having a lot of success. considering that's happening and we haven't had a debate yet, he's going to be in real trouble as this progresses along. i think as was brought up, he's raised a lot of money off the first couple of dooindictments i think it's trickling down. the well is going to be dry. the fact that he's bill being his own supporters. he's only a billionaire. you can't expect more than that to ask everyone to pay your own way. no, i think it really is wearing thin here in new hampshire and iowa. i think the more and more folks look at where those discussions are hemmiappening, i think ther hope there. trump is not the nominee of this party. >> governor sununu, thanks very much for joining us. >> you bet. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. and good evening and welcome to a special edition of "out front." i'm erin burnett and wolf blitzer. the third historic criminal donald j. trump.rmer president

charging him in connecith his efforts to overturn the 2020 electi. include the conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. moments ago the special counsel, jack smith, spoke more about the indictment and the charges trump now faces. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. it's described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies, lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s. government, the nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election. >> the indictment went on to say that trump had six

co-conspirators, wolf, but of course it did not name them. >> this is truly, truly a remarkable moment in american history. the former president of the united states, who is now the current front-runner for the republican presidential nomination, charged with trying to undermine the will of the american voters in order to cling to power. we have a team of reporters standing by. let me get to sara murray first about the identities of the six co-conspirators. what can you tell us? >> reporter: that's right, wolf. there were six co-conspirators. we are prepared to identify five of them from our reporting. the first unindicted co-con spiritor we have identified as rudy giuliani. this is someone who called the arizona speaker of the house. that was rusty bower. somebody who made a presentation before georgia state lawmakers and the person donald trump tapped to lead his post-election

legal efforts. that is all rudy giuliani. number two in this indictment is former trump attorney john easton. he wrote this two-page memo. this was the plan for mike pence to be able to essentially overturn the 2020 presidential election while presiding over the electoral college certification. number three on this list, another former trump attorney, sidney powell. they point out she filed a lawsuit against the governor of georgia which we knew. they also point out in this indictment that donald trump was espousing the theories of this co-con spiritor even though he privately admitted they sounded crazy. we know all of that to be sidney powell. co-conspirator number four is former justice department official jeffrey clark. it identifies him as a justice department official. it also points to an email that a top doj person sent to clark rebutting his efforts to try to use the department to overturn

the 2020 election. and, again, number 5. we have a pro -- another pro trump lawyer, kenneth chesboro. the indictment points to an email memorandum sent to giuliani in december of 2020 about the fake elector's plot. based on everything we have previously reported, everything we know, what our sources are telling us and of course the work of the house committee that investigated january 6th, those are the five co-conspirators that we are prepared to identify at this point, notably all attorneys who worked alongside donald trump in this effort to overturn the 2020 election, wolf. >> significant reporting. thank you so much for that, sara. erin? >> now you can go through this. when it says co-con spiritor 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 fill in those names. i want to go to caitlyn polanz. on the back of sara's reporting, you have information about something in this indictment. what are you learning?

>> well, erin, we are now learning that the senior campaign adviser who is signified in this indictment as one of the people who was giving donald trump the harshest assessment that there was no fraud after the election that would overturn the vote, that person is jason miller. i have been able to confirm that. i've reached out to a representative of his and received no comment back, but i have been able to confirm that that is, indeed, jason miller. this episode is just one of the highlights of how the special counsel's office was using information that the close advisers to donald trump on the campaign, people who even stuck with him after the 2020 election, miller continued to work with donald trump, continues be to work with him. these are people who were telling him that there wasn't fraud and that donald trump and the alleged co-conspirators or the co-conspirators in this indictment weren't charged at this time. they were doing something anomalous with what the campaign

knew, there wasn't fraud. this particular mention of jason miller in the charging document, it notes that he spoke with donald trump on a daily basis, told him fraud claims were untrue, ballot stuffing that was being alleged in georgia were not happening, there were not a number of dead voters in georgia that would be sizeable enough to swing the election. he would et in an email on december 8th, a month after the election before the trump electors come together to try and certify trump won jason miller writes in an email, the campaign legal team can't back up the team backed up by the elite strike force team. i'll obviously hustle but it's tough to own any of this when it's just conspiracy beamed down from the mothership. that's what he was saying to

donald trump and yet trump and the co-conspirators in the indictment continued on pushing this myth of election fraud. >> thank you very much. pretty powerful stuff. that's the level of disdain and disgust expressed by one of trump's key individuals putting this forward telling trump it was false. i want to go to ty cobb, the former trump white house lawyer. ty, i know you've had a chance to read through all 45 pages of this indictment. what stands out to you so far? >> several things. as we've discussed previously in terms of what to expect, we got exactly what we expected, which was a very, very detailed, laborious, easy to follow

