the all-new tempur-pedic breeze makes sleep feel cool. so, no more sweating all night... ...or blasting the air conditioning. because the tempur-breeze feels up to 10° cooler, all night long. for a limited time, save $500 on all-new tempur-breeze mattresses.

the former vice president talking about trump's indictment now. >> january 6th was a tragedy. i've spoken and written about it extensively. i have nothing to hide. by god's grace i believe we did our duty that day. fulfilled the oath that i'd taken to the constitution and to the american people. the constitution is quite clear about the role of the vice president in the counting of electoral votes. it essentially says the vice president presides over a joint session of congress where the

electoral votes that are certified by the states shall be opened and shall be counted. and irrespective of the indictment i want the american people to know that i had no right to overturn the election. and that on that day president trump asked me to put him over the constitution but i chose the constitution. and i always will. and i really do believe that anyone who puts themself over the constitution should never be president of the united states. and anyone who asks themselves to put themselves over the constitution should never be president of the united states again. i've been very forthright about this issue and i'll continue to be. now, with regard to the substance of the indictment, i've been very clear. i'd hoped it wouldn't come to this. i had hoped that this issue and the judgment of the president's actions that day would be left to the american people. but now it's been brought in a

criminal indictment. and i can't assess whether or not the government has the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what they assert in the indictment. and the president's entitled to a presumption of innocence. but for my part i want people to know that i had no right to overturn the election and that what the president maintained that day and frankly has said over and over again over the last 2 1/2 years is completely false and it's contrary to what our constitution and the laws of this country provide. you know, i'm a student of american history. and the first time i heard in early december somebody suggest that as vice president i might be able to decide which votes to reject and which to accept, i knew that it was false. our founders had just won a war against a king, and the last thing they would have done was vest unilateral authority in any one person to decide who would be the next president.

i dismissed it out of hand. sadly, the president was surrounded by a group of crackpot lawyers that kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear. and while i made my case to him with what i understood my oath to the constitution to require, the president ultimate ly, ultimately, you know, continued to demand that i choose him over the constitution. so in in moment airrespective o how this case plays out i want the american people to know that i believe with all my heart by god's grace i did my duty that day. and as i stand for the republican nomination for president i want them to know, whatever it means to me, i'll always stand on the constitution of the united states of america. look, our country is more important than any one man. our constitution is more important than any one man's career. and that's true of me and that's true of the president -- former president of the united states.

we're going to stand on the facts and we're going to stand by what happened that day, the stand that we took and trust ourselves to the judgment of republican voters and ultimately the american people. >> sir, the abortion ban still in legal limbo. what are your thoughts -- >> sorry, i couldn't quite hear you. >> the state near total abortion ban is still in legal limbo. what are your thoughts regarding this issue? >> well, i'm pro life. i don't apologize for it. and i couldn't be more grateful to the -- >> you're listening there to former vice president mike pence. of course his actions on january 6th and what he chose not to do very much at the heart of this indictment last night of former president donald trump. pence, by the way, there in indianapolis talking about the economy, but he was asked about the indictment, specifically about a conversation that he had with president trump and also whether the former president should be indicted. very interesting because

previously in this case when it comes to the january 6th case of the special counsel is investigating he had said very recently that he thought the conduct was reckless but not criminal. again, reiterating here that he feels that former president trump put himself above the constitution and that that is disqualifying for a candidate for president. so he's saying here that the 45th president, donald trump, should be disqualified from running for president. but he also said that he'd hoped it wouldn't come to this, that he wanted this left to the american people. obviously to determine there as they vote ahead in the election. of course pence a rival of donald trump in that election although he is polling significantly, significantly behind the former president. trump meanwhile is scheduled to be in court tomorrow after federal prosecutors charged him with four separate counts in this indictment, all related to his attempt to hold on to power after the 2020 election. it's a 45-page indictment that says trump, quote, enlisted co-conspirators to assist him in

