Amanpour and Company

TWO YEARS ON THIS ACTION MARKS A SIGNIFICANT MOVE FORWARD WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS LEAVING CONGRESS AND REPUBLICANS REGAINING CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, WHAT HAPPENS NOW? OUR NEXT GUEST STAFF WRITER FOR THE NEW YORKER AMY DAVIDSON JOINS MICHELLE MARTIN TO TACKLE THE VERY QUESTIONS. >> THANKS, SARAH. AMY, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US. >> THANKS FOR HAVING ME. >> YOU HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE WORK OF THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE JANUARY 6th INSURRECTION VERY CLOSELY PERHAPS CLOSELY AS ANYBODY. THE COMMITTEE HAD THE LAST MEETING YESTERDAY. WHAT STOOD OUT TO YOU? >> THE TONE. THE COMMITTEE WAS MEETING TO SAY THAT WORK WAS DONE. THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF TRAGEDY TO IT. ONE REASON THE WORK IS DONE BECAUSE THEY FINISHED THE REPORT AND DONE BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE IS DISBANDED AT THE END OF THE CONGRESSIONAL SESSION BECAUSE DEMOCRATS LOST CONTROL OF THE HOUSE SO ITS WORK IS DONE AND THAT WAY, IT WAS ALSO INTERESTING LOOKING UP AT THE ROW OF NINE COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THINKING ONLY FIVE ARE COMING BACK TO CONGRESS. THE VICE CHAIR LIZ CHENEY HAS BEEN MORE OF LESS DRIVEN OUT OF HER PARTY. THE OTHER REPUBLICAN ON THE COMMITTEE ADAM KEN SINKER IS RETIRED AND A DEM KRALT LOST A RACE IN IN A SWING DISTRICT IN VIRGINIA AND STEPHANIE MURPHY IS RETIRING, AS WELL. SO YOU HAVE GOT THAT SENSE OF LOSS AND ACCOMPLISHMENT AND THAT I THINK LEAVES ONE WONDERING WHAT COMES NEXT. AN IN DEPTH REPORT AND PREVIEW THE REPORT IN THE MORE DRAMATIC ELEMENTS AND A LOT IS GOING ON. THEY WERE HANDING OFF THE BALL SAYING -- THEY ENDED BY VOTING ON CRIMINAL REFERRALS TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE HEADLINES FROM THE MEETING ITSELF. OBVIOUSLY, SAYING THAT THE COMMITTEE IS REFERRING, SUGGESTING TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY INVESTIGATE THE FORMER PRESIDENT, ALSO, THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S LAWYER BUT ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT A HOUSE ETHICS COMMITTEE TAKE UP THE MATTER OF THE FOUR SITTING MEMBERS INCLUDING KEVIN McCARTHY THAT REFUSED TO ACCEPT SUBPOENAS THAT OR REFUSE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND TESTIFY. >> WE'LL SEE. IT'S A TRICKY, TRICKY QUESTION, YOU KNOW, SUBPOENAING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. ON A SEPARATE ISSUE, THERE IS A TRAIN OF LITIGATION WHERE LINDSEY GRAHAM WAS TRYING TO USE THE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION TO AVOID TESTIFYING IN RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN GEORGIA ABOUT THE EFFORTS OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS TEAM ON STATE OFFICIALS THERE TO HELP HIM IN HIS EFFORTS TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION. SO IT'S WITH CONGRESS. THAT'S WHY I THINK THE ETHICS PART OF IT IS INTERESTING. KEEP IN MIND, THOUGH, THAT THIS -- WITH THIS GROUP OF REPUBLICANS, IT'S POSSIBLE WHAT WE'LL GET IS SORT OF A RETALIATION ETHICS COMMITTEE REFERRALS AND IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHERE THAT IS GOING TO LEAD. WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT THE COMMITTEE DID TAKE THE SUBPOENAS THAT SERIOUSLY. IT LED TO A PROSECUTION OF STEVE BANNON, THE PRESIDENT'S FORMER ADVISOR FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS AND HE BACKED THE SENTENCE TO A FEW MONTHS