every road that says common sense, common sense, obvious, obvious. and go lie thick one over here. you got the attorney general, got the deputy attorney general, white house counsel, you re a former white house lawyer. all the peoples including the secretary 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 council. or were they following him? again, i think that s why he is the only named defendant in this case. they want to make it clear that he was the one driving this. he got advice from a number of folks that said very credible, some of the best lawyers in constitutional scholars in washington, no, you can t do that. and yet he went to others, he got a second opinion. and was he driving the conversation to get the answer he wanted? or was he really seeking council. this idea of plausible denia
deniability. it is it realistic? i m not a lawyer but this goes beyond the attorney/client argument. it s the case that political speech broadly protected. that fundamentally the case that john lauro is making that you can almost use a political speech as a shield to do anything, as long as you re doing it while being a political candidate. and i think we ve been looking at this as though that is a political argument. that couldn t be a plausible legal argument. but if you re looking at the sport that is lully more conservative that the court that gave us citizens united, i think it s worth asking the question, like what if that was a plausible argument? what would happen to the american presidency? who what wouldo what john lauro was saying to kaitlan collins in the fum interview when he talked about the idea he believes and he is saying this is this indictment that is turning the notion of political speech on its face. you mean i can t just have a political strategy? i can t be cri
against political opponents. what we see today are two tracks of justice, one for opponents and another for the son of the president so questioning the rule of law itself and tim scott, getting in line i guess would be the way the describe it. scott? this is the majority opinion of the average rank and file. you can pull that out of a poll taken in the last two weeks. here is the way republicans see it, most of them. the doj colluding with the biden family lawyers to get a blanket immunity deal for hunter. the next day they re piling more indictments on trump and some random portuguese immigrant who works at mar-a-lago. today you have this. while everybody seems to be ignoring the whistle-blowers and biden family. you see this channel in tim scott s statement. you see it channeled in ron
mark meadows, i was expecting to learn even more. peeking of releasing 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 gets to see the case today, and they don t have to wait. and i think that is significant, and that s something we ve been lobbying the special counsel to do. and of course there are some unanswered questions. we have names, the reporting identifies five of the six co-conspirators. we don t if they ll be charged, this case is historic so many reasons, no matter what the outcome will be. what are the next steps, paula? the biggest next step is the former president s court appearance. we expect that will happen on thursday. it s unclear if that will be via zoom that is an option available to him, or if he will come in person. now after that we know the special counsel has at least one more witness interview schedule
indictment. the other thing i think will be interesting over these months is what proof or how the justice department establishes that civil rights claim, the deprivation of rights in some way that the president engaged in. 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 re establish that. and i think it will be interesting over the months to see what establishes it. all right. all stay with me. laura? this is really where the rubber is going to meet the road is eliot talking about how do you actually prove the case because that really is the next step if you re jack smith. and up next here, michael fanone who was attacked on january 6th joins us to react to this indictment. this is cnn special live coverage. retired right? am i? ya! save up to $500 on the new sleep number® smart bed. plus, free home