our special breaking news coverage continues now of the third, he has a third, criminal indictment of former president donald trump. i'm laura coates. >> remember. not the news tonight, still stunning, even though people expect an indictment to come right now it is here. we have believed it sink in. the 45th president indicted by a grand jury and jack smith's investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. and it's not lost on anyone that, while trump is facing charges over the last election, he is, of course, in the middle of his reelection campaign, flora. >> this is the third time, the third time that donald trump has been criminally indicted informants at this point? special counsel jack smith charged him in the classified documents probe in june, and the manhattan grand jury charge of the former president for business fraud back in march and just listen to what special counsel jack smith had to say tonight. >> the attack on our nation's capital, on january six 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. it is described in the indictment, that it was fueled by lies. lies by the defendant, targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s. government, the nations process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election. >> all right, so what exactly is in this indictment? our correspondent polo reid is here. so, paula you've been working this for so long, fabulous reporting. you and the team. today's indictment is laying out how trump views, quote, dishonesty, fraud, and deceit in his efforts to stay in power. so what is standing out to you tonight? >> the biggest thing that stands out to me is that the former president is the only one being charged today. this is something that our reporting over the last several weeks had suggested to us that we were quite surprised that he would be the only one charged, at least initially at this point. and because he clearly did not act alone. you're looking at the charges that he's facing right now, three of them involved a conspiracy or obviously he would need someone else and throughout this indictment they lay out exactly how he worked with others to amplify what he knew were false claims of election fraud, to litigate the strategy, to pressure various states, to pressure his own vice president, and then, of course, on the day of january six, continue to pressure his vice president resulting in violence and then he and his supporters continued to double down, to try to use this as an opportunity to overturn the election. again, he was not operating in a silo. so really watching going forward to see if any of these six coconspirators will be formally charged. the other thing, one of the other two things that stood out to me is that we didn't get a lot of new information. we've got some new details from the vice presidents handwritten notes, some interactions with political advisers, we were privy to prior, but given how much additional information that jack smith was able to obtain, he got access to mark meadows, a vice president pence, i was expecting that we would learn even more. so it will be interesting to see if the special counsel really releases additional details going forward, but speaking of really some details, we did get the indictment today. we didn't have to wait until the initial appearance, we didn't have to wait a few days, the country, the world, again gets to see the case today and they don't have to wait. i think that a significant and something that we have been lobbying the special counsel to do. >> of course, there are unanswered questions, but we have names. the reporting identifies who he believes are at least five of the six coconspirators. we don't know if they will be charged, where their cases are, but this case is historic for him for many reasons no matter what the outcome will be. so, what are the next steps, paula? >> the biggest next step is that the former presidents court appearance and we expect that will happen on thursday, but it's unclear, laura, if that will be via zoom. that is an option available to him, or if you will come in person. now, after that, we know that next week the special counsel has at least one more witness scheduled next week and at least another one in the next few weeks. so we know from our reporting, this investigation continues. yes, the special counsel said that, but we know what they're up to. they are continue to talk to witnesses, witnesses like former new york police commission bernie carat. he worked closely with rudy giuliani in these efforts to find fraud, to alleged fraud, and then one of the other witnesses, at least one of them is a former trump lawyer. so they will continue to gather evidence and it is unclear, if they will be superseding indictments and additional charges. >> we've already seen one superseding indictment that led to additional codefendant, of course the mar-a-lago case and there is already a precedent for this unprecedented time. paula reid, thank you so much. aaron? >> laura, the indictment against trump repeatedly references the six coconspirators that paul is referring to enter national security reporter zachary cohen is here to tell us more about them. the ones that we know now about, and of course one that we don't get, zach. >> yeah, erin, the indictment refers to these people as six individuals who trump and listed to assist him in his criminal efforts -- we have identified five of the six people who are described in this indictment and, if you followed along in january six committee hearings, none of these names will come as a surprise, they include people like trump's former personal attorney rudy giuliani, attorney john eastman, and even people like jeffrey clark, the former doj official who we know is trying to use the justice department to overturn the 2020 election. those details, some of the red are included in the indictment. a lot of this information was publicly known, which is how we were able to identify, in part, some of these folks. the unidentified person is described as a political consultant who helped implement a central theme in this indictment, a fake electors plot. this is one of the cornerstones of jackson's case here. he says that trump and the six individuals tried, effectively, to trick these electors in