Do you have enough evidence to refer Trump for criminal charges?
>> Well, we have not made a decision about referrals on the committee,
I think that it is absolutely the case.
It's absolutely clear that, what President Trump was doing, a number of
people around him were doing that they knew it was unlawful, they did it anyway.
[SOUND].
>> So maybe you guys should refer criminal charges to the Justice Department,
a little weird that they won't do that.
Let's hear.
>> I think you certainly saw that in the decision that was issued by
Judge Carter a few weeks ago.
Where he concluded that, it was more likely than not that the President
of the United States was engaged in criminal activity.
I think what we have seen is a massive, and well organized,
and well planned effort that used multiple tools to try to overturn an election.
You've seen just in the last few days, plea agreement from
one of the leaders of the proud boys, which lays out and
really chilling detail, the extent to which violence was planned.
>> That was Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, outlining everything that we
already knew about the potential criminality associated with Donald Trump,
his associates following the 2020 presidential election.
And what's so infuriating about her in a very detailed way,
outlining all the ways in which Trump and
his cronies tried to overturn the will of the American people.
Latest news indicates that members of the January 6th Committee,
can't really decide on whether or
not they want to refer possible criminal charges toward Donald trump to the DOJ.
To which I say, what is the point, what is the point of this panel?
What are they doing?
They've been investigating the capitol riots for over a year now,
and if there is no real intention to hold the top guy in accountable for
what he did, what is the point?
What is the point?
And it seems like a lot of what they're doing through they're investigating,
is building a political case against Donald Trump,
against the individuals associated with him.
They're very aggressive when it comes to subpoenas.
They have no problem referring charges to the DOJ when it comes to various Trump
administration officials, who refused to cooperate with the investigation.
But it stops there, because even though they have told us on multiple occasions
that they have evidence indicating that Trump engaged in criminality.
They are not recommending to the DOJ, that Trump be charged criminally for it.
So what's the point?
Well, the New York times gets into more detail about this story,
writing that despite concluding that they have enough evidence to refer Trump for
obstructing a congressional proceeding and conspiring to defraud the American people.
Some on the committee are questioning whether there is any need to
make a referral, why would we need to?
Is there really any need like we're just, you know, we're all wasting our time,
we're wasting resources engaging in this Kabuki theater, right?
It's a incredibly frustrating.
So apparently, the committee is split, there are some members of this panel who
do want to refer these charges to the DOJ, others don't.
And wait till you get a load of their reasoning for it.
Deciding a civil case in which the committee had sought access to more than
100 emails written by John Eastman, a lawyer who advised Trump on efforts
to derail certification of the Electoral College outcome.
Judge David O Carter of the Federal District Court for
central California, found that it was more likely than not that Trump and
Eastman, had committed federal crimes.
So that right there, is the reasoning that some members of the panel have given for
why they do not want to recommend charges to Merrick Garland,
the attorney general, the head of the DOJ.
Their argument is, well, I mean, Merrick Garland saw what Judge Carter had to say.
And if Judge David O Carter made it abundantly clear that there is potential
criminality here, Merrick Garland will take it upon himself to pursue these
charges on his own, without the panel needing to get involved.
The panel is concerned, that if they make this referral,
then the investigation, the potential charges pursued by the DOJ,
would appear to be nothing more than a partisan attack against Trump.
That's what they're worried about.
Let me ask you something, is the Republican Party ever concerned
about pursuing actual partisan attacks against various Democratic officials,
politicians, family members of Democratic politicians?
I mean, we haven't stopped hearing about Hunter Biden's laptop,
since the 2020 election.
And let me just say, I don't care about Hunter Biden's laptop,
he's not a Biden adviser.
Trump had all sorts of family members serving as official White House advisers.
If Hunter Biden committed a crime, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent
of the law, I have no problem with that.
But my point in bringing up Hunter Biden, is that Republicans,
you think there worried about optics?
We're talking about optics, we're talking about optics,
that's what we're talking about, like how absurd is it?
The only optics that we're seeing right now from the January 6th panel,
is weakness and a pathetic waste of time.
Are those the optics that they're looking for?
So the ruling led some committee and staff members to argue, that even though they
felt they had amassed enough evidence to justify calling for
a prosecution, the judges decision.
Again, we're talking about Judge David O Carter, would carry far
greater weight with Garland, than any referral letter they could write.
So again, they're worried about running this risk of appearing to partisan here.
One of those democratic representatives who serves on the panel, is Zoe Lofgren,
Democrat of California.
She's among those who believe a referral letter to the Justice Department is
superfluous, since it would carry no legal weight.
Maybe we will, maybe we won't, she said on a referral,
it doesn't have a legal impact, then what are you guys doing?
