close look at what donald trump was saying to his circle the days after the 2020 election defeat. it comes after prosecutors questioned multiple witnesses about whether trump privately acknowledging the days after the election that he lost. according to four people briefed on the matter, the times says that one of those witnesses was trump s son-in-law, and senior adviser, jared kushner, who testified to the grand jury last month. precautionary, he s not the only person who knows what trump was saying in 2020. here is just a reminder of what we learned in the january 6th committee hearings. i remember maybe a week after the election was called, i popped into the oval just to give the president the headlines and see how he was doing. and he was looking at the tv, and he said, can you believe i lost to this [bleep] guy? as they investigate trump s efforts to overturn biden s when, the prosecutors are also talking to michigan secretary of state, jocelyn benson, about what ha
described the house judiciary committee this week, after republicans doubled down on unproven conspiracies. and the gop hijacking the annual defense budget bill is chock full of amendments to address right-wing cultural grievances. i m ember of the house armed services committee will respond. and we will get her reaction to some of tommy tub reveals blockade on u.s. military promotions, a move that leads this country less safe. i am michael steele, in for my good friend ayman mohyeldin. be careful if you are claustrophobic. tonight, we begin with the walls closing in on donald trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, as investigators at both the federal and state levels move toward the final stages of their probes. now, let s start with the special counsel, jack smith s inquiry. according to the near reporting from the new york times with both trump s son-in-law, jared commissioner, and his former longtime aide hope hicks. and nbc news confirms that pr
the campaign, but yeah, it was great. i can t get enough of it. i want to tell our very talented camera crew that you want more of it, but we will have more of it. come on, it looked like they were having fun. i think they had fine. they don t really have a choice. but they would be appreciative anyway. getting a lot of exercise. thank you, alex. this is one of those nights when we are very lucky to be joined by former federal prosecutor andrew wise s men and because we need their expertise to discuss what would normally be a routine filing in a criminal case which special prosecutor jack smith used this afternoon to hit back hard against donald trump s criminal defense lawyers. the ten-page ruling followed by a signature page with jack smith s name at the top says that donald trump s request for an indefinite continuance for a trial date, quote, borders on frivolous. jack smith knocks down every argument the trump lawyers make for an indefinite delay. on page two,
From the new york times with both trump s son-in-law, jared commissioner, and his former longtime aide hope hicks. and nbc news confirms that prosecutor spoke former white house communications director alyssa farrow griffin ex presidents intent in the after the election. according to the times, commissioner was asked, quote, about whether mr. trump had privately acknowledged, in the days after the 2020 election, that he had lost, according to four people briefed on the matter. a line of questioning suggests prosecutors are trying to establish whether mr. trump was asked-ing acting with corrupt intent as he remain in power, essentially that his efforts were knowingly based on a lie, evidence that could substantially bolster any case they might decide to bring against mr. trump. also, in recent months, jack smith s team has interviewed the secretaries of state for pennsylvania, new mexico and
Both sides of this street in a very disingenuous way. so even if the president did call whitaker and talked about the cohen case, if no action was actually taken by whitaker, is there any issue in terms of legality of it. there is very definitely an issue. if the president called the acting attorney general of the united states about an ongoing investigation of him in the southern district of new york, where he was named as a an unindicted co-conspirator, any conversation would be wildly improper. and evidence of potential obstruction of justice. even if nothing came of it in terms of whitaker acting. clearly the president s intent in calling whitaker was to influence the outcome. clearly that kind of attempt, whether it produced action on whitaker s part was improper,