his criminal efforts. it repeatedly references six unindicted co-conspirators. cnn has been able to identify five of those six. they are former trump lawyers rudy giuliani, john eastman, and sidney powell. also former justice department official jeffrey clark and pro-trump lawyer kenneth cheseboro. cnn's katelyn polantz is outside of the federal court. we have our evan perez here in studio with us. evan, to you first. let's talk about these charges that trump is facing and then we'll kind of go wack to something that pence says. but take us through these charges. >> we know theetz four charges, which are the ones that frankly match what he was warned about in his target letter, and really what prosecutors do in this 45-page document is they lay out that the former president has every right to challenge the election results, to go to court and challenge those results and to even lie about it. what he does here, according to

prosecutors, is he engages with these co-conspirators in this conspiracy, this series of conspiracies. one of them was to defraud the united states on the ability for the electoral system to count these votes. the conspiracy to impede the ceremonial function of congress to certify the vote. and then of course to -- the conspiracy to deny the right of americans to have their votes be counted, their lawful votes be counted. and so that's what prosecutors are charging him here for. and they lay out all of the different ways in support of this. one of the things that they point to is of course interfering with the vice president's ceremonial responsibility on january 6th, which is to certify the election. and they go into a conversation that happens on january 1st of 2021 and ty describe a conversation between the former president and then vice president pence at the time, and

they say, you know, that vice prident pence was refusing to in a lawsuit that ulhave helped try to delay some of this. pence responded that he thought that there was no constitutional basis for suchutrity and that it was improper. in response the former president tells the vice president "u're too honest." and within hours of that conversation the former president reminded his supporters to meet in washington before the certification proceeding, again, setting in motion the events that happened on january 6th, telling them of course that this was the stop the steal effort. >> that conversation is what pence was just asked about there by a reporter in his indianapolis event. and it's interesting because look, we know that pence is looking at this through a political lens. >> sure. >> we're in the middle and he's running and trump's running. but there's also the legal lens. and you're starting to see i think, you know, pence is a smart guy and he's starting to see how perhaps these things

are -- you know, he can't run away from the legal aspect of this. he said he can't assess whether the special counsel has the evidence to back up the indictment but he seemed to get a little closer than he'd gotten before. before he said the conduct was reckless, not criminal. now he's talking about -- he talked about the constitution before. he's also mentioning the law. >> right. exactly. and i think look, you can see the struggle of the former vice president and you've seen it over the last few months, right? where he's been struggling to decide what to do. whether he was going to -- how far to fight the effort to go testify. he has done all of the things to try to make sure that he's looked -- he's not exactly helping the justice department against donald trump but also to make it clear that what trump did was not lawful. and the words he used in that very interesting extended sound bite there was he said that what the former president was doing was not in concurrence with the

constitution and the law. and those words, right? is exactly what the justice department and what jack smith is accusing trump of. they're saying that you broke the law by going beyond just lying about the fraud and going to court. they're saying you went beyond that. and those are exactly the words that mike pence seems to finally be comfortable saying. look, he probably is going to be a trial witness because of exactly the things he just said. >> it's tough when you want to hew back to that traditional republican sense of law and order to not make the easy cognitive leap between someone broke the law and they should be prosecuted. he's still trying to thread that needle. >> this should not be that difficult a thing, certainly for constitutional conservatives, to do. >> yeah. we hear him doing some rhetorical gymnastics there as he does. i want to bring in katelyn here.

katelyn, what are we going to be expecting to see tomorrow when trump makes his first court appearance in this case? >> well, brianna, whenever you are scharnlgd with a crime in any court, you are arrested on the charges and informed of them officially in the court system. so donald trump, he's going to be doing that tomorrow for the first time -- or i'm sorry, for the third time after his arrest and initial appearances in a new york case and in the florida federal court. we are going to be expecting him to be here in person, in federal court in d.c., to have his initial appearance. he very well may have the opportunity tomorrow to enter his initial pleading of not guilty, a pleading we expect him to stick with to get this to trial. we do not expect him to plead guilty. he is not that type of defendant in this at all. and so when this starts tomorrow, it brings donald trump into this court system, into this courthouse just a couple xw blocks away from the capitol.

it puts him before a magistrate judge, a judge that's doing this initial proceeding, and then it essentially kicks him off into the process that gets him toward trial and will give him over then to the federal district judge who's going to be overseeing his case, tanya chutkan. and so one of the things here is that while this case brings together an unwieldy part of what has been investigated here, there are so many different legs to this investigation, there are so many things that happened after 2020, it actually may be a fairly streamlined case. so we're going to be watching for how quickly the judges respond, both the magistrate judge and the federal district judge on setting deadlines after this. there are no classified documents in this case like there are in florida. and donald trump at this time, he's the only defendant. and so we are going to see a very focused hearing, perhaps a very short hearing tomorrow for donald trump to appear in court for the first time in washington, d.c.

