eastman at all. none. with all respect to my co-panelists, he said, i believe in partial response to one of the select committee's questions, that the single sentence in the 12th amendment was, he thought, in artfully written. that single sentence is not in artfully written. it was pristine clear. that the president of the senate, on january 6th, the incumbent vice president of the united states, had little substantive constitutional authority, if any, at all. the 12th amendment, a single sentence that mr. jacob refers to, says, in substance, that, following the transmission of the certificates to the congress of the united states, and under the electoral count act of 1887, the archivist of the united states, that the presiding officer shall open the certificates in the presence of the congress of the united states in joint session. it then says, unmistakably, not even that the vice president himself shall count the electoral votes. it clearly says, nearly, that the electoral count of votes shall then be c

eastman. here is mr. hershman's account of that call. >> the day after eastman -- i don't remember, he called me or texted or called, wanted to talk and he said he couldn't reach others. and he started to ask me about something dealing with georgia preserving something potentially for appeal. and i just said to him are you out of your f-ing mind? i only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth now on. orderly transition. i don't want to hear any other f-ing words coming out of your worth, other than orderly transition, repeat the words to me. >> eventually he said orderly transition. i said good, john. now i'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life. get a great f-ing criminal defense lawyer, you'll need it. i hung up on him. >> in fact, just a few days later, dr. eastman e-mailed rudy giuliani and requested he be included on a list of potential recipients of a presidential pardon. dr. eastman's e-mail stated, quote, i've decided that i should be on the pardon

eastman. did dr. eastman ever tell you what he thought the u.s. supreme court without do if it had to decide this issue? >> yes. we had an extended discussion, an hour and a half to two hours on january 5th, and when i pressed him on the point, i said, john, if the vice president did what you are asking him to do, we would lose 9-0 in the supreme court, wouldn't we? and he initially started, well, i think, maybe you would lose only 7-2. and after some further discussion, acknowledged, well, yeah, you're right, we would lose 9-0. >> i appreciate that. in our investigation, the select committee has obtained evidence suggesting that dr. eastman never really believed his own theory. let me explain. on the screen, you can see a draft letter to the president from october 2020. in this letter, an idea was proposed that the vice president could determine which electors to count at the joint session of congress, but the person writing in blue eviscerates that argument. the person who wrote the comments in blue quote, "the 12th amendment only says that the

eastman. did dr. eastman ever tell you what he thought the u.s. supreme court would do if it had to decide this issue? >> yes. we had an extended discussion an hour and a half to two hours on january 5th and when i pressed him on the point i said john, if the vice president did what you were asking him to do, we would lose 9-0 in the supreme court, wouldn't we, and he initially started well, i think maybe you would lose only 7-2, and after some further discussion acknowledged well, yeah, you are right, we would lose 9-0. >> appreciate that. in our investigation, the select committee has obtained evidence suggesting that dr. eastman never really believed his own theory. let me explain. on the screen you can see a draft letter to the president from october 2020. in this letter an idea was proposed that the vice president could determine which electors to count at the joint session of congress. but the person writing in blue eviserates that argument. only opens the ballots in the joint session and then passive voice, the votes shall then be counted.

eastman at all. none. with all respect to my co-panelists, he said, i believe in partial response to one of the select committee's questions, that the single sentence in the 12th amendment was, he thought, in artfully written. that single sentence is not in artfully written. it was pristine clear. that the president of the senate, on january 6th, the incumbent vice president of the united states, had little substantive constitutional authority, if any, at all. the 12th amendment, a single sentence that mr. jacob refers to, says, in substance, that, following the transmission of the certificates to the congress of the united states, and under the electoral count act of 1887, the archivist of the united states, that the presiding officer shall open the certificates in the presence of the congress of the united states in joint session. it then says, unmistakably, not even that the vice president himself shall count the electoral votes. it clearly says, nearly, that the electoral count of votes shall then be c

