>> washington journal continues. host: we are joined now by kimberly whele, a legal contributor for abc news, and a

law professor. you have gone through this 45 page indictment now. what is your top line take away so far? guest: how much of it is very into with the january 6 committee careful work over many months. we saw the various public programs outlining the massive amount of evidence that the january 6 committee developed. also, they had to report, of course. and we are seeing a second branch of government work in tandem with the united states congress to bring some accountability to the white house, frankly. i wrote a piece a while back in politico magazine shortly after january 6, in which i did a thought experiment with my students. we went through the various guardrails around the presidency, to make sure presidents don't cross boundaries. effectively, the only thing that

was left was a criminal indictment. i see this as an important step in protecting how our democracy states accountable to the people. and too much power does not get out of hand in a way that could destroy the republic moving forward. i think it is a really important step for the constitution. i know it will be very politically debatable and incendiary for some people. host: is there anything to take from the number of charges here? we are talking about four charges in this indictment. that compares to well over 30 charges with the document case run out of the special counsel office. guest: the team in this case, did not follow directly what the congress recommended in charges. the congress had recommended an insurrection charge, witness tampering. that's not in there. there are three conspiracy charges and one other.

they basically orchestrated this scheme to take the election from the voters, and ultimately to do it illegally and even by force. what happened down in mar-a-lago , they need to identify all the various classified documents. i think they cherry picked. they of course did not go through all of them, but they specified documents that violated the espionage act. there are two codefendants down there. here, it is a much larger story about what happened before, during, and after january 6, and why it is a problem. where is the case down in florida is more straightforward as in, here are the documents, the videotapes, other evidence that demonstrated it should not be there, he tried to hide it, etc. two different prosecutions. host: you mentioned the codefendants in the florida case. in this case being tried in d.c., there are six unnamed co-conspirators. do you think those folks

eventually become codefendants here? guest: it's possible. we saw one superseding order in florida that added a codefendant. it could be that they are just named for purposes of developing the conspiracy charges against a single named defendant. there is some debate in the criminal law community as to whether naming co-conspirators without actually charging them is fair, but it is legal. we will have to see whether some of these folks actually end up themselves within the colonel justice system. there is certainly an argument that being named, and it's not that difficult to connect the dots given the information out there about january 6, as to who these people might be. it is a taint on the reputation, even if they are not actually indicted and prosecuted. host: let's talk venue and judge compared to the florida case. this is going to be prosecuted in the u.s. district court. it is judge tonya chutkin.

what does it mean for the office trying this, just blocks from the u.s. capitol? guest: it is a constitutional guarantee. the government needs to bring cases in the part of the country where the acts giving rise to the crimes occurred. that is why mar-a-lago is in florida. the capitol here is an washington, d.c. this judge has experience as a criminal defense lawyer in private practice. that might be a good thing for the former president, in terms of her being presumably very careful about protecting constitutional rights, though i think any federal judge would do that. the judge is not going to be as pro-trump, whereas judge cannon in florida has set the trial numbers, in terms of motors,

from which they will pull the jury pool that very solidly voted for trump in the last election. it is a benefit to the president. in order to get a conviction in both of these cases, there needs to be a unanimous jury. if one juror decides they are loyal to the president no matter what, that would be a hung jury. he would not be convicted. the government could certainly do it a second time. i think that given the stakes, i would be astonished if there was not a victory for the government and one of these cases would try to go at it a second time. i think the d.c. jury is more democratically leaning and it will be a steeper incline for the defense, in terms of persuading enough jurors to hang the jury or to acquit, which would be the best thing for donald trump. that means everybody votes that they do not have enough evidence to convict without a doubt.

