weeknights on pbs.
Geoff: A series of revelations
about the involvement of
president trump's allies in the
days leading up to January 6 is
providing fresh evidence to the
committee charged with
investigating the attack as it
gears up for public hearings.
And the U.S. Senate is advancing
this a prima court nomination of
judge ketanji brown Jackson with
the goal of getting her
confirmed by the end of the
week.
We are discussing that and more
on our Sunday briefing.
Joining me is an associate
professor at Santa Clara
university school of law.
Kyle Cheney is a senior affairs
reporter for politico.
And a former U.S. Attorney and
FBI official.
Kyle, we will start with you
because there have been a slew
of developments in the past week
connected to January 6.
You have Republican congressman
Mo brooks peered he revealed
Donald Trump pressured him to
intervene and unwind the
election results appeared there
is a federal judge who found it
was more likely than not Donald
Trump correctly attempted --
Donald Trump corruptly attempted
to obstruct the election.
Whether or not the cup -- the
call logs were complete.
How to all of these developments
affect the committee's
investigative work?
>> It all adds more granularity
to the picture the committee is
painting that more and more
likely looks like there were
crimes committed.
Not just whatever Donald Trump
was doing with some unethical
attempt to overturn the election
and the final weeks of his
presidency but may have violated
the law.
The judge's ruling is the
clearest example of that.
A federal judge in California
says are likely than not the
president entered a criminal
conspiracy with allies like
attorney John Eastman to
overturn the results, to violate
the law to do that.
Every piece you just mentioned
fits in that narrative and fits
in that picture the committee is
putting together and it helps
them move their case forward.
Geoff: There is unrelenting
pressure from Democrats to hold
Donald Trump and his allies
accountable for the violence
that unfolded at the capitol.
Is there any indication federal
prosecutors are to close to
charging the former president if
it is in fact warranted and what
with the burden of proof be they
would have to meet in a criminal
case?
>> Let me take the second
question first.
Kyle just described a ruling by
a federal judge in Los Angeles
on an evidentiary matter funny
it was more likely than not
trump had entered into a
criminal conspiracy.
That is fine for that case but
to your question, to hold anyone
accountable in criminal case you
would have to find proof beyond
a reasonable doubt and you would
need a unanimous jury.
Very different standard.
I think house explanation of
what that jaded -- that judge
did is good and important but it
is not evidence and certainly
not sufficient to convict anyone
of anything.
As to indications of what the
department of justice is doing
and how fast they are doing it,
hard to know.
Grand jury investigations have
to be secret.
The rules of evidence require
they be secret.
And so I am not surprised we
don't have a lot of visibility
into what the department of
justice is doing.
Congress is running an
investigation and they will make
a report public one day.
The department of justice has a
very different mission, which is
to hold people criminally
accountable if the evidence and
the law warrants it.
They need to take their time.
They need to do it right and the
need to meet a much higher
burden of proof.
I am glad they are doing it
quietly and secretly.
Geoff: President Biden has been
clear he wanted to restore what
he calls the integrity, the
Independence of the doj
following what transpired during
the trump era.
What you make of the argument
from some Democrats the justice
department under attorney
general Garland might be over
correcting, that they are too
cautious?
>> As Democrats are starting to
say things like do your job so
we can do ours.
Like the previous speaker, I
would caution any notion that
Merrick Garland should be
listening to them in terms of
what he should be doing.
It is a very different thing to
say do your job.
And to say you are not doing the
job because you are not doing
what I want you to do.
The course correction has been
very important because the
previous administrations justice
department made a charade,
really made a mess in terms of
using, attempting to use the
justice department as a partisan
political tool.
I think in this case I would
give Merrick Garland a little
more time before assuming he is
not doing his job.
Geoff: Want to shift our focus
to the supreme court because
texts from ginni Thomas to
former trump chief of staff mark
meadows surfaced showing how the
wife of supreme court justice
Clarence Thomas urged the white
house to find a way to keep
forward president trump in
office judge justice calmest --
in office.
Justice Thomas has not recused
himself.
Unlike all other federal judges,
the justices of the supreme
court are not subject to a code
of ethical conduct.
Why not and should that change?
>> They are not technically
subject to a code but they do
abide ethical norms and ethical
rules and justices when
necessary recused themselves
from cases.
The typical recusal situation
would be if a family member is
involved in litigation or you
have a direct financial interest
in litigation.
You raise a really interesting
question about whether or not
justice Thomas needs to step
aside from cases coming down the
turnpike because of what his
wife wrote to white house chief
of staff mark meadows.
The answer is maybe yes.
Even though there is no
technical code of ethics that
directly applies to supreme
court justices not the written
rule, supreme court justices do
follow the same set of rules and
whether or not we ought to have
a written code that memorializes
that, sure.
Why not?
Our justices tend to follow
those rules to carefully.
>> I went to come to you and ask
about senate Democrats.
Their goal of wrapping up the
confirmation of judge ketanji
brown Jackson this week, she is
on track for a narrow
confirmation.
Her hearings really illustrated
an ongoing disintegration of the
overall supreme court
confirmation process.
I've heard from senators
democratic and Republican who
fear it will only get worse.
What is your view?
>> It seems very likely that it
will get worse and here is why.
The senate constitutionally is
empowered to make its own rules.
They can change confirmation
hearings if they wanted.
Some proposals have been to
shorten the time period,
tighten it up.
I think the worst offenders are
those who use their platform to
ask questions that are not
germane, that are hectoring and
that ultimately do not reveal
anything about the nominee.
Geoff: Give us a sense of the
week ahead.
In the senate judiciary
committee is going to have a
hearing tomorrow and then where
do things lead?
>> Looks like we could get a
confirmation by the end of the
week, maybe by Friday.
Will probably be a narrow
confirmation.
A couple of key holdouts on the
Republican side who may be
interesting like that Romney and
Lisa murkowski have not said
what they are going to do.
We make it a semblance more of
bipartisanship.
We already have Susan Collins
supporting the nomination.
If others join her, it will not
look quite as divisive as other
recent nominees.
It does sort of cap a
disheartening process about the
entire nomination.
Geoff: My thanks to the three of
you for joining us on our first
Sunday briefing here at pbs news
weekend.
>> Thank you.
♪♪