narrative exactly why donald trump failed the country and put his own interests over those of the people. there's nothing in here that's gratuitous. there's nothing in here that's . it's very easily understood. most sane americans reading this will understand that something very grave happened. i would like to articulate the gravity of this, but i can't possibly do better than the letter from judge ludig that was -- or the statement from judge ludig that was just moments ago read on your air. i think he has always been a straight shooter. i think he, like me, feels that the republican party really cannot sustain itself without an

abject rejection that trump needs to go in the rear view. he said what he said about the significance and consequences of this day, having to take this, you know, sad step with regard to a former president. >> just sharing that statement that she obtained from judge ludig. is there anything, ty, as you read through, you say there's nothing gratuitous in here. is there anything you think is not here that should be here? is there anything here that is missing? >> no. i don't believe so. i think it is -- this states the charges in a very understandable way and in a very -- in a difficult way because he's the only defendant, it makes it very difficult for trump to deflect blame here and to spin it. now having said that, the

reference to the co-conspirators they're co-con spiritors. they may well be indicted. justice may be following the traditional step that justice follows of not announcing an indictment unless a defendant is, you know, arrested and or arraigned. so it's conceivable that there is a fuller indictment upcoming. it's conceivable that some of these people have already pled guilty. it's conceivable that some people may read this, some of the people named may read this and go ahead and plead, but i don't believe that, you know, anybody who's listed as a co-con spiritor was surprised to see themselves mentioned in the way they are today. >> right. we have identified five of the

six. the sixth being a campaign -- or a political consultant who was instrumental -- >> political consultant. >> there are a few people who that could possibly be but we're not going to make assumptions here until we know for sure. we do know who all the others are. >> yeah. >> interesting, ty, you say they could have already pled and we just don't know. we don't know the status of any of those. i do wonder, ty, your view on the timing here. we were having a robust conversation about whether the american people deserve a verdict in this case from a jury of their own peers ahead of an election given that this alleges that a former president tried to, you know, basically stage a coup and it lays it all out. do you think that there's any chance that this happens, that there is a verdict in the case before the actual election in 2024? >> i think there's an outside chance. i do think this raises some --

this case raises -- unlike mar-a-lago, this case raises some significant first amendment is issues, and jack smith eludes to what donald trump's first amendment rights are. >> yeah, right at the beginning. >> yeah, and accurately recites where they meet the wall at the point of, you know, the deception and conspiracy that are charged. i want to apologize if i said the co-conspirators might have pled. i mean might have agreed. had they pled, we would know. >> i appreciate it. ty cobb, former white house counsel. >> thanks, erin. >> my panel is back. elliott williams and scott jennings are back. karen, let me start with you

because you do know jack smith and we did see him briefly come to the cameras. it's a brief statement. he clearly doesn't like being in front of the cameras, that is clear, but he's put that out. knowing him, reading this, what do you think this day was like for him? >> i think he did his job. he's a public servant and he did what he had to do. he wanted to get the information out there clear and from his words before donald trump had a chance to spin it. i think he also kept it short and sweet. i thought it was wonderful that he praised the heroes of the capitol that day who -- it gave me the chills who he said they protected the building and the people in it but our democracy, our people and our values. that's who jack smith is. that's what he believes in. he's a public servant. he's been a public servant his whole career. it was both our first jobs out of law school. we worked at the manhattan da's job together and we were a small group and we were trained

together. i wasn't surprised to see a stream lined indictment against trump just four charges with all of the facts in there. this is neat, clean, and this has a chance of going to trial before the election and that's exactly what jack smith did. he knows what he's doing and he did it here. >> ryan, neat and clean. is that how you would describe it? i was just asking ty to get to this. you look at a bohemoth. this is laid out very clear. very focused on the things he said, they knew they were false and he continued to say that, right? again, again, again in painstaking, excruciating detail this is laid out. could you have gone broader? what do you feel about the actual charges and statutes used? is this all fool proof? >> i think it's very strong. these are statutes that have been used in the past. they've been used against other folks that were responsible for the violence but it's also like the section 241 denial of rights. that is when you conspire to prevent people's votes from being counted. so the allegation is president

trump conspired to prevent people's votes within seven different states from being counted. pretty much, you know, hand in glove with some of these statutes. i don't think that was an issue. it was already a federal court opinion that found that trump and eastman had conspired under two of these statutes to try to overturn the election with the same set of facts. that was not beyond a reasonable doubt but it was more likely than not was the standard. that's a pretty high standard. even have a judicial ratification of these particular charges. >> elliott, let me ask you about what we were just hearing of the reporting from caitlyn polantz of jason miller. inner circle. trump campaign. appeared on this as a campaign official many, many times. stayed in that trump inner circle. then it lays out very carefully what he said again and again and again to trump that these are false whether it was dead voters in georgia or -- and other claims as well and then goes on to say, if you want me to keep hustling on this, sure, even though this is conspiracy