and it will get moving on that u.s. v. trump case. brianna? >> all right. we'll be watching for that. katelyn polantz live at the courthouse. thank you so much. and jim, this as the former president, as this case makes its way towards that judge, tanya chutkan, i know you're looking into more about who she is. >> yeah, let's take a look at what we know about judge chutkan. she's going to preside over trump's criminal case after she is -- after he is arraigned. she is of course, like all judges in cases like this, randomly assigned by the courts. her name, tanya chutkan, is a federal judge in washington. she's presided over many criminal cases including many involving january 6th rioters. so what's her background? she was appointed by president obama back in 2014, confirmed by the senate 95-0. of course that was democratic and republican votes. more than a decade prior as a public defender. as of last month she has presided over dozens of criminal cases for january 6th defendants including more than 30 of them,

in those cases she handed down in some cases harsher sentences than what prosecutors recommended, at least nine times matched the recommendation from prosecutors 14 times. here is one example of those cases. it involves robert palmer. he admitted to attacking police officers with a fire extinguisher, a plank and a pole. in december 2021 judge chutkan sentenced him to more than five years behind bars. the judge, we should note as well, has referenced donald trump in several cases including in one of them saying to a rioter, quote, that he did not go to the united states capitol out of love for our country, he went for one man. that one man being donald trump. two years ago she also rejected trump's executive privilege claims to withhold some white house records from january 6th. 700 pages of white house records, in fact. writing, you may remember this

quote, "presidents are not kings and plaintiff is not president." let's speak more about the case going forward with former federal prosecutor katie cherkasky. katie, good to have you on today. first i wonder when you look at this special counsel's indictment here, based in large part on lies that the special counsel says in the indictment that the president spread knowingly, knowing that they were lies leading to events on january 6th, attempts to overturn the election, is there something missing in the indictment that you think should have been there that is not there? >> well, i think a lot of people are probably surprised that there was not a charge directly related to the insurrection and to the inciting of violence on that day. but i think big picture here, we would really be remiss to not talk about the jurisdiction of this case from a criminal prosecutorial standpoint. so there's been a lot of discussion about the facts, and i think that donald trump

obviously has some defenses that he's going to raise, first amendmentwise, attorney-client privilegewise. but ultimately, this case is unprecedented in terms of the constitutionality of it. and i think that is something that is really going to be potentially a showstopper. so while his conduct may be very well condemnable, the idea of a criminal prosecution here i think is very tenuous. >> why do you think the special counsel -- and granted, you have not seen the evidence. you weren't sitting there in front of the grand jury. but why would a special counsel not take the step of that additional charge? would it be simply a judgment, i'm taking the path where i have the best evidence? >> sure. of course it's based on the evidence. and here i think any sort of charge relating to an inkriemt of a riot or violence of any sort was very, very weak on the evidence that was presented because there was ambiguity in a lot of the language that donald trump used to his supporters telling them at times to go in

peace. when you're talking about inciting violence under the supreme court precedent it really requires imminent incitement of lawless activity. and it cannot be couched in any sort of vague or ambiguous terms. so i believe jack smith saw that that was a weak charge even based upon the evidence that we have seen. and of course there may be other evidence we do not have. but ultimately that charge does not appear in the indictment at this point. >> we already know that trump's attorneys are going to be taking in part a first amendment defense here, saying it's a freedom of speech issue here. for those of us like myself who are not lawyers, in layman's terms where does the you can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater kind of thing, where does it reach the point where your speech is limited by the potential effects like the special counsel is arguing here in effect, that those lies helped drive the violence? >> well, there are certain categories of speech that are actually criminalized even with our broad free speech rights,

