the doj. they went before a court and got a search warrant which means that they felt that they had probable cause that a crime was committed, so, what is left? it seems pretty obvious by now. that trump took the documents. and it seems that he may have covered up taking the documents, he may have defenses, some constitutional. other vice presidential. but those are all known. what is left to investigate? is jack smith just gonna come to the doj and pick up the file folder. and pump through it himself? or is there even any independent investigation let's to be done on the either of these issues? so, in terms of simply spending resources, i really wonder at the necessity of appointing a special counsel to investigate something that, everyone has already investigated and appears to know everything there is to be known about it. >> let's go old-school law school you and i right now, and i'm in a push back and say to you danny, the following, you're not gonna bring in jack smith just a turn around

doj dropped it. take a very famous convicted politician, who was actually, as a footnote, pardoned by trump. democrat rod b lo ogoovec. just this year, there was a nebraska congressman convicted of lying while they were investigating illegal campaign contributions. no special counsel. now, take it from a lawyer, lawyers can debate words like extraordinary and public interest. but the history suggests you can investigate politicians, and it's not extraordinary or unusual. that's why it usually happens without special counsels. so, this appointment doesn't mean trump is more likely to be indicted at all. there's nothing that assumes that. it also doesn't mean it's less likely he'll be indicted. there is nuance. so, we heard just now, i walked through why garland's move seems a bit unnecessary. we heard from a guest tonight about why he could have done something different. so, is there any substantive defense of what garland's doing? the answer is yes, and i want to share that with you too and it's goin

according to the doj intro 19, the deal had been violated since 2012. so these investigations can go for between three years. at this investigation did start a few years ago. i went back and look at how often we at megan tevrizian's head published about antitrust problems live nation could have. we wrote in 2018, 2019 and 2020. so i think it is very possible something could happen next year in 2023. ed: bloomberg intelligence's jennifer rie. thank you. coming up, are top tech calls of the day. stay with us with stocks he should focus on. and as we head to break let's , take a look at zoom. the stock down almost down 5% after reporting its lowest quarterly sales growth on record. tomorrow, we talk to zooms chief financial officer about the company's fight to reverse the slowdown in growth. to miss it. this is bloomberg. ♪ ed: time now for tech calls. moffett nathanson upgrading disney to outperform. expecting the company to re-examine its streaming strategy after reinstating bob iger to the top job. self-driving tech name mobileye initiated with a stre

there's no reason for doj to delay at this point. you know, this is the point at which the rubber sort of meets the road and it's time to go. >> we will be watching. my thanks to all of you for talking us through it. katie benner for your reporting and for your years of expertise and expertise, thank you so much. >>> next, how the news is being processed politically speaking, including some of the unsurprising responses from the ex-president's most extreme and loyal allies. and how democrats are planning to counter a new house gop majority. those stories are next. don't go anywhere. those storiears e next don't go anywhere. (customer) hi? (burke) happy anniversary. (customer) for what? (burke) every year you're with us, you get fifty dollars toward your home deductible. it's a policy perk for being a farmers customer. (customer) do i have to do anything? (burke) nothing. (customer) nothing? (burke) nothing. (customer) nothing? (burke) nothing. (customer) hmm, that is really something. (burke) you get a whole lot of something with far

i would refer you to doj for any questions on this. that coming from rich edson. and when you think about a special counsel, obviously gives political insulation to merrick garland who will make all the decisions regarding this as the information is handed up to him, but also the appointment of a special counsel adds another level of sort of political intrigue about everything because it's not just the doj that's investigating now, it's a special counsel, and we remember through mueller and obviously other special counsels that there seems to be a greater focus of attention on the part of the media when a special counsel is involved. >> yeah, like the battle of coral sea. torpedos and shells flying every direction. the house is ramping up on investigation and garland is at the epicenter of that. they have a lot of questions, and i think legitimate questions about hunter biden and garland's steadfast refusal to appointment a special counsel. and so i think that he's going to be busy himself in the coming weeks but this is going to clear his desk a bit. but there ar

to try to defund the doj, but that is about it. republicans do not have the ability to pass bills on their own in congress, having taken the house. so with democrats in control of the senate, and democrats in control of the white house, it will be difficult to do that. to try to shape this investigation. we may be even able to see this investigation because there is an emergency, you, know emergency powers conducive to operating the government, shut down, you might even see this continue to operate if that happens, probably would. so, they don't have a lot of ability to affect it. but what they will do is turn the investigations on joe biden. expect us -- especially the house to look into hunter biden, and continue to hear from republicans who say, if there is a special counsel, to investigate trump. because both of these candidates, there should be a special counsel to investigate hunter biden. >> i want to read for you, joyce, from the wapo it's a toria board, talking about the risks that they put out their, about the special cou

