Now evidence in Jack Smiths January 6 case against Donald Trump. What he revealed and what it could mean for Donald Trump in court. Of course, at the ballot box, plus an attorney who says he represents dozens of new diddy accusers. He claims theres an Accomplice List that will shock the public tonight. On Laura Coates live while special Counsel Jack Smith is laying it all out there his plan for prosecuting Donald Trump in the 2020 Election Conspiracy Case revealed in a newly unsealed 165 Page Court Filing Light Reading for what, a thursday, wednesday night. What is it in it . We get never before seen evidence. We get his argument for why trump is not immune from prosecution. We get a roadmap for how smith plans to present this case at a potential Trial Notice Plan and potential it essentially amounts to his opening statement, but its all on paper, of course. He drops a familiar Name And Page after page, Mike Pence allowed the new evidence related to the former Vice President , the man who had to be escorted to a secure location on January 6, that after a mob stormed the capitol and called for his hanging, the filing explains how moments after what youre seeing happened happened in Aid Rush to trump to tell him about the mobs threats against Pence Or Trump looked at the aid and apparently said only so what remember this tweet on January 6, The One from trumps account accusing pens of lacking courage for not tipping the election Will Smith argues he can prove trump was by himself and using his own phone when it went out how . By calling as a witness, the only other Trump Adviser who had access to his account is also this new detail. Smith said some assistant who Heard Trump tell Family Members on marine one no less after the election, quote, it doesnt matter if you won or lost the election, you still have to fight like hill. Now, a big chunk this filing is Jack Smiths effort to address the issue thats threatened to sink his entire case remember, the Supreme Court, and theyre ruling in july when the Granite Trump broad immunity for official acts i know that was like 1,000 years ago at this point in time. But smith now here is arguing that trump acted on his own private capacity as a candidate, not in his official role as President Smith does that by claiming trump used private actors and his own Campaign Infrastructure to overturn the election. He also gets crafty with how he describes one Mike Pence, who is e evidenced smith definitely wants introduce at a trial throughout the entire Filing Trump and pence are described as Running Mates hes trying to show their conversations were related to the campaign. Hence, Running Mates and not official acts he also argues that Pences Role during the January 6 certification was legislative. It wasnt part of his duties in e Executive Branch will the Supreme Court buy it . I mean, well see if it ends up back there. I mean, take out the word if when it ends up back there the Chances Case goes to trial before the election, though. Zilch zero. None. In a trump gets elected to educated guess as it goes away that doesnt mean this Filing Wont have bigger implications for the election its a final chance for voters to hear some of the evidence that has been alleged by Jack Smith before election day. Its also a chance for trump to claim the deck is stacked against them. Hes already doing that tonight, by the way. Hes a deranged call them deranged Jack Smith and he works for kamala and he works for joe. This was a weaponization of government and thats why was released 30 days before the election well, 34, but point taken. Joining me now, senior legal Affairs Reporter for politico, josh gerstein, former federal prosecutor, at least adamson, and cnn legal commentator and former trump attorney tim parlatore, glad to have All Of You here today, who expected this . Come maybe not anyone, but certainly Jack Smith did. We talked with you, josh because you call this filing a blueprint for special counsel, Jack Smith and a jury presentation. If that would happen one day, what do you think is his goal in doing this . Knowing the audience is not really a jury in this case. Its the judge. What is he trying to do . Well, hes trying to give her as much of the evidence as he can because so far what shes really had is only the indictment which was just sort a barebones outline of its case. And this really fills in a lot of the details that a lot of the juicy nuggets that you just relayed, our him laying out the facts. Theres one in there where they talk about a Trump Camp Campaign aide talking to somebody down in an arena where they were counting votes on Election Night and telling them to start a riot. Now that allegation in sort of vague terms was in the indictment, but now we have a direct quote to back it up. So its that kind of particularity. But i do think that the overall just this argument is not as much to Lay Out all of his evidence, but to try to meet this standard, youre talking about that the Supreme Court has laid out for his case, which i think in some respects is a very difficult standard to suggest that none of this stuff that he wants to present as part of the case is covered by president ial immunity. Nabil battle, maybe not in front of judge chutkan, but certainly in front of the Supreme Court. If it goes back there, as you said, at least to that point, i mean the parameters here, the Supreme Court essentially said, if its an official act, if its while you were the president , not just while you were the president , but you were acting in a president ial fashion then its immune, but youre acting as a private citizen totally different. In other words, if you are an Official And Office Seeker Versus Office holder, theres a big distinction here. They tried to Lay Out in great detail some conversations that demonstrate, i think in some way, where to try and do intent, what do you think Jack Smith can do to try to demonstrate to the judge this is not a private act or were not an