and pat cipollone said yes. he president said, okay, you know, i'm naming her that, and i'm giving her security clearance. and then shortly before we left was when cipollone and/or hershman and whoever the other young man was said, you can name her whatever you want to name her and no one's going to pay any attention to it. >> how did you respond -- how did the president respond to that? >> something like that, you see what i deal with? i deal with this all the time. >> the meeting was extremely heated with cipollone arguing against the special counsel idea and against seizure of voting machines. >> can the federal government seize voting machines? it's a terrible idea. that's not how we do things in the united states. there's no legal authority to do that. the three of them were really forcefully attacking me, verb verbally -- eric, derek, and we were pushing back and we were asking one simple question as a general matter. where is the evidence? >> what response did you get? >> a variety of responses. like, what

meeting several weeks later, the president got the same message from his white house counsel, pat cipollone and another white house lawyer, eric herschmann. >> eric and pat told the group, the president included, that none of those allegations had been substantiated to the point that they could be the basis for any litigation challenge to the election. >> it is statistically impossible that the person, me, that led the charge, lost. >> but donald trump continued to refuse to publicly accept defeat. >> the evidence of the fraud is monumental and more is coming out. >> audacious claims of widespread fraud became a daily occurrence. >> numerous times we found glitches, and every single time the glitch went 100% to biden, and no percent to trump. >> the only thing left is to vote. that could have been mickey mouse, that could have been a dead person. >> standing near giuliani is an attorney named sidney powell, who became the face of one of the most notorious and frankly most deranged lies that dominion voting machines were flipping votes from trump to biden. >> the dominion machines were creat

he had very capable lawyers like bill barr, like pat cipollone, like his own campaign general counsel telling him, sir, you lost the election. there's no evidence of voter fraud. he had other people in his ear telling him otherwise without a basis in fact. he may be listening to tom fitten, who is not even a lawyer, certainly not an expert in presidential records act, when any other sober, capable lawyer who is steeped in those facts is telling him otherwise. that's not a legal defense. you can't rely on unreasonable advice. >> let me ask you this question about the january 6th piece of this. we just had -- well, let me ask you the january 6th piece. would you expect a january 6th case to also be brought at the same time, and could they be brought at the same time in theory? >> yes, the select committee even based on the evidentiary record we developed recommended criminal charges. we found evidence of intent to obstruct an official hearing, a conspiracy to prevent transfer of power. jack smith has gone beyond that and overcome privilege assertions by pat cipollone and others who asse

. >> miss hutchinson, did you have any conversations with pat cipollone? >> on january 3rd, mr.ollone had approached me knowing that mark hasn't raised the prospect of going to the capitol on january 6. mr. cipollone had a briefly conversation where he said to me, we need to make sure this doesn't happen. this would be legally a terrible idea for us, we have serious legal concerns if we go up to the capitol that day. >> miss hutchinson, did white house chief of staff mark meadows ever indicate that he was interested in receiving a presidential pardon related to january 6. >> mr. meadows did seek that pardon, yes, ma'am. >> we know why, because you don't seek a pardon if you think you're innocent. let's start with the former leader, tim they'vefy, "the new york times" reporter and msnbc contributor, katy barnhart. katy, the first time since the select committee's work finished. i want to ask you what you would ask mark meadows. i have the same question today, but i'll add, now that we have such a mountain of evidence, in large part to the investigative work you and your colleague

pat cipollone, for example, is an institutionalist who felt very strongly he needed to preserve executiveege assertion, and that has resulted in additional information from pat cipollone and others. so, again, there are procedural mechanisms in a criminal investigation that allow those privilege assertions to be quickly adjudicated that we didn't have. the only remedy for us to push through or push back against the privilege assertion was civil litigation, which took longer than we had in existence as a committee. so the special counsel is aggressively pursuing litigation over these privilege assertions and that is resulting in additional information my guess is strongly corroborating the foundation that we laid there's criminal activity involved here, and that's likely what leads to an indictment. >> and you've said before on this program that the places you couldn't push through to were not places where the witnesses or the evidence were going to help donald trump. they were places where the first-hand accounts would be worse for donald trump. could you elaborate on that knowing now wha

