>>> WELCOME BACK.
THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE SAID
THEIR STRONGEST STATEMENT
YESTERDAY THAT THEY COULD REFER
DONALD TRUMP TO THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT.
THEY FILED IN A HEARING LAST
NIGHT THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH OF A
LEGAL BASIS FOR A COURT TO TAKE
THEM SERIOUSLY THAT TRUMP AND
HIS ASSOCIATES ENGAGED IN
CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES.
THIS IS HOW THEY LAID IT OUT.
THE FILING ITSELF IS AN ATTEMPT
BY THE COMMITTEE TO FORCE A
LAWYER FOR TRUMP, THE INFAMOUS
TRUMP, TO TURN OVER DOCUMENTS
THAT HE WROTE THEY HAD THE PROOF
TO TURN OVER THE ELECTION, AND
SINCE THEIR EVIDENCE POINTS TO
CRIMINAL ACTS, EASEMAN CANNOT
INVOKE PRIVILEGE TO KEEP THE
DOCUMENTS OUT OF THEIR HANDS.
JOINING ME NOW IS A FORMER U.S.
ATTORNEY AND MSNBC LEGAL
ANALYST.
CAROL, FIRST IN THIS COURT
FILING, IF THE COURT FINDS THE
COMMITTEE IS CORRECT AND A CRIME
MAY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, THEN
WHAT?
>> YEAH, SO CHUCK, THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF ARGUMENTS THAT THE
JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE MAKES TO
THIS JUDGE, AND AGAIN IT'S
IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE
CONTEXT HERE.
THIS IS NOT A FINAL REPORT BY
THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE, BUT
IT IS A LEGAL BRIEF THAT THEY
FILED IN THE CALIFORNIA FEDERAL
COURT ARGUING THAT THESE MANY,
MANY DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAS
DECLINED OR REFUSED TO PRODUCE
SHOULD BE PRODUCED AND THERE ARE
A COUPLE INTERESTING ARGUMENTS.
ONE, AS YOU DESCRIBED IS THE
ARGUMENT THAT THESE FALL UNDER
WHAT WE CALL THE CRIME/FRAUD
EXCEPTION TO ATTORNEY KHRAOEUPBL
PRIVILEGE, WHICH IS YOU CAN'T
COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR CLIENT
EVEN IF THE PRESIDENT WAS HIS
CLIENT AND YOU CAN'T COMMUNICATE
WITH YOUR CLIENT IN A WAY THAT
FURTHERS A CRIME OR A FRAUD, AND
THAT'S ONE WAY THE JANUARY 6th
COMMITTEE SAYS YOU SHOULD
PRODUCE THESE DOCUMENTS.
THE OTHER ONE IS AN EASY
DOCUMENT THAT THESE E-MAILS WERE
ALL DONE ON THE CHAT UNIVERSITY
E-MAIL SYSTEM AND IT'S CLEAR
THAT THESE ARE NOT PRIVATE
COMMUNICATIONS AND THEY SHOULD
BE PRODUCED.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ARGUMENTS
THAT THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE
MAKES THAT COULD BE PERSUASIVE
TO THIS JUDGE.
IF THE JUDGE FINDS THAT THESE
ARE GOOD ARGUMENTS, PARTICULARLY
THE CRIME FRAUD EXCEPTION,
THAT'S JUST ONE STEP BECAUSE
WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS ASKING
THAT THE JUDGE TAKE A LOOK AT
THESE 11,000 DOCUMENTS AND
DETERMINE WHICH ONES DO FALL
UNDER THE CRIME FRAUD ABGEXCEPTI
IT'S JUST ONE STEP ALONG THE WAY
AND IT'S THE MIDST OF THE
COMMITTEE'S INVESTIGATION, AND
IT DOES SHOW WHAT THEY BELIEVE
THE EVIDENCE IS POINTING TO AT
THIS POINT.
>> I AM CURIOUS, I ASSUME THAT
MANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
ATTEMPTED TO DO THIS WITH MOB
ATTORNEYS.
WHAT IS THE SUCCESS RATE OF
BEING ABLE TO SORT OF OVERCOME A
CURRENT ATTORNEY/CLIENT
PRIVILEGE CLAIM BY SAYING THIS
ATTORNEY MAY HAVE HELPED
FACILITY A CRIME?
>> THE CRIME FRAUD ABGEXCEPTION
AN EXCEPTION TO THE
ATTORNEY/CLIENTATTORNEY
CLIENT PRIVILEGE, AND I HAVE
USED IT, BECAUSE AN ATTORNEY
CANNOT HIDE BEHIND THAT
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE IF
THEY ARE PART AND PARCEL OF A
CRIME.
THE GOAL OF THE COMMITTEE IS TO
CONVINCE A JUDGE THIS IS A CRIME
AND NOT A LAWYER ADVISING HIS
CLIENTS.
CERTAINLY THE OPTICS, HE'S
INVOKED THE 5th AMENDMENT TO
TESTIFY AND REFUSING TO TESTIFY
FOR THAT REASON IT'S NOT GOOD
OPTICS FOR HIM IN THIS CONTEXT.
>> NOW THE BAR IS PRETTY LOW --
YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVE THAT A
CRIME WAS COMMITTED, YOU ONLY
HAVE TO PROVE THAT A CRIME MAY
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED, RIGHT?
THERE'S -- IT'S A LOWER LEVEL
THAN PERHAPS WHAT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT MAY HAVE TO DEAL WITH
IN DECIDING WHETHER THERE WERE
CRIMES COMMITTED BY THESE FOLKS?
>> THAT IS THAT A REALLY GOOD
POINT.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE CRIMINAL
STAND
STANDARD OF BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT, BUT THE JUDGE HAS TO
BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SIMPLY
ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CLEAR THE BAR
OF BELIEVING THAT THERE'S A
CRIME.
AND IS IT A LITTLE MORE
DIFFICULT HERE.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALL
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
IT'S NOT -- YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT
LIKE A DRUG CRIME OR A MURDER
WHERE IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, YOU
KNOW, AND THERE ARE STILL
ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT.
WHAT THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE
IS TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS GET
THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THEY HAVE A
COUPLE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE GOOD
FOR GETTING THE DOCUMENTS EVEN
ASIDE FROM THE CRIME FRAUD
EXCEPTION.
BUT YOU ARE RIGHT, IF A JUDGE
SAYS YES, I DO BELIEVE THE
JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE PRODUCED
ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO CLEAR THE BAR
THAT IT LOOKS LIKE A CRIME MAY
HAVE BEEN COMMITTED HERE, IS
THAT NOT DISPOSITIVE IN ANY WAY
OF WHETHER OR NOT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT WOULD DECIDE IF IT
SHOULD BRING A CASE.
>> YOU ARE A FORMER U.S.
ATTORNEY.
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO TAKE THIS
CASE TO MERRICK GARLAND AND ASK
HIM TO GO?
>> I WAS A FRAUD PROSECUTOR AND
WE TEND TO BE A PRETTY CAUTIOUS
BUNCH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
ALL OF THOSE DOCUMENTS OR AS
MANY AS I COULD BEFORE I MADE