defendant could run one of these trials, let alone all. three tim heaphy, we have all been doing our own readings at this indictment. the only name in is donald trump. others are described as coconspirator one and so forth. some are described as being lawyers or chief of staff, for example. mark meadows is referred to in their, at least one says chief of staff. you probably have a better reading than any of us about all of these characters in this indictment, who they are. so my question is, in my reading of it, i did not see a single democrat who would be called as a witness for the prosecution in this case. every witness for the prosecution that i can identify in this indictment is a republican. most of the republicans who worked for donald trump. lawrence, and that again, very common in our investigation. in a conspiracy, the people
lawyer sydney powell, coconspirator for is jeffrey buster clark, the justice department official who trump had tried to take over the justice department to enlist the justice department itself in this coup effort. coconspirator five appears to be a man named kenneth chesebro, chesbrough, i don t know. looks like chesebro. it s also awkward because wisconsin, cheese. he is a trump campaign recount lawyer in wisconsin who we know spearheaded the fake electors schemes in multiple states. and then there is coconspirator number six, all five, those five i just mentioned, all the five of them are all lawyers. only coconspirator number six is apparently a non lawyer, at least not described as an attorney. this one isn t quite as clear who exactly it is. this is a person described in the indictment as a, quote, political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit
been really solid in striking down bogus claims to use a phrase from neil. i do think that what you have to do here in this bill with this politically, which is why this is going to be a test for us as a country, as to how we deal with this. are we going to actually believe in the rule of law, because if you play this out in terms of if you care about the facts and the law, that the juries and the two jurisdictions do what they need to do and come up with the decision, one way or the other. but to me, it seems very very hard to imagine that a defendant could run one of these trials, let alone all. three tim heaphy, we have all been doing our own readings at this indictment. the only name in is donald trump. others are described as coconspirator one and so forth. some are described as being lawyers or chief of staff, for example. mark meadows is referred to in their, at least one says chief of staff. you probably have a better reading than any of us about all of these characters in th
company in private with advisers, the defendant had conceded, trump conceded that they were unsupported and that co-conspirator 3 sounded cra.a . each of these states, it is donald trump being told point blank, when you say 100,000 people fraudulently voted or dead people voted in state x, it is untrue. he s being told that by republicans. he is being told that by his own people. he is being told that by people he hired. he is being told by the election security chief he hired. it is a lie. and they go through very painstakingly to establish that, as you pointed out, rachel, in state after state, page after page after page. so by the time we get to the violence and the armed part of the armed robbery, it is very clear that donald trump understands he lost the election. he understands he lost the election in each of these states, and is still determined to steal the election in each of these states, including by lying to the fake electors, as ari points out, by saying,
Transcripts for MSNBC Deadline White House 20240604 21:39:15 archive.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from archive.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.