lovely to see you. he bought a coffee on bromley bought me a coffee on bromley high street the other day. >> why she's been raving >> that's why she's been raving about she says he about you, sir bob. she says he bought coffee. cappuccino bought me a coffee. a cappuccino at perfect. at pitch perfect. >> was proper cappuccino, >> it was a proper cappuccino, too. it was very good. >> now, sir bob, you've known grant shapps a long time. grant shapps for a long time. >> i've grant a >> i've known grant shapps a long time. doubts he's long time. nobody doubts he's comp

justice. >> and of course when he was testifying in front of the january 6th select committee, could not lieg publicly, of course. and blayne, we've also got more news in the georgia case. one of the indicted co-defendants kenneth chesebro is asking a judge to reveal the names of the unindicted co-conspirators and chesebro and sidney powell want to sever their cases from the other defendants. what exactly do they want? >> one of the interesting things when you have a sprawling case like this with 19 separate defendants. so with sidney powell and ken chesebro are asking is they want to be tried separately. from chesebro's standpoint he is the first person to have asked for a speedy trial. the judge said october 23rd is going to be your trial date. chesebro is saying let's fwd and make it official and remove the other 30 some odd charges, counts that he's not charged with. get those out of the way because his attorney is arguing that would make for a fair trial. if he's not associated with the other 30 plus counts. now, for sidney powell, she's saying she has no other connection with any of th

. >> and as a member of the house's january 6th select committee it was raskin that presented the committee's recommendation that the justice trump with four counts, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to make a false state and assisting in the insurrection they did charge him with the other recommendations in addition to adding the conspiracy against rights. so joining me now is the democratic congressman we have been referring to there, jamie raskin of maryland, congressman raskin, welcome back to "meet the press." >> thanks for having me. >> let me first start with a couple things we heard from mr. lauro. you spent 25 years as a constitutional law professor i want to get professor raskin's take on this let me play one quick clip to something he said to me about the constitution into a technical violation of the constitution is not a violation of criminal law. that's just plain wrong. >> now, he added the word criminal law there, but it was my understanding if you violate the constitution you have related the law. >> first of all, a technical violation of the constitutio

a case that boils down of everything the justice department had been looking into, everything that congress had been looking into with the house select committee. now putting it together for a case against donald trump, a conspiracy to defraud voters, to defraud the electoral college process to certificy the vote a the conspiracy to defraud the u.s. government itself and the transfer of power. >> thank you so much. i haven't even thought about that point that you made at the beginning that where you're stand ing is really almost a stones throw from the u.s. capitol. you walk out the door and turn left and you can see it. it really is a powerful thought and an. appreciate it. now a very active morninfor the former president on his social media company. the indictment is fresh fuel for his stream of consciousness rants. he calls the indictment unprecedented and a wakeup call to the world. kristen holmes joins us live from near the former president's club in bedminster, new jersey. >> reporter: dana, it is unprecedented. you have to give him that. this is a former president and a current candidate for the presidency in 2024, who is being indicted

dusters expect justice department, the dusters expectjustice department, geoffrey clark is another conspirator. these names were identified specifically over the course of the select committeetandably named as co—conspirators in this indictment. it may be they are ultimately charged. the fact that it's only president trump was charged now doesn't mean thatis was charged now doesn't mean that is the final statement. there could be additional people like those co—conspirators as this moves forward. d0 co-conspirators as this moves forward. ,, ~ , forward. do you think they should be _ forward. do you think they should be charged? - forward. do you think they should be charged? i- forward. do you think they j should be charged? i think forward. do you think they - should be charged? i think they have exposure, _ should be charged? i think they have exposure, absolutely - should be charged? i think they have exposure, absolutely and| have exposure, absolutely and unless they are cooperating, a lot of times what happens in a conspiracy, people try to essentially get leniency in exchange for information which could be happening and if it hasn't happened, it might still happen. ab