and there are only certain things that kind of cross that line. here we're talking about not only an executive discussing matters of election regularity, which arguably falls within his authority, at least that's what trump's defense team is going to allege here, i would imagine, but we're also talking about an intent that has to be proven. and again, there's a lot of attorneys involved. there's a lot of advice that's being given. and there is a lot of potential genuine intent on the part of donald trump to genuinely look into something even though the allegations are that he, quote unquote, knew that he was false. that is something that the prosecution has to prove. and that is not necessarily an easy task, again, in a criminal forum. now, in the court of public opinion i think a lot of people have very strong opinions about the condemnable nature of this conduct, but when we're looking at actual statutes and evidence that needs to be put forth i think that it's a very weak case in many respects. >> we don't know all the evidence, but a comment like one we do know, that trump turned to

mike pence regarding certifying the electors on january 6th and said you're too honest in effect, is a comment like that indicative that the president knew what he was trying to pressure the vice president to do was on a false basis? >> it needs way more context. and that's going to be the answer to a lot of evidence analysis. right? any sort of conversations and comments may be tried to used against donald trump by the case but there's going to be a retort by the defense in terms of the greater context of the conversation. and that's assuming we get to the facts of this case. because again i know i've kind of mentioned this but constitutionally speaking there's never been an attempt to try a former president for acts that were committed while in office. and the argument is that impeachment would be the only remedy. here there was a failed impeachment and i think ultimately the supreme court will have to delineate the line that is crossed where a president is actually acting outside the scope of their executive authority, which is

quite broad, especially when it comes to matters of ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed and things of that sort. that's a constitutional kind of analysis of that that i think is not being discussed quite as much as the underlying facts. if you had another defendant who wasn't the former president with these same facts and evidence it could be a much stronger case certainly. but i think you have to get over that jurisdictional bar, which is something that the prosecutors i'm sure have analyzed but it's going to be a strong defense on trump's side. >> mitch mcconnell of course said when he chose to vote to acquit, he said, well, there's a legal process, a criminal process that a former president can go through, which of course has happened. we'll see if he answers to that. katie cherkasky, thanks so much. brianna. >> despite facing three indictments, trump's campaign says the former president is undeterred in his quest for the white house. we'll have more on his political playbook next. you're watching "cnn news central" and we'll be right back.

this is spring semester at over 13,000 us school districts, which have become top targets for ransomwarettacks. but there's never been a reported ransomware attack on a chromebook. which is why thousands of schools like the fairfield-suisun unified school district switched to google tools for education. so they can focus on teaching and 22,000 students can focus on learning, knowing that their data is secure. ( ♪ )

they're off from school, but not really home. images and videos. social media, fine-tuned to suck them in. and steal them away.

alone you can't stop it. together we will. we have a plan. join us. ( ♪ ) tomorrow former president trump will be in front of a federal judge for a historic

third indictment. but today his campaign, his lawyers and his allies in congress are flooding the zone. they are trying to discredit the special counsel, claiming these new charges are politically motivated. cnn's kristen holmes is near the former president's golf club in bedminster for us. kristen, it's really a full court press today from the trump team as well as his allies in congress. and this was something that was weeks in the making. >> reporter: brianna, that's right. they knew about the potential for an indictment when trump received a target letter weeks ago and they began planning their response then. they had statements ready. they had talked to his allies on the hill who also as you noticed quickly put out statements after that indictment came down. they also had videos that they had prepared. i saw at least three videos that had clearly been prepared before the indictment actually came down that were blasted out yesterday. again, trying to take control of the media narrative. but the other thing to notice here is part of the reason they are playing this out and saying

this is political is because he is in fact running his third presidential campaign and at times it does feel as though we are watching almost two parallel stories playing out. i just learned from sources close to trump that halftime night after trump was indicted for the third time he had dinner with fox news executives who encouraged him to participate in the first presidential debate, which fox is hosting. the reason that is significant is because the former president is right now the front-runner for the gop primary. he also has said he's not sure if he's going to participate. but you see all of that happening on the political side whereas on the legal side he's appearing in court tomorrow. so this is kind of the unprecedented nature of where we are right now as you watch these. at times they intertwine and the legal strategy becomes a political strategy. and at times it seems like they couldn't possibly be intersecting at all, this presidential candidate having political conversations about being president again while he is being indicted for charges