the seven states to sign the certificates, asserting that they were the illegitimate electors and send them to the national archives and congress. the idea that pence could use them and overturn the election on january six, we don't know the identity of the six individual yet, but i'm sure that we will come back with that shortly. >> so, usually the term used when you talk about coconspirators, and -- is unindicted and that word, unindicted, the modifier is not president. they are just listed as coconspirators. there is nothing in this indictment that is not purposeful, so that where it is not in there on purpose. it could mean they're going to be charged, or perhaps they have already had indictments handed up. we don't know. do you have any clarity on this? >> aaron, like you said, there could be a number of reasons including what jack smith told us today when we spoke publicly, which is a rare occasion, but he said they are still investigation and, as paul noted, we know from our reporting that they still have witness interviews lined up including with the police commissioner bernie kerik, who can shed light on efforts to find evidence of voter fraud. but, i think the strongest indication is that the investigation is still ongoing and if you are one of the six people that is unnamed in this indictment, or you think you are, you're probably not western easy at this stage. >> absolutely, zachary, thank you very much. i should note that will from what we understand with these charges that these are very serious maximum charges is 20 years, 20 years, ten years. this is incredibly serious allegations -- i want to bring in timothy right now because he was chief investigative counsel of the january six committee. so timothy you look at this with an eye on like no one else. you have been through reams and reams of information, hundreds of hours of interviews, all related to the january six committees investigation, which was exhaustive. so, when you read through this 45-page indictment from jack smith and the special counsel, did you learn anything, did anything surprise you about how it was presented? >> no. erin, thank you for having me. it reads very much like a truncated version of our report. it actually reads very similar to vice chair cheney's opening statement in the first of our summer hearings. it was during that period of the first proceeding where she laid out that there is a multi part, intentional plan to disrupt the joint session and prevent the transfer of power and put pressure on state officials, at the department of justice, on the vice president, and ultimately at the capitol. that is exactly what his alleged in this indictment. there is not a lot of new information, other than some details about direct communications between the president and the vice president. the president and pat cipollone, is so the counsel has gotten additional corroborates information that provides some important context, -- about the president stage of mine. but the core conduct that is described is what we set forth in our report. >> i know you refer to pence, i know you didn't have a chance to interview him, so there is some information from that, but i'm also curious. 45 pages, we know that he has a lot of information that he didn't include and you know that you've got to make choices. so, how much, paula reid was referring to this, this question, how much do you think he is holding back? do you think there is real jabs that he is holding back. i don't know what the right were, despite crucial pieces of information, or no? >> potentially. again, i don't think he is holding back anything, any part of the core conduct. i think he is laid out some objects of conspiracy, and essentially sketched out the pattern that he is going to prove. i am certain that he is left out details, some specific conversations, and specific events and allegations, that is a common. a prosecutor would never put absolutely every fact that he or she has gathered in an indictment. this is a pretty detailed, but as you said, erin, my guess is that there are some additional facts that would be further proved of the allegations that we will find out about at trial. >> so when he went through everything and all the information that you had, you recommended criminal charges, a recommended investigation. i'm curious, when you go through this, he did not charge trump with a seditious conspiracy, inciting a mob, those charges are not in here. does that surprise you, or does that disappoint to? >> no. he charged the two lead councils, the exact too that the select committee referred for his consideration, the obstruction of -- and conspiracy to defraud the united states. seditious conspiracy, we consider did not include that in our criminal referral. that requires a prosecutor to prove intent to use force. there is evidence of that against the proud boys and oath keepers. we look very hard for evidence that the president was in communication with or somehow was aware of their plans or actions and we weren't able to establish. it doesn't mean it isn't there, we just weren't able to establish that. this is about the special counsel has not either, otherwise you would have seen seditious conspiracy count. he is, you are not going to issue an indictment as it improves well beyond a reasonable doubt, in a case of this magnitude. and i'm not surprised at all that he chose obstruction of the professors will proceeding. it doesn't require any intent to use violence, but rather for him to obstruct, interfere, or impede the joint session. we found that he's only gotten more evidence since then. >> and, as you pointed out, you would need to go responsibly with what he felt he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring a unanimous jury for conviction here. thank you very much, timothy, we appreciate your perspective. >> thank you. >> laura? >> my panel is still here with me in washington d.c. and there is something that keeps going in my head, everyone, about this, and that is the notion of the first amendment aspect of it and, especially, what is happening in terms of whether or not trump is going to be able to build a defense, really, in this case. so you've got to his allies in congress rushing to his defense, as you well know, but his lawyer was actually