for the committee. good to see you. you worked on this committee. you understand that in a way that i think people outside of the committee cannot. was it a mistake to not touch on what ken has talked about in the final report? i will say that i think in all of my career in politics, maybe everything that i ll ever do, working on the january 6th committee was an honor because you had democrats and republicans, you had a nonpartisan investigation look at why what happened at the capitol happened. i m really proud of that. i think we found the right conclusion, which was that donald trump was at the center of this multipart plan. i think that we put out a lot of information and a part of the report that we conducted and showed has two portions about security and intelligence failures, about the national guard response. did we have enough time to look into everything? i don t think so. i think we should continue doing that, but by can t let it happen
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
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 certainly. 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 conviction for insurrection rebellion that would be disqualifying for someone to hold future office under the 14th amendment. the one i have been able to glance at is a table of contents. you re not the first want to mention it. normally, when you re 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
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 peop
purpose. here s the quote that they think is key to us. this is from the washington post. thompson added, i can assure you, if a criminal referral would be warranted, there would be no reluctance on the part of the committee to do that. so, trump attorneys read this. here is how they re utilizing that quote for their argument. they say, to the supreme court justices, the committee cannot make a mockery of congress s constitutional mandate that its requests in investigation be supported by a valid legislative purpose. it cannot embark on what is essentially a law enforcement investigation with the excuse that it might legislate based on information it turns up in the course of the exploration. alisyn, i think it s worth noting here that his attorneys have made a pretty similar argument up until this point. they have made something similar at the district court level as well as to the circuit court, and basically, what they ve argued here is that the committee has not articulated a leg