Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

January 6 Testimony: Trump Said "Just Say the Election Was Corrupt"; Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is Interviewed About the January 6 Investigation; January 6 Testimony And Emails: GOP Lawmakers Asked For Pardons; Feds Raid Home Of Trump Era DOJ Official Who Pushed His Lies; Filmmaker Who Interviewed Trump Before, After Jan. 6 Speaks To CNN; Feds Ramp Up Probe, Pursue Fake Electors In 7 States Trump Lost; Biden: Supreme Court Ruling on Guns "A Bad Decision". Aired 7-8p ET

Aired June 23, 2022 - 19:00   ET




Trump insiders admitting today's testimony before the January 6th committee was bleak for the former president, as officials inside the Justice Department detail how Trump tried to use them to steal the election.

This as tonight we're learning new names of Republican lawmakers who allegedly asked Trump for pardons.

Plus, we're hearing tonight from the filmmaker who turned over hours of footage of the president and his family to the January 6th Committee. What did he tell investigators today?

And a major decision from the Supreme Court on guns. Critics say it's adding fuel to the fire when it comes to gun violence in America.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight, just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me. It's a quote. It's a brazen statement from then-President Trump after he had been told that every single allegation of mass fraud was false, every one.

And his response was, just say it was corrupt, leave the rest to me. It's a quote. It's the quote that the Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue shared today. It's what Trump told him he said on December 27th, 2020.


REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): You also noted that Mr. Rosen said to Mr. Trump, quote, DOJ can't and won't snap its fingers and change the outcome of the election. How did the president respond to that, sir?

RICHARD DONOGHUE, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: He responded very quickly and said, essentially, that's not what I'm asking to you do. What I'm asking you to do is say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.


BURNETT: And it wasn't paraphrasing, okay. Let me show you the hand- written note that Donoghue took, that he wrote, on the day of the call. Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. congressmen.

There you have it. Multiple sources tonight are telling our Kaitlan Collins that Trump's allies acknowledged that testimony today was damaging and bleak and it is important to note that people in Trump's orbit downplayed other hearings so far. So, today, seeing it differently.

And part of the reason is that the witnesses today clearly detailed how Trump tried to pressure the Justice Department to help him hold on to power and again, hear the crucial thing, even after he had been told again and again and again that there was nothing to the crazy allegations of fraud, that he kept specifically bringing to the acting and acting deputy attorney general.

According to Donoghue's notes, Trump was literally clinging on to any conspiracy theory out there.


KINZINGER: He told Mr. Donoghue in that December 27th call, quote, you guys may not be following the Internet the way I do.


BURNETT: We're also learning many of the Republicans who were pushing these conspiracy theories from the Internet and trying to overturn the election, sought pardons from then-President Trump.

According to testimony, this includes Congressman Scott Perry, who was very prominent in today's hearings, Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs, Louie Gohmert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene. We should note, Perry and Greene have called the allegations lies. Others, though, admitted they asked for the pardons.

Also today, investigators for the committee heard from filmmaker Alex Holder who has hours of footage of Trump, his family, and others in his inner circle in the days leading up to and after January 6th. Holder speaking to our Don Lemon after Trump's mindset said this.


DON LEMON, CNN HOST: Did he at any point acknowledge that he lost?

ALEX HOLDER, FILMMAKER: No. He absolutely genuinely believes that he won and that the election was stolen from him.

(END VIDEO CLIP) BURNETT: We're going to have more from Don's interview with Holder coming up, including what the committee wanted to know from him in the testimony today.

Now, the existence of that film caught even top Trump aides by surprise. It includes never before seen footage like this.


HOLDER: Can we talk a moment about January 6th?

TRUMP: Yeah.

Well, it was a sad day. But it was a day where there was great anger in our country. The people went to Washington primarily, because they were angry with an election that they think was rigged.


A very small portion as, you know, went to the Capitol, and a very small portion of them went in.

But I will tell you they were angry from the standpoint of what happened in the election because they're smart and they see and they saw what happened and I believe that that was a big part of what happened on January 6th.


BURNETT: That documentary will be released why Discovery Plus, which is owned by CNN's parent company. It's just important to note, though, you know, when the film maker says Trump believed it. Each of these claims, that voting machines controlled by Italy, being stopped at trucks and all this, ran every one down and found them all to be completely bogus and explained it to him.

So, you know, do you think he really didn't believe it?

In a moment, I'll speak to a member of the January 6 committee, Jamie Raskin, who'll be with me.

But, first, I want to go straight to Manu Raju, who's OUTFRONT on Capitol Hill.

