DOJ Reveals Investigations, Prosecutions In Request For January 6th Interview Transcripts

[0:00] While today's hearing was underway, we also got an interesting reminder that in addition to this [0:05] congressional investigation, the Justice Department is also doing its own investigation of some kind [0:10] related to January 6th, beyond the 800-plus people who have been indicted thus far for crimes related [0:18] to the actual physical attack on the Capitol. Right in the middle of the hearing today, we got [0:22] news via a federal court filing in D.C. that the Justice Department wants interview transcripts [0:27] from all the depositions that the investigation has done. That's over a thousand different [0:32] interviews. They want full transcripts of all of them. This is that letter from the Justice [0:36] Department to the January 6th investigation. It says in part, quote, the interviews are not just [0:41] potentially relevant to our overall criminal investigations, they're likely relevant to [0:46] specific prosecutions that have already commenced. It's critical that the January 6th investigation [0:51] provide us copies of the transcripts of all of its witness interviews. The Justice Department [0:57] today saying that the January 6th investigation, at least to this point, has refused to hand over [1:02] those deposition transcripts, but they want them. Ari, let me go to you first on this. [1:07] Why would the January 6th investigators not have given them to the Justice Department already? [1:11] There's not a good reason that's been publicly supplied. They may feel that they're on a roll [1:16] and they want to finish up their work and then do it all in one cohesive way at the end. [1:20] But this is good, solid evidence. There are open prosecutions, as mentioned. What was [1:26] interesting about the letter is they're dialing up the pressure by not just saying we generally need [1:30] this, which is true, but we have a timeline where we have to do these prosecutions. We need it for [1:36] them. And in fairness to defendants, some of this may be material they are obligated to pass over, [1:42] exculpatory Brady material. So in every way, it should go there soon. [1:46] And they're sort of implicitly raising the prospect that by not handing over the transcripts, [1:50] they could be jeopardizing some of the prosecutions. Yes. [1:53] Could it be that there's a worry that it's precedential? Because if, in fact, [1:57] Republicans take over the House of Representatives, they've already said what [1:59] they're going to do, right? They're going to try to launch investigations against Adam Schiff. [2:03] Redo Benghazi, etc. And they're thinking if you set the precedent that you're conducting investigations [2:09] and sharing with DOJ. I mean, it's sort of a political theory as to why they wouldn't do it, [2:14] but they do know what's coming. But as a precedent, that's only scary if DOJ is going to misuse it, [2:19] right? I mean, everything that DOJ does gets tested in court in the end to a greater or lesser [2:24] extent. Congresswoman Murphy, the letter came out a little bit before she was on my show today, [2:30] and she said, we don't have any plan of refusing the request. We're simply in the middle of our [2:36] investigation. I don't think the committee is making an argument, at least yet, that this is their [2:42] material that was shared. Their point is we're in the middle. And there's evidence that they are in [2:46] the middle. On Pat Cipollone, that's one of the things that's very live and active. And my [2:49] understanding of the negotiations with Cipollone were that what he offered the committee was to [2:53] come and testify very, very narrowly to incidents and interactions around Jeffrey Clark and the coup [3:00] plot at DOJ. But as we know from Sean Hannity, of all people, he threatened to quit. As we know from [3:07] Jared Kushner's testimony, he threatened to quit. So he's been invoked by other pieces of evidence [3:14] and witnesses that have already been entered in far beyond the Jeffrey Clark coup. But he doesn't [3:17] want to talk about any advice he might have given the president, any conversations he had with the [3:21] president. He wants to only talk about other people. He doesn't want to talk about anything [3:24] other than the DOJ coup plot, is my understanding. And that's why negotiations for Cipollone's testimony [3:28] have fallen apart. And just to make a smaller point, there is no Fifth Amendment privilege [3:33] against talking to Congress. It's only against being indicted, prosecuted for what you say [3:40] to assert that. So then why does Eastman invoke the Fifth Amendment when he's talking to Congress? [3:47] They can't indict him. Exactly. Because he has the reasonable and foreseeable expectation. Yes. [3:52] Things he would say they're under oath will end up at the DOJ. And we have every reason to believe, [3:57] to Nicole's point, that eventually it will. So I would just note that it is possible that they just [4:02] want a little more time. And governments, different parts of the government do that from [4:05] time to time. But it is only because everyone understands how smoking gun evidence some of [4:11] this is, that prosecutors not only will have access to it, but have probably a good legal reason to get [4:16] access to it. I would just say, I think one leading candidate for what's going on here, [4:21] the sort of boring human reason, is that this committee is like, it's a little, there's a little bit [4:26] of a duck situation where like, they're calm and cool on the surface, but like, they're clearly [4:30] churning underneath. Like, we had the delay of the hearing, you know, they, they had to put together [4:35] like, clearly a bunch of stuff was not the way they intended to be. Today was very choppy. [4:38] And I think they're, again, I think they're doing a really good job so far. And they've done a very [4:42] good job. I think all the, you know, the, the, even just the sort of televisual aspects of it. [4:46] But I just get the sense that like, their bandwidth and capacity is like at 99%. So turning over, [4:53] you know, it may just be, they're not prioritizing. [4:55] Chris Hayes making the fair point that they don't want to send a letter back that says we're really [4:59] overwhelmed. Right. Exactly. But they do have a huge staff. They have a professional staff. [5:03] Their staff involves lots of people who are like former U.S. attorneys. It's a heavyweight group [5:07] of people. But my sense is also that they have a position. Why weren't you investigating him [5:11] before we were? Yeah. Right. So, I mean, I think their other thing is that they've done the work. [5:15] And I think, I think Liz Cheney has very publicly read the statutes. She thinks Donald Trump [5:19] should be under criminal investigation. There are judges who've said that he likely did. [5:21] So, I think there, and I don't know this, I don't have any reporting on this front, [5:25] but I think there's also a sense of, go to your own investigation. [5:28] Do your own work. There's clearly some beef there. [5:31] I don't know. I don't know if I'd go to beef, but I, you know. [5:34] I think we now have multiple public, multiple sort of like glimpses of the iceberg above the water [5:41] of some, some tension.