CNN: Hear why the special counsel is fighting for access to Rep. Scott Perry’s phone

An appeals court will look into how much the special counsel investigation around January 6 can dig into records of members of Congress, including whether they can obtain access to Rep. Scott Perry’s (R-PA) phone. #CNN #News

Transcript

Indictments against the former president or any of his allies, Pam? >> We shall see, Sara Murray, thank you so much. Right now we’re getting breaking news into the situation room on the special counsel January six investigation. CNN’s Katelyn polantz is working the story. What are you learning, Caitlin?

>> Pamela, we just saw an order from the D.C. Circuit court of appeals, and what this appeals court in Washington is going to be doing, is they will be looking into how much the special counsel investigation being led by jack Smith around January six can get into and

Dig into the records of members of congress. So it’s a really big and important legal issue, a lot of implications for the law and the federal government and also specifically for this criminal investigation that is ongoing. Right now, this is coming here, Pam, because there has been a

Case under seal or the special counsel office is fighting for access to records on representative Scott Perry’s phone. He’s the representative from Pennsylvania, a Republican who wanted to replace the attorney general with election fraud. The advisor was in touch with the white house, and they are trying to look at, and the

Appeals court will look at the possibility of whether investigators can get access to records of informal legislative work of a member of congress like Perry and also whether they can get records of contact he may have had with private parties and members of the executive branch, people like Donald Trump. Implications for the

Investigations into Perry and four other members of congress, Pam, this will be argued very quickly, February 23rd, so in just about a week, and it will be heard by three judges in D.C., all Republican appointees, two of whom were appointed to the court by Donald Trump himself, Pam?

>> All right, we will be watching that closely. Joining us now, the former Republican lieutenant governor of Georgia, Jeff Duncan, now a CNN political commentator. Also with us, the former at FBI deputy director, Andy Mccabe. CNN senior analyst, Laura Coates and special correspondent, Jamie Gangel. Laura, first to you, your

Reaction to this news that this appeals court will hear this key dispute? >> It’s pretty significant given the fact that number min Perry is one of five members of congress who asked for a pardon, revealed during the January six hearings on this issue. You are going to have an insight into the discussion

About whether the executive branch, which is under the umbrella of where the doj will be, whether the executive branch will have the ability to do this to a member of the legislative branch. Expect to have separation of powers and checks and balances arguments raised, but it is not in any way alleviate the

Concern for trying to find the answer to the question of just how significant was the input and the impact of someone like congressman Perry on trying to, as king spoke about, trying to ensure that maybe Jeffrey Clark should’ve been installed as attorney general to support the election denialism, and what

Evidence may or may not be on his phone or in correspondents on the issue. It is very telling that the appeals court did not simply say, forget it, wash their hands and dismiss the action but instead want to hear and will likely have oral arguments to pepper these very questions

To answer why him, why now and what did he know and what did he do? >> Right and look, he could have a lot of important information, and the, in terms of the January 6th investigation. Laura mentioned the pardon. — told the committee that he asked a pardon.

I believe he has denied that. Talk to us a little bit more about the major implications of this? >> You know, Pam, it’s a really fascinating development, and I should say that this issue of access to Scott Perry’s phone by the special counsel team has been one of the most hotly

Fought battles in the overall war that the special counsel team seems to be waging here. Representative Perry as been pushing back for months and months. There have been many hearings and a lot of court action and hearings that have not been open to the public. It’s fascinating to see this to come forward.

Essentially, what Laura said is absolutely correct. Most of the representatives arguments will rely on basically an interpretation of the speech and the big clause which protects congress and members of communications from being exposed, if they were legislative in nature. But, you have a very compelling and important criminal investigation happening here.

The fact that the district court did not dismiss this out of hand tells you that they are acknowledging the importance of this investigation, the fact that it is criminal and nature, this is different from a congressional grand jury. So we will see how this bounces out between the speech and

Debate clause and the imperative nature of conducting a criminal investigation. >> Jamie Gangel, what do you think? >> I am thinking about this from the political contacts. It’s not just Scott Perry who was involved, there were five members, five Republicans, including the present speaker of the house, Kevin Mccarthy,

Who refused to testify to the January six committee, the now chairman of the judiciary committee, Jim Jordan was one of those. This starts with Scott Perry and his phone, but, it’s going to be fascinating to see, not to get a head of ourselves because we have to go through

The judicial process, but this could have an impact politically on potentially the speaker of the house and these other members. >> Yeah, I think that is important context for understanding the implications here. I want to turn back to Fulton county, Jeff. You were the former lieutenant governor of Georgia.

What is your reaction to the Fulton county grand jury report? We’ve only seen a portion of it released, but what stands out to you from the sections released today? >> Yeah, two newsworthy items in my opinion, one is that 23 jurors got together and unanimously decided that there

Was no fraud, and so for me, to get 23 people to agree on something, you cannot get them to agree on what color this guy is. The second is — it really feels like a step one in the process. We had 75 individuals that were interviewed. I was one of them.

It’s a very intimidating scene. You walk into the room with no attorney next to, 23 jurors and district attorney officials, and you go at it until you are done being asked questions. I can only imagine that if one person says something that is not true and watch a turnaround

A couple of different ways throughout a nine month trial, there was certainly going to be some folks waiting after hearing the news about the perjury. >> And yet, Jamie, a trump spokesperson reacted, gloating that the experts from the report did not even mention president trump’s name, what do you make of that?

>> I would say that has been for an audience of one and a person is Donald Trump. That’s what he wants it and to hear, but we’re a long ways off. Look, there’s a lot we don’t know from what was released today, but it’s likely we’re going to find out, much more,

And nice try, but there is more to come. >> Right, let’s not forget the purpose, initially, Laura, for the grand jury is to look into whether trump illegally tried to intervene in the administration of the election and the results. The grand jury focuses on this, from what has been released.

You know, the perjury part, recommending that the district attorney seek appropriate indictments for possible perjury. Talk a little bit about the legal weight that Dr. Kari? >> Remember, this is a special grand jury, unlike our normal notion of having a criminal grand jury, whose sole purpose is to find probable cause to

Allow a prosecutor to issue an indictment for a felony charge. This result was a report that we’ll talk about the idea of being able to investigate and go forward with a perjury charge. Frankly, as a prosecutor, you would more likely want to have a charge of an actual crime as

Opposed to lying about statement surrounding the crime. Perjury is a very serious charge, don’t get me wrong, but you want to have the meat on the bone, so this actually is giving some greater credence and gravitas to what funny Willis will be looking at, confirming at least 23 or so

People were in agreement that somebody based on the failure of the consistency or somebody was known to be lying based on the breadth of evidence that they actually heard, that’s very telling of how she might go forward, but is not the end of the inquiry, but it would certainly give greater credence

To her pursuit going forward, and I will just say this, one of the things she set in open court was the idea of wanting to provide fairness, tarring and feathering in the public

source