So, Manu, what more did you learn from the committee today?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, the pressure campaign was relentless. Donald Trump leaning on his top justice officials to declare the election corrupt, to run down these conspiracy theories, that even though he was told time and time again that they had no merit, there was a push to install a Trump loyalist atop the Justice Department, even causing a threat to those top Justice officials to consider resigning in masse out of protest.

Ultimately, that did not happen, but what did apparently happen was some Republican members of Congress asking for pardons over their role on January 6th.


DONOGHUE: He just told me, it's your job to seize machines and you're not doing your job.

RAJU (voice-over): Top Justice officials testify about the lengths Donald Trump went to use the power of the federal government to pursue its conspiracy that the election was stolen. Despite being told repeatedly there was nowhere to his claims, Trump demanding they declare the election corrupt and leave the rest to him and members of Congress.

KINZINGER: Were any of the allegations he brought up found credible? Did you find any of them credible?


RAJU: Trump's pressure campaign was relentless.

JEFFREY ROSEN, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Between December 23rd and January 3rd, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day.

RAJU: All of it came to a head in a tense January 3rd Oval Office meeting, when Trump threatened to replace Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen with Jeffrey Clark, a DOJ official who is willing to act on Trump's plan.

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: I do recall saying to people that somebody should be put in charge of the Justice Department who isn't frightened of what's going to be done to their reputation.

RAJU: But top DOJ officials balked, including then Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue.

DONOGHUE: I made the point the Jeff Clark is not even competent to serve as an attorney general. He's never been in criminal attorney, and I said, that's right, you're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office and we'll call you when there's an oil spill?

RAJU: Clark even writing this draft letter to Georgia and other states where Trump lost, falsely claiming there was voter fraud and calling on them to convene special legislative sessions.

ERIC HERSCHMANN, WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: And then he finished discussing when he planned on doing, I said, good (EXPLETIVE DELETED) excuse me (EXPLETIVE DELETED) hole, congratulations, you just admitted that your first step or act you would take as attorney general would be committing felony and violating Rule 6C.

RAJU: Clark, who had his house raided by the FBI on Wednesday morning, testified to the committee behind closed doors in February, but he took the Fifth more than 100 times. JEFFREY CLARK, FORMER DOJ OFFICIAL: An executive privilege again,

just restated for the abundance of caution.

RAJU: Trump only backed down from replacing Rosen with Clark when the top officials all threatened to resign in protests.

DONOGHUE: Then the other AAGs begin to chime in and in turn, they essentially said that they would leave, they would resign in masse if the president made that change in the department leadership.

RAJU: Committee members today also revealing more information about the GOP lawmakers who sought a pardon, including Congressman Scott Perry who played a central role pushing for Clark to be elevated in the Justice Department. White House Attorney Eric Herschmann saying he believes Congressman Matt Gaetz also was seeking a pardon. A pardon that he was discussing and requesting was as broad as you can describe. From the beginning of time up until today, he mentioned Nixon, and I said Nixon's pardon was never nearly that broad.

KINZINGER: The only reason I know to ask for a pardon is because you think you have committed a crime.


RAJU (on camera): Now, in addition to Perry and Gaetz, the committee showed testimony saying that other Republican members also sought a pardon including Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Louie Gohmert. Now, Greene was a second hand witness, said that they had heard her say this. Now, she has denied asking for a pardon.


Others admitted to it, including Mo Brooks. But he said he was asking for a blanket pardon for anybody who sought to overturn the election because he said he was concerned that the Democrats would weaponize the Justice Department against political enemies -- Erin.

BURNETT: Manu, thank you very much.

So, I want to go to a member of the January 6th Committee, as promised, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin.

Congressman, I appreciate you taking the time coming back on the show. So, look, it was riveting to watch this today. And, you know, we heard Donoghue say today and I quote him, there were a lot of people whispering in his ear, he's referring to Trump, feeding him these conspiracy theories and allegations.

But he, Donoghue, he told Trump these theories were false, right? And he went through and he detailed the one about the truck full of ballots and the ballot count not adding up in Pennsylvania, the voting machine -- every single one of them explained to Trump that they were false.

Do you believe your committee proved today that Trump did something illegal? Or was he just listening to bad advice and conspiracy theories?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, Rosen and Donoghue absolutely told him that there were no facts to justify his big lie that he continued to spread around the country and within the government. And there was no legal basis upon which they could intervene.

I mean, the Department of Justice itself had no standing. They were basically saying, if you think you got a problem as a candidate, you take it to your campaign lawyers. You don't bring it to the U.S. Department of Justice.

