0 at the justice department's ability to compel their testimony. it is highly sensitive to go after information from a sitting member of congress. but they're not being targeted because their members of congress. they're being targeted because of the conduct, the conversations with donald trump on january 6th. so, i don't see how you investigate this case without talking to them. and maybe their witnesses, maybe their defendants. we'll see how that shakes out. >> charlie, before we. go just a big picture question. the degree to which generally six committee exceeded expectations and the degree to which there added in terms of the information landscape around january 6th. how much they actually changed? for broader swap the american public. let's hear assessment there. >> i think they did a good job. they surprise a lot of people who thought they already know this stuff. the video was on tv for all to see. the media reconstruction the events that day. so trump was openly urging those people to go pressure congress. and say the rules didn't apply. they were projecting onto it. the facts were there already. this committee really change the conversation. and it's here the blockbusters. they're limiting television. and i think they kept this issue front and center for the year, rather than allowing it to fade away like so many other events. >> charlie savage and barr mcclain, like if your time tonight. that does it for us. last word, with lawrence o'donnell is coming up next. donnell is coming up next. thanks alex. and thank, you buy the, way alex four time in the release of this report right here right now. and the ten minutes that i've had to read the 800 pages i haven't formed a full set of opinions just yet. but we are going to work our way through it this hour because it has just become the january six report out here and the last word. we have a lot to cover. >> good luck lawrence. >> thanks alex, thank you. >> andrew weissmann and daniel goldman are with us. they are scheduled to be our first guest tonight. they have a few minutes worth of reports. andrew, let me get your first reactions to anything that has let that you. anything you recognize. you only had a few minutes, we want to give you more time to read this. but this is just your first headline reaction to it. >> i see dannon are doing the same thing, which tried to do two things at the same time. this is a monumental effort. the first thing, as you said. it's over 800 pages. and there are four upended sees that were fascinating addressing such minor issues. as the preparation of law enforcement to meet the challenges of january 6th. and -- to the 2020 election. there were these appendices, and they're trying to take the entire report. and then the table of contents is really, to me, attracts what i think is the genius of the january six committee. which is really focusing on all of the different ways that the former president tried to stay in office. as opposed to just thinking about january 6th as a singular event. and whether the president helped incite people to go to the capitol on that day. as if it was completely divorced from the context in history. and so each of the chapters which looks incredibly detailed in the footnotes and various pieces of evidence. it goes through all of those different types of things. i'm particularly interested in the state election components. because one, it's an area where donald trump is particularly vulnerable. it's an area where if there were republican president who was elected post a first term. of a presidential pardon by republican president they will have an effect on a state legislation. scheme that is charged with insurrection. and i'm really interested to see how much beyond georgia which we know a lot about. how much further there. i don't know the answer to that yet. but it seems like there is some good material there. >> all right well, each of you please feel free to read while he is speaking. goldman, your quick reaction to what we've seen so far. and as i say, after this answer i'm gonna give you both time to do more reading. but then your first reaction? >> i agree with andrew across the board. this investigation was truly remarkable to have more than 1200 interviews to comb through hundreds of thousands of documents. it is just a yeoman's effort by this committee. and it looks, at first glance, like if the report was as detailed and well organized and represented as you would hope. andrews writes in the sense that i also found the contents very interesting and i thought it was very smart the way that the committee went step by step through the scheme. it is almost -- it is chronological. in many respects. and what you see and what we saw is that it's clearly laid out. and ratcheting up escalation in efforts to overturn the election. it starts with a proper legal path. where the challenge elections in court. that failed. then it goes to the state of electors. that fails. then it goes to, you know, effectively a coup. with the department of justice. that failed. ultimately, it ended up on january 6th. which, you know, failed. but barely. and i think what i'm going to be really focused on is examining how close we really came to losing our democracy. and i don't say that lightly. it is clear that that is the gradual escalation that occurred post election 2020, leading up to january 6th. and yes our institutions held, but barely. and i want to understand how close we were, and it's exactly right, we know a lot about georgia. but also we know that donald trump called in legislators from michigan. to try to convince them to overturn the election. we know scott perry, from pennsylvania. was working hard in pennsylvania. we know in arizona. we know from one of the main republican officials in arizona and public hearings. so this was a well coordinated massive and sprawling scheme that i think is going to be really laid out in rare detail. >> all right, both of you please go back to it as i have discussed with the audience. how this committee got their star witness to testify. because we learned that today. i'm gonna go through that story for a few minutes, just a few minutes. while you're reading as much as you possibly can. andrew weissmann, we'll be back. with more about the ten it has been through. this committee report is, tonight. the single most important committee report in the history of house congressional committee reports. that is what we now have in our hands, tonight. that report would not be what it is, and would not have the import that it has without the testimony of the star witness to that committee. today, the