i think you can expect some fairly big bombshells. let s bring you in here ron, you are not meant to be coy, i know you are not. a straight shooter. cipollone defended trump in the first impeachment hearing, the fact that he is from trump s inner circle, he was not like chomping at the bit to testify. he was not witness number one he is just coming in. how important is it that this is the first, this is the guy that is coming to testify now? how important is this to the overall committee s ability to make the case to the american electorite. i am not a lawyer but as a journalist you go to the sources on the outside, you get information and you go closer and closer to the central. given the accounts that we heard in cipollone s presence at so many critical moments, the attempt to replace the leadership of the justice department, he is there. the conversation with mark meadows on jan 6 where mark meadows through hutchinson s testimony says he does not think he is doing anyt
from the former president s inner circle to his supporter who s stormed the capitol on january 6th. key players on team trump are paying a price for their loyalty and the lies that he has said. as evidence mounts in the investigation just how worried are these allies tonight? joining me now cnn commentators. i am glad to see you both here. charlie, let me begin with you. look at this. john eastman, a scholar, professor, clerked for a supreme court justice, justice thomas, relieved of his phone by federal agents, you have jeffrey clark, a top doj official standing there being served with a search warrant in his boxers. both of these men s reputations are in jeopardy. they got to have mounting legal bills at there point. i don t want to count someone else s money for them. how much trouble can they count on being in?
case may come up. i know i m out of time, tali, i have to ask you though, you yourself have clerked for a supreme court justice. when you heard about this, what is it like? you know, the supreme court has really tied its legitimacy to secrecy. i collect twice at the supreme court and the only every time we got as a group with the chief justice was to be told, the first commitment, that that shall not tell, tao shall not leak. you can t even admit what you worked on. and you know, i have to disagree though that it has to be that way and that the legitimacy of the court really does have to be tied to secrecy. and that disclosure is necessary, political. we see drafts in congress, we know with the other branches of government are thinking sometimes. and i think that maybe this might be the beginning of a more transparent supreme court. i think we can get over the lead. i think we can get over the
for me to say now that this court is not a politicized body if it is reaching out to try to i know i m out of about how to consider how a case may come up. i know i m out of time, tali, i have to ask you though, you yourself have clerked for a supreme court justice. when you heard about this, what is it like? you know, the supreme court has really tied its legitimacy to secrecy. i collect twice at the supreme court and the only every time we got as a group with the chief justice was to be told, the first commitment, that that shall not tell, tao shall not leak. you can t even admit what you worked on. and you know, i have to disagree though that it has to be that way and that the legitimacy of the court really does have to be tied to secrecy. and that disclosure is necessary, political. we see drafts in congress, we know with the other branches of government are thinking