But what we saw were Donald Trump's repeated efforts to convert the entire United States Department of Justice into an instrument of his political corruption and his big lie.

So, look, I think he is a one-man crime wave and he converted his desperate crusade to stay in office despite the fact that he had clearly lost the election into a government-wide conspiracy, where they were trying to go after the state legislators, they were trying to go after the election officials, the local election officials, the Department of Justice.

And when each of these things was frustrated because there are real constitutional heroes in this story and people who refused to buckle under, finally, he ended up going to his most desperate Hail Mary pass, which is always the mob, violence, in an effort to coerce the vice president and Congress to do his will. And that's the story that remains to be told.

BURNETT: And we did hear about, you know, the individual and the Justice Department, right, that he was -- he was trying to use as his vehicle for all of this, right? And that was Jeffrey Clark. We heard a lot about him in your hearing today.

And we learned that federal investigators searched his home before the hearing began, that they went and did that yesterday. Were you surprised by that?

RASKIN: Yes, I was surprised. We obviously had nothing to do with that. And, you know, it's -- look, I have been rooting for the Department of Justice to bring cases against people who committed crimes and they have already brought more than 800 cases against people for everything from assaulting federal officers, and 150 of them were assaulted, to seditious conspiracy, which means conspiracy to overthrow or put down the government of the United States or frustrate the execution of our laws.


RASKIN: So, you know, those cases are going and you know, again, that is not really our bailiwick. We're focused on telling the story to the American people, but we hope that the Department of Justice will be in the hands of people who are able to look at the facts and the law, people like Rosen and Donoghue.

BURNETT: Well, it is -- you know, I think obviously, it bears reemphasis here that they chose to do that search, for whatever reason they did it before the actual hearing, right, when they were well aware that he would play such an important role and see -- and see it all out there. And they went in and searched his house and seized what they were going to seize before. So, obviously significant.

There was also testimony today, Congressman Raskin, about members of Congress who your committee found asked for pardons -- Matt Gaetz, Mo Brooks, Scott Perry, Andy Biggs, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Louie Gohmert.

Brooks admits it. He says that he did it and he did it because of concern that Democrats would have used the judicial system, right? So, asking for a pardon because you guys were going to come in and abuse the system, not because, as Congressman Kinzinger said, they did something wrong.

What's your response to that?

RASKIN: Well, they see everything through a jaundiced eye and a guilty mind. It's truly a projection of their own mental state.

But, look, it's not a crime to request a pardon in the United States of America. Nobody can be prosecuted for that. But I think if we use our common sense, if we use our Tom Painian common sense, then we would say, it does indicate some consciousness of guilt or some fear that you could be prosecuted for what you did.


BURNETT: Congressman Raskin, so much, appreciate your time. Thank you.

RASKIN: Pleasure is mine.

BURNETT: And now, I want to bring in Ryan Goodman, co-editor in chief for "Just the Security", John Dean, the former Nixon White House counsel and Watergate whistleblower, and Abby Philip, anchor of "INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY" and our senior political correspondent.

So, Ryan, you know, you heard Congressman Raskin talking about, you know, Trump and what he did told again and again and again in the specifics of the conspiracies that he brought to the acting attorney general that none of it added up in great detail and yet he continued to push them out there anyway.

Did the committee today show Trump did anything illegal?

RYAN GOODMAN, CO-EDITOR IN CHIEF, JUST THE SECURITY: So, I think they did, on two levels at least. He was presented, as you say and as Representative Raskin said, with clear and unambiguous information coming from the Justice Department, that there's no "there" there. There is nothing to any of the allegations.

So that meant that he had no evidence for his thoughts of what happened to the election, yet he still tried to interrupt the certification. That amounts to a corrupt obstruction of congressional proceedings. That's one of the main defenses that the Justice Department is pursuing.

And then the second one, could easily be trying to pressure existing officials to interfere in the election, and we saw that today, unrelenting, on a daily basis he was pressuring those officials, even at the point of telling them, I'll just replace you if you don't make a statement, if you don't send this letter out to the states to try to get them to decertify. That's what that law is actually made for.

BURNETT: All right. To say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me, after conversations where they laid out that it was not corrupt, right? So clearly directing them to go against with the facts were.

John, the former acting deputy attorney general, Richard Donohue, was a key player today and he said that during a meeting with Trump, he did methodically go through the election fraud conspiracies that the president was repeating, including that election machines in one Michigan county should an error rate of 68 percent.

So, he comes to Donoghue and he says, error rate of 68 percent, complete and total fraud. OK, conversation continues. Here's what Donoghue says.


