witnessed on and around january 6th last year were the tipping point for her. she described feeling frustrated and disappointed and disgusted with the president s apparent approval of the violence as the capital was being overrun but for the most part, we should probably stop looking for big shifts in public opinion about donald trump in reaction to new information. politically, americans seem pretty set in their opinions about him, but opinions aren t everything. there s actually this interesting pesky little thing called the law. and on that front, there s a noticeable shift happening today in one area. there s a real insignificant shift under way in analysis about whether donald trump might now, as a result of all of this new information, actually be prosecuted for his role in january 6th. people who thought that would never happen today awoke today thinking it just might and perhaps more likely than not and that shift is happening where it matters, inside the justice depa
versus 16 grams in ensure high protein. boost® high protein also has key nutrients for immune support. boost® high protein. good afternoon. i m chris jansing at msnbc headquarters in new york city. we re still working on getting a full picture of the impact of cassidy hutchinson s bombshell testimony even a full 24 hours after she spoke. but there s no question it s the closest we ve gotten to seeing a direct line from former president trump to the violence at the capitol on january 6th and it does raise new questions about if and when the justice department might decide to get involved. the headline in the conservative national review said the system was, quote, devastating, and argued that things will not be the same after this. i overheard the president say something to the effect of, i don t care that they have weapons, they re not here to hurt me, take the effing mags away. i remember saying something to the effect of, mark, we need to do something more, they re
before landing in the trump white house. according to the washington post, many former trump advisers were stunned to see hutchinson testify. . as a fiercely loyal aide to meadows, some believed she would defend him no matter what. for others, she was quite literally the last person that former trump advisers expected to see testifying against their former boss in this investigation. one former white house official told the post quote, she was totally enthusiastic about trump and working in that white house, end quote. so the fact that cassidy hutchenson decided to testify publicly before the committee is in itself notable. and the fact that she did so despite being warned not to do so by trump allies, is also interesting. according to punch bowl news, at least one of the two potential witnesses tampering, potential witness tampering messages by investigators yesterday was sent to hutchinson and because those
they established at the beginning of the hearing, not just how close in proximity she resided at the oval office, she was within a five-second stroll to the oval, and there were people who stressed just how close she was with mark meadows. it does say something, and i think it underscores what the committee has been saying all along, that it took a 25-year-old and to come out and tell the truth, testify under oath, and put herself in such a situation. the committee has been saying all along it s the young people, people working in entry level jobs, who were closely tied, the right-hand man to these higher-up officials who were big names in trump s orbit who have ultimately come forward to do the right thing and to tell the committee everything that they know. jake, in punchbowl news you wrote that a source is telling you at least one of the witness tampering messages that liz cheney disclosed at the end of
was trying to sell about wikileaks and the stuff that russian military intelligence stole from the democrats and the clinton campaign for that witness tampering charge, does it matter in legal terms whether a message whether the witness tampering message is sent in private or whether that message is broadcast to millions of people over twitter does that legally make a difference to prosecutors? can you tamper with witnesses really, really, really out loud? joining us now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney in michigan barbara, thank you so much for being here. oh, thanks for having me, rachel. i see a tonal relationship between the witness tampering messages that mr. stone was charged for today and the sorts of things that the president has said in public about michael cohen. does it matter whether these things are said publicly or in private? no, it really doesn t the law doesn t say so i mean, other than the fact that they both clearly watch too many gangster movies, the