expletive being beamed down from the mothership. >> right. so let's just back up and talk about what you have to establish as a prosecutor. you have to establish some level of corrupt action or intent on the part of the defendant. now a number of people, the louder the chorus is and the bigger the chorus is, you really need to get inside the defendant's head as to what he was thinking. i think the far more compelling same is when we talked about the last network which is the president ultimately threw his hands up on page 30 and saying, you know, i guess this is the next guy's problem, acknowledging that he lost the election. but again the jason miller statement with every other one, just the volume of them helps prosecutors prove the case but none of them -- >> and, scott, to this point we counted 37 times knowing or knowingly are used. that's what's in painstaking detail. not just showing every lie but

being shown again and again by allies it is a lie. it is the crucial thing on page 30 he admits he lost the meeting. january 3rd, well after he lost, with national security issue. it's not relevant. the point is they talk about it and he satisfaction, yeah, you're right, it's too late for us. >> yeah. that was noteworthy because i assume what trump's going to argue is that he won just as he argues in every speech that he gives and just as he has told people in private and whether that's in small groups or large settings. he has put out a statement, mike pence, that he was asked to choose between -- >> let me read it.

>> it's more important than one man. on january 6th former president trump demanded that i choose between him and the constitution. i chose the constitution and i always will. >> also in that statement he makes the point that this indictment, which he says he'll have more to say about, guarantees that in this election we'll be talking more about january 6th than we will say about joe biden's handling of the economy. he appears to me in the statement to be pleading to republicans, if you want a referendum on joe biden, you have to nominate someone other than donald trump. that is in stark contrast than what we've heard out of desantis and others. >> they called this bogus. they didn't read it before they did that. they immediately jumped to do that. ryan, to the point of the vice president though, clearly contemporaneous notes, right? that is mentioned more than once in here. olivia troy, who worked with

him, briefed him, this is a national security adviser, she said that he did this many timings. in fact, she described the way mike pence took notes. it was interesting. black sharpie preferred by the former president, too, and an index card, and that he did it many times. so it does seem to scott's point that some of those notes may be very important in this indictment. >> absolutely. it goes to his credibility as a witness. he has high credibility. he's said the same things over time as consistently. his book is his own dooirmt of the president. in his book he lays out a lot of the same charges. and it's just remarkable. the fact that he seems to be somebody that would be a solid witness, let's put it that way. a star witness. >> can i ask the question? how likely reading this document do you find when this goes to trial that the former vice president will take the stand against his old president? >> yes. >> you think they would put him on? >> 100%. >> first of all, he's the victim

of this crime, right? he was there on january 6th saying, hey, mike pence. he's an eye witness to all of the events surrounding that plus many -- much of what's in here, i mean, the entire -- i think count number 3 is all about the pressure campaign against mike pence. he is absolutely going to testify -- be called as a witness to testify. >> we can't make that point enough, the victim point. brian and i in commercial breaks have been talking about this back and forth for quite some time. you have to have someone whose fundamental right was violated to get a conviction under 241, that statute. who is that sflim the voters or mike pence. he's literally the victim of the crime here and it would be odd to see if he didn't testify. you're right, scott, as a practical matter -- >> he is a declared presidential candidate for the gop nomination

so you would have that in court, one running against the other taking the stand. >> by the time this goes to trial i suspect mike pence won't be in the race anymore but -- but -- you don't know, donald trump could be the de facto nominee of the party when this goes to trial but maybe not nominated yet at the convention. just to me, the idea that you'd have one of your closest advisers, jason miller possibly in the middle of this trial, he's one of the president's top spokesmen -- former president's top spokesmen. your former vice president, possibly -- probably testifying against you in open court, what an absolute spectacle. it underscores to me what i said earlier. most republicans are going to view this as a political document until donald trump gets his day in court and i just don't see how you can have an election with donald trump in the middle of it without this having been adjudicated for the american people to see it. >> i guess the question is it's a political document until he gets his day in court. i don't know if donald trump getting convicted changes

anything for literally anyone in america. >> can i put one stat out there. i want be to give you a chance to disagree. let me add this to the conversation. ron brownstein follows all of these things. npr marist only half of independents in america, independents, this lauded oh, my gosh they're going to decide everything. only half of them agree that trump has, quote, done something illegal. prior to today. while there's lots of new information in here, the actual story line of what the laws are we already knew. independents, only half -- >> he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. that's my point. if he ever goes to a trial and is convicted, there will be a cohort of voters, by the way, some of them will be republicans. >> look, i don't feel good about pulling this lever. query whether it's time to go to trial. >> in the mar-a-lago case, yeah.