DONOGHUE: For the ballots that were actually counted by machine, more than 15, 000, there was one error, one ballot. And I did a quick calculation and came up with 0.0063 percent error rate.

We went through is a series of others. The truck driver who claimed to have moved an entire tractor trailer of ballots from New York to Pennsylvania, that was also incorrect.

KINZINGER: Were any of the allegations he brought up credible? Did you find any of them credible?



BURNETT: And Donoghue, again, John, says he told Trump all of these debunked in detail and Trump can't pushing these conspiracies out there. I mean, it's incredible, 68 percent Trump comes and says it's a fraud. The number is 0.0063 percent. Maybe he confused the six and the eighth and forgot the 00. I mean, how significant is this, John?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I found these hearings today remarkable. I did do a flashback when I listen to this part of the conversation when I was trying to deal with Richard Nixon, who only cheated in an election, did not try to overthrow the government. But I remember well when I try to push him off the cover up and tell him all of the reasons why and then I would get feedback from him. I would tell him there were people who would commit perjury. Well, perjury is a tough rap to prove. It's those sort of silly answers.

And that's what we had today. But in spades, much, much more serious what's going on here. This is our democracy. Trump has no respect for it whatsoever. And that's what this hearing showed today.

BURNETT: Abby, the committee also revealed in the -- according to emails and witness testimony they have obtained in the over 1,000 interviews that they have done, that at least six Republican members of Congress sought preemptive pardons from Trump after the election. And now, these Republicans, they downplayed it, the January 6th, they pushed the lies out there.

But, you know, here you have Mo Brooks saying, oh, well, I did it because the Democrats would weaponize the Justice system afterwards, right? That's the reason I did, not because you asked for a pardon if you're guilty, as Adam Kinzinger said in the hearing today. How damning is the revelation of these pardons, Abby?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mea, I think that, first of all, it seems that there were a lot of conversations happening about pardons. Remember, just a few days ago, we learned that the lawyer who is advising Trump on a lot of this illegality, John Eastman, was also talking about pardons. So, there's some questions about why this idea that Trump will be doling out pardons was so pervasive in this White House?

And it seems to suggest that people had been talking about it for months, as far back as December when -- it seems that Matt Gaetz started talking about his own blanket pardon that he was seeking.


The other thing about these members is that most of them, if not all of them were in that December 21st meeting at the White House. The one that seemed to proceed Jeffrey Clark being the face of the corrupt plan to overtake the Justice Department.

So, you know, we don't know exactly what transpired in that meeting, but again if you are taking this evidence to the American public, perhaps to a jury, a lot of people would questioned why you would be seeking a pardon when you seem to be a part of a plot, a well-planned plot to do something that was obviously illegal on its face and people of the time were told was unconstitutional and illegal.

BURNETT: Right, right. And again, they also had heard every one of those theories carefully investigated and run down, and knew them to be false and kept pushing.

All of you please stay with me. Thank you and you're going to be back in just a moment because next, federal investigators did raid the home of Jeffrey Clark. What we're learning tonight about the Justice Department's investigation.

Plus, Don Lemon joins me. He just sat down with that British filmmaker, whose documentary is now part of the January 6th Select Committee investigation. What did the filmmaker tell investigators today when he spoke to them?

And the Supreme Court striking down a 100-year law, now making it easier to carry a concealed weapon in public. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)


BURNETT: New tonight, federal investigators raiding the home of former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark.

So, Clark, as I said, was really central today. He was a central focus of the hearing. He tried to use the Justice Department to overturn the election, so that, you know, former Trump -- former President Trump would win. And this comes as several members of the January 6th committee, including Congressman Raskin, who you just heard at the top of this program, say that they were caught off guard by news of the raid on Clark, which I should emphasize, right, the raid came right before the hearing. The Justice Department fully well aware about how damning this hearing was going to be for Jeffrey Clark.

Evan Perez is OUTFRONT.

So, Evan, with more you learning from this? I think you know, it is significant that congressmen like Raskin are saying they were really surprised by this.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, look, and I think the Justice Department wanted to make sure that they have kept at least members of Congress a little bit separated from what they are doing. This happened in the predawn hours, it appears that Jeffrey Clark was also surprised. He was put outside in his pajamas and the federal agents came in and did a search of his home.

Now, we do not know what they took, what exactly were the crimes that were being investigated here that prompted the raid to occur on Wednesday, but we know that it is connected to the ongoing investigation that the U.S. attorney's office here in Washington has into the efforts to overturning the election. And so, this is where -- this is what we know, this is an investigation surrounding.