on with kaitlan collins earlier and, well, listen what he had to say about the first amendment issues. >> the ultimate request that mr. trump made to vice president pence was paused the vote counting. allow the states to weigh in ultimately and audit or re-certify. and under article two, section one, clause two. the actual responsibility for qualifying electors is in the state legislatures. mr. trump had the advice of counsel. mr. eastman, who is one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the united states. giving him advice and guidance. that is pure politics. >> what do you think? the idea, talking to lawyers here about the advice of counsel. will that be the ultimate protection? as long as your lord told you to say so, that's it. >> when john eastman tried to resist turning over documents, he saying attorney-client privilege. but there is no privilege when the lawyer ilpclient to commit . but my friend said about the constitution. you can turn that document upside down inside with. you will not find the power he is describing in the constitution. you notion that pence for the first time in american history had the power to pause. he is purely ministerial. basically the guy, if it were, england the guy who walks in with the mason the funny had. okay, he has no power to pause the proceeding. it's not in the constitution. trump knew that full well. pat cipollone, his white house counsel knows. pat philbin the deputy white house counsel. really constitutionalist and many other people told themselves that will not. i don't even think the judge is going to let that make the argument. to the jury. it is so far out side. >> do you agree? >> advice of counsel's a little bit in that because trump wants to argue that is not my fault. i had no say, i was relying on my lawyers. that is what makes the naming of those, will not be naming. the discovery of the identity of those coconspirators so intriguing. they are all lawyers. and one aspect of this is maybe smith is in big hurry up mode. can completely finish everything. but the other offensive strategic point is that it takes those people off the table. it is very hard to decide to go and testify in favor of the defense if your name as a conspirator. it's a fifth amendment concerned at that point. >> the idea of, can you walk past every road that says common sense, common sense. obvious, obvious. and go, you know what, i like this one over. here that is what you would essentially have to say. because you've got the attorney, the deputy attorney general. white house counsel. you are former white house lawyer, you have all these people saying including secretaries of state and beyond, what you are saying is not true. and the complaint says, you know that's not true. can you really say look i was just following my counsel. or were they following him? >> again, i think that is what he's the only name defendant in this case. i think that they want to make it clear that he was the one driving this. and that they, he just got advice from a number of folks that said very credible lawyers, some of the best lawyers and constitutional scholars in washington, now you can do this. and yet, he went to others, got a second opinion and was few drive-in conversation? to get the answer you want it or was he just going out and seeking council? >> this idea of plausible deniability, i mean it's kind of a sexy concept. except in politics, is it realistic? >> i'm not a lawyer, but it goes beyond the attorney-client to me argument. the case that political speeches that broadly protected. i mean that is fundamentally the case the lawyers make. that you could almost use political speech as a shield to do anything so long as you are doing it while being a political candidate. and i think that we have been looking at this as though that is a political argument. could impossibly be a plausible legal argument. but if you are looking at the supreme court that is actually more conservative than the court that gave us citizens united. i think it is worth asking the question like, what if that was a possible argument. what would happen to the american presidency? who would happen to the political system if a candidate for president or sitting president who was trying to hang on to the presidency could essentially say anything and make moves at anything. because it is protected speech? >> there's more to what john was saying, to kaitlan collins in the full interview and talking about the fact that he believes and he is saying this that is this indictment that it is turning the notion of political speech on its face. essentially saying you know i can't just have a political strategy. i can't be critical, i can't bet on a particular strategy and all be punished. is that going to be a good talking point that will have staying power? >> it will be a good talking point for the republican party, but i'm not certain about the individuals in the middle however. laying this out pretty clearly. the way that the statement was written and i've had some time to read through it. it's clear, a simple narrative. most people can generally understand. this guy did something illegal, he lost. try to pretend he. one tried to find fake votes that weren't there. people get that this stuff was wrong. the idea of this divine rights theory. the president can say whatever. >> lots of english top happening tonight. we are in the united states people, will go ahead. >> >> people just do not believe the president should be above the law. regardless of it is a democrat or republican. so i think trying to make a point, to the american people, particularly those in the middle. falling on deaf ears. >> what do you think? the polling, the way it's being described. the severity and the gravitas? people like okay, so what? >> i think a lot of this is priced in. as we heard, in the january 6th commission we have already heard a lot of the details before. there are some new things in here. mike pence being told you are too honest. you know little things that might be new. >> but in general, the narrative is pretty similar. if you came into this day already believing that donald trump is a criminal, terrible and try to overturn election. this validates you. but if you woke up this morning thinking donald trump got on wrong and then