host: this case being bumped, could it happen concurrently? guest: it's hard to know how many lawyers are on his various teams. i don't think it is the same team, because these are complex cases, thousands of document and witnesses, particularly in the january 6 case. the same group of lawyers would not be able to manage both cases at the same time. i don't think it will be a resources problem for the government. there is no requirement that cases run concurrently. that being said, the judges are sensitive to the defendant's needs, the defense team's needs, and the other judges calendars. i think it would probably not be feasible to assume that the judges would have back-to-back trials going on. they cannot be at the same time because donald trump cannot be in two states at the same time.

i suspect that one will come after the other. at this point, the florida one is in may. i think in both cases, we are probably going to see donald trump's lawyers filed motions challenging various legal issues. those alone can justify delays and trial dates. host: lastly, and we have plenty of callers lined up to chat with you, but the former president expected in d.c. tomorrow to respond to his indictment. just remind us what happens when he appears in court tomorrow. guest: as we have seen the last two times, there will be the official process of arresting him and booking him. this will all be done with great respect and kid gloves, like it should be, because he is a former president. then, he will enter a plea of, presumably, not guilty before the trial court. host: and that is, again, expected tomorrow here in washington, d.c.. if you would like to talk to kimberly whele this morning,

lives are open to do so. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8002 for independents. we always appreciate having you on this program. lisa is up first in new bedford, massachusetts, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to thank you and i want to thank c-span. on january 6, i was home. ahead of time, i knew trump was going to have this rally. i knew ahead of time. the republicans keep saying that the democrats are weaponizing the doj and all of these departments, but the truth is, they are doing it.

they are weaponizing it. ahead of the election, trump said that if he did not win, it was going to be wrong and should be thrown out. he had every right to go to court and make all those claims, and when the court found nothing and he was wrong, he was wrong. he set it up on january 6. it was his fault that the capitol -- and being the president, he should have been the one to call the end. host: you bring up the idea of the weaponization of the doj. kimberly whele, on claims about that, especially in the wake of

these two federal indictments and what the coming going forward. guest: well, a number of things. first, i want to emphasize that just as suggested yesterday in the press conference, read the indictment yourself. i cannot emphasize that enough. don't listen to me, don't listen to other pendants. read the indictment yourself. it's all available online. and decide, if the government can prove this stuff, is it a problem? i think what the indictment does is lay the story out. it is all most like a play in four acts. act i, donald trump tried to get street legislators to cancel votes and switch votes. when they would not do that, he allegedly organized seven states to submit full selectors. when i did not work, he tried to

pressure mike pence, calling him on christmas and new year's. mike pence, allegedly i the indictment, calling him too honest. and that did not work, he roused up the crowd and called members of congress. the indictment alleges that as part of that, he tried to use the department of justice and the massive power, the investigate of power. he tried to use the department of justice to push this notion that the election was fraudulent. so, we have already seen the politicization of the justice department and that is really dangerous. donald trump's campaign has made clear that if there's a second term, that would be even more extreme. he would make sure that there are loyalists throughout the government that would not necessarily listen to the people, but to him. that is a very different kind of government. maybe we should have that

debate. but nobody should pretend that is democracy. host: you talk about how this indictment is laid out, sort of a play in four acts, as you describe it. is it an unusual way of laying out and indictment? you have seen many of these. his presenting it as this story, is that unusual? guest: no, not for something this import. some will call it a "speaking indictment." the charges need to be laid out and away that the defendant can notice. the document has to do enough so that the defendant knows what he or she allegedly did wrong and is able to present and put together a defense to the charges. it does not have to be chapter and verse. here, i think, jack smith is laying out a narrative. he did it with the last indictment as well. this is a charging document. it is the government's obligation beyond a reasonable

doubt to prove all of this stuff by facts court to pass the rules of evidence. ask yourself, if they can do that, is this story something that is a problem for democracy, for my kids and grandchildren? that is what the point of this is p at it as a criminal case, but there are massive, massive historical and constitutional implications to this. host: wayne in south carolina, line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: i'm doing well, sir. you are on with kimberly whele. caller: i will make mine short. trump will be our next president in 2024. the democrats are too crooked. they should go arrest joe biden and hunter biden this morning.

