farcter than you were able to get? i think there s both new witnesses who we didn t get, pence and mark meadows. and then i think there s additional information from witnesses we did get. pat cipollone, for example, is an institutionalist who felt very strongly he needed to preserve executive privilege, lawyers in the white house need to give advice to their clients without congressional oversight. my understanding is that jack smith has overcome that privilege assertion, and that has resulted in additional information from pat cipollone and others. so, again, there are procedural mechanisms in a criminal investigation that allow those privilege assertions to be quickly adjudicated that we didn t have. the only remedy for us to push through or push back against the privilege assertion was civil litigation, which took longer than we had in existence as a committee. so the special counsel is aggressively pursuing litigation over these privilege assertions and that is resulting in addit
you and others i think an indictment in the january 6th case is likely. the select committee recommended, made a criminal referral. just based on the evidence that we were able to gather. jack smith has gotten additional evidence. he s able to overcome privilege assertions and get access to mike pence, to mark meadows, to pat cipollone, beyond executive privilege assertions. it s only going to make the evidence of specific intent to obstruct that official proceeding on january 6th more provable. so i ve believed all along that they were moving inexorably toward an indictment. i think it s a big deal to cross the threshold of issuing one. it s happened now, therefore a little bit less of a momentous thing if it happens again. but i think they re going to make these decisions on the facts and the law. jack smith, as joyce was saying in your first segment, is a consummate professional who s guided by the facts and the law. facts and the law here, to me, point pretty clearly to criminal
fitten, who is not even a lawyer, certainly not an expert in presidential records act, when any other sober, capable lawyer who is steeped in those facts is telling him otherwise. that s not a legal defense. you can t rely on unreasonable advice. let me ask you this question about the january 6th piece of this. we just had well, let me ask you the january 6th piece. would you expect a january 6th case to also be brought at the same time, and could they be brought at the same time in theory? yes, the select committee even based on the evidentiary record we developed recommended criminal charges. we found evidence of intent to obstruct an official hearing, a conspiracy to prevent transfer of power. jack smith has gone beyond that and overcome privilege assertions by pat cipollone and others who asserted privilege before the committee. i think the case is only getting increasingly strong that the president intended specifically to prevent the certification of
and rapid ability to adjudicat those assertions we disagree with the vas majority of those privileged assertions but we and how exactly smith has, which is a grand jury, desire for the grandeur to overcome privilege assertions. 11 cases on. that and importantly procedurally, he can g immediately to the case judg which summarizes the grand jury, that is an expedited matter. it can be rolled upon very quickly. then the only issue that goe before the court of appeals is is a likelihood of success will the court of appeals stay the district court s ruling? the special counsel will tak advantage of that rapid proces to adjudicate and ofte overcome those privilege assertions all that will give them access to information from some of th people that we interviewed, bu did not get some of thos direct communications becaus of that privilege assertion. going even further details, the court had constructing a
so we don t have the direct evidence of what mike pence said to president trump. that s why jack smith wants to get it directly from mike pence and overcome the privilege or speech and debate objection. but we know from the circumstantial evidence that we developed what the content of that conversation was. so my guess is when this is litigated and if those advisers to the president are forced to step back from the privilege assertions that we get direct evidence of what we already know occurred that the election wasn t stolen and the vice president had no authority on january 6th to reject these certified electors. your knowledge of the law, is there any precedent to lead you to indicate one way or the other how this judge might rule? well, the criminal context makes it really different. in a congressional oversight, in