eastman. here is mr. herschmann's account of that call. >> the day after, you just man, i don't remember why he called me. he texted me or called me, wanted to talk to me and he said he couldn't reach others. he started to ask me about something dealing with georgia, preserving something, potentially for appeal. and i said to him are you out of your effing mind. i said i only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on, orderly transition. he said, i don't want to hear any other effing words coming out of your mouth no matter what, other than orderly transition. repeat those words to me. we eventually he said, orderly transition. i said, good, john. now i'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life, get a great effing defense, lawyer you're going to need it. and then i hung up on him. >> in fact, just a few days later, dr. easement rudy giuliani and requested that he be included on a list of potential recipients of a presidential pardon. doctor eastman's

eastman's advice? >> yeah, he thought it was crazy. >> msnbc's coverage of the january six hearings will continue after this short break. break. from unitedhealthcare. medicare supplement plans help by paying some of what medicare doesn't... and let you see any doctor. any specialist. anywhere in the u.s. who accepts medicare patients. so if you have this... consider adding this. call unitedhealthcare today for your free decision guide. ♪ >> tech: cracked windshield? schedule with safelite, for your free decision guide. and we'll come to you to fix it. >> tech vo: this customer was enjoying her morning walk. we texted her when we were on our way. she could track us and see exactly when we'd arrive. >> woman: i have a few more minutes. let's go! >> tech vo: we came to her with service that fit her schedule. >> woman: you must be pascal. >> tech: nice to meet you. >> tech vo: we got right to work, with a replacement she could trust. >> tech: we're all set. >> woman: wow. that looks great. >> tech: sche

eastman. we will point that out when she testifies in front of the committee, i believe that justice thomas should testify in front of the committee or at least in front of the judiciary committee because the integrity of our courts is absolutely critical and the impartiality of our justices in a case like this. >> that will be a good question, jill winebanks, whether the senate judiciary or house judiciary could separately call justice thomas. we know there are separation of powers issues here but is that a possibility? seems as if he lives in an accountability free zone. >> unfortunately he does live in that accountability free world. possibility? of course there's a possibility. whether fls political will to do it and how long it would take while the court continues to suffer and whether justice roberts could in some way approach justice thomas and say, you're killing the court. you have to do something here. at this point i don't think that recusal is enough. i think the damage that he has

eastman. you have to remember why this matters to a different degree. that is, she has said and has maintained -- you know this, too, andrea from your years in washington, that she and her husband have separate lives. they don't cross professional lanes, if you will. this does raise questions, bigger picture, on justice thomas given these january 6 cases, should he recuse himself from the course if those cases come before them? that's central to this. >> the key -- in the key case as to whether the committee was legally viable, he is the only dissenter in that. john eastman was a former clerk of clarence thomas. she stayed in touch with a number of the clerks, including john eastman, over the years. joining us now to sort this out and more, nbc senior capitol hill correspondent garrett haake and nbc's vaughan hillyard. garrett, you talked to the committee member who is going to be leading the charge today after opening statements that we are expecting frombennie thompson and liz cheney. >> tha

eastman and trump. with respect to eastman, the committee did a fabulous job not on the fifth amendment stuff, but just in term of documenting eastman's state of mind that he knew the theory was bogus, that it would lose 7-2 or 9-0 in the supreme court. he pushed it any way even after he thought it didn't have viability, and yes, eastman's been acting like a criminal ever since in terms of trying to seek a pardon. you have a right to the fifth amendment. i'm not sure you have a right to seek a pardon in quite the way that it comes out. it does demonstrate some consciousness of guilt. with respect to donald trump's criminal intent, i think the committee's done a really good job today in showsing that trump was told this stuff about how cockamamy eastman's theory was and did it any way. in addition you have the theory that donald trump knew that 62 different courts had ruled against him on these bogus election claims, and he still managed to -- still kept pushing it. the first hearing talked all about how