coming up, the latest on the ticketmaster and taylor swift debacle and the doj's role in all of this. this is bloomberg. ♪ at fidelity, your dedicated advisor will help you create a comprehensive wealth plan for your full financial picture. with the right balance of risk and reward. so you can enjoy more of...this. this is the planning effect. they save time by printing discounted stamps and shipping labels right from their computers get a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and get started today caroline: let's talk about live nation's ticketmaster. the system crashed. the hopes of many a taylor swift fan for a ticket. to see whether live nation is abusing its power of the live music industry. jennifer re-is here with more on this. want to be discussing the great -- it's not the first time the first time the doj has gotten interested in and m&a done years ago. >> so this has been going on for a really long time. taylor swift debacle this to the headlines but there have been critics of live nation and groups that have called for the deal closed in 2010

that's what makes it a big case for doj. what was interesting, during the trial, while they had those three individuals that pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, they didn't bring them forward to testify, even though they were cooperating with the government. they brought forward other oath keepers who pled guilty to less serious charges, including one from florida who said he was ready to die to keep donald trump in office. he said essentially goodbye to members of his family. we had another oath keeper who talked about how he got sucked into a lot of these conspiracy theories online and was spending too much time on youtube and facebook and getting sucked into these algorithms that were telling him that the election was stolen. that's obviously an ongoing theme with a lot of these january 6th cases as people just believing this information coming from the former president of the united states as well as irresponsible media outlets talking about the 2020 election. >> ryan, if you need to go, you just turn around and go.

it's not clear what the discussions with the doj and pence's lawyer is. but certainly it is true, and we have confirmed that pence is seriously considering testifying, and the implications are big. because pence is one of the few people who know -- in fact, maybe the only person who knows the content of discussion he had with trump on january 5, the day before. remember, this was the point when trump was desperately trying to get him to accept and try to overturn the election on january 6th. this was trump trying to implore him that we now know is illegal. so the content on that discussion is we know what trump was saying, because there were people in the oval office, but we don't know what pence said. and pence's testimony can be key. it can reveal the insight into what trump was thinking, his intent on january 6th. i think that can -- >> i think we had a preview because of the book that michael pence has written. and i think he's pretty much home run spoken to the public. "the new york times" reports complicating the situation is whether mr. trump would

at pence for talking to the doj. but ultimately i really think this could be headed towards a subpoena. it's hard to imagine that pence is going to willingly talk to the doj without that being handed to him first. >> brianna, i wouldn't want to be mike pence. he made -- he cut a deal with the devil six years ago, and he just can't escape. every day, week, month, he's ensnared by trump and now he wants to run for president. he cannot escape. >> at this point, is talking to the doj going to really further hurt his political ambitions? if you're someone who supports former president trump, you've already dismissed mike pence, wholeheartedly. if he doesn't want to talk to the doj, they have to subpoena him, perhaps it'll drag it out and he'll try to maneuver this way. i think at this point if you don't like mike pence because of january 6th whether or not yhe talks to the doj isn't going into your decision making. >> i wanted to ask you overnight, another mass shooting. just a few hours from where we are now. now you've

why did the doj think this move was necessary now? >> reporter: well, the irony, erin, is that the former president announced that he was running for office a couple days ago. in part, people around him said, was because he thought it would insulate him from potential charges, from the justice department. and instead, you heard it from merrick garland, the attorney general, that that, in fact, triggered this move to appoint a special counsel. they appointed jack smith because you have these two investigations that are ongoing. and by the way, now we know certainly from the announcement that the attorney general made today that at least with regard to the january 6th investigation, the effort to impede the transfer of power, donald trump is at the center of that. we've known obviously that he was being investigated for the mishandling or the alleged mishandling of classified documents at mar-a-lago. now, smith is going to be taking over an investigation that's already well under way. we don't know whether this means charges are very ne

and at the end of the day, if the doj wants to force him, and they can and they would. and maya, >> and my, and there's a fascinating political dynamic here. everyone looks at this field. we look at pence particularly. but all of the field, what exactly is the plan here to get around donald trump? particularly if you are mike pence. you are like trump. but without the insurrection is sort of the shake. but who is that being sold to. and it is the case, i think, that if the president were, like, convicted of a felony, that would change the field. [laughter] and if you're mike pence, you might be able to help bring that along. >> you know, look, i think you are absolutely right, chris, that anybody wants to seek the votes of the american people have to figure out, one, how are they running, who are they, who are they going to be. and who are they telling the american public they are. and which of that public are they trying to get on their side. you know, white suburban women, are someone everyone's trying to get on their side. i say that explicitly if you think about pol

