is a bit incongruent with this very accurate informational based report put out by democrats about the types of people, the whistle blowers -- the whistle blowers who are coming forward and trying to provide information to jordan. so he's walking a very fine line here in trying to stand this committee up. >> frank, what is the -- i mean, if you're the fbi, regardless of your sort of political instincts, jim comey was fired because he wouldn't, quote, see to it to let mike flynn go. mccabe is fired a week before he would have seen his full pension. stark and page are prevailing because judges see that maybe they're correct. the politization is epic. i don't know if there's been another special prosecutor who
that we're watching hearings that are supposed to be about that when jeff clark is the poster child for the weaponization of the department of justice. so i totally agree with rick that that kind of person with that kind of conduct, it's so important for the department of justice to be able to vindicate their interests here because the public has a right to expect law enforcement, and certainly our attorney general, to be completely apolitical. when they see people at the department who are not doing that in a criminal way, as i believe jeff clark was, it's so important to get to the bottom of that. >> andrew weissman, thank you for starting us off today. i know we wrangled you from other things. thank you very much for saying yes. jackie, frank and rick stick around a little bit longer. there's more when we come back. a new report by house democrats pulls the curtain back on what andrew weissman is talking about. jim jordan's committee and his
trump get criminal revenge. remember cash patel? well, also from that 316-page report assembled by democrats, quote, based on this evidence committee democrats conclude there is a strong likelihood that kash patel is encouraging the witnesses to continue pursuing their meritless claims and, in fact, is using them to help propel his vendetta against the fbi, justice department and biden administration on behalf of himself and president trump. joining us now, democratic congressman jerry conley of virginia. he's a member of the select house committee, jackie, frank and rick are still here. congressman, this falls in the giant bucket of shocking but not surprising. the report is clear as day that this much ballyhooed subcommittee has got absolutely
jack smith and his team are picking up the pace in their investigation, investigations with an s, plural, into the disgraced twice impeached ex-president. that is where we start today with some of our favorite reporters and friends. joining us, one of the journalists who shares a by-line on that piece. jackie alameni. joining us frank taglusi. andrew weissman is back, a former justice department prosecutor as well as the former senior member of robert mueller's team. and rick stengel, all msnbc contributors. jackie, tell us what you guys have learned. >> yeah, nicole. we kind of just wanted to give readers a broad stroke of where we are at this moment since there's been little visibility into the special counsel's parallel investigations into
ultimately it may go to boris epstein, maybe the former president, but that hot potato is going to get passed up the chain until somebody owns it. the presumably as we did with manafort, it was manafort and rick gates who told the lawyer what to say that was false and presumably that is what jack smith is looking to see whether it was the former president who did that. obviously we can all look at this and say of course it was him. it doesn't fly in the court of law, you need the witness to say that, and jack smith may be saying that as we speak. >> so, frank, jackie started this or framed it around what her reporting reflects about pace, but she added this caveat that jack smith, and i'm sure andrew agrees with her assessment, doesn't give a bleep about the politics or the political calendar. i want to put it around a different beating -- ticking clock, and that is the national security concerns that were really in focus when the mar-a-lago case first burst into
instigation of terrorism. more important to get it right though. and i think this whole reporting that jackie has on lawyers being approached, looked at, talked to as opposed to the trump spokesperson who today said oh, this is proof they have a weak case, i see it differently. i see this as prove that jack smith is absolutely taking a broad approach, no stone unturned, and is unafraid to go into some very delicate legal areas that look into common interest privilege, attorney-client privilege. i think he couldn't care less. he's going to go where the facts go. i think as andrew said, nobody does this willy-nilly. i've never seen a case that goes, we have nothing. why don't we try to jam up lawyers. no one does that. you do it only when you have an indication that there's some criminality involved that touches on the lawyers and that's what i think jack smith believes he has. >> frank, to your point, what's