i think pat cipollone was trying to prevent criminal conduct.as trying his best to protect the integrity of the white house counsel's office and not provide confidential communications. the grand jury and the special counsel have means that we did not have to push through that, to overcome that, to adjudicate those objections to privilege claims quickly, which jack smith and his team have done successfully. that's why they're getting stuff that we didn't get. >> when you see what is public facing and it now includes this "new york times" describes it as a narrative that sounds like it was a draft of a novel. this is evan corcoran describing his month -- a month of representing donald trump in the documents investigation. and if i'm right about when he came in, it was not when they were haggling with nara. it was once the fbi was involved and there was a subpoena. >> yeah. >> what do you think they have in that trove of audio notes? >> it sounds to me like they have pretty strong evidence of intent. right? they have evidence from president trump'

they have spoken with mike pence, mark meadows, pat cipollone, others.looks like they are rounding out their investigation and moving towards the moment of thumbs up/thumbs down charging. >> what about mar-a-lago and the developments on those documents? >> of course, the big news is the audiotape that cnn has exclusively obtained where donald trump is talking about documents at bedminster. he says two sentences the whole case. this is secret information. look at this. hard to square his new defenses. this was golf club plans or look at this. look at what? the other big developwalt thing. where is he? yesterday he had a travel issue, wasn't able to show up. they will arraign walt nauta next week july 6th. will he flip? he hasn't yet. i don't know that he has the right incentive to do that. the next court appearance for the lawyers, not donald trump, is going to be july 14th. they will talk about discovery, turkey over the information. then doj interestingly the judge initially set the trial date for august. that was a place holder. doj is saying we like t

you will recall some awkward questioning of the white house, counsel pat cipollone where liz cheney saideveryone in the white house interested, essentially, and stopping the insurrection? he said yes, i can't think of anybody who wasn't. and then he was asked a question i think by adam shift including the president? and then cipollone said well she was referring to the staff, and she said no, i was referring to anyone in the white house, and he turned nervously to his lawyer to try to determine how he should answer and you just said well, you know, that is covered by attorney client privilege, and i was talking about the staff. so there are clearly people who understand what donald trump's determination and intent were during that three hour period, when the commander-in-chief just went awol. nobody heard from him at the army. nobody heard from him the navy, marines, the joint chief of staff, the d. c. police, the capitol police, none of it. he was just missing. there are people who know what he was saying, what he was thinking, and what he was doing during that time. one of those people

pat cipollone, i suspect that he will be a witness in the january 6th case. he said, at some point, you had to say where is the beef, because i would not go along with the fact that there was a coup, because there is no proof that there was fraud and the election. you have mr. corcoran now saying, i am not going along with destroying documents or hiding them or lying to the government. and then you have michael cohen, and michael cohen went along and paid the price for it. those are for lawyers, and it gives you a real sense of how donald trump uses lawyers. the reason donald trump said to don mcgahn -- which is just a remarkable statement, if you know anything about roy comb. and then to your point, i think it's important to step back and talk a lot about the strength that the case but also to talk about what the case is really about. we decide the obstruction. there were 31 counselor that we're chilling and 21 in particular were there are if not just top secret documents, these are top secret compartment it documents. that is the highest most sensitive docu

then you have pat cipollone testifying he was not willing to go along with a fake insurrection. >> another white house counsel. >> exactly. then you have michael cohen, a personal attorney, he said yes and paid the price for that because he pled guilty to a crime, as he has said under oath, he committed for the former president. if you're being asked to represent him, there's four people you can look at on record where you know what you're getting into, which is you better have a really stiff backbone. >> i want to talk, chuck rosenberg, about the idea of having someone as a client who is going to do what he wants to do, say what he wants to say. that's the tradition. that's the history of donald trump. just today going after the prosecutors calling him a thug, a radical right lunatic and, you know, saying the country is going to hell. how much of it is -- how do you defend someone who thinks he always knows the law better than you? is that part of the calculation here and to what extent? >> it would have to be part of the calculation. any good defense attorney is going to tell her client