>> i saw a survey on this. overwhelming majority of americans said i'd like to see how these turns out. there ain't any great love for joe biden in this country. both of these guys obviously have different reasons for wanting to be elected president. >> so can i ask you about when this goes to trial, not just the timing, i know it could possibly be earlier than some of these other cases, alvin brag in new york has indicated he may move the date to try to accommodate, but what we know about jurisdiction, what we know about the judge, tanya chudkin is an obama appointee who is known for tough sentencing, what do we know about how this will play out? >> i think it could play out pretty expeditiously. this is the type of judge that would see that it could happen quickly. i also think jack smith might pull something that he's pulled in mar-a-lago, here's all the evidence of discovery really early on. expedite the process. whatever we think about the normal trial, that won't be this trial. they are going to try to front

load it once again and because it's in d.c. -- >> it will be in d.c. >> d.c. has very settled case law on things that otherwise might matter here, like attorney-client privilege with respect to the president, executive privilege with the president. then there's nixon v united states and other evidence that will come in. the constitutional questions that would hang this up are note going to be real issues in this trial. >> on top of that, there's no classified documents, you don't have to go through the classified experience and top secret act. >> all stay with us. wolf? >> erin, i want to go straight to our justice correspondent evan perez who has been covering this for us from the very beginning. evan, trump is charged with the four new felony counts. these are very, very serious charges potentially carrying long prison terms even. what happens next will the former president actually be

arrested? >> reporter: well, he will be -- he will be formally arrested. it's all part of the process, wolf. the question that is not clear right now is whether the former president is actually going to come to the courthouse. this is something that this court allows for initial appearances to be done over zoom and so the former president was already previously booked. he was formerly arrested when he was indicted in the southern district of florida so some of those steps could be skipped as part of this process. the question though of course is does he want to have the entire show, so to speak, because he knows he uses this as a fundraising mechanism, so we know that law enforcement has been planning for this event. they were hoping that the former

president would take the opportunity to use the zoom process whereby the backing and everything can be done remotely and then you don't have any kind of security issue around the courthouse. certainly a lot easier to protect the courthouse that way, but obviously it's something the former president if he decides he wants to come to washington and do this, that's how it's going to go. we haven't heard yet from his legal team how they want to proceed. it's an evidence they presented to him. >> as you know, evan, trump's case has been assigned to a judge here in washington known for handing down harsh sentences of january 6th rioters. what more can you tell us about this judge? >> her name is tanya chudkin who was appointed -- she's been on the bench since 2014 appointed by former president obama, wolf. she is absolutely one of the tougher judges in that courthouse. she's handled a lot of the

january 6th cases and has certainly gotten a repreutation for being among the tougher sentencers in that courthouse. there's some judges who have sort of pushed back on the justice department over some of these january 6th cases. she is not one of them. she's been very, very harsh in speaking out about what happened on january 6th, of course, right across from the courthouses where some of the key events happened there on the west side of the capitol. we know, wolf, that this was a selection that was done randomly. that's how they choose which judges get these cases. it was a random assignment. you'll know you'll expect the former president will have some opinions on the fact that she was an appointee of former president obama and of course then we'll see how she deals with this with the former president as a new defendant in this court. wolf. >> very interesting, indeed. i want to bring back our legal and political experts who are

pouring over this indictment and all the new developments. norm isen, interesting you know this federal judge. >> judge chudkin is one of the pillars of the d.c. bar where i've practiced for the last 30 years and in particular emerged as one of our leading defense lawyers, part of the defense bar, when she was at the public defender's service. and, wolf, the d.c. public defender's service is the premier public defender's service. while i sit on the defense side, shan and laura are former prosecutors. she was one of their great trial lawyers. she was in private practice as well. why does that matter here? because we heard jack smith i thought in that incredibly powerful press conference, the two most important words that i heard were speedy trial. alvin bragg has a march 2024

trial date. he said he would -- he's hinted he would step aside publicly to make sports league for this case. judge chudkin knows how to move a case quickly. there will be none of this dallying that we saw before judge cannon in mar-a-lago. she will move this case quickly. i'll disagree with my friend, ty cobb, also a long-time defense lawyer here in d.c., i think we are going to see this case go to trial before the 2024 general election. >> you know, i think there's a -- there's a sense among many people that you ought to before you vote, that this is important, that if someone is charged who is running for the presidency with these kinds of charges, i.e., trying to overturn a free and fair election, that it is something people ought to know and to hear about and to see for themselves. now another thing that has struck me in reading through all of this is about mike pence.

