Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
January 6 Committee Refers Trump To DOJ On Four Criminal Charges; Interview With Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD); Trump On Jan. 6 Cmte Criminal Referrals: "It Strengthens Me"; Title 42 To Remain IN Place For Now As Chief Justice Roberts Temporarily Freezes Order Meant To End It; Jan. 6 Cmte: Trump Was "Central Cause" Of Capitol Insurrection. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired December 19, 2022 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Drew was an incredible journalist. He won a Peabody and four Emmys, but he wasn't one to attend the awards ceremonies because he didn't wan to be away from his family. Margie and his three children, Ella, Louis and Miles. We are thinking of them tonight.
Thanks so much to you for being with us, AC 360 begins now.
[20:00:00]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: For the first time ever, ever in all of history, a bipartisan Congressional Committee has recommended charging a former US President with crimes against the government he led, including aiding or assisting an insurrection, defiling the Constitution he once swore an oath to defend.
I'm Jake Tapper.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: And I'm Laura Coates, and this is a special two-hour 360 on what by any measure is a day like no other.
We are on the verge of the second anniversary of a very violent mob, incited by the former President storming the Capitol. Members of the House January 6 committee answered history, well with history.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Ours is not a system of justice where foot soldiers go to jail and the masterminds in ringleaders get a free pass. We believe that the evidence described by my colleagues today and assembled throughout our hearings, warrants a criminal referral of former President Donald J. Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: That referral covering four charges including conspiracy to defraud the government and aiding or assisting an insurrection against it is simply without precedent, and that's not all, along with making history today, the Committee also made news with newly revealed testimony including this about the former President's refusal to denounce violence before January 6th or show any regret for it afterwards.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He wrote, "I suggested it several times Monday and Tuesday, and he refused." Tell us what happened.
HOPE HICKS, FORMER COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: Sure, I didn't speak to the President about this directly, but I communicated to people like Eric Herschmann that it was my view, that it was important that the President put out some kind of message in advance of the event.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what was Mr. Harsh Trump's response?
HICKS: Mr. Herschmann said that he had made the same, you know, recommendation directly to the President, and that he had refused.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just so I understand, Mr. Herschmann said that he had already recommended that the President -- that the President convey a message that people should leave peaceful on January 6th, and the President had refused to do that?
HICKS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said you talked to the President the next day. Tell us about that conversation on the 7th.
KELLYANNE CONWAY, FORMER SENIOR COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: I don't think it was very long. I just said that was just a terrible day. I'm working on a long statement. I said, it's crazy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did he say?
K. CONWAY: No, these people are upset. They're very upset.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: The people he said he loved in his message on the 6th and is now talking about pardoning if he is elected President, again.
COATES: And Jake, there is also a question of how the Committee's actions, their actions will be received and what their full report, which by the way is due Wednesday, what exactly is it going to contain?
Lawmakers weighed in on that today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: ... for President of the United States is 538. Within that whole number of majorities, 270. Votes for president of the United States --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COATES: So, did the man that some of the mob was seeking to capture and hang, I mean, Mike Pence today saying the man who incited that mob should not face any charges, and it seemed to chalk it all up to him taking "bad advice," Jake, from lawyers.
TAPPER: Bad advice from lawyers.
Meantime, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gave what could be read as quite the non-endorsement endorsement of the Committee's work and a non-indictment indictment of the unnamed man at the center of it all in his statement, quoting McConnell's statement, now: "The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day," a reference to Donald Trump.
McConnell, followed that with this, make of it what you will, "Beyond that," he said, "I don't have any immediate observations," which if true, speaks volumes.
As for the man whose name Senator McConnell dared not say today, he too weighed in later today saying: "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger," quoting Nietzsche, which also says quite a bit.
Joining us now, Committee member and Maryland Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin.
Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. So, in response to your Committee's referrals to the Justice Department, Republicans have framed them as not legally binding, which is technically true and merely political and ceremonial. Tell us why you think it was important to make those criminal referrals today?
RASKIN: Well, we spent the better part of a year and a half or a year and maybe two-thirds studying exactly what happened, and this was a bipartisan Select Committee of the US House of Representatives, which is the people's House, and so we are acting as the servants of the people, as the representatives of the people, and it is true that it is not legally binding on the executive branch and it's a good thing that it's not, that's how the separation of powers works, the executive branch is independent.
But like every other American citizen, we have the right, one might say we have the duty to turn over evidence that comes to our attention of crimes against the Republic, and this is obviously a very serious crime, and we have a pretty good sense of everything that took place and that's why we decided that we needed to enumerate these four offenses that we saw culpability in Donald Trump in, as well as John Eastman.