official. What a private one, wilmore, i think Jack Smith has done that in this motion and that is as you said, Lay Out what the former president s intent was during these conversations and Jack Smith does this in meticulous detail the filings starts with a very methodical presentation of the former president s efforts in each state to have the Election Results overturned and its fleshed out a lot of these gaps. Hes had conversations, he had direct conversations with these officials asking them to find more votes we knew about that before, but now we know of additional conversations. And so he is acting as a candidate. There is only one benefit to him in doing that and that is for him to remain in power and also, Jack Smith makes a very important point and each one of those paragraphs he said trump was on notice he was on notice that there was no fraud, and thats important because the foreign president has argued that he was just protecting the integrity of the election. And now Jack Smith said, no, how would you be protecting the integrity that would be an official duty know, you know, there was no fraud. You were acting in your personal capacity as a candidate, wanting to stay in office . Tim, of course, he would say no, the integrity of election was me overseeing the election period. It wasnt me as a candidate, was me as the president United States, but to at least his point, i mean, the notice, they have in this document in this pleading, they include attorney general bill barr, who is basically saying what he what he saw and fox news. So i him saying that there was widespread fraud and came to say no, there actually was not looked into the matter and beyond trying to show there is evidenced that he was on notice that was not actually going to happen did not happen. It was not happening. How persuasive would that be to this judge . Not to a jury, but to this judge . Well, i mean, im sure that this Judge Itll be very persuasive, but you have to remember, this is just the prosecutors brief right . And it is cherrypicked of what he thinks is going to be the most favorable. Obviously, its Omitting Anything that would be favorable to the defense, and there is going to be a response and as i heard, they just asked for an extension of the response, so were not going to see that risk. Is it past the election so funny how that happened and the reality is when you get 166 page filing, you need more than two weeks to respond to it. And so once you have the full story, maybe the judge looks at it a little bit differently. I do think that hes laid out a good case here on president ial versus candidate. And that was one of the things that when i was on the case, we were always really trying to draw the distinction of what is done as a candidate was done as a president because you want a president , if they do believe that Theres Fraud to investigated to find out whether Theres Fraud to make sure that the election is accurate. But that is something thats done through doj through law enforcement. Well, i want you both to come at all, but there is this moment where i think ill read it to you, where smith says, quote, its hard to imagine stronger evidence that conduct is private. Then when the president excludes his white House Counsel and only wishes to have his private counsel present. This is when hes talking to pence and pressuring him not to certify the election. I mean, the white House Counsels role is not to be private counsel wants to think about the actual presidency. The office itself, not only for this this president , but for the posterity. The fact that he wanted his private counsel and not white House Counsel. Thats pretty telling yeah. But what was the reason for that . It may well have been because he was on the outs with his white House Counsel that they had clashed over a bunch of different issues and what i see as i go through this motion is that trump was getting Advice And Information from different sets of people. There were a lot of people telling him there were no real credible reports of fraud and there were a handful of people who were telling him there might be fraud or they were hearing some evidence and the prosecution here says, well, were going to declare all those people are coconspirators. Rudy giuliani honey coconspirator. So heres Law Firm was the office of yesmen llp, right . Thats The One that was for some of them. Right so thats one of the dilemmas here. Its sort of like if youre sick, you just keep going to doctors so you find one who tells you youre not sick. I mean, it seems like thats what trump was doing, but i think that thats going to be if this does eventually go to trial the thrust of his defense that he had credible people, the former mayor of new York City and us attorney for the southern district of new york, giving him advice, somebody who was an esteemed constitutional Law Professor john eastman, giving him advice, sidney powell, maybe that ones a little tougher to swallow given some things that are in here where he calls her unhinged in some things even worse than so, maybe he had his doubts about her. So its a question of are you entitled to believe anybody you want because you want to preserve some sort of a delusion that you have that you actually won the response. My response is there was no evidence. I mean, i hear those arguments, but i think the problem is that those people who were for telling him what he wanted to hear could not produce any evidence to substantiate their claims. And if they could even a tiny amount, then i think that would have led some credibility into what they were saying, but they were theories and the brief shows that at some point that was even conceded. I think it was from who i believe too the Rudy Giuliani says, we dont have the evidence, we just have theories. Theories is not enough. And the folks who were telling him there was no fraud, those were fellow republicans. They would have gladly change those results if they could any