i mean, mike pence gave a statement tonight, very strong statements. as this has progressed his statements have gotten stronger and stronger and stronger against the former president of the united states, but there's a quote in here that was kind of shocking to me from the former president. there is this now infamous meeting in the oval office on the evening of january 3rd, and the lawyers are gathering and the president is gathering and there was an offer from the assistant attorney general for the office of the legal counsel to explain to everybody why the justice department shouldn't let the vice president do what the president wanted him to do. and you know what trump's response was at that point? it was no one here should be talking to the vice president. i'm talking to the vice president and that ended the

discussion. >> that undercuts any potential argument in the future that he was somehow led by somebody else. >> yes. >> which is part of the foundational work you're doing in the court of public opinion. >> lawyers. >> in defense to say, listen, i was getting counselled by many lawyers. the fact that these are now potential co-conspirators, potentially indicted who might do something very different, very interesting. i will say, one thing i was really struck by in terms of what jack smith had to say, he's no -- he is well aware that no one is watching this in a vacuum. he knows there are weaponization of government subcommittees happening. he knows that talking point is happening quite well. what did he say? the grand jury indicted this case, returned an indictment on this case. the grand jury, of course, finding probable cause talked about these are allegations until the evidence has a chance to be tested in court. one could argue that the notion of filing this case knowing full well about the requests to have the mar-a-lago documents case

pushed back, he's well aware the likelihood this could happen without the sefa implications, classified documents and beyond. it comes down to one more point is that he's aware of one of the other arguments donald trump will have, don't i have a right to criticize the democracy? don't i have a right? paragraph three says the defendant had a right like every american to speak publicly about the election and even claim falsely there had been outcomes of fraud. he goes on to say a fancy way of saying you're entitled to your opinions. you're not entitled to your facts. the fact of the matter is, our democracy requires the peaceful transition of power and the entire indictment outlines the way in which he crossed a line. this has to be tested. he was well aware, a man of few words, to know that for those to claim this is weaponization, look at the people who are actually listed in here in conjunction with the dozens,

what, almost 1,000 witnesses actually from the january 6th committee. >> by the way, you can't blame everybody else for your actions because they were telling you you were wrong and you were saying to them, i'm the one who's going to talk to the vice president of the united states, not anybody else. i'm the one who's going to. >> shannon, what do you make of the argument that trump and his legal team and his allies almost will certainly make that the former president can't get a fair trial here in washington, d.c.? >> well, i don't think that's going to be true. they could have better places they would prefer to be n but my own experience as a prosecutor in d.c. is jurors are very fair. in fact, they tend to be somewhat pro defense oriented in d.c. i don't think that's going to fly for him because he could make that argument anywhere in the country. i think to laura and gloria's comments, the time pressure jack smith's team felt.

it's a hurry up indictment, not that it's overlooked any details, but possibly this very strategic choice of naming these -- not naming these co-conspirators and if there are attorneys but not charging them, that may reflect a couple of things, one, it's faster and more efficient to discharge trump and deal with the others later. in an ideal world it would wait until all things are wrapped up and the is are dotted and the ts crossed. >> let me ask gary, how strong of a case would the case be against the co-con spiritors? >> the facts would implicate them. the blank space under donald trump's name where the co-conspirators should be, if not as a matter of law, as a matter of optics, it matters if they would have been at the point in the investigation where they could have included because a conspiracy involves more than

one people -- more than one person so if what the indictment is laying out is a set of facts that this was a plot, this was a con sper si amongst a number of people to prevent the rightful outcome of the election, then i think at least from an optical standpoint it would have been stronger to be able to come out all at once and have identified all of the other individuals, including the lawyers who were involved in this conspiracy. but that being said, the indictment answers an important question. there's no question when they saw people storming the capitol and crashing windows, that was a crime. the question that this answers -- the question they'll have is is the work that was going on behind the scenes to try to mess with the lefters and pressure legislatures and all of that, was that a crime? what this indictment with the u.s. justice department is now

saying is that corrupting the institutions, trying to corrupt the institution of the vice president, trying to corrupt the institution of the state legislatures, trying to corrupt the institution of the justice department through trying to get the justice department to get in on this from an institutional perspective, that is illegal according to the special counsel and the justice department. >> you're the lawyer. is it possible that these unnamed co conspirators could find themselves getting target letters tomorrow? >> they could tomorrow. i think probably -- my -- my estimate of what the approach was here was that some might be farther along than others in terms of their willingness to try to not end up a name on this front page. >> right. right. >> so perhaps the release of this indictment will be not pressure but an incentive. >> carrie, you reverse engineer