how did the doj and the fbi become so politicized? we know what they did around the russia collusion story. they had no evidence of any collusion with trump, and yet they pursued fisa warrants to spy and surveil is people within the trump world aggressively. >> i don't know how it happened, but i know it has to change because america's the greatest country in history, but we're not america. america's not america if you have a justice the president that treats people differently under the law -- justice department. whistleblowers have said at the highest levels, not the rank and pile, but at the washington field office of the fbi, that's where the politics is. one of these agents said it's rotted at its core, that's how bad it is. look, remember this too if you need any more -- go back to mr. smith again, jack smith. there was, back in 2013, his section that he ran at the justice department not only was looking for ways to prosecute the very people who were targeted by obama's irs, they also asked the irs to give them confidential taxp

and then also the considerations and realities happening inside of the doj? >> so prosecutors don't work on a fast time clock. and although we are increasingly impatient as a country to see the former president held accountable. really, we should all take a deep breath and think about why we too should give the special counsel the time he needs to do his job properly. we do not want to become the country of screaming people that we saw at trump rallies, shouting lock him up whenever we don't like something that one of our people on the other side of the political aisle does something that we don't like. we need to remember that there is a distinction between political accountability, voting people out at the ballot box. and putting people in prison for crimes. with all of that said, i agree that we have a special counsel here who is well qualified to evaluate the evidence and do the job that has looted so many people, determining whether the former president should be indicted. and if so, indicting him. the mar-a-lago case, look, we only know the evidence tha

so, ken, let's start with that hearing from doj. they say that the special master, not to be confused with the special counsel, is unnecessary. why do they think they might succeed in arguing this? >> well, they argue that the trump argument is just down right bizarre. it's gotten to the point where donald trump is arguing that the records seized at mar-a-lago, most were personal and not presidential, and therefore the special master is needed to ensure fairness. they're arguing donald trump should be treated differently in this case because he's a former president and the doj responds that first of all, they're all presidential records as far as they're concerned with a few exceptions, but secondly, they conduct searches all the time and see people's personal records and they're not entitled to a special master except in narrow circumstances. given this appeals court has granted the doj their wishes and exempted the classified material from this special master review, there's every reason to believe this court will make this specia

and, you know, i would say to go back to your point about doj, i do think that doj has done a lot under this administration. not under the prior administration to work behind the scenes to counteract foreign interference by russia and other adversaries. it's a complicated process but they really have up their game in terms of counteract of what they're doing. -- -- to go back to your point about doj, i do think that doj has done a lot under this administration. not under the prior administration to work behind the scenes to counteract foreign interference by russia and other adversaries. it's a complicated process but they really have up their game in terms of counteract of what they're doing. that is good, news and will try to always on that -- thank you both for joining us tonight. we are both going to have to stay very close, there's gonna be a lot more legal questions in the day ahead. coming up, as the atlantic puts, it ego, impulsiveness, and lack of self discipline is killing twitter before our eyes. why the fate of the social media platform matters, when the 11th hour continues.

of the doj. part of their ability to protect civil rights violations in this country and to really take localities to task. now the doj said there's an agreement between the city and the mississippi state health department to go for that third party so what we're seeing is an agreement being filed by the court, but they are still negotiating so if you're on the ground in mississippi now and you're wondering is the water safe, is this going to change my life? is doj is saying we're trying to get there. >> thank you for being on this reporting for this for us. good to see you. >>> still ahead, the new directive in new york city for police and other emergency workers to involuntary hospitalize people they think have significant mental illness. that's after the break. l illnes. that's after the break nt's frage disappears in the dryer? downy in-wash scent boosters survive the washer & dryer for freshness that lasts 6 times longer than detergent alone. release freshness with every touch... with downy

what is this interaction between pence and the doj? what will probably look like based on your experience? >> so, the political leverage here i think yep is with the department. pence doesn't want to look to resistant. but more importantly, the legal leverages with them. i know mike's reporting said it could take months. but there's no reason that it should be harder to get pence to testify then it was to get his counsel and chief of staff. as you say he may have waved it and it may also be the case that biden waved it. and at the end of the, day you really need the testimony singularly in the whole investigation. however, it is the kind of thing where both parties may prefer a deal. pence buffers not look like he is getting their gunpoint. the department as well for its case. . here's what is happening, now emmett let us sophisticated good washington lawyer. not like the trump lawyers. and the doj is discussing in circling with, flood might be probing. could we do it and written questions? could not subpoena into it voluntarily? maybe

