Sometimes a little too
overzealous and have to know and
respect the boundaries.
>>> Tomorrow, the house select
committee will use its final
vote.
Over the past 17 months the
panel has interviewed hundreds
of witnesses and held nearly a
dozen hearings.
Investigating trump's efforts to
overturn the 2020 election and
his role in inciting the capitol
riot.
On Monday they are expected to
refer at least three criminal
charges against trump.
Zach Cohen joining us now.
Good to see you again.
The committee meeting tomorrow.
Lay out the plan.
What can we all expect?
>> Reporter: Fredricka, tomorrow
is the grand finale for a
committee that has spent the
last 17 months investigating the
January 6 insurrection and
Donald Trump's efforts to
overturn the 2020 election.
This has been unprecedented both
in scope and in scale.
Part of the message will be the
former president committed
crimes.
We know the committee, sources
are telling us, are considering
at least three criminal
referrals related to former
president trump, conspiracy to
defraud the federal government
and, most notably, insurrection.
The last one is interesting.
That would be an unprecedented
statute to lean on as a
congressional body but we're
going to hear more about that
tomorrow as the committee runs
through its evidence and runs
through statute by statute why
it believes the former president
committed crimes.
>> And congressman Adam Schiff
was on "State of the union."
What did he say?
>> Adam Schiff believes Donald
Trump violated multiple laws in
his attempts to overturn the
2020 election.
Take a listen to what he told
our colleague, Jake tapper, this
morning.
>> As a former prosecutor I
think there is sufficient
evidence to charge the
president.
>> To get a conviction, though?
>> I don't know what the justice
department has.
The evidence seems plain to me.
Tried to find votes that didn't
exist.
Insighted a mob to attack the
capitol.
If that's not criminal, then I
don't know what is.
>> Reporter: Congressman Schiff
was asked about that
insurrection stat you'd.
He seemed to think Donald
Trump's actions lined up pretty
well with what the statute says
you can incite violence or
render aid to those who did.
>> With these referrals, what
kind of impact are we expecting
they may or may not make on the
doj investigations?
>> Reporter: The referrals
themselves are largely symbolic.
It's not a prosecutorial entity.
At the same time we've heard
over and over again from these
members as the investigation
went on that they had to say
something because they believe
more than ever Donald Trump
committed crimes and for the
historical record even to be on
record saying this is what we
believe is the significance of
what we are supposed to hear.
>> Thank you, Zach Cohen, in
Washington.
>>> Let's talk about this with
John Dean.
Based on what you have heard
from these hearings, do you
believe the committee has made
the case former president trump
should be charged with one or
more crimes?
>> I think they've made an
overwhelming case, Fredricka.
I think they have much more
evidence than we know.
We know from the ten hearings
what they have laid out.
They have cited criminal
statutes along the way.
Liz Cheney read from a statute
and showed how they had
evidence.
But the report they are planning
to report later in the week will
be highlighted tomorrow.
They may release an executive
summary tomorrow.
It's a big day, an important
day, a historic day.
The water committee didn't
venture this far when they
investigated Richard Nixon.
>> What will the statement be if
after 17 months a dozen
witnesses and thousands of
documents no charges are filed
by the doj?
>> That would be surprising.
They don't do that lightly.
The department is very proud and
they can say no as well as a
special prosecutor.
They have somebody who is
trained and able to prosecute
these cases and I think even if
they didn't do trump there are
certainliment others.
I think they will include trump,
and that's a unique problem in
our system.
We have not prosecuted a former
president.
There's political fallout from
that.
There are practical fallouts
from that and there are legal
fallouts from it.
>> And will those legal
fallouts, the political
fallouts, could that kind of
overwhelm the importance of
proceeding?
Might it outweigh or allow for
any real reticence to move
forward on prosecuting a former
president?
>> I think they'll make
decisions along the way that,
you know, there's a very real
possibility his violation of
national security laws in
protecting documents that he
took with him could come before
the department has to make a
decision on January 6 and
participation in the
insurrection.
He's already been impeached for
that.
The public is already aware of
what he did and how he did it.
He may well be facing an
indictment even before the
recommendations of the committee
this week come to play.
It's a very complex and very
interesting and historic event.
>> It is.
During the watergate hearings as
you just said, president Nixon
faced impeachment charges and a
federal grand jury was prepared
to indict him for his role in
the watergate scandal, but he
resigned and was pardoned so he
was never charged.
For trump , he has already
announced that he is running for
president, again, 2024.
Isn't he already sending the
message that he thinks he will
escape indictments?
>> It's hard to read his run for
president as anything other than
a defense that would cast the
effort to prosecute him in a
very political light.
That's the way he can attract
attention to his base this is
just a witch-hunt.
They don't want me to win the
presidency again.
I don't think he will win the
presidency again.
I'm not even sure he will win
the nomination again.
This gives him cover, political
cover, which in a court of law
should make no difference.
>> In your view, are these
findings, whatever the report
might say and the potential doj
next moves all less about former
president trump and more about
protecting the sanctity of the
U.S. Presidency and democracy?
>> I think it's very much about
our democracy and not having our
presidents abuse their power and
use it to somehow corrupt the
election process.
I think the president has to be
called on this, and it would be