you'll recall some awkward questioning of the white house counsel pat cipollone where liz cheney saido him was everyone in the white house interested essentially in stopping the insurrection, and he said, yes, i can't think of anybody he wasn't. and he was asked the question i think by adam schiff of the president and she said, she was referring to the staff, and she said, no, i was referring to anyone in the white house. and he turned to his lawyer to determine how he should answer and he said, well, that's covered by attorney-client privilege and i was talking about the staff. so there clearly are people who understand what donald trump's determination and intent were during that 3-hour period when the commander in chief just went awol. nobody heard from him at the army, nobody heard from him in the navy, marines, the joint chief of staff, d.c. police, capitol police, none of it. he was just missing. but there's certainly people who know what he was saying, what he was thinking and doing during that time, and one of those people is undoubtedly his former chief of staff mark meadows.

he's able to overcome privilege assertions and get access to mike pence, to mark meadows, to pat cipollonessertions. it's only going to make the evidence of specific intent to obstruct that official proceeding on january 6th more provable. so i've believed all along that they were moving inexorably toward an indictment. i think it's a big deal to cross the threshold of issuing one. it's happened now, therefore a little bit less of a momentous thing if it happens again. but i think they're going to make these decisions on the facts and the law. jack smith, as joyce was saying in your first segment, is a consummate professional who's guided by the facts and the law. facts and the law here, to me, point pretty clearly to criminal charges on the january 6th matter in particular. >> we do know that jack smith has been talking to people. the committee that you were a lead investigator for, you and your team did advance public understanding on this. it's very clear from the work you did that this was bigger, badder, more sprawling than people knew when they woke up on january 7th. it still looked

when the violence broke out and a lawyer, pat cipollone, rushed into mark meadows' office trying to get the president to stop the ongoing attacks, the horror of what you see on the screen, which was scarier at the time because they didn't know how many murders it would end with or whether politicians would be assassinated or whether mike pence would be stomped into great damage, injury, or death. they didn't know. i have to say, we have to remember how that felt in the moment. that's what prosecutors do, piece together the horror and facts. what might have been a patriotic movie about an attack turned into a story of an inside job. hutchinson gave the chilling account that is so relevant now with the heat on donald trump, because her account was about one person's culpability in that room in addition to trump. her account -- and i'm emphasizing this for a reason tonight -- was that mark meadows was not surprised, was not taken aback, was not rushing around going, oh, my god, there's a violent insurrection. her account under oath was that mark meadows already knew that he and trump would

pat cipollone, i suspect that he will be a witness in the january 6th case. he said, at some point, you had to say where is the beef, because i would not go along with the fact that there was a coup, because there is no proof that there was fraud and the election. you have mr. corcoran now saying, i am not going along with destroying documents or hiding them or lying to the government. and then you have michael cohen, and michael cohen went along and paid the price for it. those are for lawyers, and it gives you a real sense of how donald trump uses lawyers. the reason donald trump said to don mcgahn -- which is just a remarkable statement, if you know anything about roy comb. and then to your point, i think it's important to step back and talk a lot about the strength that the case but also to talk about what the case is really about. we decide the obstruction. there were 31 counselor that we're chilling and 21 in particular were there are if not just top secret documents, these are top secret compartment it documents. that is the highest most sensitive docu

pat cipollone was in his office. >> replacement at white house counsel. >> he's also the person who woulding them out and documenting at mar-a-lago. aside from the tape we heard about, this recording recently, i think it's really a central witness and a witness who has not always been cooperative, for example at the january 6th committee and right, and it's a remind over that contrast. mcgahn, it's funny you mentioned, did cooperate with mueller but tried to duck congress. meadows, we're seeing the same play. in all fairness, imagine any member of congress you don't like, imagine them running a committee, and imagine someone going to their lawyer and saying what can we do to legally delay or stall talking with the lawyer? that's different than the pressure to deal with the an openly federal criminal probe. or plead the fifth. walk us through the criminal probe. they both need to gather the facts, but also they could use a grand jury to begin building their case, including rebutting defenses. would they, for example, potentially ask meadows up and through jan 20th, did you and trump ever d

like the fake electors, you know, and the like, but also interviewing people at the very top, pat cipollonerk meadows, the former top white house lawyer, the former chief of staff, he's trying to hit it from both angles to tell a comprehensive story of the facts and then plug it into that legal calculation, and as i say, i do think that legal calculation is best understood as if you helped or plotted or gave aid and comfort, you committed a very serious federal crime. >> right. so the charges that they're looking at are conspiracy charges, which all you have to do for a conspiracy is agree to take some criminal action, and take some step in furtherance of that criminal action, so even if they did not actually obstruct the congressional proceeding, they conspired, they agreed to obstruct that proceeding. you know, the same with whether or not they conspired to defraud the united states with this fake elector scheme where you see the forged documents. i mean, these are great documents that any prosecutor dreams of where you have just blatant forgeries, but neal is absolutely right. you're goi

john pat cipollone. excuse me. haven't introduced yet.the that's true.ion apparently, our alcohol consumption, according to a new report from the institute on alcohol abuse and alcoholism. we are boozing like 1860. kennedy is the host of kennedy b saves the world podcasoozingt and knows a lot about drinking during the civil war and how it relates it today. and if you don'tows a lo. we've booked the wrong person. do you know what ulysses s grant, my boyfriend's favorite drink, was during the civil war. anything he held overton rye. righton rye.t. and why are we drinking so much now? out of the pandemic, we wereic drinking. then we stopped drinking. now we're back to drinking. what are we doin andg? >> i think there are people who are overreporting. i actually don't trust this . ta at all whatsoever and how do they need to know?le the people during war were durin drinking 2.5 gallons of ethanol a year? they weren't drinking ethanol. they were they were relieving themselves in a bucket of corn they and that ferment and theyli called thangt.

this was brought to life i think most illustratively by cassidy hutchinson and probably less by pat cipollonequote, agreed with them. they were chanting, hang mike pence." if he were to field questions after mike pence on the january 6th side of the jack smith probes what is sort of the assessment of how instrumental he could be? >> i mean, look, i -- he's incredibly important because you have to remember not only was he in the room for all these things, but we've never heard from meadows under oath related to january 6th. he was one of the witnesses who had not cooperated with the january 6th investigation. the justice department had looked into and ultimately decided not to charge him and scavino with, you know, contempt of congress for their lack of cooperation with the january 6th investigation. so meadows is someone who knows what meadows knows. certainly we had a fair amount of insight into it from cassidy hutchinson, and we learned about it from other witnesses and what meadows' role was. but at the end of the day meadows was around for a lot of things and could answer a lot of questio

it's what he asked pat cipollone to go along with.it's what michael cohen went along with and actually paid a price. so walt nauta is there, is sitting there because donald trump solicited another person and who actually agreed. he's enlisted attorneys to go along. >> tried to get corcoran. yeah. >> in terms of aswhaegs he did, it's not like he just did it on his own and said you know what? i'll bear the consequences for what i did. it reminds me very much of what's in the indictment where he says to corcoran, why can't you just get rid of these documents and then i won't have a problem. so that's why walt nauta is there. it's just so deplorable when you think about the sort of power relationship. >> absolutely. >> and what he is doing with it. >> it's gross. and i actually wanted to ask you this question. i think the fact that their lawyers are talking to each other, they're sitting there together. i don't know if nauta did his plea today, but he was booked. he got a mug shot. donald trump was a former president, is now just a citize