>> The Justice Department that had their first big win this
week in their case against 11 militia. Phillies of the oath
keepers Joshua James became the first defendant to plead guilty
to the sedition charges or Swedish unrelated charges to be
more specific in connection with the storming of the
Capitol on January, the 6th as part of his plea James agreed
to cooperate with federal investigators which includes
testifying in front of a grand jury and while we don't know
what he'll say we already know at least one of the locations
he was on January, the 6th leading up to the insurrection
at the Willard hotel with Trump's longest serving
political adviser, Roger stone now new video evidence from a
documentary crew following stones moving around the past 2
years actually show James in stone sweet just a few hours
before the attack, according to the Washington Post which
reviewed footage from the film. Now in the same hotel other
rooms were being used as command centers by none other
than Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman the lawyer behind that
shady an infamous and shot the legal claim that the vice
president Mike pence could block the electoral vote count.
So how does this all fit into the investigation by the House
January 6 committee. Well for one, we know that the panel is
alleging in a new court filing the Trump and key allies
engaged in potential crimes during their effort to overturn
the election that finally is part of an attempt to convince
a California judge to allow the committee access to emails from
John Eastman who is currently claiming attorney client crop
client privilege excuse me. It's the clearest indication
yet that the panel's 8 month investigation could be leading
the criminal referrals. For Donald Trump and while all of
this is great and working towards holding Trump and his
allies accountable for the insurrection I have to ask why
is this all falling in the House committee. Where's the
judge Justice Department all this the DOJ has never said
whether it is exploring criminal prosecution of Trump
attorney general Merrick Garland vowed to pursue
wrongdoing at quote any level. So my question is why not
appoint a special prosecutor we've certainly done it before
need I remind you of John Durham Robert Mueller or Ken
Starr for crying out loud and her case is far less severe
than a deadly. Insurrection are you going to tell me that white
water and it's real estate venture issues is more
important to investigate in a systematic effort to overturn
our election.
Give me a break.
Joining me now is David Zavala CBC news and MSNBC legal
analyst Danny, set me straight here where is the Department of
Justice why have they not created a task force as quickly
as they created a task force to investigate Russian oligarchs
just after the war with Ukraine broke out.
Where's the task force is looking into who overthrew the
torch at 10 to 2 over the election.
>> This is just speculation, but in all likelihood, Merrick
Garland and the DOJ just don't want that kind of trouble and
I'll tell you what I mean the DOJ likes to win cases they win
over 95% of the cases that result in convictions and those
that go to trial 90 plus percent of them result. In
convictions as well so.
>> In a case like this consider that you're talking about going
after the former president for activity that was going on
while he was president and.
>> You're going to deal with major First Amendment issues in
the form of political speech and other things so if on
Merrick Garland, I'm probably a little risk averse I'm a very
successful person I got where I am by being smart and
political. I'm going to sit back and wait for Congress to
unearth anything good and to see and if it's worthwhile then
I can swoop in no risk and prosecute whoever needs to be
prosecuted, but if I Eric Garland I'd be sitting back to
I would not be at just I would not be at the vanguard of the
prosecution I would be playing it safe.
>> Okay, and then you have Roger stone who has refused to
give testimony and evidence to the House and yet he had this
film crew following him
on and around January the 6 how do you see these new videos
playing into this investigation at all.
>> Well, they're relevant or interesting and certainly
they're going to be looked at but consider this to me what
they're seeing is part of a documentary that Roger stone
was having a bill to the extent. It hasn't already been
edited and the best part provided it's not really a true
snapshot into what you may or may not have been doing
consider that for example of these in his hotel in one of
these and rooms he puts on a show doing something that he
wants the cameras see if it's something you didn't want the
cameras to see well I can bet they probably didn't he what
wasn't desired to be seen by Roger stone so while the
footage is interesting it may be helpful. It's not going to
be the kind of thing that's going to have any smoking guns,
unless Roger stone really felt like putting his own smoking
gun out there, figurative of course in it not a real smoking
gun. But Roger stone really is fighting his battle in
preventing the Congress preventing the committee from
getting access to his electronic data that's going to
have much more interesting stuff and just what Roger stone
wanted to put up on a documentary.
>> So let me ask you really quickly. We have about a minute
left. Let's look at those court filings by the January 6
committee based on what you saw in this most recent filing,
how strong is this case against Trump going to be in could we
actually see him ever held accountable for what happened
on January the 6th.
>> Well let's take a little step Spurs first you might see
him, you might seem deposed relatively soon in another
investigation, you might see him have to turn over
information or information by people were communicating with
them which is already been done. You may in the future
seems the former president sit for a deposition 8. The 5th
Amendment but consider this and it goes back to my earlier
point about Merrick Garland. Federal prosecutors. They like
the wind that's why a lot of folks like me and other folks
who come on TV and been able to say well there might be a crime
there, but magically Trump has not yet been charge it's easy
for me to say I see a crime it's a lot harder to bring it
to a grand jury indictment and Bill prove it beyond a
reasonable doubt against someone who will argue First
Amendment protections and immunity, not just any
immunity, but maybe presidential immunity for
anything that he may have done.
>> All right Danny Cevallos Danny always good to see my
friend, thank you so much for your analysis.