[20:05:32]
TAPPER: Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, who is a Democrat from California on the Committee, she told CNN earlier today that one of the pieces of information that will come out in the full report Wednesday will be the name of the individual who reached out to former Mark Meadows, staffer Cassidy Hutchinson advising her to say, she didn't recall certain events that she did recall and even offering her employment if she did cooperate. Can you tell us what that was, since it is coming out anyway? And is there any evidence that person reached out to other witnesses testifying before your Committee?
RASKIN: You know, I don't know the answer to it. I'm eager to find out exactly who it was and who was doing it and how extensive that plan was. I'm glad we didn't release it today, because we want America to focus on the big picture at this point.
This is a radically unique event in the history of the United States. This is the first time that a President ever tried to thwart the peaceful transfer of power by helping to orchestrate and organize a violent mob that followed through on his repeated efforts to overthrow the election, and it all came down to Mike Pence in the end and trying to get Mike Pence to unilaterally nullify the election result. And when that didn't work, well, it was just chaos and destruction at that point.
So, we are able to fit all of these events into multiple criminal statutes, and that is how our system of law works. A massive attack on constitutional democracy incorporates hundreds of different offenses, and we know that the DOJ has prosecuted more than 900 of them at this point, but it can't just apply to the foot soldiers, it has got to work all the way up to the ringleaders and the masterminds.
TAPPER: Yes, you said something like that earlier when you were on the day as about how in this country, we don't punish just the foot soldiers, we go after the masterminds. But I have to say just as a -- that's very aspirational. In point of fact, the United States Government quite often does only opponent punish the foot soldiers, and the people who run the disasters, whether it's torture of Iraqis, or various financial crimes committed by Wall Street quite often, the big fish do swim away.
RASKIN: Well, the whole principle of the rule of law is that it applies against people who actually have the power. Everyone knows that for all of human history, the law is used to control people who don't have power, poor people and people who are not at the top of the social hierarchy. The whole point of the rule of law is that everybody else, the democracy gets to control the people who get into power.
Obviously, Donald Trump thought from the very beginning that being President meant that he could convert the government into a money- making operation, an instrument for his self-enrichment and enrichment of his friends and his cronies.
And I fault us in Congress for not blowing the whistle immediately when that started, but we saw the logical expression of that public philosophy when it got to the coup and the insurrection, he literally thought he owned the government, and he could control our elections, and he could overthrow the role of the people.
TAPPER: There appeared sometimes to be tension between the Committee and the Justice Department as both institutions pursued their own investigations into January 6th. Why was it important for the Committee to wait until you concluded before you shared all of your evidence, all of your transcripts with the Justice Department? Why not just turn everything over as you got it?
RASKIN: Well, I think, you know, the Chairman in his wisdom, thought that we did need to get through our process before it was turned over to the Department of Justice or anybody else, precisely to prevent people from coordinating their stories and preventing people from trying to you know, the exploit the process.
I mean, we are all very eager to see that everything go public and that the public be able to have access to everything. But it's tough to run an investigation when things are coming out in dribs and drabs and you're continually playing, you know, defense against people who are trying to exploit and distort and mischaracterize what's come before.
[20:10:03]
You know, we've had a remarkably open process. We have a bipartisan process. We've put our witnesses under oath.
The vast majority of our witnesses have been Republicans who are in Donald Trump's administration, who were in his White House, who are in his family. And so we feel like we've gotten the unvarnished truth of what's happened.
If there is another story out there, that all of this is really an Antifa plot, if there is some other theory, then bring it forward and show it to people. But right now, this is very clearly the evidence that America has got to believe. There is no other story out there.
TAPPER: All right, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of the Great State of Maryland. Thanks so much for your time tonight.
RASKIN: Thanks for having me.
COATES: Some perspective now, joining us, CNN political commentator and former Trump White House Director of Communication, Alyssa Farah Griffin; CNN chief political analyst, Gloria Borgia; CNN legal analyst and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Elliot Williams; and conservative lawyer George Conway, who is also a "Washington Post" contributing columnist.
First of all, let's just put the kibosh on there being an alternate story available about Antifa. That did not happen. We know what happened in this case, and we had it illuminated even more, but take a step back for us, Elliot, this is the Congressional Committee, giving criminal referrals. This is not prosecutorial discretion yet. Where are we?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Okay, so look, here is one thing you know, as a former prosecutor, Laura. Your feelings do not matter. If you think someone committed a crime, you might know it in your heart, it is irrelevant. What matters is can you count to four and identify each of the four elements of an offense? And can you meet those things, right? No matter what you believe or think.