in fact, on december 19th, 2020, just 4 days before doctor eastman sent this memo, dr. eastman himself admitted in an email that the fake electors had no legal weight . referring to the fact electors as quote dead on arrival in congress. and quote, because they did not have a certification from their states. judge alluding, did the trump electors in those 7 states who were not certified by any state authority of any legal significance. congresswoman there was whom no support whatsoever. and either the constitution of the united states nor the laws of the united states . oh, for the vice president frankly, ever to counter alternative electoral slaves from the states that had not been officially. ready certified by the designated state official in the electoral count act of 18. 87. i did notice in the passage from mister eastman's memorandum, and i took a note on it and correct me if i'm wrong. but he said in that it, as says that there was both legal authority as well as historical precedent. i do know what mr. eastman was referring to when he said that there was historical precedent fo

eastman's advice? >> they thought he was crazy. >> do you know if they ever expressed an opinion whether they thought the vice president had the power that john eastman said he did? >> i know for a fact that i heard him say that his theory was crazy, that there was no violent to it in any way -- validity in any way shape or form. >> did they express that before january 6th? >> yes. >> to whom? >> to anybody who would listen. >> reference there to the white house counsel pat cipollone a little bit of the dog that didn't bark at these hearings thus far, we didn't yet hear from the white house counsel but a lot of people talked about him, there were discussions that pat cipollone might have been negotiating with the committee about potentially anticipating, we don't know anything, did potentially appearing, we don't know anything about those negotiations, we don't know if he will appear, but he has been invoked, as we saw in the interview there. while today's interview was under way, we got an interesting

for| doctor eastman on january five? for example. _ doctor eastman on january five? for example. where _ doctor eastman on january five? for example, where was _ doctor eastman on january five? for example, where was the _ doctor eastman on january five? for example, where was the meeting i doctor eastman on january five? for. example, where was the meeting and who was— example, where was the meeting and who was there? — example, where was the meeting and who was there? it— example, where was the meeting and who was there?— who was there? at the conclusion of the meeting — who was there? at the conclusion of the meeting on _ who was there? at the conclusion of the meeting on the _ who was there? at the conclusion of the meeting on the fourth, - the meeting on the fourth, the president had asked that our office meet with mr eastman the next day to hear more about the positions he expressed at that meeting and the vice president indicated that offered me up as his counsel to fulfil that duty. so we met in mark short's office in the executive office building a

he finds eastman, and then eastman goes kind of legal theory shopping. he tries to come up with whatever theory he can. that one, you know, when one gets thrown out, you know, as 9-0 loss or something like that, he then pivots to another one and another one and ultimately goes and resurrects the first one, the one that was supposed to lose 9-0. it's bad. i mean, you know, what the testimony today showed, basically, is that eastman knew what he was doing wasn't right and he did it anyway because he wanted to keep his guy in power, and i know today felt a little more technical and a little drier in some moments, but that's because, nicole, i think the audience today, unlike the first couple of hearings, wasn't as much the american people. that's obviously an audience. but part of that multiple audiences here. another one for today really was the justice department. i really did feel like today's presentation was done so that prosecutors could watch us and go, oh my god, eastman. and then, who was eastman conspiring with? a guy named donald trump. >> neal c

eastman's advice? >> they thought he was crazy. >> do you know if they ever expressed an opinion on whether they thought the vice president had the power that john eastman said he did? >> i know for a fact that his theory was crazy, there was no validity to it in in way, shape or form. >> did they express that before january 6th? >> yes. >> to whom? >> i think anyone who would listen. >> as the committee prepares for its next hearing, it is now also requesting to speak with ginni thomas, the wife of supreme court justice clarence thomas, about her role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. she is among those who were in frequent email contact. it turns out, with john eastman in the leadup to january 6th. and we just learned one of those emails was an invitation, she sent to eastman in december, 2020, for him to speak to a group about election litigation. ginni thomas says for her part she can't wait to clear up any misconceptions. let's go to our senior justice correspondent evan perez