and only the doj makes decision on whether to indict. in the people who stonewalled, two were indicted, two were not, all four held in contempt. if you watch "the beat", we've been tracking this report. chairman thompson says it likely will come before christmas. as you may recall, i've mentioned there's more than one way to get the report, but i'm working with a full record with a foreword that i have now written. if you're interested, you can order it right now. >>> now, when we come back, i promise something special, new, airing for the first time. we'll explain and share new parts of our interview, next. d parts of our interview, next kevin! kevin! kevin? oh nice. kevin, where are you... kevin?!?!?.... hey, what's going on? i'm right here! i was busy cashbacking for the holidays with chase freedom unlimited. i'm gonna cashback on a gingerbread house! oooh, it's got little people inside! and a snowglobe. oh, i wished i lived in there. you know i can't believe you lost another kevin. it's a holiday tradition! that it is! earn big time

of last-diatchenko conspiracy where a more junior doj official, mr. clark, who had his home searched, was then demanding that, well, they just get the whole doj to tell georgia legislators come back into session and toss their own voters' decision backing biden. now, very few people think that would have worked. but the reason it failed was because the doj resisted. >> pat cipollone said this is a murder/suicide pact. >> i would resign immediately. the president immediately turned to mr. engel and said, steve, you wouldn't resign, would you and he said, absolutely, i would, mr. president. you could have hundreds and hundreds of resignations of the leadership of your entire justice department if clark would be left leading a graveyard. >> so doj interference, a bust. another plot running out of steam, which matters for how you approach the whole conspiracy. trump thought doj would somehow help strong-arm the states but even without them he pressed on with this brazen authoritarian plan where he talked and proclaiming they could be the real power and ca

in my mind, there's no difference from merrick garland 's doj inditing him and putting charges against donald trump than i special prosecutor. that being said, i do say at this point, we will see the special prosecutor move forward with this investigation and also likely with charges and a prosecution against donald trump. if merrick garland was unwilling to do it, but knew it needed to be done, this is the result and this is where we find ourselves. >> so, you said something important there. the likelihood of charges coming down, i think that's the 1 million dollar question here that everyone is wondering with the appointed of the special counsel and the timing of that, when the doj would come forward. if they would actually come forward, something like that. before we get into the nuts of that conversation, barbara oked made a case on twitter this morning, which i thought was fascinating. while she says, essentially, she doesn't necessarily think there was a necessity for a special counsel, she says this does provide kind of an extra layer of independents this appointment of a specia

plus, the doj wants to talk to mike pence about what he knows about january six, and he is reportedly open to it. what that could mean for donald trump, and whether he could try to stop it from even happening. joyce vance is here. e vance hisere. but static says “whoa.” try bounce lasting fresh dryer sheets. ♪♪ more freshness. more softness. less static. less wrinkles. yeah! it's the sheet. ♪♪ new bounce lasting fresh dryer sheets. it's the sheet! ever wonder why they call it the american dream... and not the american goal? announcer: derek jeter ...or plan? maybe... it's because in dreams, you can do anything. in dreams... you can hold your entire world in the palm of your hand. and turn time inside out... again and again. and you can do it all with your eyes wide open. two new ihop lunch and dinner menu items for twice the goodness, twice the flavor, and twice the choice. sirloin salisbury steak and all-natural salmon. perfect for lunch or dinner. only at ihop. download the app and earn free food with every purchase. (customer) hi? (burke) downloahappy anniversary. free

trump thought doj would somehow help strong-arm the states. but even without them, he pressed on with this brazen authoritarian plan where he actually talked to hundreds of state legislators on january 2nd, desperately proclaiming they would be the real power and they could cancel their own citizens votes. if that's familiar, it relates to something else under investigation but that might make more sense together than separate. because he demanded georgia's top elections official join him in a kind of voter fraud. this, remember all the arrows? this is on the same day as a call to the state legislatures. >> i just want to find 11,780 votes which is one more than we have. so that was trying to get states to overturn. so you have these seven plots. >> and then you have the u.s. congress. states rejected trump's demands. we do know that. even very red states. trump was left then pushing what was operationally an incomplete conspiracy, butter conspiracy, nonetheless. because as the states found, the congress would be faced with the same sort of me