Now, as you pointed, out Jeffrey Clark was at the center of this effort to overturn the election. He was willing to send a letter to Georgia, to the state of Georgia saying that the Justice Department had concerns or had indications that there was fraud, which, of course, he knew was not true. He knew that the department had investigated in Georgia and other places that found nothing to support the idea that there was widespread fraud that would've made a difference in the election. And yet, he was willing to do that, he wanted to put himself in place of Jeffrey Rosen so that he can carry out the president's bidding's.

So, now, we wait to see what next steps happen in this investigation. Obviously, there are a number of witnesses who will be very important to exactly what Jeffrey Clark was doing and, as you saw a couple of them right there in this hearing today who are going to be able to provide context of what he was up to.

BURNETT: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, to state the obvious, you don't raid someone's home with no preparation, and nothing lined up. But it doesn't happen that way.

Evan, thank you so much.

So the panel is back with me.

Okay, Ryan, how potentially significant, how monumental is this search, the predawn search of Jeffrey Clark's home?

GOODMAN: I think it's quite huge. Up into this point, we had no indication that the Justice Department was actually investigating this part of the scheme. The best indication we have is that they were investigating the alternative slate of electors at the state level.


GOODMAN: But this really does almost go right to what's Attorney General Garland said, that they would pursue accountability for anybody at any level.

He's a pretty senior person. I mean, he's ahead of the civil division in the Justice Department, and as we saw today, playing a direct role with Trump in trying to use the Justice Department to overturn the election. I mean, that's very close to Trump himself.

BURNETT: Yeah. I mean, absolutely. He and Trump were having all these conversations. Clark at, y know, first was not even telling his superiors, which is completely against the rules as a person in the Justice Department.

And, Abby, it was clear, how little respect top Justice officials had for Clark and how little influence Clark had at DOJ with people like Rosen and Donoghue and others.

Here is Donoghue describing how as Trump considered installing Clark as acting attorney general. Donoghue said it would not work, that people including the FBI director Chris Wray wouldn't even listen to Clark. Here he is.


DONOGHUE: I said at one point, if you walk into Chris Wray's office, one, would you know how to get there? And, two, if you got there, would be even know who you are? Do you really think that the FBI is going to suddenly start following your orders? It's not going to happen. He is not competent.


BURNETT: I mean, these conversations, Abby, as Donoghue described them, were incredibly contentious. It was nasty, and yet Trump was pushing Clark as hard as he could.

PHILLIP: Yeah. Look, I mean, to say that they had very little respect for Clark would be a huge understatement. They went through the dictionary of one-liners and putdowns used it on Clark to his face in meeting after meeting after meeting. And the bottom line that they wanted to convey was that he was

absolutely not qualified to hold this position. His theories were totally wacky and untrue. I think that this says a lot about the Trump environment.

I covered this president. He is one of those people who seems to always surround himself with the most mediocre of people who take advantage of Trump's willingness to listen to any possible theory. And Trump in this case almost elevated this person to the top law enforcement position in the government. They came this close.

And I think the points these lawyers were making was that it wasn't even a close call, how outlandish some of the things that Jeffrey Clark were pushing.

BURNETT: No, not even a close call. And yet, had he gotten that role, he would have told the American people that the election was corrupt and feed this.

John Dean, the fifth public hearing was today. We know it will go into July because they have a lot more evidence, as it has been described as Congressman Raskin, more that has come in. So, this is now going to go into July. How does this compared to Watergate, of which you were such a central part?

DEAN: I think these hearings have been much more professional than Watergate, frankly. They've kept them tight. They've kept them to an hour, a couple of hours, a little over.

They have marshaled their evidence. They made it very palpable for the public. Watergate went on for seven months of hearings. It was called the summer of Watergate. Those hearings ran eight hours a day.

I testified myself for five days. So, this was a very well-honed and very intelligible and easy to understand set of hearings that are going to have a powerful impact.

BURNETT: Ryan, do you anticipate charges? And if so, when?

GOODMAN: So, if I can make my best guess, I would say we would see charges coming in Fulton County, Georgia, that there in active investigation. She's already got a special grand jury, the district attorney there. And it doesn't depend on whether or not Trump thought he won the election. You can't try to threaten a secretary of state of Georgia to try to re-jigger the votes. So, I think that's quite likely.

Then, after today, both the hearing itself, the mountain of evidence that we've seen, over the month of June, and this most recent development of the Justice Department, I think it is pretty likely. I mean, they have strong evidence that they presented.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you all very much.