over since the biden administration has been coming after him. today validates that for you. so i do not think that this alone moves the polls. what could move the polls is that as this advantages, do republicans start to stay down the barrel of reality that they are going to nominate a guy who might be going to prison. it is actually spooked republicans. not to say i think donald trump is wrong on the merits but to go, are we going to do this. are we going to risk giving joe biden another four years by going with donald trump? >> he might be going to prison for time. we're talking four major felony cases. do not discount that alvin bragg case. that's not a hush money case. donald trump falsified documents to cover up hush money payments to interfere with the 2016 election. it was the gateway drug for this federal prosecution and that can carry jail time in new york state. >> the lawyer in the says allegedly. they go, had to do it. the lawyers know why, everyone standby, erin you have some new reaction from some of trump's rivals i understand. >> laura, this goes to the heart of what you are saying. everyone, nobody is above the rule of law well that's true. except for if you're just going to question whether the rule of law it's self is eve. that's what's happening from tim scott. so tim scott has just come out, responding to the latest indictment. i remain concerned of the weaponization of biden. and it's immense power used againspotical opponent we see today two different tracks of justice, ones for political opponents and another the son of the current president. we're watching biden doj while protecting democrats. so questioning the rule of law it's self and tim scott. getting in line i guess would be the way to describe it. scott? >> this is the majority opinion of the average rank in file republican. you could've pulled that right out of a poll. taken sometime last two weeks. here's the way republicans see it, most of them. got the doj last week, colluding with the biden family lawyers to get a blanket immunity deal for hunter. next day they are piling on more indictments on trump in a random portuguese immigrant who works on mar-a-lago. today, you have this while everybody seems to be ignoring the whistleblowers and evidence of biden family corruption. so the average republican believes that. you see this channel in to him scott such a statement. in rhonda santa's statement. and the reason they are channeling it, they're hoping for a day when donald trump evaporates. like something happens like he's not in a race anymore. which is not something they can affect by the way. and i want to be able to pick up the bulk of the party that believes exactly what you've just read. >> you had will hurd on, you had a son hutchinson on earlier. different point of view, chris christie comes out. slams, the disgraceful is on donald. trump swore note the constitution, violated his oath and brought him to the presidency. chris christie is a 70% negative approval rating among the gop. he says this, they don't hear that. >> but it is the truth. and i think part of the question we are dealing with now in this country is, how much do facts matter. we need to conduct a fax based debate in this country. tim scott is a good man, presenting a generally optimistic vision in an overwhelmingly negative republican field. what he said, this represents to tears of justice-ness in this country is fundamentally and factually wrong. this indictment shows that there is one standard of justice. that nobody is above the law. and this is about, take a step back from politics. this is about the most serious, historical moment we've had in our country in a long time. where a sitting president tried to overturn the election on a basis of a law. this lays out fact by fact, folks want to engage in a magical thinking and not read this indictment as a matter of pride. they are engaging in willful ignorance. no doubt. but it doesn't make it right. we shouldn't dignify it. >> there is an emerging theory on the right tonight. that even people who believed january six was horrible, that trump violated his oath of office, whatever. it is possible to believe that he was totally wrong, immoral and should not hold the presidency again. but that you also have to believe that he should be charged with a crime. i'm seeing people on the right tonight parse it out. i don't love youth jen six, i think he was wrong. the indictment seems thin, i wish they hadn't have done it. >> remind folks that the arguments the senators made, this is an improper way to handle, this is should be done through the legal system and the justice department, give it time. >> shows that they are consistent. now you've all had a chance to go through this in more detail. so you've got more things to stand out to you here. like what? >> i think the one that stands out to me, kind of a roadmap for state and local prosecutors. when the indictment does raise new allegations. we did not know of before. for example arizona. there's evidence here that says trump and giuliani and eastman when they called the house speaker what did they ask him to do? to do things that violated his oath. by telling him can you get your legislator to overturn the popular vote. arizona is currently investigating the false electors. will they all some of us to get them? similarly in georgia. so put booster rockets in a sense in the georgia colonel indictment if it comes. because there is very strong evidence here that trump very much knew when they filed litigation that he was entering false statements. in fact was even told by eastman. we can't certify this because we know it's false. what do they do? jasmyn and trump certify it. so there is things like this. and there's another line in the, paragraph 66. they say the false electors are at the direction of trump and giuliani. that is also new information. which i don't know if this changes any politics in any which way but it maybe brings at home to the states of people. if the state prosecutors and local district attorneys to want to take it up or investigate giuliani for example. >> you're not talking about a whole lot more. in terms of the docket in how many more indictments could be coming in various jurisdictions. but one thing about this. what's in it and not in