0 gets tonight's last word. the 11th hour with stephanie ruhle starts now. >> tonight, new details on the pressure campaign to overturn the 2020 election, as a possible future criminal case against the former guy comes into view. then, another big primary night. the trump endorsement once again put to the test, as more than 100 republican primary winners embrace the big lie. is this the future of the gop? plus, the fleecing of america. outrage over out of control covid relief spending, this stunning amount of money that may have been awarded to fraudsters, as the 11th hour gets underway on this tuesday night -- >> good evening, once again, i'm stephanie ruhle, live from washington, d. c.. tonight, the january 6th committee made up for delaying its originally scheduled hearing for tomorrow, by releasing damning new testimony from an attorney in trump's white house. in a tease of sorts for next week's hearing watch this -- >> in our next hearing on thursday, the select committee will examine president trump's relentless effort on january 6th and in the days beforehand to pressure vice president pence to refuse to count lawful electoral votes. as a federal judge has indicated, this likely violated to federal criminal statutes. to. that's heating up the comment, the committee's newest bombshell, a portion of the deposition from former white house lawyer, eric herschmann, who describes a colorful conversation the day he had after the insurrection, with lawyer john eastman. the lawyer wrote memos arguing the vice president could in fact overturn the election. >> he started to ask me about something dealing with georgia, and preserving something, eventually, 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. and then i screamed and said, i don't want to hear and the other effing words coming out of your mouth no matter what, other than orderly transition. repeat those 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 are getting in your life. get a great effing criminal defense lawyer, you are going to need it. and i hung off on him. >> now that was a tease. as mentioned, the committee today postponed tomorrow's hearing. it was supposed to detail trump's attempt to use the justice department to deny biden's victory. the washington post has new reporting on that very effort, concerning an epic confrontation in the oval office just three days before the insurrection. according to the post, former doj official jeffrey clark was there, lobbying to get trump to sign off on a plan to reverse the election results. and appoint him the attorney general. then, attorney general jeffrey rosen and his deputy heard about clark's mission, and they reportedly raced to the oval office. clark's boss is then manage to convince trump not to go along with that plan, which they had already rejected, warning trump that mass resignations might be the result but it is no surprise -- some people in the administration were trying to help them overturn a legitimate election. trump's former attorney general, bill barr, testified about trump's detachment, not just from reality but, in many, many cases, the truth. so, i want to hold on here. bill barr making his argument that trump was detached from the truth and that's why he had to make a stand, it doesn't make very much sense. because the truth is, trump has been detached from the truth and pushing falsehoods since the beginning. i want to remind you trump repeatedly claimed he one man of the year award in michigan years ago. guess what, that award never existed. then, year after year he overstated his personal wealth so he could get on to the forbes 400 list. we should never forget sharpiegate, were trump pointed to an incorrect map to try to prove his own incorrect hurricane forecast. those are just three little examples. the washington post has over 30,000. so, while bill barr standing up for the truth under oath now, neither he, nor the rest of the administration did it thousands of times before. there is a lot we've got to cover tonight. so, let's get smarter with the help of our lead off panel, pulitzer prize-winning congressional reporter, luke broadwater. for the new york times. and neal katyal, department of justice veteran and former acting solicitor general during the obama administration, who's argued dozens of cases before the supreme court court, and frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counter intelligence. i have a lot to cover guys. luke, to you first -- how significant is that t's tees clip that the committee released tonight about john eastman? a lot of f bombs. >> i think it's extremely significant. here you have one of the white house attorney saying he believes there was a crime committed, where that certainly he believes this criminal exposure here for john eastman. and we all know what john eastman was doing. he was plotting along with donald trump to overturn the election. but i do think it showed a certain gall on the part of john eastman, to call the next day after the january 6th violence where so many people were injured and where blood was shed on the capitol grounds, to still try to push a legal stretchy tovey trendy election the next day. i think that's quite galling. i do think it sets up this meeting or this hearing on thursday. where i am told we are going to see very explosive new evidence. we've reported some of that in the new york times, some of the other fine journals have reported what we should expect as well. but some of the other revelations coming from marc short's testimony, out of greg jacobs testimony, some of the things john eastman was doing and saying i think those will all be on display. and some of the things that trump himself was saying, those will all be on display thursday afternoon. >> luke, earlier tonight, chris hayes asked committee members zoe lofgren about delaying towards hearing and whether there is something else going on, witnesses backing out, more fact gathering, and i want to play what she said. >> we are constantly learning new things, but this is primarily logistical. >> primarily? >> i'll just leave it at that. >> primarily, what do you think about that, luke? you are the reporter on hand. what i've been told repeatedly by the committee is that this has been nearly an issue on the staff side, about getting the hearing ramped up, the presentations, going through this voluminous transcripts and video evidence they have. some of the doj lawyers sat for several sessions, hours upon hours long. and we are given the best clips of those. i've heard some of the rumors about, maybe