from the violence of january 6th. we're going to be talking about this indictment for weeks to come. it is a very rich and i think historic document in the story of our country and our struggles with our democracy, but part of what's remarkable about it is what jack smith doesn't do because to laura's point about his speech on the ellipse, trump's speech on the ellipse, smith doesn't charge the speech on the ellipse. he has to talk about january 6th. he has to talk about the violence. that's the end game. how does he do it? he said trump exploited the violence. he talks about 2:24 p.m. pence tweet targeting pence and then the ways that trump allowed the violence to further his scheme, including the calls that came in from the co-conspirators on that day to push forward even through the violence with the rest of the thing of the it's very subtle and it side steps a huge amount of first amendment litigation. it's another reason that i think this is going to move fast. >> so he department want

anything to complicate the case and that would have really complicated -- >> like the co-conspirators. >> would have complicated it. >> as you said, gloria, our country has a right to know. >> the co of conspirators, just to point out, they're co of con spiritors, not cited as defendants. at least not yet. >> wolf, kristin holmes is standing by. near former president trump's new jersey home. this is now the third indictment in four months for the former president, right? a second major indictment for the special counsel and the department of justice among them. so is there any reaction tonight from the trump team? >> reporter: well, erin, we know trump himself has been lashing out on social media. he was with some of his top advisers and essentially they've been having conversations about what exactly this looks like in terms of strategy legally as well as in terms of strategy politically. and as we continue to report

out, these really have turned into one, the legal and the political. they believe part of this is fighting this in the court of public opinion and really holding onto the fact they want to continue this narrative that this is election interference bipartisan joe biden, this is all politically motivated and i will say i have noticed in calls with advisers and allies to the former president that they do seem more confident in this approach in the last week having actually seen new poll numbers that show him leading by such a large margin. they do feel confident that they can try and paint this as election interference. now obviously it's not a legal strategy we're talking here in the court of public opinion. the other thing i want to mention is that they are watching how the coverage is all unfolding right now. we know that several of trump's lawyers have been across different networks. the surrogates have been out there. they have been prepping house members, senators on what exactly to say when this happened. they felt like they had time to

get that narrative out there. of coarurse they are watching tt unfold. the big question is whether or not there is potentially indictment fatigue. that is something when i talked to an ally moments ago, they said we're just not sure. while this gives them a boost in polls, whim le this has given tm a boost, this is a third indictment of a former president who is currently running for president. this is completely unprecedented and they just don't know how this is going to play out. >> and one thing as we look at the calendar here, there's been a lot of conversation over this past hour we've been having, kristen, about when this may come to trial, right? whether we will get a real verdict for the american people before the election. we know trump is expected in court thursday at 4:30 p.m. what do you know about that? >> well, there's still questions as to whether or not he's going to show up at court. we know there was some

conversations with the doj about a potential zoom showing, but as we know about the former president, he likes to create a media narrative and he likes to create a spectacle. if it is a zoom showing, he does not get the cameras on him, his travel. he does not get to use it later in another video for his campaign, which is something we have seen him do with both of the previous indictments. they brought a videographer to new york with him and cut campaign ads with that footage. it is unlikely they will do a zoom but i have been told by my advisers that has not been completely ruled out. >> i want to go to fred upton from michigan. he voted to impeach trump in his role in the attack on the capitol. i appreciate your time. not only did you cast that important vote but your state, michigan, is very prominently featured in this indictment. let me just start with this moment for you because you were there on the capitol on january 6th. you were one of only ten

republicans who voted to impeach trump afterwards. the former president is facing four criminal counts which led to january 6th. how does this moment feel? >> no regrets. no regrets. ten of us that voted to impeach him, none of us have a regret. we all saw firsthand exactly what happened. i've got to say that frankly we thought this day would come. you'll remember that the former president shortly after january 6th that he did everything in his words, totally appropriate. that was the deciding factor for me when i decided to impeach him. i was one of the first republicans to congratulate joe biden that first week after the election. i heard former president trump say in the weeks after, the election had been stolen. there's a process in every state to re-look at that.

you can do a county-by-county check here in michigan. 154,000 vote difference. there was a republican state senate investigation that looked at, you know, were there dead people that voted? a whole number of different things that were out there. they might have found two cases, i think, as it turned out. clearly not overturning 154,000 votes and as this document shows, the indictment today, michigan is one of those states where they, in fact, tried to send state electors to cast the electoral votes on january 6th and then counted on the house floor on january 6th. thank goodness they were caught. there was a conspiracy. the thing i have a lot of misgiving about were those on the inside. those in the administration that saw this.

i mean, i saw it firsthand being on -- in the capitol that day and obviously the insurrectionists that were there. talked to officer benone and others, talked to the s.w.a.t. team, but those that were on the inside that didn't come forward even a month or two later. it took them a couple years. in fact, you know, even vice president pence hasn't fully told his spgs stor story, you k terms of what happened and how this could have turned out very, very bad. the bottom line is, this is something that i expected to see happen. i've not read the indictment. i'll read it a little bit later tonight. didn't want to take it off my printer but it's not a surprise. >> let me ask you, when you do read it, i'm sure you'll hone in on michigan. in pages 17 and 18 it goes into detail in your state. what i find out about it is it is laid out there.

