one defendant. very narrowly drawn charges. carved around some of the complications you might have with the first amendment on it incitement, things like that. didn t even include mark meadows in that indictment. not only could he have charged him, you won t find him referenced. i think he wants to use him as a witness. he is trying to get that to trial quickly. so, very different approaches. unfortunately for trump, he has to face both of them at the same time. that s the challenge for him and his team, to try to fight the war. john, the other piece of big trump news today, kenneth chesebro appears to have been outside the capitol on january 6th has also been indicted. but we need to know about him and the role he played? absolutely alicia, the important thing about chesebro
that it automatically refutes some of the defenses we were starting to hear from trump land. first i d like to talk to you about the idea of structuring the indictment around action not words, effectively leaving the insurrection itself kind of almost an aforethought and really focusing on the conduct of the fake electors, of john eastman, of donald trump and the actionable things they did to steal an election. that seems very, very purposeful. luteally. there was a lot of focus when this first happened on the ellipse and what happened at that moment. and everyone was very focused on the first amendment issues on that which is it incitement? will it meet the supreme court standard of the whole back and forth, and people like me were like that is fraught in terms of a criminal case, and they avoided all of that. one of the things i was reading this was with an eye towards
outside brett kavanaugh s house. sketeve scalise targeted for murder. but it s not equal. it s like one-third against two to one. anyway. there s a lot more political violence, and importantly when political violence or threats occur on the left, democrats speak up about it. i m glad the wall street journal spoke up. the antidefamation league called it incitement. crickets from republican congressman, contradicts from republican governors. why? because unlike greenblatt and the wall street journal, they need those maga extremists support, and i think it s reprehensible. they should have more courage. that s what s going on. as you interviewed maggie in the last hour, those people vote. that s what these people are thinking, politicians who won t
strongest option available to you as a prosecutor? is it sedition? is it conspiracy? is it incitement of to violence? is it the hatch act? is it none of the above? i would look at all of them. i would not narrow my focus to january 6th. and i think that the reporting from reuters really does that. it says there is scant evidence that trump or the white house officials coordinated with the people who were arrested on january 6th. but january 6th was just a culmination of a much longer effort that we are now learning more and more about from donald trump at the helm of it through mark meadows and others to overturn this election. and so the fact that donald trump was threatening to fire jeffrey rosen, the doj, because he was not doing enough to call out the corrupt, quote/unquote, election in georgia, and the fact that he was trying to get
models the behavior. i asked twitter about an hour ago, is this a violation of twitter s terms of service? we have not heard back from twitter. keep in mind, the terms of services do for bit incitement to violence or harassment. tucker: there s no defending it but violent? okay, you wonder if reporters by the same standards do they apply to journalists? remember when bradley manning dumped 750,000 pages of u.s. documents? did anyone get hurt because of that? we re still waiting for the follow-up story. doesn t seem to be a ton of interest in newsrooms. or how about a month ago, when the press published leaks about the manchester bomber that infuriated intelligence in the u.k.? did that hamper british