donald trump will be our president. mark that down. host: what about how the special counsel asked americans to read this indictment? it is a 45 and paid -- a 45 page indictment. it's not too long. many of them are longer. have you read it? caller: i have read most of it, not all of it. it's just to mess with the 2024 election. why don't they go to hunter biden and the rest of the democrats? the american people will see this will make the republicans stronger, make trump stronger, make the republican party stronger. i think we will get some independents and democrats. host: kimberly, anything you want to pick up on you? -- pick up on? guest: i think wayne is right in terms of the numbers. the numbers for donald trump are very, very strong. what i tell my students or

others that are thinking about this, part of the disconnect that happened -- i've been in politics, and with all due respect to wayne, we have a certain set of criteria and a value system in our families, with our ends, with our colleagues, doctors, religious leaders. but when it comes to politicians, i think we assume that it is ok to be crossing certain boundaries. in this instance, one thing the indictment does is it lays out what a transfer that shape peaceful transfer of power looks like. there is an act from 1887. the states listen to the voters. based on the votes, they decide state by state, based on popular vote, who gets the electoral college votes. then, the state of electors meet. they transfer those numbers to congress and congress councils numbers. donald trump tried to stop, thwart, and distort that system.

that is foundational to the freedoms democracy gives to all of us. there's no evidence that any other politician in the history of the united states, including joe biden, has come close to trying to do something that serious as much as i understand that we are in a place where we have got politics, red versus blue, this is very, very serious stuff. as i said earlier, you have to ask yourself, are we comfortable with the government where our leaders are chosen or installed by force, through illegality, versus by respecting the will of the voters? that is the question to ask yourself. maybe the answer for some people is yes, i won that government. we should have that honest conversation. host: wisconsin, rich, good morning. caller: i'm so glad she just

went there. did you forget that when president trump was elected that there was a riot in d.c.? they had politicians from both sides and hollywood put out videos saying that electors did not have to honor the votes. they could vote their conscience and install hillary clinton into office. he had obama use the intelligence community to spy on president trump's campaign, and then to set him up for russian collusion, which never happened. we spent four years and millions of dollars in taxpayer money running down rabbit holes that they knew were false. they impeached donald trump for calling zelinski and asking him to enforce a treaty we had that bill clinton signed with ukraine that we would work together to root out corruption.

we have archer telling us that hunter bought burner phones before the meetings. it's a joke. the peaceful transfer of power, we did not have one in 2017. i'm sorry, it went out the window. the constitution went out the window when you impeached twice with no crimes or misdemeanors. he won. host: kimberly? guest: there's a lot there. i know people have frustration with some of the things that other presidents have done i cannot condone all the behavior. he was not convicted by the senate in either of his impeachments. we can talk about those things. but the collusion, to use bill barr's word, the communication with russians in the lead up to the 2016 election on behalf of donald trump and his campaign, it's established in a report.

i am a lawyer, i am a law professor. i adhere to verifiable facts. that means testimony under oath, videotapes, audiotapes, documentary evidence it has to be used in a way that is consistent with various rules that bind courts. that is really different from politics. in this particular instance, i think the question moving forward is, can government meet its very high standard of proof? proof beyond reasonable doubt of the charges in this indictment. it is an argument that other politicians should be indicted. donald trump had that authority through his department of justice and we saw what we saw. that is not change the fact of this particular indictment and the facts in this particular indictment. the what about-ism does not

change things and people? ask themselves, is this the type of government we want moving forward? host: what are your thoughts about the third paragraph of the indictment, or the special counsel notes very high up in this indictment that donald trump had a right to challenge the 2020 election results, make a point of that? "the defendant had a right, like every american, to speak publicly about the election, and even to claim falsely that there had been outcome determination fraud during the election and that he had won. he was also entitled to formally challenge this by seeking recounts or audits, or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures. indeed, in many cases, the defendant did pursue these methods.