And what the Committee did quite meticulously over about 20 or 30 pages toward the end of the report is layout for each of the offenses, number one, number two, number three, number four, and this is what prosecutors have to establish.
And so for instance, if you take obstruction, they said was there a proceeding, now, obviously, there was. Did someone act knowing they were obstructing that proceeding and act with corrupt intent, and they walked through every possible thing that establish each one of those elements. You have to do that whenever there's a crime. And I think people think, you know, sort of act on feeling, and just, well, we know Donald Trump did it. It's just terrible. It just doesn't work that way in a Court.
COATES: Well, George on that point, though, I mean, there is what they would have to show in, you know, a hundred-plus page report, and then there is what you got to prove, in a court of law, a different standard, right?
GEORGE CONWAY, CONSERVATIVE ATTORNEY: Right. Absolutely.
You have to prove -- the prosecutor has to believe that he or she is able to prove something to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and have that conviction with standard appeal. And that's a higher standard.
So we're not going to see the Justice Department probably charge everything that's listed here. But there are, you know, there are central threads here. And there are very, very actually relatively simple offenses here, the first two that they emphasize, which is what the Judge out in California found was likely committed by Trump and by Eastman, conspiracy to defraud the United States and, and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.
And those both critically, the intent piece of it really turns on Donald Trump's intent and the evidence of his intent here about how everyone told him he lost, how he admitted to people, including Alyssa, that he lost, and that he -- you know, and that he continued to lie and lie and lie and lie and lie to this day, is damning evidence of the intent.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: So here's my question. He lost, he knew he lost. He conspired, he obstructed, and he aided an insurrection, which is what we heard from the Committee today.
Every lawyer I've talked to including maybe one of you, thinks that the insurrection part is not that he is going to be very difficult if the Justice Department were to even consider it, and they didn't say he incited an insurrection, you know, they said that he may have assisted and engaged in it, and we all know, Article 14, Section 3 of the Constitution says, if you do that, you can't run for political office, again, if you are convicted of that.
So my question is, why isn't that as clear cut as everything else?
WILLIAMS: There are a couple of reasons. One, because it is in part political speech, and that is some of the most protected speech in sort of the American psyche, right? And so you're going to run into a gray area between I'm running for office, right, I think I won this election, and I know I lost this election, and I'm lying about it. There is a gray area in there, and I know a lot of people sort of cringe when they hear that, but it is just simply going to be hard to --
COATES: Well, then there's Latin phrase, when, in fact, there's a Latin phrase -- let me get -- in fact, there is a Latin phrase you and I were talking about earlier, res judicata, as part of it. Don't glaze over people. We are getting ready to talk about it and explain what it is.
But the idea here of why that's important, why there were these sort of parallel things from what you see in Section 14, or you know, 14, Clause 3 and what you saw in there. Explain.
G. CONWAY: Basically, the reason why the insurrection charge could be important is that the language in that statute, which was originally passed in 1862 is tracked by the 14th Amendment Section 3.
[20:15:03]
It is the same kind of language, aiding and abetting, giving aid and comfort to people who are conducting an insurrection. So, if he was convicted -- if he were to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of engaging in an insurrection under 18 USC 2383, that would, as a matter of law, bar him under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and so what I think has always been important, and I've said this before, having sat down with the Committee a number of times is, it's always had a dual track of they want to tee up the best case for the Department of Justice, but it's also about educating the public on what exactly took place that day.
But all the while, while this investigation has been going on, the grand jury has been convening. They've been interviewing more witnesses. They have things in addition to what is laid out in this report. So it's kind of hard to even predict necessarily where this could go, but we know they sat down with Marc Short, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Pat Cipollone, and others. So there could be even more evidence that the Department of Justice already has.
But one thing I want to note real quick, my general barometer for how successful a hearing like this is, is how outraged the former President is, and he went ahead and put out just a screed on Truth Social, in no way denying basically anything that was alleged, but basically just saying, you know, I had requested troops be at the Capitol. He wanted 20,000 troops there.
Again, if you didn't incite a mob, there wouldn't be a need for troops to be at the Capitol, neither here nor there, and then blaming everyone from the Department of Justice to the FBI, and then bringing up Hunter Biden, so he is clearly rattled by this.
COATES: And so what is was important here, too, is the court of law versus court of public campaign, which is essentially where social media really is. But this is why I think it's so important. And Gloria, I mean, there's a whole -- like there's multiple pages in this long report, and just the headline: Select committee witnesses were almost entirely Republican, right? That little part there trying to undermine the talking point that says, this is everyone against -- this is this is just the liberal left trying to harm. That was what Congressman Liz Cheney kept saying over and over again.