IN JAIL BUT HASN'T SERVED THAT PENDING AN APPEAL. AND INDEED SOME OF THE MOST PRODUCTIVE WORK THE COMMITTEE DID HAD TO DO WITH ITS LITIGATION OF THE SUBPOENAS THAT. >> WHY DO YOU SAY THAT? >> THEY MANAGED TO GET THROUGH THE HURDLES THAT HELD INVESTIGATIONS BACK FOR EXAMPLE YOU MENTIONED THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER JOHN EASTMAN THE SUBJECT OF SOME OF THESE CRIMINAL REFERRALS. HE BOUGHT THE SUBPOENA OF SOME OF HIS EMAILS, SOME OF THE SEPARATE EMAIL ADDRESSES HE HAD. THEY LITIGATED THAT AND THAT LATE GAGES THAT NOT ONLY GAMED THEM A LOT OF IMPORTANT AND QUITE INCRIMINATING MATERIALS BUT LET SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BE AIR IN A COURT AND THE JUDGE THAT ADJUDICATED THAT CLAIM JUDGE CARTER, YOU'VE PROBABLY HEARD A QUOTE FROM HIM, FROM HIS FINDINGS IN THAT HE WAS THE ONE THAT SAID WHAT HE SAW GOING ON BETWEEN TRUMP AND THE PEOPLE WITH LAW DEGREES IS A COUP IN SEARCH OF A LEGAL THEORY. IT ALLOWED SOME DID CUSHION OF THAT AND LITIGATION INVOLVING THE COMMITTEE AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES IN WHICH TRUMP AND ALLIES MADE PRIVILEGE CLAIMS, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE LIKE TRUMP IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE PRESIDENT AND TELL ANYBODY NOT TO SPEAK AND THOSE HAVE ACTUALLY HAD AN AIRING IN COURT AND TRUMP HAS LOST OR THE TRUMP SIDE OR TEAM LOST AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT THAT THE COMMITTEE'S WORK AND EVIDENCE THEY CAN PUT BEFORE THE PUBLIC AND OTHER INVESTIGATORS, THAT WILL OUT LIVE THE COMMITTEE. IT ALSO AGAIN SHOWS THAT. >> WERE THERE MOMENTS THAT STANDS OUT EITHER FOR THE IMPRESSION THEY LEFT OR THE ARGUMENT THEY MADE OR THE IMPACT IT MADE HAVE HAD ON THE PUBLIC. DO YOU THINK THERECONSEQUENTIAL. >> IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW THEY AIMED ARGUMENTS AT PEOPLE THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE DOUBTS WHETHER JOE BIDEN WON THE ELECTION. YOU KNOW, WHAT MIGHT APPROACH IT THINKING DONALD TRUMP IN GOOD FAITH HAD THOUGHT SOMETHING HAD GONE ON, THAT'S WHAT WAS DRIVING HIM. A FEW THINGS, FIRST SO MANY PEOPLE AROUND TRUMP KEPT TELLING HIM HE LOST AND HIS PLANS FOR HOLDING ON TO OFFICE WERE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND PARTICULARLY STRIKING I THINK FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE WAS HOW THEY DOCUMENTED THE PRESSURE THAT WAS PUT ON MIKE PENCE HIS VICE PRESIDENT AND HOW MANY PEOPLE SAID THIS IS NOT RIGHT. THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO WATCH THE HEARINGS AND HEAR THE WITNESSES AND HEAR SOMEBODY MADE A GOOD FAITH MISTAKE ABOUT THIS. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE HEARINGS, IT WAS RELEASED YESTERDAY WHICH WAS THE EXECUTIVE SUMMERY OF THE REPORT. THE REST OF THE REPORT COMES LATER THIS WEEK THAT WE SAW EITHER IN PERSON OR IN VIDEO CLIPS MAYBE 70 WITNESSES BUT THE COMMITTEE INTERVIEWED ABOUT 1,000 PEOPLE SO THERE IS SO MUCH MATERIAL WE HAVEN'T SEEN YET AND HARD FOR US TO EVALUATE. >> WHO IS THE AUDIENCE FOR THESE HEARINGS? >> YOU KNOW, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. THERE IS MULTIPLE AUDIENCES. I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO REACH SOMEBODY THAT MIGHT NOT BE SURE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AND MAYBE IT WAS JUST ALL, YOU KNOW, TRUMP ON THE ONE HAND BEING A LITTLE RASH, A MOB ON THE OTHER HAND. SOME PEOPLE THINK IT FIT TOGETHER AND OTHERS THINK IT DIDN'T FIT TOGETHER. THERE ARE OTHER AUDIENCES. THE COMMITTEE MIGHT SAY IT'S MOST