eastman's advice? >> they found it was crazy. >> do you know if they ever pressed an opinion about whether they thought the vice president had the power that john eastman said he did? >> i know for a fact that they both say that his theory was crazy, and there was no validity in it in any way shape, or form. and the way it was expressed out for january 6th, yes. i think they're going to listen. >> white house counsel pat cipollone who's a little bit of a dog that didn't bark at some of these hearings thus far. we have not yet heard from the white house counsel, cipollone, a lot of people have talked about him. there have been discussions that pat cipollone might have been negotiating with a committee about potentially appearing. we don't know anything about those negotiations. we don't know whether he'll appear, but he's been invoked, so he has the right to be there. well, today's hearing, while it was underway, we also got an interesting reminder that in addition to this congressional investigation, t

that's what eastman sounded like. they were indulging him and he would come back, day after, day and contradict himself in, say oh, no, we shouldn't do this. yeah, that's a risky. we actually should do that, yeah, that's the ticket. but, you know, yeah. i look at a lot of those guys, not just mike pence, as people who really let us down. i look at a guy like marc short, for example, pence's chief of staff. he had the intelligence, i guess, to go to the secret service and say, my boss might be in a little bit more danger because trump is coming after him all night. why didn't he go to nancy pelosi? why didn't he go to the washington post? i mean, the idea that he's going to beef up his bosses security but my daughter was in -- hiding behind the table that day. i mean, lots of people would've liked to know that they were in danger. marc short didn't think that was important, he thought it was important that his boss be protected. that gives me the creeps, to be honest. >> that's why keep saying, people like bill barr, m

eastman, at all. none. i would have laid my body across the road before i would have let the vice president overturned overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that. >> and as we will hear later in the hour, judge luttig warned that the danger to our democracy is far, far from over. the scariest thing he said today. the committee also released new photos of trump on the phone, talking to pence from the oval office on the morning of january 6th. and witnesses testified that that conversation did not go well. >> the conversation with pretty heated. >> i think, until it became somewhat louder tone, i don't think i was paying attention to it, actually. >> did you hear any part of the phone call? even if it's just the and the president was speaking from? >> i did, yes. >> all right, what did you hear? >> so, as i was dropping off the note, my memory -- i remember hearing the word wimp. called him a win. i remember he said, you are a wimp, you will be a wind. wimp is the word i remember. >> if you remember what

eastman acknowledged that that was the case. and when i raised concerns that that position would likely lose in court, his view was that the court simply wouldn't get involved. they wouldn't poke the political question doctrine, and therefore we could have some comfort proceeding with that path. >> so you heard that, there despite eastman in this telling, knocking down his own legal theory in front of the president, the questionable legality did not bother the former president in the least, it seems. the president kept this pressure campaign on the vice president, including a phone call overheard by his own daughter and others, in which she grew angry with his own vice president. >> it wasn't a specific formal discussion. it was very sort of loosened casual. >> did you hear any part of the phone call, even if just the end that the president is speaking from? >> i did, yes. >> all right, and what did you hear? >> so as i was dropping off the note, in my memory i remember hearing the word wimp. either he called him a wimp or he sa

it's clear that eastman knew it proposal wouldn't hold water in court. >> john eastman thinks it might be criminal. we know that because he asked for a pardon. he took the fifth amendment today. the committee is trying to lay the groundwork they can hand over to d.o.j., that they can pick up on that it will be criminal. there's two arguments. one is eastman's theory is not just wrong, outrageous, ridiculous, absurd and dangerous. but lawyers are allowed to have ridiculous arguments sometimes. i have seen a couple of them. maybe ben has, as well. they showed that eastman knew it. he admitted, i know this is a loser. i know it won't win. if you advance that argument in fur furtherence, that would be criminal. >> after the e insurrection, eastman pressured the former vice president to overturn the election. >> what was vice president pence's reaction when you showed him the e-mail, where dr. eastman, after the attack on the capitol, still asked that the vice president delay certification and send it back to the states? >> he said, that's rubber room stuff. >> what did you interpret that t