And next, the filmmaker behind a documentary that has become a key part of the January six investigation speaking to our Don Lemon about a part of Ivanka Trump's interview but didn't make it into the documentary. So, you'll see what she said.

Plus, the DOJ expanding its investigation into the fake Trump election scheme. Investigators are now looking at even more states.



BURNETT: Tonight, the British filmmaker behind the documentary is now a key focus for the January 6 Committee, is speaking out.

Alex Holder talking to our own Don Lemon about what he saw and heard from Donald Trump, his family, his allies, as they tried to overturn the election. Here's a clip just released from the documentary.


ANNE APPLEBAUM, JOURNALIST: They thought because people showed up to their rallies that meant that they were popular. The idea that other people might be sitting at home feeling differently about it seems not to have occurred to them. They generally thought that must be true.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: We won Georgia, we won Michigan, and we won Pennsylvania. We won them all.

IVANKA TRUMP, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: As the president has said, every single vote needs to be counted and needs to be heard. And he campaigned for the voiceless.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's interesting to see Ivanka Trump say that her father wanted every vote counted because Trump's mission in the days after the election was to stop the counting of votes.

ERIC TRUMP, SON OF FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP: The reality is people in this country were getting multiple bouts in the mail. There are thousands and thousands of people who are voting in multiple states.

EDDIE GLAUDE, JR., PRINCETON PROFESSOR: There is no evidence whatsoever that the voter fraud that they're claiming.

REPORTER: But after weeks of trying to overturn the election, his legal team has come up with nothing.

REPORTER: So far, they have lost 30 cases.

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: I would love to release all of the information I have. I would love to give it to you all, except most of you wouldn't cover it.

FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP: All the legal documents and everything else, it's not even a contest, but you still need a judge that has courage. And so far, we haven't found that judge.


BURNETT: Not judge with courage, a judge who lacked, you know, morality and respect for facts, every single one of those claims were completely rundown, right, and was false.

So, Don's interview took place just hours after Holder was deposed by the committee and turned over the red footage from the series that will be released by Discovery Plus, which is also owned by CNN's parent company. But it's crucial, right, that Holder goes in, testifies, comes out and talks to Don, and tells Don what the committee wanted to know.


DON LEMON, CNN HOST: What was the focus of their questions?

ALEX HOLDER, FILMMAKER: I think the focus was on the material that we have captured on January 6 and also on some of the interviews as well, some of the interviews that I had with the Trump family.

LEMON: What were they most interested in today? Because you spent hours and hours with the Trump family, with Trump associates, with the former president, with the former vice president. So what, what were they most interested in about the time that you spent with them?

HOLDER: I think they were interested in them talking about the election and about whether the election had any irregularities and also, their comments, if any, on January 6th.

LEMON: Did you -- was there anything, because there's a lot of, I'm sure there's a lot that was left on the editing room floor, right, because you only have a, you know, certain amount of time to put a documentary together. You don't have forever.


LEMON: Was there anything they were interested in that does not appear in the documentary?

HOLDER: Yes. So, I mean, the main one being, there's sort of a -- the first part of the Ivanka Trump's sort of reaction to her father's position on the election is in the documentary, but there's another part of it that didn't make it into the documentary, and they were interested in her entire sort of piece on that particular point.


LEMON: Uh-huh. Inconsistencies perhaps? Because she says one thing to her father. She says another thing to the committee, and perhaps something different in your documentary. Were they focused on possible inconsistencies from Ivanka Trump?

HOLDER: I think so, yes.

LEMON: How so?

HOLDER: I think they were just -- they wanted to understand exactly when that particular interview took place and how it came about. And I think they -- well, I think quite a few people think there's some sort of inconsistencies between what she said to the committee and what she said to me.


BURNETT: Don is with me now.

So, Don, we've only see a few minutes of the actual footage of the documentary itself but you got to talk to Alex Holder for about 45 minutes after he had just come from the committee.

What really stood out to you?

LEMON: I think really the access he had during this time. I mean, he had access from the election to the insurrection, to the inauguration and beyond. Just the access he got to the Trump family which was interesting. It really takes you inside their mindset and their demeanor and really I think how tone-deaf they are and just really not acting in obviously the best interest of the country but just thinking that they could, you know, have this filmmaker behind the scenes and have, you know, spout often all these lies.

And as I was watching it, you know, just now, had this epiphany. The reason they focus so much on Ivanka Trump is because she was an adviser to the president. You know, Eric is in the documentary. There are other people in the documentary.

But today, they said, he said, Holder said, they focused on Ivanka Trump a lot in her possible inconsistencies because she's an adviser to the president of the -- the former president of the United States.