BORGER: Over and over and over again, and it happens to be true. I mean, these people are all people serving the House, from the Trump orbit, who came there and testified, some publicly saying this is exactly what occurred. And no matter how much he complains about it, it is kind of the version of these are my documents, I was allowed to take them, you know, there was nothing that went wrong at the Capitol.
The facts are the facts. And now it's been laid out for the American people. And you see the results in many ways, and it is not just from this, it's from the midterms, and it's from Donald Trump himself. But that six out of 10 Republicans are now saying, well, they might prefer somebody else to be their nominee.
COATES: And that's important as well. I think about the idea of how this plays out, and George, you and I were having this conversation, as well about -- and I direct people to the report, which is actually what the Committee wants people to do. They want them say, if you missed the 10 hearings, if you miss even the 11th hearing, here is everything for you to actually see.
And they actually lay out, I call it the Trump Delta Connection, right? Here is what you said, here is what was the truth and they keep going back and forth to illuminate it.
G. CONWAY: It was a great -- it's like three or four pages in the report where basically, there are boxes. And on the left, the box says, here is something he was told that he lost the election and that there was no fraud with Dominion Voting Machines, item after item after item. And then the next box is the next day, he is saying the lie again, after he's been told again and again and again, you lost. There is no evidence, this evidence is bad. And he just repeats the lie.
COATES: And that matters why?
WILLIAMS: Well on both the obstruction count and the conspiracy count, that intent, and did you know where you advise that the thing you're doing is lying and like George had said, those are the two most straightforward charges here. Insurrection is going to be sort of interesting legally, and I think very challenging for the Justice Department.
GRIFFIN: And just real quick, Donald Trump does care about legacy despite the fact that his actions might suggest otherwise, and he now will go down in history having the distinct honor if you want to call that of being twice impeached and now being the first President in American history referred for criminal charges in the Department of Justice. COATES: Very important point. We're going to continue the conversation tonight with our panel members, everyone. Much more on the former President's reaction and what it's like right now, in Trump world with this, the Federal investigation already underway, the Georgia probe and well, frankly, all the rest.
Also tonight, breaking news from the Supreme Court on the politically charged humanitarian crisis on the border and the Trump-era policy the administration is trying to end.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:23:08]
TAPPER: Welcome back.
As we noted at the top of the show, the former President Donald Trump reacted late today to the House Select Committee's criminal referrals of him to the Justice Department.
Joining us now, CNN's Kristen Holmes, who has more on that.
Kristen, tell us what the President has said -- the former President?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, the former President's response has been essentially being hopeful out loud that these criminal referral referrals will do the same thing that previous investigations, impeachment, even the most recent Mar-a-Lago's search by the FBI of his home has done, which is galvanize his base, and have Republicans rally around him.
He put on Truth Social that what these people don't understand is that when they come after me, people who love freedom rally around me. Now, the advisers that I've spoken to just aren't so sure that that's going to happen this time. As we've seen Republicans and donors move away from former President Trump, they worry that he no longer has as much of a grip over the party, that he can no longer actually rally Republicans in an event like this, and that instead, this is just going to be a cloud over his 2024 campaign.
And obviously, as we've discussed on multiple occasions, he is mounting a third presidential bid. We expect him to start actually campaigning in January. But so far, he has done no sort of campaigning. In fact, his campaign has been largely just filled with backlash after backlash after multiple events.
TAPPER: And former Attorney John Eastman, he is the intellectual genius behind the unconstitutional theory that Vice President Pence could overturn the election. He responded as well.
HOLMES: That's right. So we know that the has referred Eastman on two counts, essentially, they're asking the Department of Justice to investigate the potential breach of two criminal statutes. One is obstruction of an official proceeding and the other is conspiracy to -- excuse me -- to defraud the United States. Now, this is largely symbolic and of course we've heard from Eastman, he is lashing out at the Committee. He said they have Stalinistic tactics.
[20:25:10]
But what is really interesting in that is that he said that he hasn't yet received a subpoena from the investigation, the Department of Justice investigation into January 6th. The reason that this is interesting is that we know and he has acknowledged that multiple people have received subpoenas asking for their communication with Eastman.
So it appears that regardless of what the Department of Justice decides to do with this criminal referral, they are already looking into those actions that happened after the 2020 elections that involved Eastman.
TAPPER: All right, Kristen Holmes, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
COATES: You know, Jake, now with me a Sarah Matthews who served as Deputy White House Press Secretary of the Trump White House and she testified before the select committee.
Sarah, so great to have you here. I'm really curious to pick up where they were talking about. I mean, look, he has to start campaigning, he obviously is running again. Some would say it's a time to pivot away from the 2020 election. They're advising him to do so. Do you think he will heed that warning given all that's before him?
SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: I don't think he can help himself. I think he wants to keep re-litigating it because he can't get past the fact that he lost, and you know, know, if we know anything about Donald Trump, it's all about winning. And so he can't get past it, and he can't get out of his own way.
But I do think that the Midterm Election showed us that voters are wanting to move on from it. We saw in large part voters rejected election deniers and extremists. And so, I think that is going to hurt him if he were to continue doing that. But like I said, I don't think he can help himself.
COATES: Well, January is around the corner, so we will know pretty soon if he continues to do so, but just in terms of his reaction so far, how are you seeing the reactions within Trump World? What are you what are you hearing about how he is receiving all this?
And remember, I mean, the Committee for the past 10 hearings, very focused on Donald Trump, not singularly, but these referrals show that he was a focal point.
MATTHEWS: I think that's what the Committee's evidence shows is that all roads lead back to Donald Trump, and so, you know, I think Republicans and Trump World are going to try to downplay this say that, you know, the January 6 Committee is, you know, a partisan witch hunt, whatever.
But the thing is, this is a historic day, no matter your politics. Sure, it's largely symbolic. But this is the first President in history, former President in history to be referred by Congress for criminal prosecution. And I think that the committee made a pretty damning case and provided a lot of evidence to show these charges that DOJ could potentially pursue.
COATES: You're right, it is historic, and it is about today, and that notion, but as you well know, I mean, there has been many days where the impact of what happened on January 6 is felt by people like himself, but many others, including you.
I mean, you got the wrath by many people for having even agreed to testify. Not sure you really had a choice in the end, but we'll put that aside. But the idea of what has it been like for you and the reaction that you have received since these hearings have unfolded? And even until now?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I think I like -- myself and all the other witnesses knew what we were signing up for by publicly testifying. We knew we would face harassment, potential security threats, financial burden. It could hurt our career, it could impact our loved ones. I think we knew that going into it, but we chose to do what was best for our country, and speak truth.
And I think that's in stark contrast to Donald Trump who wanted to stay in power, no matter the cost, and that ultimately led to a violent and deadly insurrection.
COATES: Not just -- I mean, you, but remember, Members of Congress chose not to do and do what you have done, respond to subpoenas, to testify to come out and condemn the behavior. And you've worked on Capitol -- you've worked in Washington, DC. I wonder if that contrast strikes you in terms of your belief in the party?
MATTHEWS: It does. It's very disenchanting, to be quite honest. I think Republicans want to move past January 6th for political expediency, and they want to whitewash the events of that day. But I think if we're going to be morally consistent, we need to acknowledge the hard truths of that day that Donald Trump violated his oath of office.
There was an orchestrated effort by himself and his co-conspirators to try to overturn the results of a free and fair election, and it led to a violent insurrection on our Nation's Capitol, and so we can't just gloss over this. We need to hold people accountable.
COATES: Sarah Matthews, thank you so much,
TAPPER: Laura, for more on this, my partners in coverage all day are back. We have with me here CNN special correspondent, Jamie Gangel; CNN correspondent Audie Cornish, host of the podcast, "The Assignment." Be sure to download that wherever you get your podcasts, "The Assignment." Also with us, CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
Jamie, let me start with you. We're obviously going to get even more information on Wednesday. That's when the full report, hundreds and hundreds of pages drops. This executive summary is about what? A hundred fifty, hundred sixty pages?
One of the things that we're going to find out, one of the names we're going to hear is the Trump aide or former Trump aide who basically suggested that Cassidy Hutchinson, the White House aide who used to work for the Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, that she not cooperate, that she you know -- nice apartment you've got here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it kind of thing, and we are going to find out who that individual is.
[20:30:26]
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Just let me just say big picture. We're going to be reading these transcripts. And going through this evidence, I would say for months that the committee is going to release. They interviewed thousands of witnesses. Cassidy Hutchinson is a particularly interesting case, because she became such a star witness for the committee. And what happened was, she had one lawyer, who had been paid for, I think, the way she describes it as by Trump world. And then it became clear that after her first interview, she said, well, they didn't ask me the right questions. And then that lawyer went away. They don't know all of the details, and she was represented by Jody Hunt. And the rest is history. And she was very forthcoming.
So, my understanding is that today was Donald Trump day today where the criminal work for us about Donald Trump. But I think when we see those Cassidy Hutchinson's transcripts, it is going to be very clear, who I don't know people who say dissuaded or steered her from testifying. And I think we're going to have another bombshell coming.
TAPPER: Because there's going to be her first attorney was paid for by Trump world.
GANGEL: Correct.
TAPPER: And that person was suggesting that you not cooperate. And she didn't want it to cooperate.