justice and our law enforcement agencies. i want to switch gears ask you about the house select committee on china investigating blackrock anditating american investments into chinese companies who were actually accused of bolstering china's military and violating human rights. there is not a program that has been more focused on this issue than this one. because i've been focused on this issue now for years. the committee sent the letter to blackrock's ceo, it's unconscionable for any u.s. company to benefit from investments that facilitate human rights abuses. i would like to know whether or not this was a decision that joe biden got paid for, allowing all of these companies, chinese companies to trade on u.s. exchanges and not follow any auditing rules because joe biden signed a memorandum of understanding back in 2014 with chinese partners allowing these companies to trade on the u.s. exchanges. why are these comp in companiesn indexes if they're on sanctions lists? >> they shouldn't be. that's why we need to bring msci and blackrock in. i'm glad our chair, mike gallagher, is pursuing this. look, we had a hedge fund mana

that all comes together and if the justice department has received any information in the course of their investigation that goes further than what the house select committee that extensive ly foud in that potential indictment. when you get the indictment paperwork, it can be a short piece of paperwork with the charges or it can be quite lengthy explaining why the justice department has chosen to bring charges. so we are looking forward to that, and it is a lot of activity around donald trump and the federal investigations in recent days, and now, all eyes are back here in washington around the grand jury here that has been meeting for many months looking at donald trump and the 2020 election. >> can you tell us a little bit about what is happening in georgia a state case looking at the same issues as to what happened there during the 2020 election cycle. give us a sense of what is happening, and there is new movement in that case, is there not? >> right. so they have a grand jury that has been convened as well. two in fact. they could be asked to hear and approve charges against donald trump and others as that investigation has gone forward separately at

the house select committee to investigate the january 6 attack on u.s. capitol made a criminal referral to the justiceommending prosecution of trump for assisting or aiding the january 6 insurrection. even more specifically, before that, amy, when trump was impeached the second time by the house of representatives, he was impeached for inciting insurrection. a majority of the house voted for it. it was into the senate and a majority voted in the senate 57-43, but with some republicans, i might add, but he did not reach the two thirds requirement for conviction under the constitution. so the question is, why did jack smith and merrick garland omit this? i am not sure it was jack smith. it could have been merrick garland overruling jack smith. none of them are talking about why they omitted the insurrection count. i think a speculation is that they don't want to go to the next stage and infuriate trump's supporters. riots in the streets and all. amy: ralph, isn't some of the criticism or the support for not doing insurrection that he wanted an elegant, very simple series of charges that he could -- espe

> jackie that is why we created select committee on weaponization of government the 118th congress because people across the nation have been crying out for equal justiceunder law cannot just be a slogan we throw around in the united states it has to be a reality, and any person on the street,ed i met with people across the state do not see equal justice under law not going to stand for it why we are doing everything in our control to stop it. i joined on with legislation with representative gaetz from florida defund jack smith's section of the the department of justice keep him from pursuing this hoax. jackie: that is specifically, what i wanted to talk to you a little bit about, the bill to defund special counsel jack smith, this is the second federal case he is bringing against donald trump many people question the timing of this every time something comes out about hunter biden, joe biden, and business dealings, and influence peddling all of a sudden doj goes after donald trump sitting on, the doj, the georgia case potentially coming down too almost feels waiting for something to happen with regard to hunter situation, sir your thoughts on how this

select committee. it's been eight months since that panel finished its own investigation and sent criminal referrals to the justiceepartment. in your view did the special counsel take too long to act after that? >> well, no, i think he's moved promptly. i do think the special counsel should have been appointed before he was, but once he was appointed, i think he's moved pretty quickly and i think our committee was helpful. we read quite a bit of it as the evidence we uncovered. >> in terms of the committee's work with the doj, should the january 6th committee have worked more in concert, for instance, sharing interview transcripts with witnesses to propel that time line faster? >> no, we're a separate branch of government. we're not an arm of the executive branch including the department of justice. we made our information available to the world, to the public as well as the department of justice, all of the evidence that we compiled we made publicly available and, of course, the department of justice had access to that. they obviously have had to reinterview the individuals that we interviewed and i understand th