it. from your perspective. this is designed to move as quickly as something can move. >> that is really what is blamed of this indictment is that at the same time it is a 45-page complicated factual scenario. yet incredibly simplistic. there is one defendant. for charges. that's it. so really one set of defense motions that will be made. one set of defense lawyers who will be saying i can be, ready i can purity. jack smith and his team. it's just so streamlined. there is no classified documents involved. you don't have to worry about people getting top secret clearance. all the complexities with the mar-a-lago case and the different defense attorneys that are going to cause delays. all the different motions. oceans to sever and all of the things will happen here. there's none of that. it's just one defendant. for triggers. it can go quickly. and i think it has the best chance of all of the indictments against trump of going before the election. >> which is very significant to say. because obviously it's not the last, but we are at the tail end of a whole host of them have been coming over many months. to that point elliott, what stands out to use what is not charged. >> in order to have a streamlined indictment, there is probably decisions that had to be made on things that could not be charged. we've spent the greater part of the last two years or so debating the question of whether the former president would be charged with something like seditious conspiracy or inciting violence or so on. and i actually think here that it would have been incredibly hard to tie the president to some of these things. for instance, seditious conspiracy you would have to prove an agreement to use force or threats to prevent him from the execution of mcconnell. that happened, and many people were convicted of it but time the president of that would have been incredibly difficult and you would have also ran into serious first amendment. excellent sit versus implicit. in the sense from, speech which were disgraceful, shameful for former president. unbecoming, not be fighting the presidency. but i don't know if you could charge them as crimes given the fact that he was a candidate and so on. so would have been incredibly difficult to do. and then the other thing. that is what is not in the indictment. the other thing i just think that will be interesting over these months is what proof or how the justice department establishes the civil rights claim. the deprivation of rights and in some way the president engaged. was he depriving voters of their rights to a free and fair election. was he depriving mike pence of the ability to do his job? both of which could be established under that section of the code there. it's not entirely clear how they establish that. it will be interesting for the months to see what establishes. >> all right, all stay with us. laura? >> this is where the rubber meets the road as you know. as a lead is talking about, how do you actually prove the case because that really is the next step if you are jackson. up next, michael fanone who was attacked on january 6th joins us to react to this indictment. cnn special live coverage. ♪ chevy silverado has what it takekes to do it all. with up to 13 camera views. and the z71 off-road package. ♪ you ok? yeah. any truck can help you make a living. this one helps you build a life. chevy silverado. with new scope squeez mouthwash concentrate, just add water. squeez to control the strength of your mouthwash. and find a zone all your own. ♪ ♪ scope squeez. time stops. ♪ (music plays) ♪ and you realize you're in love... steve? ...with a laundry detergent. new gain flings. seriously good scent. my cpa told me i wouldn't qualify for the erc tax refund, so i called innovation refunds. their team of independent tax attorneys will work with your cpa to determine if your company is eligible. [whip sound] take the first step to see if your small business qualifies. ♪ (upbeat music) ♪ ( ♪ ) woah. ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) ( ♪ ) constant contact delivers the marketing tools your small business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. constant contact. helping the small stand tall. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? >> vo: for us, driving around is the only way we can get our baby to sleep, so when our windshield cracked, we needed it fixed right. we went to safelite.com. there's no one else we'd trust. their experts replaced our windshield, and recalibrated our car's advanced safety system. they focus on our safety... so we can focus on this little guy. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ ahhh! icy hot pro starts working instantly. with two max-strength pain relievers, so you can rise from pain like a pro. icy hot pro. >> former president trump indicted today for efforts to overturn the 2020 election. leading up to january 6th attack on the capitol. in the face of the new criminal charges, trump's allies on the hill are coming fast and furiously to his defense. i want to bring in our melanie zanona. capitol hill reporter. melanie, they are not taking a lot of time. they are coming in quickly with their point of view. because they are purposely saying that they do not have any reason to read this indictment because they've already know what they think. >> yes, republicans have been preparing the response for weeks. even before seeing the scope of the charges. and in some cases aaron, they've been directly coordinating with donald trump himself of how best to defend him. donald trump has spoken in recent days to some of his allies. including at least a fonda. trying to strategize a messaging plane here. i'm also told he's sent talking points to capitol hill. arguing at least in part that trump was consulting his attorneys in the lead up to the january 6th. and now some on the right are calling to defund the special counsel jack smith. of course that would be dead on arrival in the senate. but aaron, i am expecting republicans to ramp up their focus and investigations into the biden family. in fact, a number of republicans and statements today suggesting without evidence that the indictment was purposely timed to coincide today to come a after testimony from 100 biden business associates. i want to read you part