that he was trying to undermine democracy. >> he's due in court tomorrow, kristen. is he planning to capitalize on this? >> brianna, absolutely. they want as many eyes on this as possible. there was conversations about whether or not they would take the doj up on this offer for a zoom, if that was the case. they were trying to figure out how to get media involved in that, over to trump's club at bedminster. but we do expect him to appear in court tomorrow in person. that has not been confirmed by the trump team. however, that is what we are reading between the tea leaves here. that is the expectation. and based on the past, that is what we have seen. they want to make sure they take full command of the narrative and try to spin this in their best interests, which of course is to say that this is political. >> all right. kristen holmes live for us in new jersey. thank you for that report. jim? we're joined now by former trump white house press secretary stephanie grisham. also cnn presidential historian, former director of the nixon presidential library tim

naftali. good to have you both. stephanie, if i could begin with you, trump and his allies are saying that this is a partisan hit job, that he did nothing wrong after the election and leading up to january 6th, he was just exercising his rights. do you agree? >> well, no, i don't agree at all. but i expect this from them. this is exactly what he's always done. he plays the victim. even back in the white house when i was press secretary and, you know, the first impeachment with ukraine, everything's a witch hunt. everyone's out to get him. but sadly that message works. it works with the base and his poll numbers only go up with these indictments. and you know, i'm hoping that the republican candidates in the primary are going to come out swinging a little harder like pence did today. i was really happy to see that because i think the only way that people will see who he really is is if people can stand up to him. you stand up to a bully, right? >> to stephanie's point, tim, just a short time ago in fact on

our air the former vice president spoke about this indictment. let me play those comments and i want to get your reaction. have a listen. we don't have the sound. but let me read what he said. he said, "anyone who puts himself over the constitution should never be president. our country is 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." you of course are involved in the nixon library, a president who resigned in disgrace accused of crimes. here is trump's former vice president accusing him of perhaps one of the greatest crimes a president could commit, which is to put himself above the constitution. is there any precedent for that in u.s. history, a former vice president accusing the president he served under of something to that degree? >> no. we have no precedent. and for a long time vice president pence has been someone who could have helped shape the

discussion within the republican party. the vice president chose not to participate in the january 6th congressional investigation. he chose a legal route in response to the special prosecutor when the court said he had to participate, he then apparently just looking at the indictment fully participated. indeed, i would argue that it's the addition of materials from pence, especially his handwritten notes, which makes the indictment even a more powerful presentation of president trump's alleged culpability on january 6th than the congress's january 6th inquiry. i think pence's voice is very important here. i believe that his opponents will be looking to see what effect if any this has on his poll numbers. if we begin to see pence polling better, we might see tim scott shift his approach to january 6th. so far he's actually not opened

the door at all to criticizing the former president for his role. and perhaps you might see desantis change his approach. at the moment desantis is taking a purely legal procedural approach to dealing with the january 6th indictment. he's not come out swinging at all against the president. >> stephanie, there's been a sameness to the republican party's reaction to various charges, indictments against trump. with the manhattan d.a., well, he's just a manhattan d.a., democratic state, you know, find yourself a special counsel. with the classified documents you heard, well, this is too small bore, what about what pence and biden did. now you have a special counsel focused on what even republicans or you'll hear some in the conservative media say was a consequential day, january 6th. and by the way, the president did lose the election and should not have, you know, claimed to have won it. and yet personally i was surprised by how broad-based the dismissal of this latest

indictment was among republicans, among conservative media or the "wall street journal" editorial page, et cetera. have you been surprised as well that this one, at least so far, has not seemed to move the dial? >> sadly, no. you know, practice makes perfect. right? and he has gotten away again with so many different things, whether it's the first impeachment, the second impeachment, lying about the election being stolen and then inciting the riot on january 6th. he's gotten away with it so many times, and that kind of messaging has worked so many times that, you know, that's what the base wants and republicans think that right now he's going to be their nominee so they're going to have to back him up. sadly, i think republicans aren't thinking big picture in any way because all of these things are not going to turn middle of the road voters or suburban women voters. there's nobody that's going to suddenly say hmm, i think donald trump is going to be my guy in the general election. so again, i'm really hoping that some of these republican nominees will now come out a

little harder, come out swinging because the base clearly likes a fighter. you saw it in the first 2015, 2016 debates. so they've got to come out swinging. i think that's the only way we can make some moves here and hopefully stop him from another term. >> tim, as you know, with nixon most republicans stood behind him until the tapes. right? in this case you certainly have numerous videotapes of the violence on that day. you have many tapes of the president's lies. you have tapes of a presidential phone call to state officials saying find votes, et cetera. is there a piece of evidence in your view that might turn things or a piece of testimony that might turn things or are we just in a different world? >> well, the dynamic between trump and republicans is quite different from the dynamic between nixon and his republicans. the republican leadership on the hill in 1974 didn't think it owed richard nixon anything.