let's talk just a little bit about why this is so important to doj. people might be sitting there going, wait a minute, i thought it wasn't important to the statutory elements that might be charged here that the documents were classified, so why do we care about this? this isn't so much about whether the documents are still classified or not, but rather whether donald trump genuinely believed that they were or were not. so if patel can say look we made this up. in fact, trump told me to make this whole declassification nonsense up. now it goes towards mindset of the former president. now it's a house of cards for him. now they've taken away the assertion that i could take them home because i thought they were mine to keep because they weren't classified anymore. if patel can put a hole in that and say we made this whole nonsense up, now doj goes yeah, you have less of a right to bring that stuff home, it's still classified and you knew it. >> barb new sense of what the deliberations around offering immunity to kash patel tell us about the timing of th

i have a bone to pick with at least one of the leaks out of doj. but before i do that, as is our way on "the beat," let's get your view on the facts and the story first, on all of this regarding the doj case. >> i think that if the justice department is contemplaing an indictment of former president trump or people who are close to him, that a special counsel has to be on the table, right? i mean, especially if you have the political adversary of your boss, running for office. and you're merrick garland, our attorney general becomes very difficult to say, you don't have some kind of conflict or appearance of a conflict if you try to prosecute that adversary or the people around him. and so, i think it's not surprising -- >> can i quibble? >> yeah. >> can i quibble with you on the logic? >> please. >> the reporting is they're looking at it. the quibble would be, as you and i know and i think many viewers know from following the exact same structure in the mueller probe, that individual offers a layer, but as we know under the law, the decisions on t

fbi came to them, we're looking at primarily a small group of people at the top of the fbi and the doj and the dc field office that have been involved in this situation all the way down to mar-a-lago, i don't think it would be difficult to find out who the players are. the fact the doj and the fbi executives are so embedded with the democratic parties, it will be difficult to even though the republicans could be in charge or will be in rj cha, going to be difficult to do anything to the fbi and the doj because of their power. >> todd: that leaves open going after joe and hunter biden, president biden saying bring it on, basically, wishing them good luck, odd decision to poke the bear when you have more skeletons in your closet than a halloween store. we appreciate your time. thank you. >> todd: tropical storm nicole lashing florida as it you have moos up the state. >> carley: dangerous storm surge, damaging waves and torrential downpours, we'll track that live with the very latest coming up next. to make a♪ ♪it takes two to make it outta sight♪ ♪one, two, get loose now! it take

the doj now, they have the torch. doj and the american people. so the american people vote for people that actually honor their oaths, okay. that's now what we're going to give you, that's the charge. the doj they have more time, more tools, and they can enforce more things than we could, and i'm fairly certain -- not that i know specifically, but i'm certain they're going to find some stuff whether it's georgia or this or has secret documents. >> cassidy hutchinson was one of the committee's most important witnesses and she's today testifying in the georgia investigation. how dangerous is she to donald trump? >> she's very dangerous. i mean she came forward with as you saw specifically in the hearings we had and the hearing where she was solo she was able to give us a lot of insight that, you know, people like steve bannon could have -- you know, people that wouldn't come and talk to us, mark meadows that, you know, doj goes after him, so cassidy hutchinson will go down historically as the most important person in this. and let me make a broader

how the fbi has been politicized and the doj weaponized. this is going to be investigated if republicans win back the house on tuesday. also tonight, a shocking attack last night on a republican congressional candidate's parents' house. they shot a bullet in through the window. the kids were inside. that candidate, pat harrington, will tell us the story straight ahead. >> sean: this morning house republicans did release a report, totaling more than 1,000 pages detailing the disturbing -- we've been talking about this a long time -- how the fbi has been politicized and the department of justice weaponized. now this under attorney general merrick garland. the fbi under director christopher wray. in the report, house republicans assert that the fbi, quote, is broken, but stated that the problem is not with the frontline agents, the rank-and-file, but rather the politicized bureaucracy. joining us now to outline the report's findings, house judiciary committee ranking member jim jordan. if i'm a democrat, this election season, look deeply into

trump's facing the georgia election probe, the house and the doj's january 6th investigations, a doj probe on phony electors. the doj probe on the classified documents at mar-a-lago, a defamation lawsuit by e. jean car carroll, and his business empire is on trial for the criminal tax are fraud. that's a lot. and trump is likely to announce his, you know, run for president again for 2024 tonight. does that muddy the waters in terms of where these investigations go or how they proceed? >> it doesn't really. you know, there's no formal thing that happens when someone announces, and you know, if it were someone we gnaw knew nothi about, just a regular citizen announces a candidacy. doj will look at that differently. he's been running for president for a long time now, right? they've been treating him as a candidate, as a former president with all the deference that he is owed due to that. he's gotten process that no other citizen in the world would have gotten through, for example, the search warrant executed on mar-a-lago. i think doj will continue to treat him as a special case as they