IMPORTANT AUDIENCES THAT THIS THING KNOWN AS HISTORY, THAT IT'S ESTABLISHING A RECORD, MAKING A STATEMENT AND THERE WAS SOMETHING HISTORICAL ABOUT WHAT WE WERE WATCHING IN A NUMBER OF WAYS. IT'S HISTORICAL IN A SENSE OF TRYING TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED FOR OUR DEMOCRACY BUT ALSO HISTORICAL IN SAYING HOW DO WE THEN RESPOND, MOVE FORWARD, WHAT LESSONS DO WE DRAW FROM THIS IN A WAY THAT'S PROTECTIVE OF OUR DEMOCRACY? THE OTHER AUDIENCE, OF COURSE, IS ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND AND HIS TEAM AND JACK SMITH, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO LOOK INTO JANUARY -- TRUMP'S RELATION TO JANUARY 6th AND OTHER ISSUES. >> OBVIOUSLY, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, TO USE A CLICHE AND OVER WORKED CLICHE THE BALL IS NOW IN THEIR COURT. OKAY? FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE PUBLIC, DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF WHETHER THE COMMITTEE SUCCEEDED IN ITS GOAL OF PERSUADING PEOPLE THAT THIS WAS SERIOUS, THAT AS YOU JUST PUT IT, THAT THIS WAS PRECARIOUS? >> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION IS WHAT I WOULD SAY. DID THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE MID TERMS BEINGLESS BAD FOR DEMOCRATS THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE EXPECTED? MAYBE. THAT HAS SEEMED TO GOTTEN THROUGH IN KEY RACES. IT DIDN'T SOLVE ANYTHING BUT MAY GIVE DEMOCRATS THE COURAGE TO KEEP MAKING THAT ARGUMENT, TO NOT SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NEVER GOING TO REACH ANYBODY BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO HAVE REACHED SOME PEOPLE AND THAT'S A PROOF OF CONCEPT IF NOTHING ELSE THAT IT CAN REACH MORE PEOPLE, THAT YOU CAN TALK THIS THROUGH WITH PEOPLE TO BE AT LEAST IN THE CONVERSATION, AND THEY HAVEN'T COMPLETELY WRITTEN IT OFF. NOW, I WOULD ALSO SAY ABOUT THE BALL BEING IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S COURT, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAID IT'S BEEN IN OUR COURT FOR AWHILE. THE THING ABOUT 900 CRIMINAL CHARGES ALREADY, THEY HAVE BEEN AT IT. THERE IS A MOMENT IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMERY WHERE THERE IS A DOCUMENT USUALLY WHEN CONGRESS MAKES A REFERRAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IT'S ABOUT SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS IS JUST COME UP WITH, HAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF ITS WORK AND THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS ISN'T IN THAT CATEGORY, IT'S NOT NEWS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT THIS HAPPENED AND A LOT OF CRIMES WERE COMMITTED ON JANUARY 6th. THERE IS SOME DIVERGING HOW THEY ARE APPROACHED AND DONALD TRUMP. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GOT FLAK ARE THEY BEING TOO SLOW? THEY'RE METHODICAL AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S EASIER REALLY AS A COMMITTEE TO, YOU KNOW, SAY WE'RE GOING TO REFER DONALD TRUMP TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. YOU HAVE TO MAKE A CASE. >> I WANT TO GO TO SOMETHING YOU RAISED AT THE BEGINNING AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IN YOUR WRITING IS THAT IS THERE ANY GRAY AREA HERE IN TERMS OF THE ABILITY OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO ACTUALLY PROSECUTE A FORMER PRESIDENT? IS THERE ANY GRAY AREA THERE? IS THERE ANY SEPARATION OF POWERS ISSUE HERE OR DEEP CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THAT ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD -- THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT? >> THE BIGGEST CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION BECAUSE HE IS NOT PRESIDENT ANYMORE, THE DEEPEST QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE CONSEQUENCES. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THERE AREN'T OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES BUT WHERE THERE IS A LOT OF DISPUTE, YOU CAN BRING CHARGES AGAINST DEPARTMENT. YOU CAN CONVICT DONALD TRUMP WHAT MAY SURPRISE PEOPLE IS THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT DONALD TRUMP CAN'T RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2020. THE IDEA OF BARRING TRUMP FROM OFFICE, THERE ARE A MILLION LEGAL AND JUDICIAL COMPLICATIONS SO IT WOULD PROBABLY END UP ALMOST CERTAINLY AT THE SUPREME COURT AND ASK WHETHER THIS SUPREME COURT WOULD BAR TRUMP FROM RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND ALSO WHETHER IT SHOULD. THE ONLY POST CIVIL WAR USE OF THE BARRING SOMEBODY FROM RUNNING FROM OFFICE AGAIN BECAUSE OF TAKING PART IN AN INSURRECTION CLAUSE WAS A DISREPUTABLE ONE THAT BANNED A CONGRESSMAN FROM TAKING HIS SEAT BECAUSE HE HAD SPOKEN AGAINST THE U.S.'S INVOLVEMENT IN WORLD WAR I AND SPOKEN ABOUT THE FLUTOCROCY BEHIND THE WAR. YOU CAN SEE HOW YOU CAN GET IN PLACE IT'S NOT -- NOT GREAT FROM A CIVIL LIBERTIES PERSPECTIVE GOING FORWARD. >> IS THERE A PARTICULAR MOMENT THAT STANDS OUT FOR YOU THAT SORT OF ENCAPSULATES WHAT IT IS THIS COMMITTEE IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE? >> THE PEOPLE THAT HELD POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY IN THE GOVERNMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATION, IN THE MILITARY, WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO IT, MOST OF THEM TOOK THEIR JOBS REALLY SERIOUSLY AND WE HAD PEOPLE THAT STOPPED AND SAID WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION WANT ME TO DO? YOU SAW THAT IN VIDEOS THAT THE COMMITTEE OBTAINED OF PEOPLE -- OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE TOLD IT TAKE AWHILE TO CLEAR THE CAPITOL. MANY SAID NO, WE NEED TO GET BACK IN THERE RIGHT NOW. THE COMMITTEE SEES ITSELF AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, AS PART OF THAT STOP AND QUESTION AND ASK WHERE DOES OUR CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE LEAD US AND PART OF THAT IS WELL, THERE ARE A LOT OF CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE MOB, WHAT ELSE WERE THEY PART OF AND HOW CAN THE JUSTICE APPROACH THAT AT THE LOWEST AND HIGHEST LEVEL? THAT MOMENT OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITY I THINK STANDS OUT. I THINK THE COMMITTEE TRIED TO DO THAT AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THE COMMITTEE IS NOT STANDING ALONE IN THIS. THERE ARE SO MANY INVESTIGATIONS GOING ON AND IT'S NOT GOING TO END WITH THE COMMITTEE BEING DISBANDED. THIS REPORT WILL GET US FURTHER BUT NOT THE FINAL WORD. IT'S NOT INCONCEIVABLE WE'LL HAVE A MOMENT WHERE DONALD TRUMP IS ACTUALLY QUESTIONED IN A COURT OF LAW ABOUT HIS ROLE AND IF WE GET TO THAT POINT, THAT'S PART OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE SEEING NOW FROM THE COMMITTEE BUT IN THE END, I THINK THAT WHAT STANDS OUT IS PEOPLE WILL IN FUTURE YEARS GO TO THE POLLS WITH A CLEAR I CAN PICTURE OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF VOTES AND ABOUT THE CHOICES THAT THEY MAKE, TOO. >> AMY DAVIDSON, THANK YOU FOR TALKING WITH US TODAY. >> THANKS SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.