good evening and thanks t at-home for joining us in th special edition of alex wagner tonight. we are coming up on the tw year anniversary of the januar 6th attack, and i think all of us at this point have memories of that day seared into ou minds, where we were what we were doing even after all these times past i mean, almost all of us hav those memories as it turns out, a few peopl have no memory of that day a all, apparently. here is an excerpt of deposition of one of president donald trump s persona secretaries, who worked just outside the oval office, testifying to the january 6t committee, from their fina report quote, i don t remember where was that afternoon do you remember being at the white house that afternoon even if you don t remember where exactly you were at th white house? no, i do not do you remember being home wherever home is for you, on the afternoon of january six as opposed to being at the white house? no, i don t. so, you don t remember whether you ar
Thank you. Volume 2, page 76, correct . Ill leave the answer to our report. So thats a yes . Is it true your investigation did not establish that any members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the russian government in election interference activity, volume 1, page 2. Volume 1, page 73 . Yes. Thank you. Although your Report States collusion is not a specific offense and you said that this morning or a term of our in federal criminal law and experience is, in the colloquial context are collusion and experience essentially synonymous terms. Youre going to have to row peat that for me. Collusion is not a specific offense or a term of art in federal criminal law. Conspiracy is. In the colloquial context, collusion and conspiracy are essentially synonymous terms, correct . No. If no on page 180 of volume 1 of your report you wrote collusion is largely synonymous of conspiracy and that crime is set forth in the general conspiracy statute. You said at your May 29th Press Conf
southern california district court who said basically the evidence court finds that more likely than not, trump and dr. eastman dishonestly conspire to obstruct the joint sessio of congress on january 6th 2021 so you have already before thi report, renato, a federal judg saying there is something here it is not beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt but the question becomes that guess, is there evidence tha exists that doj could get that the committee could not? how necessary or relevant is that i am really glad you aske that question chris. there is a really importan missing piece here which is, what pat cipollone told donald trump. if you read chapter five there is a discussion for example of a raw meeting where cipollon was excluded from the meetin but they don t know, the committee doesn t know exactly why, because cipollone refused to answer questions around the
likely than not, trump and dr. eastman dishonestly conspire to obstruct the joint sessio of congress on january 6th 2021 so you have already before thi report, renato, a federal judg saying there is something here it is not beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt but the question becomes that guess, is there evidence tha exists that doj could get that the committee could not? how necessary or relevant is that i am really glad you aske that question chris. there is a really importan missing piece here which is, what pat cipollone told donald trump. if you read chapter five there is a discussion for example of a raw meeting where cipollon was excluded from the meetin but they don t know, the committee doesn t know exactly why, because cipollone refused to answer questions around the subject regarding, because o executive privilege he refused to say what excites he gave trump and what he tol trump privately about this
what defenses trump migh offer. nonetheless, there is ever reason to believe here tha there is a case for doj to mov forward with yeah. the thing that i was thinkin about as i was reading through the chapter this afternoon was these two individuals, donal trump and john eastman, have already been identified by a federal district judge in motion around privilege. to have more likely than not to have committed a crime. specifically in what the undertook together in this pursuit. this is what a judge i southern california district court who said basically the evidence court finds that more likely than not, trump and dr. eastman dishonestly conspire to obstruct the joint sessio of congress on january 6th 2021 so you have already before thi report, renato, a federal judg saying there is something here it is not beyond a shadow of