of speaker kevin mccarthy's statement. saying everybody in america could see what was going to come next. the doj attempt to distract and attacked the front runner for the republican nomination, president trump. house republicans will continue to uncover the truth about biden ink and the two tiered system of justice. so erin, i think probably the most remarkable statement was from marjorie taylor greene tonight who said he was still going to vote for trump even if he was in jail. summing up the state of play in the republican party right now. but notably, we did not hear from senate gop leader mitch mcconnell. silent throughout all the indictments and legal troubles facing former president donald trump so really a tale of two republican leaders there. >> melanie, as melanie was talking about marty taylor greene. john, -- >> i think it's called a fastball. trying to figure out the best way to describe it. >> but it was pretty notable. >> yeah. but i mean those are the stakes. as a practical matter, if republicans go forward and nominate donald trump they could very well be nominating somebody who is facing prison time. and as marjorie taylor greene just said, she would vote for him if he is in prison. according to this new york times poll, 37% of republicans. who may be in that same camp. supporting him no matter what. the rest of the republican party, a majority of the republican party needs to understand that they nominate somebody with this kind of baggage. that is kryptonite when it comes to appealing to independent voters, moderates and moderate republicans. >> right, laura? >> so much from pack about that. i want to play more of what jack smith said tonight. >> defended the u.s. capitol under six are heroes. they're patriots. in the very best of us. they did not just defend a building. where the people sheltering met. they put their lives on the line. to defend who we are as a country and people. >> they defended very institutions and principles that define the united states. >> one of the people trying to hold the line is seen in law enforcement analyst and former d.c. metropolitan police officer michael simone. michael. so glad you are here tonight. i'm wondering what you have been thinking about all of this. what is going through your head tonight after the indictment came down? >> when i first learned of the indictment, i had a long conversation with a friend of mine. i told him how proud i felt to be an american at that moment. much in the way i did when i learned that our military had killed osama bin laden. i just felt incredibly proud. >> these two seem comparable to you? i >> don't cut you off, but why that comparison in particular? >> i believe they are comparable. >> in what way? >> absolutely. >> osama bin laden was a terrorist who committed a horrific act against american people. and against our republic. and i believe that donald trump is a terrorist who committed horrific acts against the american people. >> you can imagine that is very eyebrow raising statement to say the least. the notion of osama bin laden, the comparison to donald trump. but it likely speaks to just how deeply you've been concerned and felt about all of this. but are you concerned that statements like that or the rhetoric surrounding what his role has been is going to cloud people's view of the indictment as a fair process? >> i think the only person or people whose view matters with regards to the indictment are the jurors who will eventually be sat and listen to the facts and ultimately make a judgment as to whether or not donald trump is guilty of the charges that jack smith and the department of justice have brought forward. >> other than, that what i say or what republican lawmakers say is just to take up time on cable news. >> well, i do appreciate the way you want to spend my evening but i do want to hear what you understand. because when you think about what we were all watching engineer six. seeing the events unfold. this indictment talks more about than just what happened on the, day it talks about what led up to as well. not the moment, the hours that were spent by you and so many of your brave colleagues trying to hold the line to defend really the seat of democracy as talked about today but you have been concerned consistently of whether people would really face consequences for what happened on that day in particular as well. when you read through this indictment, you are a former member of law enforcement. so you are no strangers to indictments. the idea of what is charged. reactions to it. when you should do these indictments, is it enough? or does not go far enough? >> i've talked about this before. you know, as a former federal prosecutor. chuck smith's job is to pursue the clearest charges against donald trump. i know there are friends, mine colleagues, people who were there with me on january 6th that would have preferred charges that more so seated trump with the violence of the day. i get it. but at the same time i think it is most important that you present charges in which jack smith feels he can secure a conviction. regardless of that, i think today is significant. at least to me, representing the end of two and a half years of advocating for this. donald trump was indicted. not because he is donald trump the a whole. but because he's donald trump, a former president. wealthy, white male. literally checks all the boxes of the entitled and privileged in this country who normally circumvent any type of accountability for the crimes they commit. what there was evidence he committed crimes. they were courageous americans at the department of justice who put their career and safety on the line to pursue the investigation. and secure an indictment against donald trump. and we should be celebrating. >> never hidden how you feel of him. your personal opinion of who is. you're not have had these conversations before about the notion that there seems to be an epiphany to some people. that we are a nation that has more appeal to the haves than the have-nots. and our justice system can oftentimes really showcase that. and yet, the way it's being talked about. the way that there is this so-called two tiered system of justice. often does not apply to the conversations that officers are demonstrating. and prosecutors