he had not had coattails in 1972. and many of them felt he had lied to them personally. so there was not a lot of love lost. the decision they made to walk away from him was made easier by the tapes, but they had already been edging away from him. >> right. >> with donald trump you see a party that is captured by him and many republicans on the hill feel they owe their seats to donald trump. so i think it makes the dynamic quite can different and it makes it harder for them to distance themselves the way they should from donald trump as their predecessors did in 1974 with nixon. >> it's notable given the election losses in recent years. tim naftali, stephanie grisham, thanks to both of you. ahead on "cnn news central" lawmakers are reacting to this latest trump indictment. one republican says she'll vote for him even if he's in prison. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder on my phone.

on the top of the pile! oh. only p pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liliberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hi, i'm todd. i'm a veteran of 23 years. i served three overseas tours. i love to give back to t community. i offer what i can when i can. started noticing my memory was slipping. i saw a prevagen cmercial and i did some research on it. i started taking prevagen about three years ago. i feel clearer in my thoughts, my memory has improved and generally just more on point. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription.

as the campaign for 2024 heats up, the republican party is facing a new reality, that their nominee for president could be a convicted felon by election day. nevertheless, congresswoman marjorie taylor greene says, "i will still vote for trump even if he's in jail." it's worth noting that if the former president is convicted he won't be able to vote for himself. joining us now is democratic congresswoman madeline dean of pennsylvania. she was an impeachment manager during trump's second impeachment trial. thank you so much for being with us. you heard that the possibility that the former president could

be a convicted felon. but if you also talk to experts, as i'm sure you have, you have a legal background, there's a possibility that he won't be because he's trials could get pushed beyond the election. so i will ask you this as a house democrat. do you wish that house democrats had been able to cooperate sooner with doj, pushed some of that information their way so this was a little more expedited? >> i wish that all of this had been more expedited. i don't lay it at the feet of house democrats. i really am proud of what house democrats did, whether it was through the impeachment process or through the 1-6 committee. this is all at the feet of donald trump. it is -- >> is it doj's fault, though, that this has taken -- >> i wish doj had moved faster. but i have to tell you, when you read this indictment or you read the one for mar-a-lago and the documents case, i implore every american to read them. they read so very clearly and gravely as to the corruption and criminality of the former

president. timing, you're right. i wish it were sooner. but i really give jack smith and his entire team a lot of credit. as well as all the republicans who are evidenced in here. they are the ones. remember who's in this indictment, who's being quoted . these are the highest-level republicans who wanted nothing more than for donald trump to win re-election. but when it came to criminality, came to trying to overthrow the election through use of violence or breaking the constitution, they said no, i won't do it, i abide by my oath. >> but you just heard -- or you may have heard former vice president mike pence, he just spoke in indianapolis, and he went a little further than before talking about trump putting himself above the constitution. he said essentially that trump had also put himself above the law as well. he won't go as far as to say he should be prosecuted. he wants voters to determine that. but he also said he wouldn't assess whether there is the evidence. he's sort of trying to walk that

line. you hear mike pence trying to get out there. but he's polling at just a few percent. that's not what republican voters are buying. >> it's baffling to me that the vice president, who did his duty on that day under extraordinary pressure, as is evidenced again in this and as evidenced by his contemporaneous notes, with the pressure of the former president, overturn the election, all right, if you won't overturn the certification, delay, throw it back to the states for fake electors, it is baffling to me why he can't with greater candor simply say this was an insur insurrection, it was incited by this president, this is a set of grave crimes against the country and the constitution. >> yet this idea of the insurrection being incited by the president, that's not so much what this indictment leans on. it leans much more on the fake electors scheme, this idea of what donald trump -- and we all heard what he said on january 6th that preceded this group going up to the capitol. that's not as much what jack smith is leaning on. do you think that's a mistake? >> no. i think what is in here is so