it doesn't work that way when you're in front of doj and a grand jury. they can compel you to come forward and if you don't agree to. and the arguments mike pence made regarding january 26th and that doesn't apply here. we're talking about the executive branch, doj and he said there could be an executive privilege issue, that may be and there are plenty of topics on which mike pence can testify about and i don't think it, and i do think mine pence will talk to them. >> what does it say about the justice department strategy here? >> it tell us they're talking at the top of the food chain and the arky. that's the criticism, and we do that dos is focused squarely on donald trump a week or so ago being that was first time they were risk and the end of 2022 and doj is getting around to talking to mike pence and i don't see how they didn't do this in mid-2021, but they are focus at the top. a federal appeals court heard arguments in the justice department's challenge to the special master and the documents from trump's mar-a-lago estate. a ruling could come at

the doj has reached out to pence's team. they want him to testify as part of the january 6th criminal probe. a source tells cnn that pence is open to testifying at least to some extent. we know the former vp has refused to talk to the house select committee investigating the same thing. but it appears the distinction between a legislative investigation and a criminal one could make a real difference for pence. in quite a few recent media appearances and meetings with republican donors, pence has tried to thread the needle, criticizing the events of january 6th, while trying to maintain some support from former president trump's base. testifying may make that even harder, given how much the former president has portrayed cooperation with the doj as a litmus test for loyalty. my next guest knows what loyalty to trump means in this republican party. former acting white house chief of staff, mick mulvaney, thanks so much for joining me, sir. >> thanks, kasie. >> so, how do you think the former vice president cooperating with a s

none is greater than the weaponization of the justice system, the fbi, and the doj. we must conduct a top to bottom overhaul to clean out the festering rot and corruption of washington d.c.. [applause] >> thank you. and i'm a victim, i will tell you. i'm a victim. >> that low energy speech prompted the attorney general in less than 72 hours to appoint a federal prosecutor, and registered independent jack smith as special counsel sal to oversee the investigation that the classified documents that the president took to mar-a-lago after his presidency. as well as the probe to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power on january 6th. take a listen. >> based on recent developments, including the former presidents announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election, and the sitting president stating in tended to be a candidate as well, i have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel. such an appointment underscores the departments commitment, to both independents, and accountability, in particularly sensitive matters. >> jus

what do you think he can actually contribute to the doj 's investigation? >> well, as bradley said, there are certain conversations that mike pence had with trump alone. we know about two of those conversations from prior public recordings, as well as from pence's own book. one of those conversations occurred on january 6th, between the two of them in the oval office. the second happened on the morning of january 6th by telephone. trump said that conversation was overheard by people in the oval office. but as bradley just said, pence had people leave the room. and when he came back, he did not share what happened during that phone call with greg jacob, or marc short, or others who were in the room. so the first thing i want to hear from him, paola, it is what, specifically, he discussed with the president, when no one else did in the room. >> charles, i want to shift to another doj investigation involving trump. this week, three federal appeal courts judges in atlanta, two of whom were of course appointed by trump, were highly skeptical of trump's arguments

>> i am confident that doj will act differently this time. mostly because of the leadership of the president. but look, we didn't have great antitrust enforcement both in republican and democratic administrations for a long time. as a result, we've seen tremendous concentrations in our economy -- merges like this one, which should never have happened. i think that time is over. we have a president who understands what the impact of this kind of concentration is when working families, and on our economy. we have members of the administration who have a lifetime commitment to this work. and so, i think we're in a very different place. and the congress of the united states, my -- actively working on these issues. anti trust is back. -- much bigger role. i think we have an administration that is prepared to really do all that is necessary to restore competition, not only here, but all throughout our economy. and i think that's what's different today than it was maybe five or ten years ago. >> all right. congressman david cicilline, thanks for bei

didn't just give doj all they wanted here. and on appeal, that's going to benefit the government because you have this mixed verdict where it's clear the jurors considered the evidence and didn't just give doj everything they wanted. that's going to make it tougher for these individuals who are going to appeal this case to make that case that this was just a result of some of the jurors going beyond what the evidence proved. >> the other thing that struck me and hearth rifs one of the people who tweeted about this, this is about justice. it's about what happens to these defendants. but it's also about a place in history. and opposed to this being a tro test that got out of control, this establishes exactly what we saw happen on january 6th. do you see significant here? >> without question. if you look at the path that we have had in terms of this narrative and how it has taken so many different shapes, it started out from everyone as an atrocity of shocking proportion. then from there, it moved it to being something where a lo