on the legal front lines are describing. but one of the questions now that there's been an indictment, do you think trump will ultimately face consequences for his role as elections in recent? >> i think that he will be tried. i do not know what is your definition of consequences? >> what's yours? >> to be honest with you. honestly? if you are asking me personally. don't pay me into something that can't say on cable news. >> we've passed that part about three minutes ago michael. but okay, keep going, that's fine. we turn left, return right. now we are here again. >> i'll tell you laura. i think donald trump should be going to prison for the rest of his life. and i would hope that he would have a stroke and live forever. that's what i would like to see happen to donald trump. but again. that is just me personally. what's important is that the rule of law is upheld. that old adage that we told each other over and over again in our careers in law enforcement. you and me that no one is above the law. well today i actually believe that. because here we are, with a former president who has been indicted. and now has to face the criminal justice system. not a position i would want to be in. >> michael fanone, i know you as an officer as well. and i know one of the things you strongly believe in. and i know that there is a lot of extraordinary feelings you have about the issue personally. but i know you stand true to the presumption of innocence and the presentation of evidence coming in the next set of this. we will see how the trial actually goes in the event. thank you so much, nice talking to you. >> yes ma'am, thank you for having me. >> erin? >> laura, coming. lead counsel and then president trump's first impeachment, daniel goldman will be with us next. ♪ ♪ we're reinventing our network... ...with smarter, more efficient routes... ...so you can deliver more value to youcustomers. fast. reliable. perfectly orchestrated. the united states postal service. hi, i'm ben, and i've lost 60 pounds on golo. i currently suffer from nerve damage which kept me bedridden for six months. i was very overweight and depressed. i was skeptical when i first ordered golo, but the condition i was in, i was willing to take the chance, and the chance turned out to be my lotto ticket. golo gave me back my life, and that's why i'm here. (announcer) change your life at golo.com. that's golo.com. he snores like an angry rhino. you've never heard an angry rhino. baby i hear one every night. every night. okay. i'll work on that. save up to $500 on the new sleep number® smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. shop now only at sleep number®. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. well, foreign president don't trump is now indicted for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and is set to appear before a judge in washington on thursday, so the arraignment is going to come very quickly. special counsel jack smith making it clear that he is pushing for a speedy trial. >> my office will seek a speedy trial, that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens. in the meantime, i must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation, and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. >> i want to bring in congressman daniel bolden, he was also the lead counsel and then president trump's first impeachment and part of the reason, of course, so many new his face long before now. so, congressman, i appreciate your time. 45 pages in this indictment, as an attorney what have you learned? >> well, it is a sweeping and powerful indictment that lays out a series of escalating efforts that went from the legal to the grossly illegal, that donald trump lead in trying to overturn the election and install himself as the and rightful president of the united states. i think that the number of different tentacles of this conspiracy is quite alarming. >> you mentioned jeffrey clark and he is, of course, one of the six coconspirators mentioned. now, we have identified five of them. rudy giuliani, john eastman, sydney powell, jeffrey clark, and kenneth chesebro. all attorneys in the case of mr. clark at the time -- there is a six, a political consultant that we have not yet named. these six individuals though, congressman, we do not know if they have been indicted yet or not. it does not say that they are unindicted coconspirators, it just says coconspirators. what do you read into this? >> well, i read that they wanted to have an individual and separate indictment of the former president of the united states. because of the importance that he has, the fact that there is a special counsel only because donald trump was the subject of this investigation. but, if are any of those six coconspirators, i would make sure that i had my lawyer on speed dial and i would expect that, unless they come in and cooperate, which i doubt they will at this point, that they will be on the other side of the indictment in the near future. >> so there are several things in here that you learn, just from one of the basic things, a trump having meeting in the oval office with his national security team well after he lost the election when at the end he says, it is too late for us, that is for the next guy. making it very clear that he knew he lost. there are details like that in here. there is also the detail that the vice president, mike pence, took notes and, apparently, was a very detailed note taker. taking contemporaneous notes during his meetings with mr. trump. it notes, in one instance, pence takes notes saying that trump falsely tells him that the justice department was finding major infractions, another time pence was mentioned taking notes is one trump making no false claims of election fraud, including the, quote, bottom line of every state by 100,000 votes and we won every state. now, i was talking earlier to olivia troye, who as you know of course worked for the former vice president. she said he was a very detailed note taker, that he would use a black sharpie and a next cards. now we know this and we know that he was providing these notes to the doj. how big of a role do you think of these notes could play? >> well there are those notes, and remember richard donahue who has the notes of what trump said, just say