there's going to be a big supreme court ruling tomorrow. and the committee wanted to stay clear of that. i don't know how they would know that. that's just a rumor that is going around on capitol hail, probably more speculation than anything. but from one effort from actual reporting, are some issues on the staff side, in the presentation, getting ready, and they are going to postpone until probably next week, having officials come to testify. >> neal, you had an editorial tonight in the new york times, the future criminal case against donald trump. different committee members are saying different things about a criminal referral. i want to share with jamie raskin said. >> there is not a general catch all federal statute that allows for congress to make criminal referrals to the department of justice. we have the power and the authority and, i think, the duty to publish all the information we have about crimes that have taken place. we have even already committed ourselves to the proposition that crimes have taken place. >> how would you go about making the case against trump? >> i wrote this piece today, outlining exactly with that would be. and i don't know that i'm a great effing criminal defense lawyer but i am a criminal defense lawyer. and the criminal case against trump is incredibly strong. close observers knew that before hearings. and the question has always been, why has the justice department -- why haven't they done anything, at least outwardly? and the idea in this piece is to say, merrick garland, looks like he may have decided on the strategy. and the strategy is rooted in the fact that this, stephanie, that this is not a normal investigation. in a normal investigation, the justice department goes first. but here, we always knew, everyone knew garland knew, that congress would be investigating after all, that seat of government was attacked, that branch of government was attacked, those police officers were attacked. so, in a world in which garland know, as congress is already going to investigate, and with a bipartisan committee, it makes sense to have them generate the evidence put it before the american public, and then acclimate the public to what close observers know, which is that the facts here looking credibly damning for trump, both on obstruction of an official proceeding, and on conspiracy. with respect to both of those, the case looks really quite strong against donald trump. and we as americans can't have a world in which that kind of high level wrongdoing goes unanswered. i mean, you and me, steph, if we commit a minor crime, we get sent to the slammer. the idea that merrick garland wouldn't prosecute this i think is unthinkable. and what i think congress has to do is get that evidence before the people, so more and more people see it, and get socialize to the fact that this indictment, which no attorney general has ever done -- no attorney general has ever indicted a former president in our history. but we've never had a president like donald trump in our history. >> and that's kind of the thing neal, isn't it hard to prove intent? we've seen time and time again, trump roles mobsters style. he doesn't write texts, he doesn't write emails. isn't it hard -- he knows how to say well i didn't actually know. remember michael cohen? remember he said, trump -- took a note and actually tore it up and ate michael cohen went to jail, trump didn't. he never sciences. name >> big difference, stephanie, between the [inaudible] this could be a criminal prosecution, and criminal prosecutors know very well, [inaudible] mob people in jail, where they decided that's what they wanted to do, before there had the fortitude to do it. and here i think the evidence, which the hearing is unfolding -- like bill barr saying that trump's claims were bs, and that he told trump that, over and over again. if you are an idiot -- if you are willfully blind to the facts on the bland ground, that's not a defense to a criminal charge. and that's all trump's defense, at the bottom, looks like. which means all the [inaudible] i know some of it seems tedious, but it's all [inaudible] incredibly useful in a criminal prosecution, and we've never seen that against trump. because frankly, some of these prosecutors in the past, including well respected people like mueller flinched. >> speaking of the american people we often hear people don't care about these hearings. but they do, 20 million people, they watch the first primetime hearing. 10 million people reportedly watched the second one. that took place in daytime there is a huge audiences. do you think this investigation is breaking through? >> i think it is. look what we are talking about. look at -- let me say one network are talking about, stephanie. when people are talking about around the country is what? whether or not there might be a criminal charge or two or three against the former president here. and a lot is being written about this in the last 48 hours, 72 hours. that's penetration. you know the other side that this is penetrating? pressing the right buttons and having an impact -- would i used to use in my own fbi days to measure and items and trials were actually on the right path doing the right thing -- was the extent to which a defendant feels it necessary to start ranting and raving around the courthouse steps or in the media. and what are we seeing from people like steve bannon roger stone the former president who responds with a 12-page rant diatribe where he actually starts confessing? he says in a tweet i was responsible for the events on january 6th? it was the rigged election that was responsible. he's weighed himself to a falsehood. so, when we used to say back an fbi was, please keep doing it please keep talking, please [inaudible] it helps, it helps from the public perception of you. and it helps prosecutors get their job done. >> how about all the people that he convinced it was a rigged election? we learned yesterday, neal, that trump raised 250 million bucks for the stop the steal defense fund, a fund that didn't even exist. so, are we going to start to see civil suits class action suits, against this fund, for people who want their money back? >> i think we could. and somewhere steve bannon was -- finally took his advice. because remember, bannon was invited for exactly this kind of seem. and pardoned by trump for this stuff, you can't take money from one thing and use it for another. that's both wire fraud, in a criminal context. and steph, as you say, it's a civil lawsuit as well. and the facts look