january six committee released the transcript of the most important testimony. the committee has received. the most important ones. 26-year-old cassidy hutchinson. the committee is found not a shred of evidence to, it anyway, reduce what appears to be the solemn credibility of the committee start witness, cassidy hutchinson. and we learned in her full testimony released today, that the first lawyer who represented her, and dealings with the committee. will face disbarment proceedings in washington d.c.. and will face prosecution for supporting perjury if costly hutchinson's testimony is removed. today, that lawyer possible criminal conduct was exposed and a costly hutchison sets money today. issuing a statement that said he didn't nothing wrong but he is resigning from his washington law firm. because of the release of that testimony. and we now know, they cast the hutchinson -- decided to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. because she was inspired by someone who appeared on this program discussing her toes testimony. in her testimony, cassidy hutchinson says that the first lawyer who represented her -- who worked in the trump white house. quote, page 42, stefan never told me -- he specifically told me i don't want you to purdue yourself. but what i don't recall is a perjury. they don't know what you can and can't recall. by page 36 catches the hatches and said, but if i do recall something. not every little detail. can i still say i don't recall? and he said yes. for that one moment, yes. stephen passantino should be disbarred if that testimony is believed. and should be convicted of perjury. if that testimony is to be believed. cassidy hutchison goes there and i said, if i do remember things. but not every little detail that i said. wouldn't i be purging myself? and he had said, stephen had said something effective. the committee doesn't know what you can and can't recall. so you want to be able to use that as much as we can, unless you really really remember something here. and that is where you give a short, sweet response. the correct answer to that question. if i do remember things, but not every little detail wouldn't i be purging myself? the correct answer to that question is yes. you would be perjuring yourself. stephen passantino lied to his client about that. with costly hutchinson's testimony. if cassidy hutchinson who had never -- and cannot afford a lawyer. had been offered this free lawyer from what she called -- it cassidy hutchinson's the mid to remain under the control of that they are paid by donald trump. she would have -- of the testimony. is now the basis of the committees criminal referral with a former president united states. for prosecution by the dust apartment. cassidy hutchinson's testimony reveals another point that standing alone would've been enough to get that lawyer disbarred in most restrictions in this country. he refused to tell her who was paying him to represent her. here is how castillo johnson described her very first words with a criminal defense lawyer of that trump world provided. page 21. on monday, february 7th 2022. i received a call in the afternoon from stephen passantino. i had never worked with stephen. we don't really overlap. and i never really heard of him. all i know is that he -- he had called to let me know that he was my attorney. and was a brief call. let him know that and i was like i probably should find an engagement letter and he said no no no, we are not doing that. we'll have you taken care of. i said, i remember asking him. i don't have to sign an engagement letter? because that was sort of the first alarm bell in my head that went off because i want something in writing for myself because i already have a tendency to overthink things. and ahead never had to retain an attorney before. by do know enough to know that you should be signing an engagement letter, so then i'd ask them. or i thought. that is perfectly fine, do you mind telling me where the funding for this is coming from? i would want to thank them. i want to thank whoever it is, because i kind of like figuring things out. and he said if you want to know at the end, we will let you know. but we are not telling people where the funding is coming from right now. don't worry. we are taking care of you. you are never going to get a bill for this. so that is what you worried about. >> i was like okay, that's what i was worried about. but it wasn't the only thing i was worried about. stephen passantino will be disbarred in washington d.c. if that testimony is proven to be true. he refused to tell his client who was paying for his clients legal representation. he will be disbarred that if that is proven to be true. his testimony, released today was strong enough to get that lawyer out of his offering today. and that is not the final price. stephen passantino is likely to pay. for the unethical and illegal conduct that is described under oath by cassidy hutchinson in this transcript. cassidy hutchinson did not want a lawyer from trump. page 32. i knew the moment that i went back and had to get a trump attorney it's -- i don't to categorize the world, the trump world in this way. but a lot scenarios that be privy to, once are looped in, especially financially with them, they're sort of is no turning back. castillo johnson about herself completely unable to pay for the lawyer. she has palmer's financial help. and they're surprised i cast hutchinson wasn't happy with a free lawyer from trump world. kathy hansen explain the problem to them. page 32. i was like, no, i'm completely indebted these people. and they will ruin my life. if i do anything that they don't want me. now to page 33. and i read this passage of a deeply personal testimony only to me the level of desperation cassidy hutchinson was facing clear. turning to a free lawyer from the trump world. who made her do that. >> i don't have a relationship. but i went to his house one night, i drove to new jersey, and i once was house one night and begged him. it is probably the one thing i regret and all of this. i wish i didn't talk to that level. because, it was a no. but i bathe them to help me. i said i would pay him back at a premium interest rate. i just need help. remember saying to him, you have no idea what they are going to do to me if i have to get an attorney with trump world. because he's a very big trump supporter. as is his own right. it's not be being critical. just a fact. and he just didn't get it. and i didn't expect him to. but i just left their feeling defeated. and that is why she took to a trump world lawyer who lied to her and ruin her testimony. a trump lawyer who lied to her about perjury and pressured her to commit perjury, and, effects according to a testimony. 