what biden doj has used violence access of a view to target and smear the tens of thousands of peaceful protesters who were in washington on january 6. the tin tens of millions of conservatives and trump voters and the du double standard is ridiculous. paused at same time they ignore the antifa rioters and black lives matter rioters, kamala harris bailed out of jail violent protestors who were engaged in blah black lives mat black lives matter and antifa programs, i ask why, january 6 prisoners treated differently from other prisoners, they are questions that doj, were i it fair and impartial would be willing to answer, they stonewall. you want to know the stakes of this election are rule of law, we revere the constitution and the rule of law, why do we have prosperity in america, where much of the developing world does not, because we had the rule of law because our judicial system is not just a political weapon to persecute the enemies of the president, under barack obama and now joe biden, that is what it is becoming, that is dangerous. mark: book justice corrupted, how left weaponni

there could be at least an appearance of a conflict if you have joe biden's doj, joe biden's selected attorney general, leading the investigation of somebody who could be running against joe biden in 2024. so, it's going to be crucial to see, as we've said, who this person is. does this person have bipartisan or better yet non-partisan credentials? there are plenty of long-time prosecutors out there, people who have served under both administrations. it's important to know one more thing. the special counsel has to come from outside of government. so, it is supposed to be somebody who's not currently serving in the u.s. government. that said, i expect it to be a former prosecutor, perhaps a former judge. >> really interesting. evan, just tell us the nuts and bolts of how this will work. once this person is named in less than ten minutes, what will they have access to? how long will this process take? because we all remember that the robert mueller investigation, at times, felt intermable. >> it felt intermenable to those of us having to do it every day, but one of the interesting thin

the doj's decision to appoint a special counsel? well, there is writing on the wall, that's according to trump's attorney general, bill barr. >> if the department of justice can show that these were indeed very sensitive documents, which i think they probably were, and also show that the president consciously was involved in misleading the department, deceiving the government, and playing games after he had received a subpoena for the documents, those are serious -- >> that's a serious -- >> i personally think that they probably have the basis for illegitimate indicting the president. i'm speculating, but giving wet it has gone on, they probably have the evidence that would check the box. they have the case. >> that is trump's own ag, and many legal experts agree. lawyer and former prosecutor tweeting quoting, if merrick garland didn't think there was a serious possibility the trump would be indicted, he wouldn't have appointed a special counsel. he didn't appoint jack smith to wind down these investigations. jack smith, federal pro

>> so doj actually has statutory authority to seek use and we nearly. typically when you get this or somebody in the deputy attorney generals office who signed off on it. i bet in this case that authorization probably went a little bit higher. what it means is you go back to the possibly a defendant more likely a witness whose testimony you like you would like, and we say we just granted you use immunity, that means you can't be prosecuted based in your testimony or any evidence we derive from it. oh and by the way you no longer have a fifth amendment privilege to assert, so you're gonna have to answer the questions truthfully. up to this point everything was great for the witness, they are off the hook. but here's the kicker. if they answer any questions untruthfully, they can be prosecuted for perjury. so the only thing that serves them here is the truth. >> okay, so the idea here is that you don't want to talk and have a fifth amendment right not to. fifth amendment right protects you from incriminating yourself in some fashion. we will take away tha

this book i am h hopeful we'll see the same thing, i have to say this doj on exercises every day the abuse of power that we're talking about, this book explains why. mark: he was great. one of it greatest leaders of our time, reelection as prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu. we'll be right back. ♪ ♪ luxury exemplified. innovation electrified. with apple music seamlessly integrated. the all-new, all-electric eqs suv from mercedes-benz. mark: welcome back to this special thanksgiving episode of "life, liberty and levin ." "bibi: my story" is a fantastic book about natalia bryant, he hand wrote the entire book himself, over a period of about 12 months when he was out of power, he will be prime minister again, longest serving prime minister in history of israel, it is a fascinating book. let's check it out again. >> i want to stard not at the beginning mr. prime minister, but with something that is existential to our countries, this regime in iran. now, president trump had his foot on the throat of this regime, he got rid of deal obama administration. is working at break-ne

