down with the january sixth committee, but what kind of information do you thinkjack smith is now in possession of, because of those notes? well, i would think because of those notes? well, i would think substantial - would think substantial information. for example, one of the things he recited in the indictment was the ex president trying to talk p into slowing the votes out. he said, you are too honest. vice president pence into throwing out the votes. that tells me trump was dishonest and was failing in getting his vice president to join him in that dishonesty. there was a lot of interaction between their then president and his vice president, where the then president was trying to bully the vice president into violating his oath of office, and violating the electoral count act. the word for word discussion will be
could make anything up but when he decided to actually establish counterfeit electors and engaging conspiracy to pull out these counterfeit electors to try and substitute for the actual electoral process, that moves from free speech where you can say anything to actual criminal conduct and that is what is governed by law. so the distinction between what is free speech and what is conduct is essential to understanding this case. grossman, do you thinkjack smith can prove that in court? congressmen? that in court? congressmen? that is what we re in court? congressmen? that is what we re going in court? congressmen? that is what we re going to in court? congressmen? that is what we re going to see. in court? congressmen? that is what we re going to see. but i is what we re going to see. but the evidence is what we re going to see. iei,ii the evidence certainly appears overwhelming from what saw on the january 6 committee and from what has been alleged in the indictme
to do something that wasn t constitutional, you know, the president complained, you re too honest and i think the vice president should wear that with a badge of honour, the former president would say he is too honest. but that indicates that the president knew what he was asking the vice president to do. could have been a legal or had been dishonest. illegal. d0 have been a legal or had been dishonest. illegal.- dishonest. illegal. do you thinkjack dishonest. illegal. do you thinkjack smith dishonest. illegal. do you thinkjack smith can - dishonest. illegal. do you thinkjack smith can succeed i thinkjack smith can succeed where the impeachment did not? i certainly hope that he can succeed. i think he has gotten far more information and his purposeis far more information and his purpose is a bit different. the threshold that he is trying to prove, and he has narrowly articulated what the charges are, and he has been able to gather far are, and he has been able to gath
notes and said that the president said to him when he was pressuring him to do something that was not constitutional, the president complains, you are too honest. i think a vice president should wear that with a badge of honour. the former president would say that he is too honest. but that indicates that the president knew what he was asking the vice president to do, could have been illegal or had been dishonest. d0 could have been illegal or had been dishonest. , ., ,, could have been illegal or had been dishonest. , ., ., . ,, ,, dishonest. do you thinkjack smith can succeed dishonest. do you thinkjack smith can succeed where dishonest. do you thinkjack smith can succeed where the dishonest. do you thinkjack smith l can succeed where the impeachment didn t? i can succeed where the impeachment didn t? . . , that he can succeed. i think he has gotten far more information, and his purposeis gotten far more information, and his purpose is a bit different. the official he is trying
could say mob for several hours. he could say that we think 60 federal and state courts are wrong in rejecting our claims of corruption, find, he could call thejudges, democrat claims of corruption, find, he could call the judges, democrat shysters or whatever you wanted to. he could make anything up, but when he decided to actually establish counterfeit electors and engage in a conspiracy to pull out these counterfeit electors to try and substitute for the actual electoral process, that moved from free speech where you can say anything to actual criminal conduct. that is what is governed by the loss of the distinction between what is free speech and what his conduct is do you thinkjack smith can prove that in court? do you thinkjack smith can prove that in court? do you thinkjack smith can prove that in court? that is what we will see but the