GANGEL: We -- what the wording is in here today is the committee has substantial concerns regarding potential efforts to obstruct its investigation, including by certain counsel. We don't know the name of that council yet. But if you put two and two together, that seems to be the implication.
TAPPER: Right and we know Audie that she was not cooperative and was with this attorney paid for by Trump world. And then she got a new attorney. And I think Alyssa Farah Griffin had said that she helped her get a new attorney. And then she became cooperative, then she started telling the truth.
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I mean, to step back about why this is important, we care about Cassidy Hutchinson, in part, because Mark Meadows wouldn't speak to the committee or to anyone else. That could be very different once the Justice Department is involved. This is something that they're talking about in this committee report. There are people that they couldn't get to, that they believe in a criminal situation investigation could be spoken to. I think the other thing is this idea of what it means to be in Trump world when you're in or out of the cold and how that can affect sort of your future going forward.
And there's one thing I want to mention from the comment earlier, it was interesting hearing saying, hearing her say that some people want to move on from this, on the same day that Mike Pence was quoted saying, like, look, it may have been reckless, but I don't think it necessarily is criminal to take bad legal advice, right. Like it's sort of the definition of saying maybe it wasn't so bad. Let's move on. And I can't think of a more strange figure to hear that from given the threats on him and his life on that day.
TAPPER: As a lawman let's get a little fact check on that. Is it criminal to get bad? Legal advice from your lawyers if what they're advising you to do is against the law.
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's not criminal to get bad advice.
TAPPER: What if you act on it?
MCCABE: It is criminal to do bad things based on bad advice or good advice? So, is it a shield from criminal liability because he surrounds himself with horrible attorneys who give him bad advice? No.
TAPPER: But to act on that which is what Donald -- what these criminal referrals are not about Donald Trump listening to bad advice.
MCCABE: They're not at all. They're about the decisions that Donald Trump made and the actions that he took and the planning he undertook with his advisors, some of whom are attorneys to try to obstruct and overturn the peaceful transfer of power in the United States of America. This is going far beyond advice that he may or may not have been given by his coterie of attorneys.
TRUMP: Do you think -- we saw -- we heard from heard from Hope Hicks today in a way that we haven't heard from her before. Do you think that there's any reason to believe that other people are going to come forward? Maybe there'll be more people cooperating that? This is now shifting from a congressional Select Committee to the Justice Department where you know, not complying with the subpoena the punishments are a little harsher.
MCCABE: Very different, right. So, we saw that even through the course of the committee's hearings. As they went through hearings, they all of a sudden got access to more and more witnesses as this this effort built up a head of steam. That's only going to be amplified now that the effort is taken over by the Department of Justice. They have tools that they can use in real time on people who don't want to be cooperative.
[20:35:19]
You know, when the committee, if someone doesn't respond to a committee subpoena, they have to vote as to whether to hold them in contempt. And then maybe they're going to refer that to DOJ and maybe DOD listens to them. That's not the case within DOJ. If you don't comply with a grand jury subpoena, you are going to be dealt with in a very harsh way that can inspire people to reach levels of truth that they have not formerly (INAUDIBLE).
GANGEL: No more, Mr. Nice Guy would be a simple way of putting it. And just back to your point, Jake, about listening to bad counsel. Donald Trump wasn't just listening to counsel like John Eastman, who is saying one thing, he had plenty of other lawyers and advisers telling him no, no, no, don't do that. You can't do that. Exactly.
CORNISH: Considered putting in counsel that was giving him bad, possibly unconstitutional advice in charge of the Justice Department, right. Essentially, if everyone hadn't said, please don't do this, or else we'll all resign, he might have done it. I think it's important to really understand that the committee is all is not just showing us what Trump did that day. They're showing us all of the little weakened points of the system, whether that's in the Electoral College count in the in the certification, whether that's in the ability to pressure federal officials, and some of these do have criminal statutes.
Andrew McCabe, you can talk about this. There are laws on the books, again, some of these actions and it'll be interesting to see what else comes up beyond just the kinds of charges that were suggested.
MCCABE: Absolutely right. Absolutely right. So, the criminal liability, we've been very focused, as you said, Jamie, on Donald Trump today, the Justice Department's focus is going to go far beyond Donald Trump. And in for many of those folks that fall within the penumbra of that investigation. It is because it will encourage them to cooperate, to avoid criminal liability by coming in and sharing the knowledge, the experiences, the conversations, they heard the communications they're in possession of (INAUDIBLE) --
TAPPER: Yes.
MCCABE: There's also the ball game.
TAPPER: I think, like telling the truth --
MCCABE: There is that.