vote dump in detroit. he's told they're looking into it. he's told it's false. he says it again. they look into it. come to a meeting. they say it's false, he says it again. the one thing i found significant about that was to me it was very powerful. that was part of the reason they became so pernicious and people believed them. you point out the michigan house speaker. i fought hard for president trump. no one wanted him to win more than me. i think he's done an incredible job and i love our republic as well. he talks about i cannot stand for that, i won't. puts that out. people still believe it.

>> erin, even more than that. he called a couple of these state senators in december. no, he tried to brow beat them. tried to break their arms to try to get them to go the other way similar to what i think he tried to do in georgia though in michigan it was 145,000 votes and to their credit they walked away and said it wasn't true. so over and over he got the message and yet he still moved forward with this massive lie. tragically so many americans believe him just because, hey, they do, which is one of the reasons why he has a commanding lead as he looks to win the primary next year. >> it is amazing to me how much of this debunking was so clear, so loud, frankly so public and he used his office and had people believing he was the one telling the truth even as he knew it was a lie. i appreciate your time.

thank you very much. wolf? erin, i want to bring in manu raju. he's up on capitol hill. manu, trump is working his allies up on capitol hill. what are you learning? >> reporter: behind the scenes, this effort has been taking place over the past couple of months reaching out to the top allies preparing for the possible third indictment. donald trump was, indeed, indicted in the january 6th investigation. immediately afterwards, there were a whole host of reactions from top republicans in the house including elise stefanik, someone who has spoken to donald trump in the last couple of days, attacking the special counsel, accusing the justice department of moving forward on this indictment in order to hurt donald trump's campaign. that was also something that was echoed by the speaker of the house himself. kevin mccarthy issued a statement saying he tried to digs strakt from the house gop

investigations into the bidens. also trump in his cam pain circulated talking points to his sur row galts hoping they suggested those talking points. they someuggested the consultat while seeking to overturn the 2020 election results. democrats have a different view. hakeem jefferies and chuck schumer, the top democratic leaders in the house and senate, the most serious case donald trump has faced so far of the three criminal indictments. even as house gop leaders, if tonight there is silence and john thune, number one and number two republicans who have yet to weigh in. the mcconnell himself has said flil nothing on be the previous two trump indictments. has not weighed in underscoring

the developments. >> very interesting, indeed. manu, thank you very much. let's discuss this and more. george conway, former trump white house press secretary stephanie grisham and david axlerod. stephanie, let's talk about the whom cnn has already named f including rudy giuliani, john eastman, sney powell, et cetera. what's your reaction to these people being named here? >> i wasn't surprised at all. i think it made perfect sense. i think they're the ones that are going to get thrown under the bus by donald trump. it sounds like it's been talked about on cnn all evening. the president is saying he was listening to his counsel. if those people are smart, which i guess they've proven not to be in many ways, they will understand to watch out for

themselves because they are the ones who will take the fall for this. >> get lawyers in, quickly. david axlerod, what do you make of the messaging that's coming in from trump's team and his allies up on capitol hill. >> look. this is a continuation of what we've seen for months and months and months, wolf. the message is that this is an assault by joe biden and the administration and the department of justice and the fbi with the intent of trying to disrupt donald trump from becoming the nominee and the president of the united states again and they are singing from his hymn book. even his opponents, governor davis was talking about it and the charges against the former president, he talked about weaponization of the justice system .

people might not like it, but he is a genius in setting up the statement. he sets the narrative. this should be viewed as an intrusion on our democracy. >> stephanie is a former trump communications director and white house press secretary, what are your thoughts on the trump's team's messaging here? >> again, it completely makes sense to me. donald trump doubles and triples down. they're looking at poll numbers. the messaging makes sense. he's done great with

fundraising. i mentioned the poll numbers. i want to echo what david said. donald trump lives in his own reality and he lies casually but he's very, very good at it. he used to teach me, stephanie, as long as you keep repeating something, it doesn't matter what you say. i will bring us back to 2019 when hurricane dorian was coming. he wrote on a map that it was going to hit a part of the country that it wasn't really going to hit even after being briefed by the national weather service. this is something he's done over and over and over, and i really hope that people will understand this is just what he does. >> george, the federal judge has handed down strong sentences. a washington, d.c., jury could be less friendly to trump. how do they mount a defense? >> i think they're going to have to -- i don't know what they're going to do, frankly.

