>>> A Pennsylvania congressman
who tried to help Donald Trump
overturn the 2020 election.
Republican Scott Perry has been
fighting to keep his cell phone
data from D.O.J. Investigators
since it was confiscated by the
FBI last year.
Court papers released last night
say the phone data shows Perry
was, quote, proactive and
persistent in contacting the
executive branch after the
election and that he was in
regular contact with then
president trump and his powerful
supporters, including white
house chief of staff mark
meadows.
Ellie Hoenig joins us from the
southern district of New York.
"Untouchable, how powerful
people get away from it, author
of that book.
Congressman Perry has been
embroiled in a legal battle for
months.
How damning is this?
>> Scott Perry tends to fly
under the radar like Kevin
Mccarthy, like Jim Jordan who
were part of the effort to
overturn the election.
Scott Perry was even more
integral as this judge found.
Perry mostly lost his legal
argument here.
He was using something called
the speech or debate clause
which basically says members of
congress cannot be subpoenaed,
but only about their legislative
work.
The judge basically said, the
vast majority of what was in
Scott Perry's phone does not
qualify for protection.
A very small slice does.
He's going to have that
information available to
investigators.
He's going to have to answer
questions.
>> Fascinating.
Let's turn to Georgia because, I
mean, as you and I have talked
about so many times, this is the
case that worries some of the
trump folks on that team.
A judge who oversaw the Georgia
grand jury investigating efforts
by trump and his allies to
overturn the 2020 election is
clarifying what jurors can and
cannot say.
Not surprisingly, the judge said
they cannot discuss
deliberations but they're free
to talk about the final report.
This comes after the foreperson,
and I know you talked about this
earlier this past week, went on
this media blitz and said all
sorts of things.
Let's listen to that and refresh
our memory on that.
>> We definitely heard a lot
about former president trump and
we definitely discussed him a
lot in the room and I will say
that when this list comes out
there are no major plot twists
waiting for you.
>> Now, Eli, I know you're
wincing over this and lots of
other folks were uncomfortable
with what this foreperson was
saying, and that she was out
there, maybe enjoying it a
little too much.
Your sense of it after digesting
this for a few days.
And, I mean, what do you make of
some of trump's attorneys just
sort of, you know, almost the
sky is falling acting as though
this just blows to smitherines
the whole case?
Isn't that stretching things as
well?
>> I do think that is a stretch.
It does not destroy the whole
case.
It's bad for prosecutors.
It's an unnecessary headache for
prosecutors.
It's going to result in a meegs
to dismiss if if there's ever an
indictment.
Why have to deal with this as
prosecutors.
The judge clarified correctly
that the flashpoint here is
whether this grand juror got
into, quote, deliberations.
The judge actually passed when
asked do you think she crossed
that line.
He said, well, that's not for
me.
It's a close call.
Just in that clip we heard the
grand juror say we talked about
him in the grand jury room,
meaning Donald Trump.
Well, one could interpret that
as deliberations.
What is the grand jury talking
about?
She also mentioned certain other
specific witnesses by name.
She told us what the grand jury
made of them.
She said, for example, we found
Cassidy Hutchinson credible.
We found mark meadows less
credible.
The argument is going to be that
that crossed the line into
talking about deliberations.
That said, Jim, it's important
to keep in mind, she's part of a
special grand jury.
This is not the grand jury that
can indict.
They're proceed video --
providing information.
>> There would have to be a
grand jury to decide a case.
If the former president were
indicted the jury would decide
that case, not this jury, that
jury.
>>> Buttoning up the box of
documents that turned up at
mar-a-lago.
Your sense of that latest
development?
The department of justice wants
to know how these -- how this
other box just turned up after
these other searches.
>> Yeah, two big questions.
How did it get away from
mar-a-lago while the search was
happening and then find its way
back after.
The other thing that jumped out
to me is we know some aide was
uploading those classified
materials to a computer or
laptop.
If I'm a prosecutor, who gave
the idea to do that?
Who gave the instruction to do
that?
Why?
What was done with those
documents?