TAPPER: I mean, that's also just (INAUDIBLE) I realized, that's a sweet concept. Thanks, everyone.
We're going to continue our coverage of the January 6 committee's final hearing in a moment. But first breaking news, a controversial Trump era immigration policy will now remain in place at least for now due to actions by the Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts. We're going to have more on that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:41:31]
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: We've got breaking news tonight. A new turn in the controversy over the Trump era border policy known as Title 42. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts today put a temporary hold on ending the policy that was set to end this Wednesday. Now this means the policy that allowed officials to quickly expel migrants at the border is now going to say in effect, at least for now.
CNN justice correspondent Jessica Schneider joins me now with more. Jessica, what are the details of this temporary hold? And how long exactly is temporary?
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: So, it could be a day or two? Laura, it could be much longer than that. Because what happened today is the Chief Justice stepped in to stop Title 42s termination. But that was just so the full Supreme Court has this extra time to consider how this case moves forward, because this underlying issue is whether a number of Republican led states can step into a lawsuit that's been ongoing for quite some time, the lower courts here, they all said that those Republican states could not step in. And that's why there was so much certainty that Title 42 would end at the strike of midnight on Wednesday. But now the Supreme Court is saying here, we're going to pause that termination date. So, we can more carefully consider whether these Republican led states have that ability to bring their claim.
So, this decision really doesn't mean the court is siding with those states on the merits. It's just that procedurally at this point, they're giving them a little more time likely delaying any termination of Title to Title 42 for at least a few more days.
COATES: And the Biden administration has to now respond and quick and short order. I think it's --
SCHNEIDER: Yes.
COATES: -- you know, maybe tomorrow by 5:00 p.m., or Wednesday 5:00 p.m. with one of those. But I wonder if you think about reading the tea leaves here, given this is really a procedural aspect, not the full discussion on whether Title 42 can stay or has to go and allow for people to have a hearing as expected when you have somebody seeking asylum in this country. Does this day give any indication of which side the Supreme Court might come down on? In other words, is it surprising they've even has this temporary stay?
SCHNEIDER: So, it's really hard to make a prediction because this is a really minor move from the Chief Justice. And we've seen this in other cases, in a range of cases, we see the Supreme Court sometimes delaying consequential starts or stops for programs when they just need a chance to think on this. They need to give the party a chance to make their case. And that's what the chief justice is doing here.
So, like you mentioned, Laura, he did order the Biden administration also the ACLU, they have to submit their arguments by tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. That's when the Supreme Court will decide what comes next. They could keep a hold on stopping Title 42, they could let it go into effect say Thursday or Friday or actually should say they could let it stop at that point. At this point, the law it's pretty safe to say that border officials they'll continue being permitted to quickly expel migrants at the border beyond Wednesday at this point. And of course, those border states are bracing for a surge that likely won't come as planned as soon as Wednesday but who knows it could come in the days after the Supreme Court doesn't let this hold stand. Laura.
COATES: A lot of controversy surrounding this very moment in time. Jessica Schneider, thank you so much.
More now from CNN's Rosa Flores who is on the ground near the U.S.- Mexico border. Rosa, I'm wondering how is this temporary hold likely to play out where you are at the border?
ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know Laura, where I am here in the Rio Grande Valley. What we've seen is that It's really brought down the temperature of the anxiety on both sides of the border both in Mexico and we have video of thousands of migrants who are camped out on the streets, and also here in the United States, both from city officials and nonprofit organizations who are breathing a little easier, because what they're worried about is a huge spike in migration very quickly, where they don't have the resources to respond accordingly. Now, what this means operations wise, this means that border patrol agents will continue to be able to swiftly return migrants to Mexico.
[20:45:32]
But Laura, I got to give you a quick reality check about what this actually means. And that is that earlier this year, the U.S. government was able to use Title 42 A lot more, why because of the demographics. Most of the migrants who were coming in were from Mexico and Central America. And then a few months ago, and we've reported this on CNN, the demographics change, the surge was being driven by migrants from Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba. And Mexico was not taking them back. And the U.S. government has very frosty relationships with those governments. And so, they couldn't deport them back either. And so, where we are now is this policy is not as effective as the Biden administration would like and they have shored up a lot of resources in preparation for the lifting of Title 42.
And so, what it's looking like now, Laura is really the Biden administration, just has more time to continue to shore up resources because as you know, we've been here before in the summer in May we were expecting this to happen. It didn't happen. This is given the Biden administration months to prepare for the lifting of Title 42. Laura.
COATES: Will it be enough to resolve the issues? Rosa Flores, thank you so much.