the evidence is overwhelming and that's the reason why it's taken so long, if you think it's taken so long. and all of the evidence comes from republicans. if you go through this indictment and you annotate the paragraphs to figure out who the witnesses the special counsel would use to prove particular points, they're all republicans. those are the people having the discussions, people telling trump you lost. the people telling trump like the vice president with his notes, i don't have the power to do that. all of the witnesses are going to be republicans. that's the important d that's the difficult problem he has. not just the jury pool, but the fact that the witnesses against him are people who don't have an incentive not to be witnesses against him. >> it's interesting, david, that trump is clearly right now, and i'm sure you'll agree, the republican front-runner according to the polls out there. today he was tied in the general election match-up against

president biden. how much does this case impact, do you believe, the 2024 races? >> well, i think that in the short term we've seen the effect of these indictments that people thought these would be bricks on donald trump's load but they turn out not to be kryptonite but battery packs. . he he's more formidable. it becomes more effective in a general election. i want to say, you asked george what his strategy -- his legal strategy will be. i think his legal strategy and political strategy are very much intertwined. what he's going to try to do in the courtroom is delay the trials as long as he can and hope he can push them after the election and hope he can win the election and obviate these cases in which case the election would become the trial and the trial

for the country. >> george, speaking of that, how complicated will the time line be for this case given the 2024 election? >> well, i agree with ryan goodman and norm isen earlier. i think this case could be tried within a year and i think it should be tried within a year because the public interest demands it. i think the reason why we don't see massive caption here with multiple defendants like we probably are going to see in georgia is smith has tried to streamline this to focus it on trump's state of mind, not focus on everything that happened as a result of trump doing what he's doing because that's just overwhelming. the january 6th committee report is about this thick and that's because there are so many different levels to which this conspiracy or these efforts were carried out and you could slice

it any number of ways. this is directed specifically at trump. it's like the go pro cam or whatever you call it on his head. everybody are is coming to him telling him, no, you lost. you know, he just shops -- he nonetheless -- he nonetheless lies the next moment and he nonetheless goes searching for people to tell him what they want to hear even though they don't have support for it. >> thank you very, very much. erin, back to you. >> in this 45 page indictment it faux talks about the former president's having false electors. one of the states this happened is georgia. there's five pages dedicated even just to some of the president as the indictment says knowing lies about dead people voting in georgia. this comes as bonnie willis in georgia is the prosecutor says she is ready to go. we could have another indictment coming in just days.

one person who will likely be testifying as part of that is george sheedy. he is a journalist who is likely going to appear in front of that grand jury in front of a charge in georgia. he saw false electors. saw what was happening. he came into a meeting on the day georgia was to certify it's electoral results. george is "out front" with me. we're looking at a picture. you walked in. you're in the state capitol. the real slate of electors is a formal slate and it's a flight above. you are this the wrong sports league. you start filming. this is a still of your filming. tell me what happened. >> so it's interesting. i walked in because i saw an old friend who happened to be somebody who would have been one of the electors that i started a facebook live out of a sense of self-defense and said, hey,

what's going on? and almost immediately they keyed on the fact that i had a camera going. they said, wait, he's got a camera. two people start hustling me out of the door and i asked, so what kind of meeting are you having here? i'm told by a female voice, it's an education meeting and then they pushed me out the door and put a guard in front so that i couldn't go back in. >> this is amazing. so they're there we now know. they were there to certify a false slate of electors in georgia that would say trump won the state. if we're looking at trying to understand, george, what they were doing was wrong but they tried to obfuscate to you, an education amitriptal meeting. >> obviously it's not in

hind hindsight. we know now an email was sent to the people in that sports league telling them to be quiet, maintain secrecy and specifically not to speak to the media. and that's what happened when i first walked in. only after that once they realized that i guess their cover was blown did they start talking to other journalists. >> so would you say only after when they realized their cover was blown. i should say, george. you've been subpoenaed. you've appeared before a grand jury in georgia. you've been subpoenaed by bonnie willis to appear in front of a grand jury sometime this month and at the end of that presentation that she will make ostensibly you are going to be a part of they may return an indictment on the former president. can you walk me through what you've been told the process

will be from sneer any sense of timing that you have? >> only this. i'll have 48 hours of notice before when i'm called to testify. assuming i am actually called to testify. it's entirely what i've seen for them to make a decision. there are two grand jurys and thoef' done that and i think it's extremely clever so that any given grand juror can say, well, i'm not on the grand jury that's looking at the donald trump stuff. that's clearly to avoid harassment. >> it certainly has, for many involved in going on in georgia. hopefully it won't for you if you appear and tell your story as i'm grateful you shared with us. thank you, george. >> happy to be here. i'll be back later tonight. our breaking n