49 years ago. there was another stark witness investigation who testified, under, oath like cassidy hutchinson against republican president who served in the white house. that happened 92 years before cassidy hutchinson was brought in. and in her darkest hour that start with this is testimony from the president he served. became her guiding light. page 80. >> so some time to jersey this early in the morning. i start googling watergate. there has been some of the part has been war gate that had either had this image of me and had exposure. how did they handle this? i had heard john dean thing before. then i came across this name. i was on the wikipedia page and i look like he had a similar role and to what i have in the white house. and then driving i was trying to read about him. and i felt that he, a couple of years ago. wrote this book with bob woodward. and this is why the most comprehensive piece of work that he had done. and testified to the watergate committee at that time about three years ago. so i ordered two cops this. i had them shipped my parents house. and i sat, there that weekend. and i read it. and i read it three times. i would, once they read it again. and then i read it a third time. and i went through and tapped it. and was after i read all of this where he talked about how he fought the struggle. marie felt like he still had to be loyal to the -- but he talked a lot of the same things that i felt because experiencing. to know it wasn't an identical situation. the emphasis he placed on the moral question that he was asked himself resonated with me. and he ended up testifying -- and i wasn't biden means trying to compare what i knew do what he knew at all. but he was somebody that i found and was looking at at somebody who did know things. and was loyal who had a position that required an incredible amount of trust, and confidence. but he ended up doing the right thing. it was after this that i -- from day to pass the mare test for the rest of my life, i need to try to fix this. here is the testimony of alexander better field from under oath about the president he served. testimony that ended that presidents career. >> are you aware the installation of any listening devices? >> >> i was aware of listening devices, yes or. >> mr. butterfield from your personal knowledge from 1970 until present time. all the presents conversations, and all that has been mentioned. and all the telephones mentions were recorded. >> as far as you know. >> that is correct. and as far as you know those tapes are still available? >> as far as i know. i've been away for four months now. >> i have no further questions. >> after cassidy hutchinson testified to january 6th committee this summer. i asked alexander butterfield to chance on this program to see his reaction to the testimony from washington's use star witness. >> well, i'm glad you mentioned her. because i can't tell you. i was very impressed by that young lady. you could tell that she didn't particularly want to be there. but she was so professional. and you knew that she was being truthful and it was -- i knew nothing about her before. but she was being very professional in every way. i only hope that my -- my various energies were half as good. >> did you have the feeling of watching her of what it felt like to be in that room yourself? giving what was then called the bombshell testimony? >> yes i did. i felt like i had a feel for what she was going through at the time. >> after that amy schuster -- was contact with some close to cassidy hutchinson thing i saw the interview with butterfield. this hutchinson would very much like to speak with him. since his testimony in this matter was actually an inspiration. they requested alexander pedophiles contact information. it's under better field than met with cassidy hutchinson. over zoom. i was under better field told us today, quote, she asked me how my life changed after i testified. i remember telling her how she came through so wonderfully, so beautifully in a testimony that everybody had to be proud of her and it was clear how she spoke that she was truthful. i am sure that alexander butterfield has it for nine years ago. he wasn't thinking maybe someday there would be a 26-year-old assistant to the white house chief of staff who would find inspiration and their testimony. that choice. i wasn't about of his choice to cassidy hutchinson to do the right thing. but now we know that it is possible that years from now. maybe 50 years from now. someone working in a corrupt white house will be inspired by cassidy hutchinson to break loose from the grip of that corruption and to the right thing. back with us, and you eisman former fbi general counsel and former chief of the criminal investigation for the eastern district of new york. and mayor elect -- from the majority counsel for the first impeachment trial of donald trump. and a former assistant attorney. the southern district of new york. i do weisman. i want to give you some time with what i think is a very important story about how we got that castillo just testimony and how much work was done to try to prevent that testimony. but i am hoping that you have new insights and i jamming six report -- >> that may come in for segment what you've been talking are getting cast hutchinson. this may have the same experience. but there is not a public corruption or a large financial case that i've ever investigated where there hasn't been some form of improper coaching up to and including obstruction and witness hampering. it happened during the and one case. it happened during the special counsel guys. it is an endemic problem that prosecutors face day in and day out when you have powerful leaders with a lot of power and money. and they use that to influence people's testimony in a way that's very very hard to detect and prosecute. and i can't stress how important it is for the department to do everything it can and not just to seek disbarment, that is just not enough. where you can get sufficient proof these these kind of crimes. they have to be charged. it is something that goes to the core of holding people to account. i can tell you a quick antidote at the special counsel investigating when we prosecuted for obstruction, a tenth year scad an arms associate named alice. for obstruction and i remember robert mulling saying it sets a perfect message to the people coming to meet with us that we are going to take these kinds of crimes seriously, and they can't get a