what do you know about pressuring the states. in other words, he may have information about all of those things and even if it s just small pieces you want to make sure he also could cassidy hutchinson as adds to the knowledge before january six of potential violence. and that seems unusual if he did not know that given how much information we have about people being concerned about that. we have hope ex who told the january six committee, we have about her conversation with the president on january 4th and fifth. where she pleaded with him to say something to the crowd that s coming on january six, that you need to stay peaceful and according to her the president rejected. that danya, i want to raise something that barr mcclain and i were talking about yesterday. the special counsel very much is interviewing witnesses both in this investigation at mar-a-lago. is there any risk in continuing to bring in witnesses and
grand jury today and what can that tell us about where this whole investigation stands? joining us now is down a perry, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, and andrew weizmann, you may have heard, of them lead prosecutor for special counsel robert mueller and coast of the must listen to podcasts prosecuting donald trump. andrew, danya, great to see you in the flesh as this, the prognostication continues about what s happening here. andrew, let me start with you in terms of the presence of will wrestle testifying today. what does this tell you about where we are in the january six investigation? first, there s nothing unusual about someone being called back into the grand jury. it can happen for a variety of reasons. it could happen because jack smith wants to actually see how he testifies i get a sense of his credibility. it could be also just learned something new that they want to ask them about. it could also be that they have some questions about
interest. as an onlooker to all this, you see the name stanley woodward, the name of mr. russell s lawyer. it to me signals, that means that the person he s representing isn t cooperating with the federal government. listen to this list. while data, coconspirator named in the mar-a-lago case, tyler budowich, last witness called into the grand jury in florida, you settle the mar-a-lago i.t. guy who was working alongside walt nauta, dan scavino, close trump aide. kash patel and peter navarro. all of those people, danya, are being represented by stanley woodward. does this for close the possibility that any of them are gonna never cooperate the federal government? and should we assume none of those people are cooperating at this point? it probably is a thumb on the scale against cooperation. as andrew said, it can be
4th and fifth. where she pleaded with him to say something to the crowd that s coming on january six, that you need to stay peaceful and according to her the president rejected. that danya, i want to raise something that barr mcclain and i were talking about yesterday. the special counsel very much is interviewing witnesses both in this investigation at mar-a-lago. is there any risk in continuing to bring in witnesses and stretching on the timetable and which indictments and superseding indictments could come? given the whole given the cold hard reality of a presidential campaign that s very much underway. and the complications in and around that. yeah, i would agree there is some risk to that. i think the special counsel s office is keenly aware of that. and they re gonna hold himself to a
so decent that mr. going to look very telling. whenever they do come, if they do come, because what they would do is create a narrative, which is one step in the process of creating a narrative that you ultimately want to sell to the jury. you want to make a straightforward and also as informative as possible without compromising your case in a way that can be damagi but danya,n part of it. all the research, all of the evidence gathering, all the way to the indictment, is that after race? he still has to make this case in front of jury. it seems obvious, i m sure to some people, that this is a slam dunk case, but there really are not symptom cases. there are no such thing when you have a jury. particularly when you have a fractured society, all you need is one juror to hang or do you believe the rhetoric that this is a witch hunt, not a fair prosecution? is that something that you had to deal with in your prosecutions? no, not really. they re never has been anything quite like