justice department will do that. >> officer, good to see you. i think a lot about a thing you said at the very first, if i'm not irmistaken, hearing of the january 6 select committee. you used a metaphor. there was a hit man that was sent by someone. in the way that justice will work in other conditions is, yoo would find out who sent them. you never said the ex-president's name, but it was clear what you were indicating. i was struck today one of the things he is charged with, obstruction of an official proceeds, dozens have been charged with forze storming the capitol. does it answer the question you had at that first hearing about accountability for the people -- the person that sent them. >> yeah. it's a road to accountability. the ultimate destination is a guilty verdict. we are on the road to that. i messed up that metaphor. i guesset it was, everybody understood what i meant by it. yes, you can't just go after -- a lot of people call them the foot shoulders. everybody that had anything to do with the failures of january of need to be held accountable. >> my question is more basic. it's good to see you. when donald trump and you were in that courtroom togeth

. >>> coming up on "morning joe" almost one year ago, the january 6th select committee voted to refer donald trump to the justicean adviser to that committee, as trump now faces a new federal indictment over his efforts to stay in power. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. be right ba. . two... one. my husband and i have never been more active. shingles doesn't care. i go to spin classes with my coworkers. good for you, shingles doesn't care. because no matter how healthy you feel, your risk of shingles sharply increases after age 50. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care but, shingrix protects. shingri

select committee investigating january 6th. congressman raskin, given all the work that you and your committee put in and sent a criminal referral on the matter to the department of justicee, it's a powerful vindication of the rule of law in democracy, anderson, and, you know, the counts closely track what we had recommended to the department of justice. there's a lot of overlap there, but i was especially impressed by the count about how this was a massive violation of the voting rights of the people, and this is, you know, precisely what abraham lincoln said about the problem with insurrections and coups, it's an attempt to steal from the people their right to choose their own leaders, and that's what this was, and we've got people spending a year or more, several years in jail for casting one additional vote. as voter fraud what's the proper punishment for someone trying to steal an entire presidential election from the people? >> a lot of the details about the president being told then president being told by the people around him that what he was saying was false and just simply factually incorrect are certainly borne out in the indictment in great detail. it's very

select committee investigating january 6th. congressman, given the work you put into this -- use it a referral on this measure to the department of justice the rule of law and democracy, anderson. you know the counts close the track we had recommended to the department of justice. there's a lot of overlap there. but i was especially impressed by the count about how this was a mess file a chanel feet voting rights of the people. this is precisely what abraham lincoln said about the problem with insurrections and coups. that it is an attempt to steal from the people there right to choose their own leaders. that is what this was. we've got people spending a year or more, several years, in jail. forecasting one additional vote. as voter fraud. what is the proper punishment for somebody who tries to steal an entire presidential election? >> a lot of the details about the president being told, then president being told by the people around him, that what he was saying is false and simply factually incorrect are certainly blown out and this and i meant integrate the tale. it is very hard to read this indictment and all the people, and all the o

select committee and the revelation of those facts to them unquestionably was motivating. facts are what matters, not lawyers, but facts. the facts are compelling. when the department of justicecan aware of those facts, they were moved to act. geoff: you were the lead investigator for the house january 6 committee. that committee's work product in many ways created a roadmap for the january 6 -- the special counsel january 6 investigation. when you read that indictment, what strikes you as intensely familiar? and what strikes you as new, as painting a fuller picture of all that transpired leading up to the insurrection? tim: the vast majority of it is familiar. when i've got, it sounded similar to vice chair cheney's opening statement at our first hearing last year. that was the hearing at which she said this was an intentional multipart plan to disrupt the joint session. and she checked off pressure on state officials, pressure on the vice president and alternately, launching a violent mob at the capitol. that is precisely what this indictment lays out. the facts here have not been hidden or a mystery. there is not much new in the indictment. other than a few direct communic