BURNETT: So when you talk about those inconsistencies, you know, we saw one in the documentary clip we just played. A source familiar with the documentary says she said in mid-December 2020, that her father should keep fighting to overturn the election. That's what she was telling him and saying publicly.

But it completely contradicts what she told the committee, right, when she said she believed in Bill Barr. So, you talked to Alex about that and here's that exchange.


LEMON: I want to make sure that I get what Ivanka Trump said correctly because she changed her story a couple times. The interview took place in December. CNN is reporting that Ivanka Trump also told her father that he should, quote, fight until every legal remedy is exhausted but she's told the committee, and this was under oath, that she believed the former Attorney General Bill Barr what he said on December 1st when he said there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

So did she say one thing to the committee in the testimony, one thing to her father when she knew her father was going to see this and one thing to the documentary when she knew her father was going to see it?

HOLDER: I don't know what she said to her father, but all I know is what she said to me. And clearly, there is a difference in the position that she said to me and the position she gave to the -- to the committee.

LEMON: What did they ask you about that today?

HOLDER: I don't -- I don't go into too much detail about that.

LEMON: What -- can you give us context, or at least go into it, without specifically --

HOLDER: Oh, they just asked sort of the similar questions to what you just asked, which is when it took place, to give sort of some background as to how it took place, where it took place, and when it took place, and whether I felt there was a difference in the position.

And I just made it clear that, obviously, I can see a difference. As to what that really means outside of that is for other people to determine.

LEMON: I'll ask you again, I know you just answered, but what was your answer to them?

HOLDER: My answer is there's clearly a difference between the position that she gave to me and the position she gave to the committee.

LEMON: Do you think it was too close this?

HOLDER: I think other people would judge that themselves.


BURNETT: That's the key question, duplicitous.

LEMON: Yeah. They follow up and he believes so. I mean, she said three different things, Erin. She said that he should fight for every vote. That is in the documentary. Every legal remedy, he asked for that question, it's not in the documentary though, and then that she believed Bill Barr, what she said to the committee. So there you go.

BURNETT: Right. I mean, it's certainly, you know, at the very least, believing one thing and saying another.

LEMON: You know, it's interesting how, I think you asked me, you know, what was a big take-away, how much this guy's life has changed just over the past couple of days. He now has two armed security guards that travel around with him.

Never did he think -- he thought it might get some attention, this documentary, but he never thought he would be subpoenaed by the United States Congress and that he would have two security guards following him around now, armed security guards, and he is concerned about his safety. That's what's happened to his life just over the past couple of days.

BURNETT: Which is incredible, for something that the Trump family agreed to because they thought it was going to be, obviously, very positive for them. LEMON: Yeah.

BURNETT: All right. Don Lemon, thank you very much, I want everyone to know Don's full interview with Alex Holder is tonight at 10:00 p.m. Please join then to see.

And next, seven states that Trump lost now at the center of the Justice Department's growing investigation into the big Trump electors.

Plus, Republicans and Democrats divided over a Supreme Court ruling that makes it easier to carry guns in public.



BURNETT: Tonight, the DOJ ramping up its probe into team Trump's efforts to overturn the election with fake electors. A source telling CNN federal investigators are now examining all seven battleground states that Trump lost as the January 6th Select Committee also continues to hone in on the scheme as part of its investigation.

Sara Murray is OUTFRONT.


SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The Justice Department, escalating its criminal probe into the fake elector scheme.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For president, Donald J. Trump of the state of Florida, number of votes, 11.

MURRAY: Federal investigators are pursuing information in seven battleground states Trump lost in 2020, but where his allies put forward fake electors anyway to try to help Trump overturn the result.


MURRAY: Among those subpoenaed, Georgia Republican Party Chairman David Shafer, sources tell CNN. The elector's plot, a reoccurring theme in the House Select Committee's January 6th hearing.

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): We've seen how President Trump worked with and directed the Republican National Committee and others to organize an effort to create fake electoral slates, and later, to transmit those materially false documents to federal officials.


MURRAY: Congressional investigators laying out how the former president roped the Republican National Committee into his plans.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What did the president say when he called you? RONNA MCDANIEL, RNC CHAIRWOMAN: Essentially, he turned the call over

to Mr. Eastman who then proceeded to talk about the importance of the RNC helping the campaign gather these contingent electors.

MURRAY: All while Trump and his allies tried to convince swing state Republicans to supplant the electors for Joe Biden and make way for Trump.

In Arizona, State House Speaker Rusty Bowers testified he got calls from Trump, Attorney John Eastman, and Congressman Andy Biggs.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): And what did Mr. Biggs ask you to do?