compelling. the conspiracy to defraud the united states. listen to that charge. it's an extraordinary charge. it is stunning. it's staggering. it's historic, sad. but it isn't surprising because that's what we witnessed. i was there. you know i was there on that day. i take this personally and i also take it professionally for the country. i am pleased that he is putting together the evidence of the co-conspirators, six of them, and as the indictment reads some named, some known to this grand jury and some not. there will be more brought in. >> then why do you think he's not leaning more on what trump said that day? i mean, clearly you and others believe that what trump said, you draw a direct line from trump's words to the actions of people, many of whom have been charged, who've already begun prison sentences. why do you think jack smith doesn't do that and he's leaning more -- is it just an issue of prosecutability? what do you think? >> well, i think it's the

pattern that leads up to it. it actually -- and it's not in this indictment, but we saw and heard the president as well as bill barr in the summer before the election already indicate that if i lose this is a rigged election and have doubt on our ability to vote and to cast free and fair elections. so this is a pattern of behavior. this indictment starts with right after the election, when trump knows he has lost, that he begins this conspiracy. conspiracy to lie to the american people, to defraud us, to say you can't trust your elections, you can't trust your institutions, you can only trust me, and then that incitement to violence. that's just one snapshot. a tragic snapshot where people died. as i said, i take it personally for me. but i think all the staffers who were there on that day, i think of the custodians who had to clean up that day, and donald trump and some of his cronies on the hill, i'll put it that way, would rather whitewash it to say it never happened, it wasn't

what our eyes and ears showed it to be. >> i think of my colleagues who were there, and to talk to them about that day and just you can see in their eyes the trauma that they suffered, just the fear of it. >> i have talked to them. >> yeah, you know that all too well. congresswoman madeleine dean, thanks so much for being with us. >> thanks. >> jim? >> still to come, fitch ratings has downgraded america's debt, citing "an erosion of governance." up next how it's drawing harsh rebuke not just from the white house but from many economists as well. with your erc tax refund so you can improve your business however you see fit. rosie used part of her refefund to build an outdoor patio. clink! dr. marshall usesed part of his refund to give his practice a facelift. emily used part of her refund to buy... i run a wax museum. let innovation refunds help you get started on your erc tax refund. stop waiting. go to innovationrefunds.com you really got the brows.

from big cities, to small towns, and on main streets across the us, you'll find pnc bank. helping businesses both large and small, communities and the people who live and work there grow and thrive. we're proud to call these places home too. they're where we put down roots, and where together, we work to help move everyone's financial goals forward. pnc bank.

for the first time in more than a decade the united states no longer holds a perfect credit rating.

fitch, one of several rating agencies, just downgraded the u.s. long-term rating from its top mark of aaa to aa plus, one level down, citing the nation's debt as a, quote, growing burden. this of course comes after congress fought until the very last minute over a debt ceiling deal, barely preventing the u.s. from the first ever default. as you can see, it could be a factor in why the markets are down some 300 points right now. cnn business anchor richard quest joins us now live. now, richard, it's interesting. so fitch is sort of out on a limb here by itself. mark zandi, who's with moody's, he calls the decision off base. jason fuhrman, economist with the obama administration, completely absurd. mohammed el ariane, i'm puzzled by many aspects of this announcement. what's happening here? why is fitch taking this step now? >> and the u.s. treasury secretary janet yellen says she disagrees with this, that the action is entirely unwarranted,

that the u.s. bond market's a safe liquid asset and the economy's fundamentally strong. but they're missing the point to some extent. because the timing is a bit weird as the u.s. is doing quite well. but really what this is about is a warning shot because what fitch is saying, and i've got it here, is the erosion of governance. there's been a steady deterioration in standards of governance on fiscal and debt matters. this is a sign that fitch is saying get your house in order because the level of dysfunction that you are now exhibiting, which we're seeing every day in debt negotiations in congress versus white house within the political parties, means that things are not getting better. and by the they've never gone back to the top grade for the same reasons, the s&p. the market is down today. yeah. >> the market is gown today. >> yep. >> but have investors -- treasuries, u.s. treasuries

