at trump and election interference in georgia. you see, and pincer movement on donald trump. and perhaps this will be the occasion in which he cannot dodge criminal liability. the public posture of the doj is welcome news to members of the january 6th select committee. who have been publicly pleading with federal prosecutors to take action. that encourages me, or it solidifies and the understanding i have operated with. which is the department of justice is a vast arsenal of resources at their disposal. these are extremely confident effective lawyers, they know what they are doing. however, there is no question the political calendar and impending presidential announcement by trump could complicate their plans. and trump continues to show no sign he is backing down. now we have the january 6th, on select committee, of political hacks and thugs. attorney general merrick garland pledged that nothing, including political pressure
former white house officials cooperating with the doj. marc short, greg jacob s, and cassidy hutchinson. pair that with the washington post reporting that prosecutors have been asking very specific questions about trump. does that tell you anything about the direction of this investigation? i think those are innocents one in the same development. if you re going to question mark short, or cassidy hutchinson, you are naturally going to be asking them about donald trump and mark meadows. and everyone in the white house. but yes don, i think there s been a sea change in what we know about doj s investigation. if you think back a month ago, all we knew was that they had done search warrant on john eastman and jeffrey clark. and we knew they had served some subpoenas on the electors. there was nobody inside the white house, no staffers, no deputies, now we know a three. just in the last 24 hours or so. and it would not surprise me at all, to see some other folks testifying in the january
conspiracy. i think the way prosecutors ought to approach this, somewhat and the way the january six presented. you have a bunch of separate but overlapping and similarly motivated conspiracies, to pressure mike pence. to call brad raffensperger, or pressure state legislators. to try to tape over doj. i think the proof, on donald trump, is stronger, as to some of those than others. the call to raffensperger being the most direct proof, we have him on tape for an hour, browbeating the sky. i think on the other side of it, i think his involvement with the eastman piece we just heard. is on the thinner side of evidence. 11,780 votes something like that. thank you both, i appreciated. so we have heard liz cheney and adam kinzinger standing up for the truth on the january 6th hearings. but their party seems determined to turn a blind eye to everything we have seen. or they maga or die? um, oh wow. um, the future is, uh, what s ahead of us. i dodon t get it.
at. he s going to claim exoneration. and so for all the people out there, who are still hoping, that donald trump gets charged with a crime. if it doesn t happen, you know don, how he s going to use this. how this is going to boomerang, how he will use it in the run up to the campaign. i think that s something i m looking at here. how long all this will take i think scott. i think he s going to use it anyway, either way, if they do it, or they don t. he s going to say they didn t have enough, they try to get me and they couldn t. and if they do, and they don t, he will say they didn t have enough, they tried. i think he s going to spin it either way. i don t think that matters. i think whoever is if they have enough, and they think they should prosecute him, charged, whatever, then they should do it. there is a saying with that, but i won t say it here. so ali [laughs] get off the pot. elie, let s dig into the importance of john eastman. you talked about him a moment ago. he wa
absurd legal theory. that essentially pence could draw out whatever votes he wanted to. seemingly, was the only senate lawyer who seemed to think that was a reasonable legal theory. in fact, there s testimony, eastman himself admitted he knew that theory would lose 90 in the supreme court. and whenever fly. so the question, don, i think you re getting. that is how should they show just donald trump s knowledge? i think that piece of testimony we just saw from ronna mcdaniel. i think that s the one and best piece of testimony. it s not a slam dunk. that donald trump was made directly aware of this plot, and it s illegality. i think prosecutors will be focused on that piece of testimony. if you are prosecuting, or investigating. you re looking for more, is there other evidence that trump was aware of this plot? and was aware of the illegality? there s nothing to do with calling georgia, and all of the other things? you don t think that that goes sort of no, no, that matters as well