RUSTY BOWERS (R), ARIZONA HOUSE SPEAKER: He asked if I would sign on both to a letter that had been sent from my state, and/or that I would support the decertification of the electors, and I said I would not.

MURRAY: In Pennsylvania, a barrage of calls from Trump's attorneys to State House Speaker Brian Cutler.

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER TRUMP LAWYER: Mr. Speaker, this is Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. We are calling you together because we'd like to discuss, obviously, the election.

JENNA ELLIS, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN LAWYER: Hello, Mr. Speaker. This is Jenna Ellis, and I'm here with Mayor Giuliani.

MURRAY: In Michigan, a plan allegedly flooded by a comp Trump campaign official for fake electors to hide overnight in the state capital.

LAURA COX (R), FORMER MICHIGAN GOP CHAIRWOMAN: Michigan Republican electors were planning to meet in the capitol and hide overnight so that they could fulfill the role of casting their vote. I told him in no uncertain terms that that was insane and inappropriate.

MURRAY: Officials like Bowers, Cutler, and Cox refused to go along with Team Trump's plans. But across the country, some 100 others complied, signing bogus selector slates that are now the focus of the criminal probe.

Sara Murray, CNN, Washington.


BURNETT: And OUTFRONT next, outrage in major cities like New York after the Supreme Court, today, makes it easier to carry concealed weapons in public in America.



BURNETT: Tonight, President Biden slamming the Supreme Court's decision today to overturn a 108-year-old New York gun law that severely restricted licenses to carry concealed weapons. The president, calling it a, quote, bad decision, saying it contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble everyone.

Jason Carroll is OUTFRONT.


MAYOR ERIC ADAMS (D), NEW YORK CITY: On a scale of one to 10, it's very close to a 10.

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): New York's mayor dealt a bitter blow when he says will make the city less safe, the streets more dangerous.

ADAMS: Today's Supreme Court decision may have opened an additional river that is going to feed the sea of gun violence in our city and in our nation.

CARROLL: At issue, a century-old state law which gave local officials the power to require anyone applying for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public show proper cause, reasons like a special need for self-defense or not enough. The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, along with two other petitioners, argued having to show proper cause is unconstitutional. The conservative-leaning court agreed, voting 6-3.

Justice Clarence Thomas offered the following opinion. New York's proper cause requirement violates the 14th Amendment by preventing law- abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.

GOV. KATHY HOCHUL (D), NEW YORK: We did not need people entering our subways, our restaurants, our movie theaters with concealed weapons. We don't need more guns on our streets. We are already dealing with a major gun violence crisis. We don't need to add more fuel to this fire.

CARROLL: The decision sure to have implications in at least five other states with similar proper cause requirements, including California, Maryland, and New Jersey. The NRA called what happened a major victory for gun rights advocates, tweeting, today's ruling is a watershed win for good men and women all across America. The right to self-defense and to defend your family and loved ones should not end at your home.

Governor Tate Reeves of Mississippi agreed, tweeting, the Supreme Court has recognized what Mississippi has known all along, that individuals have a right to carry a handgun for self- defense outside the home.

The decision still allows the state to ban guns in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. Legal experts say it's now likely lawmakers will try to expand that to include other areas such as subways, and will try to throw up other roadblocks to obtaining concealed carry permits, now that having to prove proper cause is unconstitutional in the state. WARREN ELLER, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT, JOHN JAY COLLEGE

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: And what that means is that the state now has to come up with a new process, and it has to implement that permanent process. And that alone will take months.


BURNETT: I mean, it's pretty incredible, the implications of this, but it sounds like the Supreme Court's left the sort of -- well, maybe you could bend concealed weapons in certain places. So, somewhat, like you're going to ban it in a park, and what are they going to do, surround the perimeter?

CARROLL: Well, it's a good question. And I think Justice Thomas was writing about that in his opinion, where he also warned the state that expanding the category of sensitive places you want them don't get too broad. He said, quote, there was no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a sensitive place, simply because it's crowded.

So, there's a question mark there. If you can try to ban guns in a place like Central Park or Times Square, Madison Square Park, whatever the case may be.

BURNETT: Right. Yeah. You can't even enforce such a thing. It is -- it is incredible. As you talk about gun legislation, passing, as limited as it may have been, then you've got this message change.

CARROLL: Bottom line here, more guns will be on the streets legally. Gun advocates say because what happened.

BURNETT: All right. Jason Carroll, thank you very much.

And thanks for joining us.

"AC360" starts now.