like, from the evidence yesterday from the committee, that that's what happened. trump said he would deliver he then we spent the money and then absconded with the rest of the money. the only thing i can tell that makes this any different from the trump organization is that the trump kids haven't yet come around to collect their consulting fees. but it is the trump mo once again take the money and run. >> it's the trump memo once again, but they've never been in trouble for, it neil. remember for months and months we talk about all that inauguration money. they are gonna get in trouble for it spent. they haven't gotten in trouble. >> yes i do think stephanie, the difference is that these are criminal prosecutions, investigations, by the justice department, but the last four years, we've had a smattering of different attorney generals, bill barr, whitaker, -- that protected the president in every turn. barr going so far as to shut down essentially the mueller investigation and say you can't indict a sitting president. now we've had a year into the garland administration, garland justice department, i do think keith is methodical, careful, the fact that he hasn't ended it yet doesn't tell me that he wouldn't indict in the future. and again, things like these hearings are a way to try to acclimate the public first, to just how bad the evidence is against trump and those around him. and then, have the criminal prosecutor come later. that's at least, obviously the most optimistic scenario for those of us who care about the rule of law. but it's one that i think we should be putting out on the table, because the hearings are providing such compelling evidence, stephanie, of wrongdoing by the presidents and it is really unthinkable. in this country, that we would let that go unanswered. >> frank, january six is not just a thing of the past, i know you are focused on clear and present danger and focus on extremist groups, and their risks now, over this past weekend, 31 members of patriots front, they were arrested in boise for allegedly targeting a pride at that. i know we are trying to get to the bottom of january 6th, but it still seems like a lot of the off options of that group are still plotting. how concerned are you? >> i'm concerned dhs more importantly is concerned enough to have issued a statement a week ago that we are in a heightened threat environment for the next few months. that is their quote. we are halfway through pride month, stephanie. we have seen something fortunately taken down in court al ain, idaho, but i am concerned that it took, thankfully, a citizen spotting these guys, loading up into a u-haul, to call 9-1-1, and then it wasn't in an intelligence operation, on the coverage, informants, monitoring social media. people came from 11 states to do this. to idaho, yet it took a citizen, thankfully, to call 9-1-1. what does that tell us? the challenges that law enforcement are facing now are unprecedented in terms of the threats, environments, and the cultivation of this anti-trans, anti-gender nonconforming, sentiment, is turning violence. it's the new chance, the new mantra, that i am seeing in private. violent extremists. >> tells you that the private citizen is a great american hero. gentlemen thank you so much for getting a smarter, and starting our evening. off broadwater, frank figliuzzi, and neal katyal. this is also primary night in america, four different states today, nevada, north dakota, maine, and south carolina. yet again, donald trump's endorsement power is being put to the big test. looking for, as steve kornacki is back at the big board, steve where do we stand right now? >> well here is the biggest one for donald trump. i think even more the most tonight, we can say, he got it. he got his candidate, russell fry, to victory, in the seventh district in south carolina. republican primary here, trouncing republican incumbents, tom rice. one of the few house republicans who voted to impeach donald trump. following the events of january six. this was the first time in fact, during this lengthy primary season, that we have seen a republican come before republican primary voters after voting to impeach trump. and face a trump backed challenger. here is the verdict from the voters of the seventh district of south carolina, more than 2 to 1, russell fry state legislator, crushing tom rice, again, this is a 50% role here, the only suspense tonight was if fry would clear 51%. witness, outright avoid a runoff. he has, russell fry winds in south carolina. seven and we see now projecting that nancy mace, also targeted by donald trump, republican incumbent, nancy mace, will survive her primary challenge. trump had been backing katie arrington, the challenger in this race, miss looks like she's gonna fend off arrington. make the not go as far as tom rice did, when speaking out donald trump, she did not vote for impeachment, she did not for the formation of the bipartisan january six commission. she did know, in the initial wake of the january six attacks, make critical comments about trump, about his role in that, she spent the rest of her first term here in congress though, in many ways, trying to make peace with trump voters. politically that maybe just enough to help or survive. she is going to win tonight. nbc news now projecting that, one other notable house was all to tell you about. in texas, and a special election in texas. in a district that has only going to have this for a few more months, but it's significant because of this conversation we've been having, about hispanic voters, potentially shifting towards the republican party. in the last couple years. look at, this the 44th district in texas this is as current as it's currently constituted one of the most hispanic districts in the country. and in the special election tonight, the republican mayra flores you can see is leading with most of the votes in. she is leading her closest democratic competitor again, this district is going to be reconfigured, she will be running in a different looking district this november, but this district right now, is one that voted for barack obama, with more than 60% of the vote. voted for hillary clinton by more than 20 points. this is part of that story that we have been telling since the 2020 election. especially along the border, in south texas, the rio grande valley, massive, massive shift towards the republicans. among hispanic voters. a story that has extended outside of taxes. too south florida, to other areas of the country, and it's a big one to keep an eye on thi