defendant rather than going through the indictment and seeing the serious charges that have been made. we ll find out what can be proven when the trial is held. this is not political. this is judicial. you know, apparently the republicans in the house are like lemmings, they re going to go right off that cliff with the ex-president. it is interesting that the senate republicans have been more silent and i think it may reflect the comments that mr. mcconnell made right after the attack. mcconnell said trump was guilty of inciting this effort to overturn the election and that he didn t vote to impeach, to convict, because he wasn t in office, but that he should be held accountable and referred the need for criminal prosecution, which is what we have now. you know, congresswoman, just thinking back on what you were saying about how, you know, your
jack smith s team being able or hoping they re able to prove at trial that trump knew he was lying is clearly central to his investigation here to the case he s building against trump and we expect trump and his lawyers to push back extremely hard on that, on that core element of this indictment. that s fascinating. and, glen, just wondering, i mean, how difficult or what are the things that one has to have in order to prove that and in the case of the sentence that was repeated as betsy says twice, the defendant knew they were false. in other words, that aspect is very touchy, right? you have to specifically say he knew this was false. it goes to one s corrupt intent. and ordinarily when we prosecute cases, we don t have defendants to have been caught saying, by the way, i m about to engage in a criminal act and i would like everybody to know my intent is corrupt. you prove corrupt intent with circumstantial evidence. juries in every jurisdiction in
what charles was talking about on the unnamed co-conspirators, why would jack smith hold off on indicting them now? great question, jose. because what i found unusual as a former career prosecutor was that none of these co-conspirators were charged in this indictment. i handled lots of conspiracy cases with co-defendants, ordinarily prosecutors like to charge everyone in a joint indictment. everyone who is believed to be or who we think we can prove to be was a co-conspirator. so, what i suspect jack smith is doing here is focusing like a laser beam on the leader of the conspiracy, donald trump, with a view toward ensuring a speedy trial for both him and for the american people. and i strongly suspect that with respect to these other six identified co-conspirators, at least by some of the acts that they undertook we believe we know who they are, you are going to see a subsequent indictment
co-conspirator six. the name, of course, of co-conspirator six hasn t been identified yet. that s the number one item on every reporter s wish list today, to figure out who that sixth person is. of course, what distinguishes co-conspirator six from the five prior co-conspirators is that this person is not identified as being a lawyer. there is also no suggestion as to whether person number six is male or female. and person number six isn t described in extraordinary detail in the indictment. so, that s part of the reason, of course, that this person s identity hasn t been nailed down. one thing, though, that we that becomes really important, just from looking at those first five is that jack smith and his team appear to be heading off at the pass one of the most important defenses that trump and his legal team are expected to make at trial and have already been making to reporters and to media outlets ever since the inception of jack smith s probe. and that defense, of course, is
enjoyed trying cases against her because she was honest and ethical and honorable. i don t always say, nicolle, that it was a pleasure trying a case against a particular defense attorney. sometimes it is, sometimes it isn t, but i am a big fan of her work when she was a public defender in d.c. i remain a fan of her work because i ve had the opportunity to be in her courtroom in federal court observing her, presiding over criminal cases. i will say that before i retired from the department of justice i didn t happen to have any case that she was assigned, but i have been in her courtroom quite a bit. she remains a fair, independent jurist who will give donald trump a fair trial and importantly i believe she will give donald trump a speedy trial. frankly, i think she ll give we, the people, and the country a speedy trial.