said show us something, show us something. There was nothing well, tim, youve been his counsel and the idea of him not just Forum Shopping in the sense of the judge, but Lawyer Shopping to figure out, i need you to tell me what i want to hear. How persuasive again, these are allegations in a brief thats intended to go to a judge on the Immunity Issue and well go back the Supreme Court eventually, how persuasive is the argument that look, i was just getting different advice from different people. I wasnt trying to break the law. I was just hear from people in a context of a criminal trial thats a great defense because ultimately you have to prove to the jury the government has to prove to the jury Beyond A Reasonable Doubt that he absolutely knew that there was no fraud. And if he can show, hey, i was getting advice from all these different people. Some say this, some say that it is it is something thats a very good Trial Defense to say just because the prosecutor says, you should have believed this person, not that person doesnt mean that Beyond A Reasonable Doubt. This is the only person thats right. And then ended. He did believe that person. So i think it is in the context of a criminal trial it is a good defense. Well, well see weve heard both arguments are going to likely hear at a trial, but right now, obviously were in the stages of trying to demonstrate to this judge whether the Supreme Courts ruling on immunity means this case goes away, or they can delineate between official and private conduct. Thank you so much, everyone. I want to bring in someone who served on the January 6 committee, cnns senior political commentator and former republican congressman adam kinzinger. He has endorsed Kamala Harris for president. Congressman. Thank you for joining us. We learned from this filing some significant things, other things we knew before, but now weve laid out and where did detail . Here we know that the filing from the fbi has mapped out. It meant that how trump used his phone on January 6, was that surprising to you yeah i mean that was a huge surprise. Theres a lot of information obviously that we werent able to attain on the committee. We were able to tell a broader story back with a lot of evidence, but we were time limited. We knew that, you know, basically The End of our committee was coming, particularly when the republicans took control the house. And we knew we were passing the ball on to whoever basically decided to continue this investigation and the doj did, but the fact that donald, i guess im not surprised, but it is surprising that he would be using his private phone that Jack Smith evidently has this able to, in Essence Track the keystrokes of this. And then to find out conversations like the president saying, i dont i dont care what happens to Mike Pence. We kind of knew that one on the committee, but then saying, well, let them Riot Or Something along that line. I mean, look, regardless of what the legal cases here and listening to your prior panel, remind me if im ever going to commit a crime to find somebody that tells me its okay because that can be my legal defense. But regardless of what ends up happening in the court, this is something The American people have got to digest because listen, if Donald Trump wins, hes made it clear. Hes going to drop this case. And so if you think this is where the of a president of the United States, fine. Thats decision you get to make. You think President Shouldnt be above the law, then this is a very essential thing to read what Congressman Smith describe. Increasingly desperate plan by trump as coconspirators, this as alleged in the brief, of course, to overthrow the election, how they tried to manipulate the Vice President in his legislative capacity. Of course. What do you say . A to those who are still defending those actions in particular, and by the way, as recently as last night, we heard the Vp Debate Senator Jd Vance, his Running Mate, giving what, what Governor Walz described as a nonanswer with respect to who won the election yeah. I mean, of course it was a nonanswer. He cant say that Donald Trump lost because Donald Trump will be really upset about that, even though i know Jd Vance and his heart knows that he lost so yeah. I mean, this is this is a huge deal and for those that are still going to look at voting for Donald Trump, i dont know if there theres much more. I can say to convince them. But i guess lets just roleplay for a second and say, imagine this as a democrat doing exactly this. Would you be okay with that . Would you think this is within the purview of a president of United States. And if the answer is no, then you probably need to hold to the standards. Now that you believe are important. The increasing desperation of Donald Trump was very evident. We ramble to present this on the committee just think about his meeting with the doj officials where he said, look, im not asking you to do anything really illegal. I just want you to say the election is corrupt. Thats it. Yeah put some bomb on your conscious. Youre just going to say its corrupt. And then let me, and the republican congressmen do the rest. Let me exploit the doubt. Let the republican congressman convinced people that Theres Fraud. You dont need to find fraud. Just let me do it, but i need your stamp of approval and theres going to be a lot of stuff like that under a second Trump Administration and if it would come to fruition i mean, the Innuendo Being in the air. Interestingly enough, and perhaps ironically, is exactly what the Trump Camp is complaining about that being out in the universe before the war, the election puts in uno athlete. They Cant Guard and defend against, but i wonder how the electorate will see if theyve got about 34 days to decide what youve just asked them to do. Adam kinzinger. Thank you so much you bet. Weve got much more on how Jack Smiths new evidence could impact the president ial race ahead. Plus Melania Trump suddenly enter