I'm joined
now by CNN senior
legal analyst and former assistant U.S.
attorney Elie Hoenig,
author of Untouchable
How Powerful People Get Away With It.
Also with us,
CNN senior law enforcement
analyst and former FBI deputy
director Andrew McCabe.
Andy, let me just start with you.
How nervous should Donald Trump
be that Mike Pence
was being questioned for 5 hours
before a grand jury today?
What about that testimony
could concern him?
In a word, John, very, very nervous.
Right?
So and we know that
because Donald Trump made
significant efforts
to try to block
that testimony
by, again, raising
claims of executive privilege,
which failed.
So the significance of the Pence
testimony can't really be overstated.
As we know
from the work of the January
six committee,
there were numerous lines
of potential criminal conspiracies
that the committee looked into.
But two of them involved
putting pressure on
Mike Pence, one to pressure Pence to
to refuse to certify the election at all.
And the second line of attack
was to pressure Pence
to delay the certification
of the election.
We know that there were meetings
about those topics
between Pence and Trump on January 4th.
On January 5th,
and then, of course, the infamous,
outraged phone call from Trump to Pence
on the morning of January 6th.
Mike Pence has likely provided
intricate, direct first person
testimony
about the substance
of those conversations.
And after relating the substance
of the conversations,
the prosecutors can ask him things like,
how did that make you feel?
Did you feel pressured
to do what the president was telling you?
So it really wraps up
those moments
in a way that no other witness can.
So it's potential
testimony.
So loyalty a counselor.
Take that one step further.
If he was asked questions
about those conversations,
what answers about those conversations
might be problematic for Donald Trump?
So Mike Pence is a crucial witness here
as a prosecutor
You absolutely have
to have his testimony.
For better or for worse.
And this is why I think prosecutors
are willing to go into the courts
and fight and win to get his testimony.
I would absolutely focus on exactly
what Andy just pointed out.
Especially the one on one conversations
between Mike Pence and Donald Trump.
And let's keep in mind,
there's no other witnesses
to these conversations.
Donald Trump
is not going to be going
into the grand jury.
They're not going to subpoena him.
He's not going into the grand jury.
So it's really all on Pence's own
recollection and testimony about it.
And I do have some questions about,
frankly, just how forthcoming he will be.
There's no tape of these conversations
that we know of to keep him in check.
And if we look at his public stance
about Donald Trump on January six,
Pence has not been willing
to forcefully condemn Donald Trump.
He's given us this wishy washy stuff
we don't see eye to eye.
And so I think as a prosecutor,
I'd be very wary of that
when he's written
about the conversations in his book.
So what more could be revealed?
Well, so a lot more,
because when a person
when Mike Pence is writing a book,
he gets to decide
how much he puts in there,
how far he wants to go.
If I was a prosecutor,
I would absolutely read that book
with a big yellow highlighter in my hand.
And I would use everything he says
in that book as a starting point,
I would say.
Okay,
you tell us this detail
about the conversations,
but how long was that conversation
40 minutes. 20 minutes.
Tell me everything.
So the book's valuable to prosecutors,
but they need to go way deeper.
You know, Andy, you've been involved
in a lot of investigations,
generally speaking.
And I've learned this from
people like you in
L.A., holding
when you do an investigation,
you work your way up the food
chain, as it were.
There's really no one
higher on the food chain
than Mike Pence here
in terms of their job status.
I'm not sure
whether in terms of what role
they played in possible crimes here.
That's the case.
But does this indicate
that Jack Smith may be close to done
I think
I think it does
indicate that they're
they're clearly towards
the end of their investigation.
How much is left? That's hard to say.
Pence is certainly,
as you say, at the top of the food chain,
although I want to be clear,
I don't I would
I would really doubt
that Pence is being looked
at as a target of this particular
because he's he's pretty pretty fully
in the witness category.
The one other person
that I would say, John,
who is really the
the remaining outlier here
that we're wondering
yet or when he will,
is Mark Meadows and Meadows.
You know,
we could sit around and argue all night
as to who could be
the more significant witness
Pence or Meadows.
There's good arguments on both sides.
Bottom line is, I'm sure
Jack Smith wants to get Meadows
in front of that grand jury.
He won a motion in front of the court
a week or so ago.
That would
that that blew out
some of the obstacles
to getting meadows in there.
So I think that's
probably the last really big one
that we're aware of that
that should be happening soon.
So, Ellie,
there were some parameters here
that a federal judge had stipulated
before Mike Pence testified
he had to testify
about his conversations,
but he theoretically
still has some protections
because of the speech or debate clause.
You are a constitutional scholar
or debate clause
so how would that work
during these 5 hours potentially?