remain quite a hot asset internationally, both for individuals and corporations and governments. have they shown any less of an interest in buying them? >> no, which is why, jim, good point, i would say that today's decision is meaningless in today's market. the market is down a bit for other reasons on earnings and other reasons. you can't look at this as today. you've got to look at this and push it out. what fitch are saying is this is a worry on the medium to long-term fiscal future of the united states. and on that one, well, i think many economists would say there is validity in what they've done. it's just a bit bizarre they've chosen a random tuesday in august in the middle of the summer to make this announcement. >> a warning shot, as you called it, richard quest, joining us from new york, thanks so much. brianna. law enforcement officials from multiple agencies have

spent weeks preparing for another trump indictment. we'll have details on how tight security is going to be tomorrow in the nation's capital when the president makes an appearance next. as an entrtrepreneur, it's about how i canan give them the tools to empower themselves if we can just all do something small, all the small things will start to amount to something big. that's why we're here to help make it happen.

here in about 25 hours donald trump is expected to appear in a washington, d.c. courtroom to be arraigned on his latest indictment. his third. it is an extraordinary moment in american history. it is monumental when it comes to the security challenge in a city that has been scarred by the violence of january 6th. cnn's brian todd is outside of the courthouse for us. so, brian, how big of a task are we talking about when it comes

to keeping the former president safe and just keeping this building secure? >> well, brianna, it is certainly a challenge and one that this city is actually pretty much used to from all these events over the year, not only involving donald trump but other high-profile people who have had to appear at this u.s. federal courthouse behind me, what we're told is that multiple layers of law enforcement, multiple agencies are involved in securing this area and securing this courthouse for the former president's appearance here tomorrow including the metropolitan d.c. police, the federal protective service, the secret service, the federal marshals and other agencies like that. you know, what's interesting is that, again, you talk about layers, this is a city that is used to providing layers and overlap for events like this. i just spoke to a former secret service special agent matt doherty who says he anticipates that if and when president trump does arrive here tomorrow he'll probably be taken into an entrance that is not necessarily

able to be seen by the public and i won't get into more detail than that. but this is the opinion of a former secret service agent who actually ran security here for events like this and anticipates that the former president will be kind of ferried into an entrance where there won't be a lot of public exposure then taken right out after his court appearance so you may or may not see the former president here tomorrow actually in the flesh. if he comes in, but, again, former president trump does sometimes like to court publicity in these events and may want to say something publicly or not. what we're told, these agencies have entered into a memorandum of understanding which ess essentially allows each agency to overlap into another agency's jurisdiction if they call for backup. that was in place, as well, during january 6th when the u.s. capitol police were kind of overrun and overwhelmed early in the game. the metropolitan d.c. police arrived very quickly and were very heroic in helping the u.s.

capitol police battle those protesters, those rioters amid so much violence so, again, they're well practiced in this kind of overlap and cooperation. that will certainly be in play tomorrow, brianna. >> no doubt they'll be ready to go, brian todd live outside the federal courthouse in washington, thank you. jim. before the indictment or the special counsel investigation came the house hearings and investigation on the insurrection and what they uncovered about the 45th president's actioned. we'll speak to a member of that committee next. chase freedom unlimited. so, if you're off the racking... ...or crab cracking, you're cashbacacking. cashback on flflapjacks, baby backs, or tacos at the taco shack. nah, i'm workiking on my six pack. switch to a king suite- or book a silent retreat. silent retreat? hold up - yeeerp? i can't talk right now, i'm at a silent retreat. cashback on everything you buy with chase freedom unlimited with no annual fee. how do you cashback? chase. make more of what's yours.

i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder omy phone. on the top of the pile! oh. only pay forhat you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ (♪) rsv can be a dangerous virus... [sneeze] ...for those 60 and older. it's not just a cold. and if you're 60 or older... ...you may be at increased risk of hospitalization... [coughing] ...from this highly... ...contagious virus. not all dangers come with warning labels. talk to your pharmacist or doctor... ...about getting vaccinated against rsv today.

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 bucks a line per month.

that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. no wonder xfinity mobile is one of the fastest growing mobile services. you really shouldn't walk out the front door without it. switch today at xfinitymobile.com we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch.