0 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. they were projecting onto it. the facts were there already. this committee really change the conversation. and it's here the blockbusters. they're limiting television. and i think they kept this issue front and center for the year, rather than allowing it to fade away like so many other events. >> charlie savage and barr mcclain, like if your time tonight. that does it for us. last word, with lawrence o'donnell is coming up next. donnell is coming up next. thanks alex. and thank, you buy the, way alex four time in the release of this report right here right now. and the ten minutes that i've had to read the 800 pages i haven't formed a full set of opinions just yet. but we are going to work our way through it this hour because it has just become the january six report out here and the last word. we have a lot to cover. >> good luck lawrence. >> thanks alex, thank you. >> andrew weissmann and daniel goldman are with us. they are scheduled to be our first guest tonight. they have a few minutes worth of reports. andrew, let me get your first reactions to anything that has let that you. anything you recognize. you only had a few minutes, we want to give you more time to read this. but this is just your first headline reaction to it. >> i see dannon are doing the same thing, which tried to do two things at the same time. this is a monumental effort. the first thing, as you said. it's over 800 pages. and there are four upended sees that were fascinating addressing such minor issues. as the preparation of law enforcement to meet the challenges of january 6th. and -- to the 2020 election. there were these appendices, and they're trying to take the entire report. and then the table of contents is really, to me, attracts what i think is the genius of the january six committee. which is really focusing on all of the different ways that the former president tried to stay in office. as opposed to just thinking about january 6th as a singular event. and whether the president helped incite people to go to the capitol on that day. as if it was completely divorced from the context in history. and so each of the chapters which looks incredibly detailed in the footnotes and various pieces of evidence. it goes through all of those different types of things. i'm particularly interested in the state election components. because one, it's an area where donald trump is particularly vulnerable. it's an area where if there were republican president who was elected post a first term. of a presidential pardon by republican president they will have an effect on a state legislation. scheme that is charged with insurrection. and i'm really interested to see how much beyond georgia which we know a lot about. how much further there. i don't know the answer to that yet. but it seems like there is some good material there. >> all right well, each of you please feel free to read while he is speaking. goldman, your quick reaction to what we've seen so far. and as i say, after this answer i'm gonna give you both time to do more reading. but then your first reaction? >> i agree with andrew across the board. this investigation was truly remarkable to have more than 1200 interviews to comb through hundreds of thousands of documents. it is just a yeoman's effort by this committee. and it looks, at first glance, like if the report was as detailed and well organized and represented as you would hope. andrews writes in the sense that i also found the contents very interesting and i thought it was very smart the way that the committee went step by step through the scheme. it is almost -- it is chronological. in many respects. and what you see and what we saw is that it's clearly laid out. and ratcheting up escalation in efforts to overturn the election. it starts with a proper legal path. where the challenge elections in court. that failed. then it goes to the state of electors. that fails. then it goes to, you know, effectively a coup. with the department of justice. that failed. ultimately, it ended up on january 6th. which, you know, failed. but barely. and i think what i'm going to be really focused on is examining how close we really came to losing our democracy. and i don't say that lightly. it is clear that that is the gradual escalation that occurred post election 2020, leading up to january 6th. and yes our institutions held, but barely. and i want to understand how close we were, and it's exactly right, we know a lot about georgia. but also we know that donald trump called in legislators from michigan. to try to convince them to overturn the election. we know scott perry, from pennsylvania. was working hard in pennsylvania. we know in arizona. we know from one of the main republican officials in arizona and public hearings. so this was a well coordinated massive and sprawling scheme that i think is going to be really laid out in rare detail. >> all right, both of you please go back to it as i have discussed with the audience. how this committee got their star witness to testify. because we learned that today. i'm gonna go through that story for a few minutes, just a few minutes. while you're reading as much as you possibly can. andrew weissmann, we'll be back. with more about the ten it has been through. this committee report is, tonight. the single most important committee report in the history of house congressional committee reports. that is what we now have in our hands, tonight. that report would not be what it is, and would not have the import that it has without the testimony of the star witness to that committee. today, the january six committee released the transcript of the most important testimony. the committee has received. the most important ones. 26-year-old cassidy hutchinson. the committee is found not a shred of evidence to, it anyway, reduce what appears to be the solemn credibility of the committee start witness, cassidy hutchinson. and we learned in her full testimony released today, that the first lawyer who represented her, and dealings with the committee. will face disbarment proceedings in washington d.c.. and will face prosecution for supporting perjury if costly hutchinson's testimony is removed. today, that lawyer possible criminal conduct was exposed and a costly hutchison sets money today. issuing a statement that said he didn't nothing wrong but he is resigning from his washington law firm. because of the release of that testimony. and we now know, they cast the hutchinson -- decided to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. because she was inspired by someone who appeared on this program discussing her toes testimony. in her testimony, cassidy hutchinson says that the first lawyer who represented her -- who worked in the trump white house. quote, page 42, stefan never told me -- he specifically told me i don't want you to purdue yourself. but what i don't recall is a perjury. they don't know what you can and can't recall. by page 36 catches the hatches and said, but if i do recall something. not every little detail. can i still say i don't recall? and he said yes. for that one moment, yes. stephen passantino should be disbarred if that testimony is believed. and should be convicted of perjury. if that testimony is to be believed. cassidy hutchison goes there and i said, if i do remember things. but not every little detail that i said. wouldn't i be purging myself? and he had said, stephen had said something effective. the committee doesn't know what you can and can't recall. so you want to be able to use that as much as we can, unless you really really remember something here. and that is where you give a short, sweet response. the correct answer to that question. if i do remember things, but not every little detail wouldn't i be purging myself? the correct answer to that question is yes. you would be perjuring yourself. stephen passantino lied to his client about that. with costly hutchinson's testimony. if cassidy hutchinson who had never -- and cannot afford a lawyer. had been offered this free lawyer from what she called -- it cassidy hutchinson's the mid to remain under the control of that they are paid by donald trump. she would have -- of the testimony. is now the basis of the committees criminal referral with a former president united states. for prosecution by the dust apartment. 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 castillo johnson 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. all i 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 find 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 have a tendency to overthink things. and ahead never had to retain an attorney before. by do know enough to know that you should be signing an engagement letter, so then i'd ask them. or i thought. that is perfectly fine, do you mind telling me where the funding for this is coming from? i would want to thank them. i want to thank whoever it is, because i kind of like figuring things out. and he said if you want to know at the end, we will let you know. but we are not telling people where the funding is coming from right now. don't worry. we are taking care of you. you are never going to get a bill for this. so that is what you worried about. >> i was like okay, that's what i was worried about. but it wasn't the only thing i was worried about. stephen passantino will be disbarred in washington d.c. if that testimony is proven to be true. he refused to tell his client who was paying for his clients legal representation. he will be disbarred that if that is proven to be true. his testimony, released today was strong enough to get that lawyer out of his offering today. and that is not the final price. stephen passantino is likely to pay. for the unethical and illegal conduct that is described under oath by cassidy hutchinson in this transcript. cassidy hutchinson did not want a lawyer from trump. page 32. i knew the moment that i went back and had to get a trump attorney it's -- i don't to categorize the world, the trump world in this way. but a lot scenarios that be privy to, once are looped in, especially financially with them, they're sort of is no turning back. castillo johnson about herself completely unable to pay for the lawyer. she has palmer's financial help. and they're surprised i cast hutchinson wasn't happy with a free lawyer from trump world. kathy hansen explain the problem to them. page 32. i was like, no, i'm completely indebted these people. and they will ruin my life. if i do anything that they don't want me. now to page 33. and i read this passage of a deeply personal testimony only to me the level of desperation cassidy hutchinson was facing clear. turning to a free lawyer from the trump world. who made her do that. >> i don't have a relationship. but i went to his house one night, i drove to new jersey, and i once was house one night and begged him. it is probably the one thing i regret and all of this. i wish i didn't talk to that level. because, it was a no. but i bathe them to help me. i said i would pay him back at a premium interest rate. i just need help. remember saying to him, you have no idea what they are going to do to me if i have to get an attorney with trump world. because he's a very big trump supporter. as is his own right. it's not be being critical. just a fact. and he just didn't get it. and i didn't expect him to. but i just left their feeling defeated. and that is why she took to a trump world lawyer who lied to her and ruin her testimony. a trump lawyer who lied to her about perjury and pressured her to commit perjury, and, effects according to a testimony. 49 years ago. there was another stark witness investigation who testified, under, oath like cassidy hutchinson against republican president who served in the white house. that happened 92 years before cassidy hutchinson was brought in. and in her darkest hour that start with this is testimony from the president he served. became her guiding light. page 80. >> so some time to jersey this early in the morning. i start googling watergate. there has been some of the part has been war gate that had either had this image of me and had exposure. how did they handle this? i had heard john dean thing before. then i came across this name. i was on the wikipedia page and i look like he had a similar role and to what i have in the white house. and then driving i was trying to read about him. and i felt that he, a couple of years ago. wrote this book with bob woodward. and this is why the most comprehensive piece of work that he had done. and testified to the watergate committee at that time about three years ago. so i ordered two cops this. i had them shipped my parents house. and i sat, there that weekend. and i read it. and i read it three times. i would, once they read it again. and then i read it a third time. and i went through and tapped it. and was after i read all of this where he talked about how he fought the struggle. marie felt like he still had to be loyal to the -- but he talked a lot of the same things that i felt because experiencing. to know it wasn't an identical situation. the emphasis he placed on the moral question that he was asked himself resonated with me. and he ended up testifying -- and i wasn't biden means trying to compare what i knew do what he knew at all. but he was somebody that i found and was looking at at somebody who did know things. and was loyal who had a position that required an incredible amount of trust, and confidence. but he ended up doing the right thing. it was after this that i -- from day to pass the mare test for the rest of my life, i need to try to fix this. here is the testimony of alexander better field from under oath about the president he served. testimony that ended that presidents career. >> are you aware the installation of any listening devices? >> >> i was aware of listening devices, yes or. >> mr. butterfield from your personal knowledge from 1970 until present time. all the presents conversations, and all that has been mentioned. and all the telephones mentions were recorded. >> as far as you know. >> that is correct. and as far as you know those tapes are still available? >> as far as i know. i've been away for four months now. >> i have no further questions. >> after cassidy hutchinson testified to january 6th committee this summer. i asked alexander butterfield to chance on this program to see his reaction to the testimony from washington's use star witness. >> well, i'm glad you mentioned her. because i can't tell you. i was very impressed by that young lady. you could tell that she didn't particularly want to be there. but she was so professional. and you knew that she was being truthful and it was -- i knew nothing about her before. but she was being very professional in every way. i only hope that my -- my various energies were half as good. >> did you have the feeling of watching her of what it felt like to be in that room yourself? giving what was then called the bombshell testimony? >> yes i did. i felt like i had a feel for what she was going through at the time. >> after that amy schuster -- was contact with some close to cassidy hutchinson thing i saw the interview with butterfield. this hutchinson would very much like to speak with him. since his testimony in this matter was actually an inspiration. they requested alexander pedophiles contact information. it's under better field than met with cassidy hutchinson. over zoom. i was under better field told us today, quote, she asked me how my life changed after i testified. i remember telling her how she came through so wonderfully, so beautifully in a testimony that everybody had to be proud of her and it was clear how she spoke that she was truthful. i am sure that alexander butterfield has it for nine years ago. he wasn't thinking maybe someday there would be a 26-year-old assistant to the white house chief of staff who would find inspiration and their testimony. that choice. i wasn't about of his choice to cassidy hutchinson to do the right thing. but now we know that it is possible that years from now. maybe 50 years from now. someone working in a corrupt white house will be inspired by cassidy hutchinson to break loose from the grip of that corruption and to the right thing. back with us, and you eisman former fbi general counsel and former chief of the criminal investigation for the eastern district of new york. and mayor elect -- from the majority counsel for the first impeachment trial of donald trump. and a former assistant attorney. the southern district of new york. i do weisman. i want to give you some time with what i think is a very important story about how we got that castillo just testimony and how much work was done to try to prevent that testimony. but i am hoping that you have new insights and i jamming six report -- >> that may come in for segment what you've been talking are getting cast hutchinson. this may have the same experience. but there is not a public corruption or a large financial case that i've ever investigated where there hasn't been some form of improper coaching up to and including obstruction and witness hampering. it happened during the and one case. it happened during the special counsel guys. it is an endemic problem that prosecutors face day in and day out when you have powerful leaders with a lot of power and money. and they use that to influence people's testimony in a way that's very very hard to detect and prosecute. and i can't stress how important it is for the department to do everything it can and not just to seek disbarment, that is just not enough. where you can get sufficient proof these these kind of crimes. they have to be charged. it is something that goes to the core of holding people to account. i can tell you a quick antidote at the special counsel investigating when we prosecuted for obstruction, a tenth year scad an arms associate named alice. for obstruction and i remember robert mulling saying it sets a perfect message to the people coming to meet with us that we are going to take these kinds of crimes seriously, and they can't get away with it. and it was only shortly after that that the venn white house counsel came in and was completely candid about what donald trump was doing to obstruct justice and our investigation. you can't prove it 1 to 1, but it is a really important thing. if you want to deterrence, you have to prosecute it. and then to your question how is looking through the appendix one. which really deals with a law enforcement response on january 6th and, first of, all there is an incredible -- from general milley. where he's being asked if people understand that there would be violence. and he says everyone knew. everyone knew. this is, quote. and he in fact raises in an inter agency call with the fbi and dhs, and the white house. how could they loudly -- and are known to have violent members. why are we allowing them to be present and he's told, it is not an option to not have them come. and then what follows is, basically, a bit of a. it is almost like a clown car of different agencies saying i wasn't responsible. it wasn't me. i wasn't in the league. the people saying i thought department of defense was going to be -- which is preposterous. the whole point of the department of defense at the time was that they didn't think that the military should be their seeding in domestic affairs. which, of course, is. correct and they were resisting the white house efforts to do that. and then you have the doj not feeling that they have a lot of glory in this report. because they sort of say, well, we would kind of be the lead on certain things. and not others. and you have million other people saying that doj was supposed to be a mediary. you have a lot of people passing the hot potato of who was actually supposed to be in charge. and to say, in my experience in these meetings. there actually is written protocol about who is going to be in charge. and this just shows how enormous it may be the fault of people just touching the truth to protect themselves. it looks like people really were just not doing their job in response to what was clearly going to be a violent day. and it's not just me having skin back to the report but if there's anything that i think the senate needs to take up in terms of, there isn't going to be a house hearing on. this would be useful to have this senate take up exactly what happened here. was the politics. was a race, was a combination of the? too was a confidence? why weren't we prepared for what happened here. so that is my quick take on it. >> andrew please, you're free to continue reading this over 800 page report while daniel goldman gives us his first read of the report. daniel, what if you've been finding? >> there are a couple of things. one, just a follow-up on what andrew said appendix to. i was looking at which has to do with the actual response on the day of january 6th. you know, one thing that really jumped out to me is there were certainly senior military officials who expressed a strong desire to just go to the capitol. even though they had not gotten the order. because, as we know, donald trump refused to give the order to secretary miller and the defense department to deploy the national guard. an order to protect the capital. but one thing that really jumped out of me is the day before, as there were demonstrators and this is on page 7:42. demonstrators rallying in support of the president. secretary miller received a call from donald trump and the president said he saw what was going on. and they said you're going to need 10,000 people following day. heads in, troops. but what was clear was that, and in fact, mark meadows said that the d.c. guard would be on hand to protect pro trump people. not to protect the capital. and so, what we saw then, occurred on january six of course is the pro trump people trying to, and succeeding in invading the capital. and donald trump refused to send the national guard. it is a dereliction of duty unlike anything that i, certainly, have seen in history. and it is almost inhuman to have such reaction like that. the things i want to look at is that we know about the criminal referrals. but the committee also does refer to the house ethics committee. several members of congress, including the minority leader kevin mccarthy, jim jordan, scott perry and -- for investigation from the ethics committee for violating congress's rulings. and as you will recall, florence. all four them were subpoenaed and they all refused to testify. and one thing that the committee outlines which was, of, course a particular relevance to me. as i'm about to be sworn in as a member of congress. and dealing with a majority of the house republicans who will, unquestionably be sending out many subpoenas as part of their overreaching investigations. what is jim jordan going to say as the chairman of the judiciary committee? but he issues a subpoena, and someone says. well, representative jordan. you did not comply with this congressional subpoena that i have. why should i comply? and the obvious issue here is that it undermines the credibility, and authority of congressional subpoenas. and the committee, i think. raise that out very convincingly. if i can just add to the cassidy hutchinson thing. if you don't mind. lawrence because as you pointed out. if that jumps out to me. and so many different ways. as critical to this entire investigation. and we have talked a lot about her bravery. and her determination to do the right thing. and to adhere to the rule of law. it what andrew talked about the special counsel's investigation. and there is zero surprise that donald trump, and close in his world. would try to obstruct this investigation. he did it with the special counsel's investigation. he did it with the investigation of michael flynn. he did it with the impeachment investigation that i worked on. and here, once again. he and his close associates are doing it again. and it raises the issue. in fact they're doing it again as andrew and i who both prosecuted mob cases. it is eerily similar to how mobs talk. when you start to see, you know, the call that she received from her former colleague. i think ben cunningham. was his last name. where he says, you know, mark wanted me to call just to let you know that we -- it is textbook mob top. but unless there is some degree of accountability for this persistent, and consistent obstruction of justice. and subversion of the rule of law. that we are not going to be a country of law anymore. we are going to be a country of men. and that is not what our country was founded upon. and so i do think it is absolutely critical that there is some accountability. not just for the underlying conduct, before the obstruction itself. >> i want to stay with us for another minute. on this point. we're gonna bring barba creighton. she's had more time to read. it will ask you to go back to reading. and then join us. but let me just go to an extension of what they're just saying. about this attempt at obstruction. so, cassidy hutchinson has told us that this lawyer, who was assigned to her. in effect told or to commit perjury. because he said to her i don't want you to commit perjury she reports to the committee, he never told me to commit perjury. then everything else he says, and effect means, commit perjury. so, that lawyer, as you put it. and as i insisted at the outset. is on the verge of disbarment. if this this testimony is considered credible. he is also on the verge of being charged, criminally. by jack smith, the special prosecutor this testimony is considered criminal. if you get a witness like that. a lawyer, who's now in that farce of possible charges. and he attempts to approach that witness. if that when this were to tell you. here is who told me to say that. does that person, if it is mark meadows. or someone else. does that person face the same criminal liability as the lawyer who's sitting there with a client actually saying these things to clients? >> absolutely. absol utely. let note ask you. let's pause for a second. and consider how high that ladder could go. that's for a moment assume that mark meadows knows what about the catch and testimony. said you really have to get around the team. and make sure she protects us. what if then, donald trump, i said to mark meadows. you need to make sure that cassidy hutchinson is protecting us. >> so this is exactly how criminal investigations work. which is you go from the foot soldier, ideally. and you ideally charge them. and move up the ladder as far as the facts and the law will allow you to go. if whoever gave the ultimate instruction of this is what needs to happen when you keep everybody within the tent. our good have carrots and sticks to do it. and as dan pointed out. that was saying there were job offers, house can offer jobs to cassidy hutchinson. there is also this sense of when you are pointing out in terms of instructions about what you should recall, and not recall. yes the lawyers on the line. but i think when you instructed the lawyer to do this. is frankly more culpable the further up you go. and the lawyer, this lawyer in particular has i think a rail line crossing. as what cassidy hutchinson comes out of one of the interviews and says, you know, i just think i lied cause i do recall what happened. and he said, essentially, no you don't. of course leave that to the side. there is no reason to go into what happens in the vehicle on the way. leaving the ellipse, no needs to know about that. the way the secret service tested by that, essentially over your little head. that is way over the line. in terms of preparing a witness to testify. that is flat out coaching in the same way that the reference to williamson who worked for mark meadows. also made a call. i think directly said it's on that. he's calling on that path of mark meadows. and those call just before the second day of depositions to say, essentially, as was reported. that you are in the family you understand you are going to be loyal. and you're going to protect mark and the boss. which just leave donald trump. but this is classic obstruction of justice, the only issue for the department's do they have enough evidence? you don't really want to bring a case based on one witness? a lot of other leads here. there's a potential for text messages, there's going to be other witnesses to receive the same kinds of instructions. because there's no way cassidy hutchinson is alone. in terms of receiving these kinds of instructions. and as dan and are so distressing to people. this is critical to prosecutes. in order to uphold the rule of law. >> all right we are going to continue our best legal team until vision coverage on this release of the january six report which happened just at the beginning of this hour. andrew weissmann, daniel goldman, please go back to reading so you can rejoin us with more of what you are finding. in this report. that i am unable to read because i am on tv here, thank you very much for what you've done with us so far. we're gonna be joined now by barbara mcquade, former federal prosecutor. barbara, i have to say, and i want the audience to know. i have never been more dependent on our guests than i am tonight. it is an 800-page report. which dropped as of walking, and making my way to this position. i have not read a page of it. and so, we are, or i am, completely dependent on what you and our team have been able to find and watch you have been reading. what stands out to you and what you have read so far? >> lawrence, one thing the common. the person i read was a tape of content. and one that sounded particular interesting to me was chapter sixth. which is the chapter that talks about the role of the violent extremists. the militia groups, the proud boys. the oath keepers, the three percenters. and the reason i've been interested in that is this is the crime. the one that the committee was really not able to refers to the justice department. they were not able to make that link between the fiscal attack on the capitol. and donald trump in his inner circle. i've often thought that if they had made that they would've shown us that. and in the referral on monday, that came out, they didn't make it. they do provide a lot of information in chapter six, when they talk about. it that i think just department could use for further investigation. so, it may be that that link could be tied together yet. and it seems to me the key is what is detailed. on the talk about it. this friends of stone signal check. roger stone's a member of the group, stewart road is a member of the group who's already been convicted of seditious conspiracy. as a leader of the oath keepers, and it rico theriot, as a member of the group. he is on trial right now for seditious conspiracy. as the leader of the proud boys. they talk about how roger stone had contact with seven different members of the oath keepers group on january 5th and sixth. january 6th, in the morning, before the attack. there was a man who was with one of these groups named joshua james and oath keepers who was pleaded. guilty to seditious conspiracy. now, there is somebody you want to talk about. cooperation. what they are somebody who is privy to these conversations, he is friendly with so it rolls. he's friendly with tarrio. he's part of the friends of stone group. he's inside the without hotel. in the war room, on the morning of january 6th. so it seems to me like it could be quite possible for the justice department to craft this in a way that the committee cannot, which could mean a charge of seditious conspiracy for part of this inner circle. maybe it stone, maybe meadows, could go all the way to donald trump. but it would require proving that they were part of the plan for the physical attack on the capital of january six. now, the other charges similarly. but to me that seems to be such an egregious misconduct that would be a very important charge for the justice department to include and also lawrence, i think we're bringing with it is a kind of convention for insurrection rebellion that would be disqualifying for someone to hold future office under the 14th amendment. >> the one they have been able to glass that is a table of contents. you're not the first want to mention it. normally, when i'm talking about the hot congressional report that is just come out. that's something people focus on. one of the things that i'm seeing is that this indication that this written report carries with the same kind of drama that was part of the construction of the televise herrings of the committee because each chapter, this is a congressional report. which normally is the driest kind of arena you could possibly have in front of you. the chapter title for chapter six that you're just discovering the chapter title is be there will be wild. and it's a quote, of course there is a famous quote now. from donald trump urging people to come on january 6th, and to be wild. and of course, to go back to the first chapter title cited in the table of contents. it is i just want to find 11,780 votes. all in quotation marks. this is the way you know, a great novel us would light up a story, a great nonfiction writer who really understands about the power of the material to creates a table of contents like this. and that leads me to the suspicions, there's not a lot of competition for this, that this may be the best written congressional committee reports that the house has ever seen. >> yeah, lawrence, i was just looking at it and reading as we've been talking chapter six, ask him the whole report, i look at the table of contents. i agree with you! one of the things that they do is, they do documented very meticulously with the evidence that they came. but they do it in and now it's. so the text is self reads like a story. it is, i think, model against the not 11 commission report, which i think received a lot of awards. it is a because it's a fictionalized in any way, it's all based on facts, but it is a good storytelling which is what lawyers due to juries, what you do on television. to make it interesting to draw in readers. they want the public to read this document, and if it's a bunch of dry legalese then people i'm going to do that. but this is in that he's of a great book! it's a compelling story! it's a recent history, and i think that they were careful to write it in a way that is understandable, it doesn't use legal jargon, it's within the way you might read you know ... a very good magazine article or even fiction with just good elements of storytelling. >> so, barbara, they clearly -- this committee staff has just done a brilliant job! no one can count me among the people who are complaining that they were delivering it a day or two later that they said that they were going to deliver it. [laughter] no congressional history has had a burden like this, it is astonishing to me that they got this done in the speed that they did. they've clearly have served the reader out there who is uninitiated in the ways of washington. they've delivered this in a way that is going to be easy reading for anyone. you don't have to be a lawyer for this. but talk to us about what they've delivered for jack white, and a special spot prosecutors, jack smith -- the special prosecutor's team. because they also need to target them with a very specific style that is different from what you used to pull in the general reader. >> yes, i think the documents they produced on monday, the executive summary, contain the kind of information that would be relevant to the justice department. that when we stimulate the prosecution memo, which is, you know, really at what we believe to be the potential crimes here. they allowed for them. they break down what are the legal elements that's would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt for each of those for crimes. and then they lay the evidence on top of each of those evidence to show how each of them are satisfied. that is the -- those are the building blocks of a criminal prosecution. those are the kinds of things that's going to resonate with the justice department. i think that, in some ways, it's been referred to as a road map. the justice department probably doesn't need directions. they can public by their own way with a roadmap. but the information and the evidence is incredibly helpful, especially when you break it down into those elements and those building blocks but the justice department, and -- you know, say here you go! it may be that this department is able to do more than the committee did, but it's all in the case that the justice department has a bigger burden because they were a few things absence from the committee had to do. number one, there was no defense attorney to cross examine any of these witnesses -- so they need to do that work themselves. put them in the ground jury, play devils advocate, they'll push and pride, make sure that they understand how these witnesses know these things. they have to comply with the rules of evidence. here, we have heard a lot of hearsay, which is fine ... it's a good way to start a story, but you can't use that in a court. you have to assure that up. for example, the story cassidy hutchinson tells us about what happens and the beast. you would need people who work firsthand witnesses to that story to be able to tell that story. and, finally, we didn't hear any of the defenses. what would be the defense story? what does the pundit say in opening and closing arguments? what -- is there some sort of intent that is unable to be proved here? so those are the things that the justice department will have to do that this committee did not have to do. but, they've certainly given them a awful lot of helpful information that will make the job easier in a lot of ways. >> barbara mcquade, please feel free to continue reading, as andrew weizmann and daniel goldman rejoin us, now that they've been able to do more reading as we continue our where brilliant legal team coverage of this over 800 page report, just released tonight, by the january six committee. minutes before this program began! andrew weizmann and daniel goldman, back with us! i want to say to both of you what i said to barbara, it's very important -- i've never been more dependent on the guest on this program as i am tonight. and i've never been more confidence in the guest on this program being able to do a better read of this report then i could. so, andrew weissmann, let me go back to you -- i have no idea how to direct specific questions to you about this because i haven't read a single page of it. i'm going to rely on you to deliver what you found since you've been reading during -- or while barbara was speaking. >> well, one thing to pick up on what barb has been saying, is that this is such a luminous report, with such detail in the mix. you shouldn't really feel bad -- you could've gotten this reports an hour or two hours, or frankly, even a day before the show -- this is something that people are going to really be pouring over and studying. you could be sure that is what doj is going to be doing. not just reading it, but then reading all of the citations. this is so deep! it is, again, such a testament to the congressional committee, which, you know has tools that does not have the same kind of powers and tools that the department of justice has has, it's remarkable to me that they have produced something this cogent. in terms of substance; one of the things i focus on was they are clearly -- if you are in the trump camp, you have got to be on a seek and destroy mission with respect to cassidy hutchinson. in the same way that michael cohen, anyone who dared to sort of defy donald trump, is going to be vilified and attacked. the committee, in chapter six, really goes out of its way to point out all of the evidence that they've deduced, it's really powerful -- contemporaneous reports by people, secret service agents, others in the white house, notes that corroborate her account. i think it's going to be extremely hard to shade her testimony on this issue of the president had every intention, and expressed in various ways, to go with the protesters and marchers and insurrection as to the capitol. so much so, one of the things that they quote is the presidents own press secretary saying that that is what the president intended to do. so, chapter six has a lot of proper reading evidence and you can be sure that that is something, to bob's point, doj is going to be looked at the very closely at, because they have an obligation to make sure that their witnesses are credible and to anticipate ways and which they could be attacked. and, then the other piece that i think really devastating is the whole description of donald trump orchestrating what's happens at the ellipse, and who will speak, and how much was avalanche to go beyond what was planned. just something that i think it's probably been reported before, they know that the speech only had two times that he was supposed to say the word fight. instead of two times -- using it 22 times! so, you could be sure that is something to, down and by but i have all been -- you know, trial lawyers for the department justice. that's the kind of thing you say in summation to point out what it is that the defendant was intending to do. >> this is the first hour of msnbc coverage of the january six report, over 800 pages. it was the lever just minutes before the program be -- began. i can promise you that at tempe on msnbc, well into january, we will still be covering the contents of this report. i just had an opportunity to glass at pages here and there, i look down at this page and icy, trump made, during the right saying " potus i'm sure is loving this." daniel goldman, that's the kind of stuff that apparently is all over this report that is all material that was not revealed publicly during the public hearings, which also had tremendously important material. >> yes, and you waste a really good point which is -- i'm really interested in reading a lot of the text messages that the committee got, some of which that we've learned about, but i'm sure there are many many more that we have not learned about yet. some reporting that mark meadows had texted with, you know, more than 30 members of congress, republican members of congress during the two months postelection before january six. i would love to see those, another contemporaneous text on january six, obviously incredibly important evidence. while i personally may take a little issue with your characterization that this is the best house reports -- [laughter] ever written -- and we'll stand up for our impeachment reports, it is -- it will be really important to dig into the a lot of the and notes as andrew said. many of which are further explanation for some of the testimony. the last thing that i was just looking at is to further to the cassidy hutchinson's obstruction of justice that we have been talking about. what other efforts were there to obstruct justice? what other efforts were there to stonewall the investigation? the committee notes that 30 witnesses took the fifth, or refuse to testify for some other reason. and, obviously that's everybody's right to assert the fifth amendment ... but, they also know there was a number of frivolous claims of executive privilege or absolute immunity. it is very hard for congress to litigate in a timely manner -- but we do know that the prime of justice has already litigated several of those claims and it is, i think, without a doubt the department will get a lot more testimony from many of these witnesses who try to assert privilege that probably was inapplicable here. and so, yes -- as bob points out, very well and concisely, it's a much harder barb -- there's admissible evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, we don't see you now defenses in this report. so all of that is going to be there, but the department has much more powerful means of getting testimony including the testimony of the house republican who refused to comply with the subpoenas that they have received. >> barb mcquade, you've been playing according to the rules which is looking down and reading while others are speaking. i hope you found something more for us! >> i did! you know, lawrence, chapter seven is a very interesting chapter that -- title " 100 a seven minutes of their election ". this is something that on monday surprised me a little bit, but i think it's really a stroke of genius by the committee, and that is this: they referred to the justice department charges for inciting insurrection or insisting an insurrection. i have long thought that was a bridge too far because it would be based on donald trump's speech at the ellipse. because of the very high bar that the supreme court has set for political speech, i didn't think that was going to do it. this language was vague, he talked about peacefully -- but what the committee said is, it's a speech, but it's also the tweet that donald trump set at 2:24 p m when he said, mike pence didn't have the courage to do what was right. >> yes. >> united states demands the truth. the report has some detail about what led up to that moment. donald trump returns from the ellipse at 1:21 p.m., more than an hour before that, and when he arrives, he is told immediately what is happening about the attack. so, he first learned about it at 1:21 piano, he made it goes in and starts watching it on television. so for an hour he is watching this violence unfold. people are going in and pleading with him to issue some sort of a statements -- and the statement he issues is not what they want, a very forceful condemnation and request, a demand that people leave. he sends this thing that just put or pours fuel on this fire about mike pence. it's that piece of it that i think could overcome this very high bar of what is incitement. that, again lawrence, the kind of conviction that could, under the 14th amendment, preclude donald trump from ever holding public office again. >> andrew weissmann, eight 32nd last word ... >> i couldn't agree more with barbara and dan, and i also share the view that