Achilles heel of knowledge. Jack smith must prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt that on the night of january 5 and into january 6, that donald trump knew that he had lost the election. And reading through the indictment, i didnt see anything new which would actually be able to establish that. And just within the last hour, trump posted about todays events writing im now going to washington, d. C. To be arrested for having challenged the corrupt, rigged and stolen election. It is a great honor because im being arrested for you. He also wrote, i need one more indictment to ensure my election. Joining us now, sasha burns live in bedminster, new jersey. Tom winter is also covering the arraignment. And also peter baker is here with us. As well as Chuck Rosenberg, former u. S. Attorney, senior fbi official and an msnbc contributor. So weve been looking at these live pictures from the sky over bedminster. We know that he needs to be here in d. C. By 4 00 this afternoon which is three hours from t
crime. and so we want to thank chuck and peter and yasmin. still ahead, donald trump saying he can t get a fair trial in d.c. our special coverage of the indictment of donald trump continues right here on msnbc. np continues right here on msnbc. (fan #1) there ya go! that s what i m talkin about! (josh allen) is this your plan to watch the game today? (hero fan) uh, yea. i have to watch my neighbors nfl sunday ticket. (josh allen) it s not your best plan. but you know what is? myplan from verizon. switch now and they ll give you nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv, on them. (hero fan) this plan is amazing! (josh allen) another amazing plan, backing away from here very slowly. (fan #1) that was josh allen. (fan #2) mmhm. (vo) for a limited time get nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv on us. a $449 value. plus, get a free samsung galaxy s23. only on verizon. so i didn t think i needed swiffer, until,
protestors here and there, but really nothing significant. though i am seeing some raised voices behind me and we ll drill down on what is dg on there. if i hear anything more, i ll bring it to you. and let s talk about the free speech argument being made by the defense. because there are definite limits to free speech when it comes to an underlying conspiracy. a lot of limits to free speech. so the argument may resonate in political circles, there is a technical legal word for that argument in court. think about it, let s say peter baker and i wanted to run an investment fraud scheme and we made represent fashions to you and we took your money based on those false representations. and we gambled it away at a casino. that is not protected speech, but not protected speech, there is no first amendment protected speech designed to commit a
ways. i could do it based on what you say or write, or to peter s point, i could do it based on what you are told. and if you are told the same thing over and over and over by a lot of different people, that is some evidence of what you know. there is a really interesting phrase in the indictment, on page seven, the allegations that mr. trump deliberately disregarded what he was told had an alternative way of proving intent. that is something called willful blindness. right? if there is something that you should know and you overt knowing it, the metaphor would be sticking your head in the sand so you don t hear it, right, that is willful blindness and yet another way for the government to prove intent. we could prove it by what you say, we could also prove it by what you ignore. and one of the other things that i was thinking about when you and peter were talking about
of not guilty. and peter, we talk about this denial of knowing that he had lost the election, just to recapitulate, the in-time mentions all the other officials. head of national intelligence, former attorney general bill barr certainly before he quit, as well as people around him. you mentioned his family and his white house chief of staff, his white house counsel and others. yeah, and i think what jack smith has done is make the case that he knew and if not he certainly had reason to know because he was told time and time again not by democrats, not by liberals, not by his opponents, but by the people who worked to reelect him, who he had chosen himself to put in position of high power and authority and ignored it. they told him specific allegations were wrong. when you say this thing about is