>> i mean, it's why eastman took the fifth, i think, and the next question is did, was eastman acting in trump's direct behest, taking orders from what trump wanted and the answer is pretty obviously yes. nixon, at least a pretext of legality, because you have the attorney general, white house council sort of telling him a while it was okay. it's not an accident that eastman is outside of government. he's even outside the campaign. trump has to go find someone who will give a fake legal justification. his own justice department says no, his owns white house council office says no, if you're president of the united states, you can't just say those are interesting popinions but i foud some guy out there that says it's okay. eastman really is at the heart of the criminal conspiracy as opposed to trump's general irresponsibility. >> gloria, what else does the committee need to prove going forward and what do know and believe they have to prove to the public is if. >> they are going to continue, to draw this straight line between trump knowing, actually knowing that he lost the election, a

eastman. here is mr. herschmann's account of that call. >> the day after, you just man, i don't remember why he called me. he texted me or called me, wanted to talk to me and he said he couldn't reach others. he started to ask me about something dealing with georgia, preserving something, potentially for appeal. and i said to him are you out of your effing mind. i said i only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth from now on, orderly transition. he said, i don't want to hear any other effing words coming out of your mouth no matter what, other than orderly transition. repeat those words to me. we eventually he said, orderly transition. i said, good, john. now i'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life, get a great effing defense, lawyer you're going to need it. and then i hung up on him. >> in fact, just a few days later, dr. easement rudy giuliani and requested that he be included on a list of potential recipients of a presidential pardon. doctor eastman's

eastman. they are getting ready to throat author of the coup memo all the way under the bus. we'll be right back. memo all t way under the bus. 'll be right back. announcer: type 2 diabetes? discover the power of 3 in the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. announcer: ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an a

even eastman believes or has reason to believe that eastman is in legal jeopardy here. obviously very concerned about it. the question becomes, though, does that translate to donald trump. is he in legal jeopardy? >> he is more than he was 24 hours ago. i don't think trump would ever be prosecuted for putting forth a bad legal theory even if he knew it was a bad legal theory. he has the right, and he was being advised by lawyers, even if they were bad lawyers, to do what he did. however, if he was inciting violence intentionally, that is a potential legal problem for trump. if you look at the tweet at 2:24, anti-mike pence tweet, that is a dark moment because that's after the junior white house aides go to him and say, look, you know, there is violence happening there. and his response is to send that tweet at 2:24, which incites even more violence. and there's video of the rioters reading the tweet. that's a potential problem. now, that alone isn't going to get donald trump indicted. buff that incitement of violence is a legal point. >> three points. in be one, he talk

eastman did not receive his presidential pardon. >> so, jonathan lemire, add john eastman to the list with some republican congressmen the committee says sought pardons, as well, knowing they likely committed crimes in trying to overturn the 2020 election. >> i decided i should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works. that's the quote we're all going to remember. it launched a thousand pretty amusing memes yesterday, but it is a far more serious matter, of course. this is acknowledgment from eastman that he had done wrong. that he was in jeopardy, like so many others there. both after january 6th, but i think more damning is, yesterday, the revelations that eastman and so many others close to the president knew they were doing things wrong before january 6th. they knew that they had no legal standing for what they were doing. eastman admits in october 2020, before the election, as he was starting to cook up these schemes, that he didn't believe pence actually had the authority to not certify biden's win, were biden to win when january 6th rolled around. he is also -- othe

but he too helped fight this eastman idea. in the middle of this, you have a president who was unhinged, talking about hanging his sitting vice president. we have just never seen these kind of moments in american government. it's unprecedented. i can promise you, the white house i worked in was not that chaotic. >> it's going to be interesting, a year from now, to see how mike pence defending the constitution plays to folks out there in the electorate. >> he's clearly thinking about running for president of the united states. the question is, is there any appetite for people who stood up and said this was the wrong thing to do? liz cheney is another one. she currently trails in her primary 28 points in the last polls, because she did the right thing. the question is, can we be sensible in the modern republican party and not pay a price for it? that's what we are going to find out the next elections. >> i think paying a price also works, obviously, charles, in the legal sense. a lot of people are asking is there legal culpabili