We return now to the January 6 committee. Their unprecedented determination the Justice Department prosecute a former President Donald Trump, Woodward and Bernstein are here with context of what this moment means in American history and for the future, with the former president trying to get back into the White House. That's up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:51:02] TAPPER: Never before in history has a former U.S. president been referred by Congress to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution until today. One man was the quote central cause of the attack on our capitol according to the January 6 House Select Committee, and that man was Donald Trump, another giant stain on Trump's legacy no matter what the Justice Department ends up doing.
So, let's step back and take in that conclusion with two journalistic legends from the Watergate era and beyond. Bob Woodward did 20 interviews with Trump over the years, compiled them in a recently released audio book called The Trump Tapes. CNN political analyst Carl Bernstein is the author of Chasing History. And obviously their work and legend speaks for itself.
Let's just start with the fact that we're actually on territory that even Nixon didn't achieve.
BOB WOODWARD, AUTHOR: Yes. But I was thinking about for 50 years, we've had two presidents Nixon and Trump. It's like, you buy two, Chevrolet's, and they blow up and then maybe you're going to switch to a Ford. I knew you'd love that.
CARL BERNSTEIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: He always delivers.
WOODWARD: Yes, and I mean, what is gone, going on in the Republican Party, they need to do something. Not also the Democrats to vet their candidates.
TAPPER: Yes.
WOODWARD: And our business, the media, I think we were not probing enough about Trump, when he launched his candidacy in 2015. He was able to pass himself off, is a wealthy successful businessman. We now know, that wasn't true, either. And so, the parties need to look deeper. And we in the press need to look deeper.
TAPPER: There is a difference of right when it comes to the Republican Party because Nixon ultimately resigned before he could be impeached. And among those counseling him to resign were senior Republicans on Capitol Hill.
BERNSTEIN: And first of all, the Watergate investigation by the Senate was enacted by a 77 to nothing unanimous vote of the Senate to including Republicans to create the investigation. Unlike what we've seen here, where the Republican Party in Congress has tried to bury this investigation. With Nixon, the key votes in the judiciary committee to impeach Articles of Impeachment were cast by courageous Republicans. And then let's look now at the leadership Mitch McConnell today said a little something he's the enabler. He's the great enabler as is his party in the Senate. You notice story I did name 21 Republican senators who have held Trump in this stain contempt through his whole presidency.
TAPPER: Private one (ph).
BERNSTEIN: Not a one of them -- TAPPER: Privately, yes.
BERNSTEIN: -- peeped the whole time and I named them and still nothing.
WOORDWARD: Though he's got those supporters out there.
TAPPER: Right.
WOODWARD: Tens of millions, I think I've done some travels and you ask people, do you think that the election was stolen from Trump? And no. Do you support Trump? Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
BERNSTEIN: There's a poll to that effect, actually.
WOODWARD: In large numbers.
TAPPER: But they believe that the election was legit.
WOODWARD: Yes.
TAPPER: But they still support Trump.
BERNSTEIN: Yes.
WOODWARD: Yes, exactly. Because there's something they I talked on the tapes with Trump about this, that he saw that the old order was dying in the Republican Party in 2016. And in the Democratic Party, and he said we're sitting in the Oval Office, I said you've seized history's clock there's that big grandfather's clock there and he just jumped, yes and I'll do it again of course, he didn't do it in 2020.
[20:55:12]
But there's something about Trump and you hear it on these tapes, he pushes the, you know, is this little leadership opportunity of the lifetime to deal with a virus?
TAPPER: (INAUDIBLE).
WOODWARD: No. I mean, he just slams the door.
BERNSTEIN: (INAUDIBLE) homicide, instead. But what's so interesting about today is the portrait of Trump, first of all, as a seditious criminal president, such as we have never seen, going into territory unthought of, to stage his own coup, to keep him in office. But simultaneously, there's an integrated portrait of him as the Mad King, that he time and again, look at what Hope Hicks says, look at his behavior, it is that of a Mad King, trying to stay in office and at the same time, saying and doing crazy, yes, terrible.
WOODWARD: But, you know, surprise is he left the White House. Everyone said, well, he was he was trying to stage a coup, in a sense, he still is, but he did leave the White House.
TAPPER: We don't have to imagine what Nixon would do. Because in 1961, he left the White House and he didn't, he didn't use a John Eastman's theory and try to deliver the election to himself as a vice president.
Anyway, Bob Woodward. Carl Bernstein. Great to have you here. Thank you so much.
Our coverage continues with the man who conducted a review of Capitol security for Congress in the wake of January 6, retired Lieutenant General Russel Honore giving his take on conclusions by this congressional committee and offering insight on what must be done to prevent this from ever happening again. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