take action with more perfect uniknowio, link to petition the doj to investigate. swifty fans want to hear from her. >> this is really my first rodeo with tiktok and this is going on this whole time and nobody has done anything? what are we doing? where is taylor swift? i'm sorry, say something girl. >> cheryl: tickets on the resale market are going for $10 to $20,000. this will get bigger. >> carley: the passion, she speaks for it is masses. the internet is not happy, are they ever? fbi director chris wray left hearing early back in august and apparently this is why. >> the reason the hearing had to be cut short, you were flying on a gulfstream jet for a personal vacation to the adirondacks? >> it was not cut short. >> you were going on vacation? >> i was, yes. >> todd: joe concha joins us now, what does it say about the integrity of fbi leadership when the top guy admits to doing something like this? >> gulfstream jet, no less, why is the fbi director flying with such first class amenities? remarkable. this angers so many about elected officials, when the tough g

>> the decision by merrick garland is something the doj regulations call for. it wasn't required but within his discretion, he could decide that the day-to-day operations of this investigation are going to be handled by a special counsel. it is important to remember that the special counsel is a part of the department of justice. and ultimately the attorney general can decide that an indictment should not be brought. if that happens, that has to be reported to congress. but it's not like the attorney general gives up total control over what happens. but i do think that giving this to jack smith, who the public is going to get to know, is a great choice because he was head of the public integrity section that deals with public corruption cases and he doesn't have a political bone in his body, so this is really a great choice of a career experienced investigator and trial lawyer, so i think on the plus side for those people who want to see this investigation come to fruition one way or the other, jack smith is a really good choice because he's going to move it al

then you will see doj pushing the issue. >> i think you could argue both sides, doj and the january 6 committee, have time lines. doj doesn't want to get too close to the presidential election. but then you have a very real time line at the end of this session of congress for the january 6 committee. are you hearing any angst, any concern within the committee that it's just not enough time, ali? >> they never felt like they had enough time, which is to say, they were still actively fact finding, they are still talking to people. we have reported, i think just last week, they had just brought in bobby engle, one of the key secret service agents that can speak to what happened on january 6, what the former president was doing, make potentially corroborating some of the things that cassidy hutchinson said in her explosive testimony. all of those pieces are still actively coming together. the question that you and i have talked about before, chris, but that i regularly ask members on the committee is, at what point do you stop actively fact finding and just accept at this point you know w

the doj took a shot here. if you're going to take your shot at seditious conspiracy charges, an attack on the u.s. capitol is the case you want to make here. prosecutors said there was this agreement for them to oppose the peaceful transfer of power through any means necessary, up to and including violence. they didn't present any direct evidence that there was a plan to storm the capitol. instead they presented evidence and had testimony to the effect that individuals in the oath keepers seized this moment when the crowd began to go inside the capitol because they thought this was their opportunity to use force to stop the peaceful transfer of power. it was definitely really interesting hearing from three of the oath keepers during the course of the trial. i'm not sure how that will sit with the jury and whether or not that's going to benefit them in the end because besides one defendant, stewart rhodes had a tough time accepting any account accountability or his actions surrounding january 6th. >> ryan, you

efforts. >> it would be up to the doj to act on those refederals. congressman, thanks for joining us this evening. >>> all eyes are on the u.s. senate after the house passed a bill blocking a devastating rail strike just before the holidays. but can senators come to an agreement before the end of the week. >>> a history making election in the house. for the first time a person of color will lead one of the two major parties in congress. that's next. you're in "the situation room." what should the future deliver? (music) progress... (music) ...innovation... (music) ...discovery? or simply stability... ...security... ...protection? you shouldn't have to choose. (music) gold. your strategic advantage. (music) visit goldhub.com. if you're on multiple medications like i am, you should know that there are millions of people across the country using singlecare to drive down the cost of their prescriptions. so whether you have medicare or you don't. or whether your drug is covered or it's not. just check the singlecare price first. singlecare often beats co

right now doj is pretty far into those two big investigations, mar-a-lago and january 6. a special counsel would really muck things up. obviously they would turnover information but the special counsel would have his or her own team of prosecutors and i think that it would be a big distraction. >> and what do you think of the old guard well respected prosecutors, names floated are david raskin as well as david rowdy, prosecutor turned defense lawyer. tell us more about these potential names. >> doesn't get more prestigious when you talk about the southern district of new york. former prosecutors there are routinely appointed by federal judges to be special counsels of this nature. so it doesn't surprise me. they all have very good resumes i would note. >> let's turn to kash patel and a reminder of what he was saying about the documents this is before he testified and offered immunity. >> in october of 2020, president trump put out for the world to see a sweeping declassification order and he did it via social media. every single russiagate doc, every hillary clintongate d