eastman. let's show that e-mail on the screen. in that e-mail you wrote, and i quote, "did you advise the president in your professional judgment the vice president does not have the power to decide things unilaterally?" you said it doesn't appear the president got the memo. dr. eastman replied, he's been so advised. he ends the e-mail "but you know him, once he gets something in his hard, it's hard to get him to change course." when dr. eastman wrote that, did you understand that he in that e-mail to refer to the president of the united states? >> i did. >> and mr. jacob, did you hear from dr. eastman further after the riot had been quelled? if so, what did he ask? >> late that evening after the joint session had been reconvened, the vice president had given the statement to the nation saying that violence was not going to win. freedom wins. and that the people were going to get back to doing their work. later that evening, mr. eastman e-mailed me to point out that in his view the vice presid

>> john eastman thinks it might be criminal and he asked for a pardon. we know that because he took the fifth amendment. they are trying to lay the ground work that it may be criminal. there's really two aspects to the argument. one eastman's theory was not just wrong but outrageous, ridiculous, absurd and danls. they showed that eastman knew it. he admitted i know this is loser. i know this won't win. i think the argument the committee is trying to make is that would be criminal. >> even after the insurrection, east man continued to pressure the former vice president to over turn the election. listen to this and we'll discuss. >> what was vice president pence reaction when you showed him the e-mail after the attack on the capitol still asked the vice president delay certification and send it back to states. >> he said, that's rubber room stuff. >> what did you interpret that to mean? >> i understood it to mean that after having seen play out what happens when you convince people that there is a decision to be made in the capitol, legitimately, about who

he wrote that to john eastman during the capitol riot. we also will not hear from eric herschmann but we have seen the video many times, i think we will see other video clips, he is the person who told john eastman you getting get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. we will not hear from john eastman because he took the fifth amendment. he is allowed to do that. he won't be testifying. we are not going to hear from mike pence the committee never subpoenaed him. mark shore said that he spoke to the committee for eight hours, he won't be testifying. wolf asked do you think we will see your videos today short said you probably will. >> ellie honing, thank you for being with us this morning. >>> so the committee calls it a grift but prosecuting the former president for fundraising off election lies, that's a tough criminal case to make. we have new cnn reporting on this coming up. >>> plus we are going to speak live with former attorney general alberto gonzales on all of the new revelations we're hearing from the january 6 committee and w

long time trump adviser roger stone and trump lawyer john eastman. as cassidy hutchinson testified, her former boss mark meadows planned to attend that january 5th war room meeting with eastman, rudy giuliani, and others. hutchinson said she told meadow going was not a smart idea, so he opted to dial in instead. now, this blockbuster hearing seems like a wild tale using fake electors and even violence to hand a presidential election to the loser. maybe that's because you don't fully remember the 2000 election. during last week's hearing, the committee played this clip of eastman addressing georgia republicans a month after the 2020 election. >> you can also do what the florida legislature was prepared to do, which is to adopt a slate of electors yourself. i don't think it's just your authority to do that, but quite frankly, i think you have a duty to do that. inserting florida into the mix in the most recent presidential election seemed odd and kind of like a throwaway. trump won that state, right? but it is a reminder of how some of the same charact

she emailed eastman and pushed to overturn the electoral results. the chairman telling us, they have sent a letter to thomas asking for her to come in and answer questions. >> thanks so much. with me to discuss, former congressman riggleman, a former senior technical advisor to -- and kerry cordero. let me start with you. the testimony from ivanka trump, eric her shman and others about trump's phone call with mike pence the morning of january 6th, which was described as heated which trump called pence a wimp and pussepussy, what was reaction to that? >> i think the committee did a very effective job with testimony and deposition video from people who were in the white house who were advising the president himself, was that they showed the intense pressure that he was placing on the vice president. we all saw the public pressure taking place. he stood out in front of the capitol building and pressured the vice president. i think what the committee did effectively is they drew that line from that pressure to the threat of violence that the vice presid

