the worry is political impact and will it give others a club to beat them with but the mueller example is what is sobering. without that title it is a mish mosh of facts to be distorted especially if control changes in november. to come out and say it as a political matter, stay in their lane. i think mike s point is really the important one. let me come back to you, jackie, on the doj probe. it may ensnare the allies from the bottom up now and this reporting that sound bite of cheney focusing on the december 19 is the focus of some doj sentencing memos and other legal
which is appropriate but he also broadly said there s more to come. the justice department remains committed to holding all january 6th perpetrators at any level accountable under law whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy. the actions we have taken thus far will not be our last. but a year in many results are available and some say it s not enough. i am joined by democratic senator from rhode island, sheldon white house. welcome back, sir. thanks, ari, good to be with you. absolutely. this is an important time. you put out a new statement. with regard to this doj probe, quote, sweeping up low level players while ignoring the kingpins of stream isn t a full investigation end quote. why do you say the doj investigation at this point is
yes! wayfair you got just what i need. we re back with neal katyal and jonathan carl. neal, i d like you to speak to this notion, and it does have some parallels to how we covered the mueller investigation. every 12 weeks, somebody was indicted. what is this body of evidence and the little glimpses we have seen of it suggest to you about the fact that there is just silence from doj? there s no evidence they ve interviewed any of these people, that any of these people have lawyers representing them in a doj probe. well, as i said, the justice department standard is going to be whether or not there s criminal intent. and it s totally reasonable to me, as frustrating as it is, that they want to wait fgt congressional investigators to do their job first and i think that makes some sense here because you know, one of the reasons one of the things congress is trying to do, and the whole point of the filing
he did not use the word decertify. he used the word rescind. he mentioned having a subsequent election for the presidency. that goes well beyond january 6th or early 2021 into trump s ongoing efforts. now, the committee is also pursuing this seven-hour gap in trump s phone logs from that fateful day. trump has publicly denied he would try to hide it with a burner phone and said he doesn t know what that is. and john bolton said he heard trump use the very phrase burner phones repeatedly and that he knows what it means and said they discussed using the tactic. and there s news on the d.o.j. probe, and we ll get to all of the above when we re back after our shortest break in one minute.
donald trump is under investigation by d.o.j. whether donald trump will be subpoenaed by the 1/6 committee. to go back the your earlier point, those are political decisions. donald trump is the only reason they were there. the only reason this defendant thought it was okay to tase officer fanone, he was there because he thought donald trump needed help. it seeps like we should be more honest about the questions we have here whether donald trump will be investigated as part of the d.o.j. probe, whether or not he will be subpoenaed by 1/6. without donald trump, there is no insurrection. i think that that s technically correct. i think it would be very difficult to maintain anything to the contrary. for this particular defendant, mr. rodriguez, his crime is committed wrout reference to the motive. it doesn t matter what his motive was if the evidence established yawned a reasonable doubt he engaged in the assault he will be convicted.