it as corrupt and leave it to me and the republican congressman, which is mentioned in the indictment, but not referred to in the notes. notes, contemporaneous notes are very powerful cooperation when a defendant, a defense council tries to undermine the credibility of a witness because you have realtime recording of what the individual side. and, so, it is another element of proof because the corroborates and build credibility for what the witness said. but, erin, you pointed out one thing that jumped out at me, which was that conversation about foreign affairs international security issues, unrelated to the election. when donald trump says, 17 days before the inauguration, well we will leave this to the next guy to deal with. that is an ignition that he knows that he lost, before january six and his efforts to convince, to say it nicely, mike pence, to throw the election for donald trump. that is a critical, critical piece of evidence because the defense will be that donald trump is such a narcissistic sociopath that he actually believed his own false statements and his own disinformation, and therefore he doesn't have the necessary intent and knowledge to commit a crime. that is not a legitimate defense when you are faced with facts and you simply choose not to believe them, that would mean that almost no defendant could be ever convicted of fraud, but that is unquestionably is a too crazy for conviction defense that they will have, and that specific statement is going to be very important. >> it is damning in that regard, although interesting that your best defense is being a narcissistic sociopath. if such as the rate you go than you are being told 1 million times that this was false, and yet you continue to perpetuate the law is. congressman bolton, where appreciate your time. >> thank. you >> and my panel is back. karen, one thing that the congressman was just talking about, this we are talking about this incident where there is a meeting on the evening of january 3rd, the president of national security team are together, they're talking about an incident, a situation that has nothing to do with us. and actions are recommended and the defendant, president trump, calmly says yeah, you are right, it's too late for us, we're going to give that to the next guy. look, this immediately stood out to all of us as very significant because he's clearly acknowledging that there is going to be a next guy and he lost on january 3rd, and two months after the election. it is, however, in this 45-page indictment, the only example like that in here. it doesn't mean it's the only one that jack smith has, about is the only one that is included. >> jack smith is not going to put every single fact in the indictment, just enough to tell a story. you'll get more of those facts at trial. for example, alyssa farah griffin, who is often a guest on cnn -- >> earlier tonight. >> you know, she talks about one from says, i can't believe i lost to this guy. that was a statement that he, made acknowledging that he lost. you, know there are glimmers that he, how did he not new. he lost 60 court cases, more than 60 court cases. he knows that he lost, he was just looking for an answer, and there are glimmers in their, and i think that is a crime. >> it's amazing to me in all of this at somebody comes to you and say that the sky is purple, and then the burden is on you to prove that they don't know it just purple, one in the whole world looks up and sees that it's blue. i feel that's where we are on this. of course the guy knew he lost the election. you've got 45 pages trying to prove that he knew he lost the election. there is something, i don't know if my blue sky analogy works, but it is -- >> here identifying reckless disregard of the knowledge of the color of the sky. someone is allowed to believe that the sky is purple, but if they received advice from their attorney, the head of the director of national intelligence, the attorney general of the united states and any number of people around you saying no sir, i am providing you concrete legal advice that the sky is in fact blue, you can be found guilty of believing that the sky is blue. >> i'm sorry. >> we do, ryan, have a statement coming up from john eastman, who is one of the coconspirators. his attorney, saying that eastman will not plea, that there will be no plea or cooperation. if you were invited to plea bargain with federal or state prosecutors, he will decline. the fact is if he's indicted he'll go to trial. if convicted he will appeal, and he also says that the indictment relies on misleading presentations. >> i think if he goes to trial, and gets convicted, on the evidence there is a suit that is very, strong but it sets up something, interesting which is that he might try to defend himself in ways that will hurt trump. that is what is happening right now in california, where there is a proceeding to have him stripped of his bar license, and john eastman has said that i never told the president, that vice president pence could reject the electors, that would have been illegal. what is happening in paragraph 90 to 90 through this indictment, it alleges that john eastman told president just that. i don't think trump would like to hear that, because then it would be him saying that nobody told you that, you can suggest to vice president pence to reject them out of the southern states, because it will be illegal. it actually sets them up against each other. >> even without playing, he's throwing someone under the bus. >> it could be that that's his defense. >> trump's whole defense is i relied on my lawyer, and his lawyer is saying no, i never told him that. that throws his defense out the window, which is all incredible. >> the unprecedented oratory that we are in, we're having a whole discussion about whether someone should know that the sky is blue. it's unbelievable, think about it i mean three indictments in four months, by the way, it is only tuesday, everyone and we are only in august >> it's about to be wednesday three, two, one of. thank you for watching everyone, it's time to go to bed and start a new day tomorrow, but our coverage is going to continue. for the first time in this country's, history a former president of the united states has been charged with felonies,