So Mike Pence did win himself
a narrow victory
before he testified,
which is that
he does not have to testify
under that speech or debate clause.
About his role
as the president of the Senate
when he was vice president.
So the way I think that would work
is basically
if he is asked a question
that he thinks falls
under that he can say,
I believe unprotected here
by speech or debate.
If prosecutors disagree,
they can then take it to a judge and say,
force him to answer this.
So we'll learn,
I believe,
in the next couple of days
whether he tried to invoke that
also just picking up on a point
Andy made.
Jack Smith deserves credit here
because he has aimed right
at the top of the power
structure in stark contrast
to Merrick Garland,
who never went anywhere near
subpoenaing and fighting for testimony
from people like Mark Meadows,
never mind the vice president.
And as a result of Jack Smith's
much more aggressive approach,
I think we're seeing this investigation
proceed much more
much more quickly, much more aggressively
in a much more directed way.
Ellie Hardy,
Andy McCabe,
thank you
both so much for being with us tonight.
Perspective now from someone who served
as the former president's
White House communications director.
CNN political commentator
Alyssa Farah Griffin.
You also served as press secretary
for Mike Pence when he was vice
president, United States.
So he's someone you know
well inside the Republican primary
electric electorate right now.
How does today's
testimony change a view of Mike Pence
or do you think that was already set
because of what happened on January 6th?
I think the narrative was already set.
If somebody you know,
the wing of the party
that showed up on January 6th,
that still thinks the election
election was stolen
and that Vice President Pence
had the right to overturn the election.
They're never going to be in his camp.
What Vice
President Pence would be very wise to do
when he's a very savvy political figure?
I think he's he, in
my view, has a real opportunity
if he does end up getting into the race
is play to the rest of the party.
Most of us
don't think January six was a good thing.
We may like the Trump policies
or some of them,
but we don't want Trump the character.
And that's the lane he needs to run it.
If he tries to cater to that vote, he's
going to lose.
But there is a much broader
coalition of Republicans
who would like to see
a different direction.
I'm going to ask you about another person
Andy McKay brought up, another person
who you know well.
You're sort of like the Zelig figure
here, Mark Meadows,
the former chief of staff.
Andy suggested
maybe Mark Meadows is a key figure
in this investigation.
What importance
do you think he might have
if he were to get before a grand jury?
I would argue
he's probably the most important figure
other than the president,
who you're never going to get under oath.
He was intimately involved
in the deliberations around
challenging the election results,
whether it was
bringing in different people,
promoting conspiracies
to have an audience
with the former president,
whether it was
coordinating with members of Congress
about challenging the election results.
He's going to fight it tooth and nail.
Just just candidly, you know,
somebody who previously advised him
this is not a good story
for him to tell,
whereas Mike Pence is an honest person
who's going to do what he needs to do
in the eyes of the Justice Department.
I don't know where this goes.
We heard a lot about Mark Meadows
during the congressional investigation.
Kathy Hutchinson,
among others, suggesting Mark Meadows
knew a lot and saw a lot.
So he may have a big story to tell.
I will say and I'm the lawyer,
but one is still sitting
close to me over here.
Mark Meadows
maybe someone who has his own
legal liability here
where Mike Pence did not. Well, exactly.
Mike Pence very much
would be a witness in this.
And I think the most
illuminating conversations
he could shed
light on are ones
that are directly between
he and the former president.
Marc Short,
his former
chief of staff, has already testified.
I think a lot of the conversations
that involved groups
are already something
that the Department of Justice
has had for months.
But these are the intimate,
you know, phone calls
that might have taken place,
last minute conversations,
Meadows, that completely different
figure in this.
And I think he's somebody
with a lot of legal.
I know it
since he is still standing next to me.
Let me let me ask.
Kelly Hoenig,
CNN senior legal
analyst Mark Meadows,
as a possible witness
here,
could he be compelled to testify
or does
he have too much at stake legally?
Oh, he can absolutely be
compelled to testify.
Now, if Mark Meadows gets in that chair,
I think is right.
He may take the Fifth because unlike
Mike Pence,
he has legitimate
potential jeopardy here.
If he takes the Fifth,
then that raises an interesting conundrum
for prosecutors because the countermove.
Now, if you're the prosecutors,
you can immunize.
Mark Meadows, meaning
we're not going to charge you.
We're not going to use
your testimony against you.
But now you have to testify.
Now, that's a strategic decision.
But I agree with Alyssa and Andy McCabe.
I think he's the most important
single witness.
If I was in the prosecutor's chair,
I would immunize Meadows
because you need him
to get the whole story.
All right.
Elizabeth Griffin Mahoney,
thank you guys for that.
Illuminating, as always.