eastman and donald trump. judy: do you have evidence that she was in contact with, on any kind of basis, john eastman, to discuss this plot that you are describing? rep. schiff: at this point, i'm not prepared to go into ything the documents or other evidence might say or suggest. it is one of the reasons we want to bring her into talk, and hopefully we will be able to do that soon. judy: are there other individuals the committee is reaching out to still at this hour, hoping to have them come testify? rep. schiff: absolutely. at the end of the hearing today, chairman thompson made an appeal to -- appeal again to people who have had evidence who are weighing to come in to let the committee know. indeed, we continue to do interviews, we continue to do depositions, because frankly, one lead leads to another. there are often questions we want to go bac to witness for further clarification. that investigative process continues. judy: congressman adam schiff who is a member of the house select committee on january 6

you'll also hear about a lawyer named john eastman. mister eastman was deeply involved in president trump's plans. you'll hear from former 4th circuit. federal judge mike alluded, a highly respected leading conservative judge. john eastman clerk for judge luke. judge luda provided counsel to the vice president's team and the days before january 6. the judge will explain how eastman quote was wrong at every turn. and you will see the email exchanges between eastman and the vice president's counsel. as the violent attack on congress was underway. mister jacob said this to me, mister eastman. thanks to your bullshit we are under siege. you will also see evidence that john eastman did not actually believe the legal position he was taking. in fact, a month before the 2020 election eastman took exactly the opposite view on the same legal issues. in the course of the select committees work to obtain information from mister eastman, we have had occasion to present evidence to a federal judge. the judge evaluated the facts and he reached the co

eastman, at all, none. i would have laid my body across the road before i would have liked and vice president overturn the 2020 election on the basis of that. >> neal katyal, what was your reaction to that? >> it was as profound as i could say where it's, lawrence. so when you call judge luttig distinguished, that under south and. for conservatives he's like the equivalent of president reagan for judges. there is no one more respected, when i was in law school, for the next 20 years than judge luttig among conservatives, and indeed, among liberals. we follow with them all the time. but he was brilliant. this is a guy who was number two on the shortlist of the supreme court, justice alito ultimately get got that seat. but this is as respected in this die hard conservative, and then as you will find, and who is he saying that about about the crazy advice, his own former law clerk, john eastman. so, i guess congratulations for ted cruz today, because he's no longer judge luttig's -- but you know, i think what

it might be different if it were an email from eastman. does that matter in the intentionality of linking the potential of violence being an instrument of this whole scheme? >> i mean, this article is full of all kinds of easter eggs, but this is not the full picture. we have no idea what they said in text messages, what they said to each other. there's going to have to be a full sort of airing out of all of this, i think, when you are assessing the intentionality, but the basic point of course is that this all goes to the question of whether there was obstruction of an official proceeding, which is one of the charges we've seen in this case, and whether that's the something that the justice department is interested in vis-a-vis eastman or anyone else, we don't yet know, but that would be the central -- that would be the central case i would think. >> i've got questions for ginni thomas as well. >> goodness, yes. >> that i would like to see asked. i don't know why -- maybe i do know why the committee has tip toed around her. it started off

john eastman clerked for judge looted. judge looted provided counsel to the vice president's team in the days before january 6. the judge will explain how eastman quote was wrong at every turn. and you will see the e-mail exchanges between easton and the vice president's council as the violent attack on congress was underway. mister jacobs said this to me is mister eastman. thanks to your. we are under siege. you'll also see evidence that john eastman did not actually believe the legal position he was taking. in fact, a month before the 2020 election, eastman took exactly the opposite view on the same legal issues. in the course of the select committee's work to obtain information from mister eastman. we've had occasion to present evidence to a federal judge. the judge evaluated the facts and he reached the conclusion. the president trump's efforts to pressure vice president pence to act illegally by refusing to count electoral votes likely violated to federal criminal statutes. and the judge also said this. if doctor east