Like what's the point of this investigation, if it has no legal impact?
Now the committee itself does not have the power to prosecute Donald trump,
it does have the power to investigate what happened, and
then recommend criminal charges to the DOJ.
That was supposed to be the point of this January 6th panel.
And Lofgren, for some reason, is refusing to pursue this,
in the way that it was advertised to the American people.
One must wonder why, why, what are you worried about Lofgren?
Are you worried about some retaliation, are you worried that members
of your own party might face similar investigations for other purposes?
I don't know.
But even though I've been very critical of Elaine Lauria,
who is another Democratic congresswoman.
She's actually on the money, in regard to this very issue,
and she explains why during a recent interview with MSNBC, let's watch.
>> I don't agree with what some of my colleagues have said about this,.
I think it's a lot more important to do what's right,
than it is to worry about the political ramifications.
And this committee, our purposes legislative and oversight, but
if in the course of our investigation we find that criminal activity has occurred.
I think it's our responsibility for that to the Department of Justice,
even if they already know, even if 10 other judges or
sets of circumstances have made that determination.
I think it's within the responsibility of our committee,
if we should find that evidence that we do refer it.
>> I agree with her, it is the responsibility of the committee,
otherwise, what is the purpose of the committee?
Now Lofgren has been very aggressive,
in ensuring that Trump administration officials or
Trump campaign officials, essentially abide by the subpoenas.
Anyone who doesn't respond to the subpoena,
does not cooperate with the investigation.
You have Lofgren immediately going after Garland, for
not responding to the referrals, for criminal indictments.
Why is she so up in arms about the unwillingness of Trump cronies to
respond to the subpoenas, if the overall response to
this investigation finding criminal evidence, right?
Evidence of criminal wrongdoing, if the end result is, yeah,
yeah, we have all the evidence, but it's superfluous,
it's not recommend any criminal charges to Merrick Garland.
It just makes no sense, it really doesn't.
Now, Garland has given no public indication of the department's intentions,
other than to say that it will follow the facts and the law.
Investigators from the House Committee and
the Justice Department have not been sharing information,
except to avoid conflicts around scheduling of certain witnesses.
That's an important part of the story, because the thinking by these members of
the panel, who do not want to refer the criminal charges to the DOJ is, well,
Merrick Garland knows what's up.
I mean, he's paying attention, right?
He's paying attention and he will decide based on what's out there in the public,
whether or not it makes sense to pursue criminal charges.
He obviously doesn't have all the information, he's not privy to everything
they know, cuz they're not sharing information between the panel and the DOJ.
But more importantly, like let's just take a step back and acknowledge,
Trump ain't facing no criminal charges, okay?
Democrats are incredibly and pathetically weak,
they're doing this for honestly a political strategy.
I think that they're hanging their hat,
on this being their number one campaign issue for the midterms.
And if that's all they plan on doing, if this is nothing more than
a political strategy to help them with reelection campaigns,
man, there in a lot of trouble, they really are.
If this is all you're gonna offer to the American people, and
then you're not even going to pursue criminal charges
against the very person you say you have evidence against.
Like what is the point, why would anyone believe you?
Why would anyone want to vote for you?
And by the way, this news comes as we've learned more about Don Jr, and
some of the text messages that he had sent to former White House Chief of
Staff Mark Meadows.
So apparently two days after the 2020 presidential election,
as votes were still being tallied.
Donald Trump's eldest son texted then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
that quote.
We have operational control to ensure his father would get a second term,
with Republican majorities in the US Senate and swing state legislatures.
He tweeted, it's very simple to Meadows on November 5th,
adding later in the same missive, we have multiple paths, we control them all.
Don JR makes specific reference to filing lawsuits, and advocating recounts
to prevent certain swing states from certifying their results.
As well as having a handful of Republican statehouses,
put forward slates of fake Trump electors.
If all that failed according to the Trump Jr text, GOP lawmakers in Congress
would simply vote to reinstall Trump as president on January 6th.
He texted this, we have operational control, total leverage the message reads,
moral high ground, President of the United States must start second term now.
So those text messages are pretty damning, because it shows that
the people closest to Trump, absolutely knew that Trump lost the election.
And were conspiring some sort of strategy to overturn the results, and
go against the will of the American people.
But does any of this really matter?
If the people who served as ringleaders for this,
don't face any real consequences.
If the only people who face consequences are the dupes, the morons,
who got tricked by Donald Trump to storm the Capitol on January 6th.
And of course Trump, then turned around after saying he would march with them.
He turned around, went to the White House, sat his ass on a couch, and
watched everything unfold.
Those people are the only ones who seem to be facing real criminal charges.
Makes you wonder why.