however, his efforts were uniformly unsuccessful. shortly after election day, the defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results, and that is where these four charges come from." guest: yeah, he notes -- there's a section in the indictment that starts at page six, so if anyone is going to read any part of the indictment,there is a section ts about donald trump's knowledge, and it is the most critical part of the indictment because it gets to his estate of mine. -- state of mind. he filed a lawsuit and lost all of them except for a tiny one in pennsylvania. why? there was no law or evidence backing his claims. it goes on to talk about the falsehoods that he stated, that he made, that there were 10,000 dead voters in georgia, 205,000

more voters in pennsylvania. a suspicious about in michigan. tens of thousands of double votes in nevada. none those things were true. it also says he knew all along that he lost the election. how? the grand jury has heard from hundreds of witnesses, including a vice president pence and a senior doj officials, the director of national intelligence, senior officials, separate security experts, donald trump's on senior white house counsel, his senior campaign staffers, republican state legislatures and officials, and multiple courts of law, including judges appointed by donald trump -- all these people, all of these people that signed up to serve him in office and be loyal to him at one point had to speak the truth, and the truth was

consistent commute loss to the election. nonetheless, he manufactured awful incendiary lies. that year rep did in january 6 and people lost their lives and were permanently physically damaged, law officers. nothing is in here about that. there is nothing related to his speech. the narrow indictment that really designed to put the guard rails back around the transfer of power for the presidential election and to call him out on these lies, which have caused so much damage to the country. host: karen is in pennsylvania, a democrat. caller: good morning. i'm concerned about the charges. i read in the constitution that if you are found guilty of insurrection, the charges -- that concerns me because if he is not put in jail, is he still able to run for president?

guest: the answer is yes. you know, the politics of this and at the case law and cases are on two separate tracks when it comes to the constitution. what has happened in these criminal cases, that outcome of these cases, if convicted, has no impact whatsoever legally on his ability to run for president, and even to serve as president. he could be convicted, sentenced to prison, which is not off of the table. it is becoming increasingly feasible. and he could be president, even if imprisoned. now that is because the constitution only sets forth narrow criteria for president. you have to be over 35 and a natural born citizen. beyond that, it is up to the voters. so, there is a provision that the caller has noted, the

post-civil war provision that says if you engage in an insurrection you cannot hold office, but there is no conviction for insurrection or a charge for it, so it will not function here to keep him off the ballot. the only thing that will keep donald trump off the ballot is voters to say i do not want somebody willing to do this to have the highest power of office. or it could be i do not want to the chaos anymore. i want to move on on issues that matter and not have it all be about donald trump's defense team and losing his -- using campaign dollars to pay his lawyers, which is happening right now. at that is an individual decision by voters, which is why everybody should read the indictment and decide if this matters or the abode you are casting, not just for yourself but for those in your family, who are you too young to vote. host: a note on his pain -- a know on him paying his lawyers.

90% of the state of america political action committee, 90% of the expenses this year are more than $20 million accounting for legal costs, according to a law street -- wall street journal analysis. the headline is "donald trump leads rebels, it is a legal bid draining his fund." a caller from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for you. is there any way that we can stop this madness that the democrats have created? i mean, from day one when that man came down the escalator they have been after him. one indictment after another after another. and you have four indictments now. this is very costly to the taxpayers. i know that he did things that

were not common or done before. but i really think that he really tried to change things and change things for the better. and he has just been -- just things have gone the wrong way. yet, the democrats are not accountable for what they are doing. and i wonder how the government can get so far away from the truth of things. host: kimberly wehle? guest: i see it differently. i see that we are where we are because donald trump took actions that he did not need to take that have thrown the country into chaos, and that probably violated the law in serious ways, including for

example taking classified information and putting it in a place where thousands of people had access to it, threatening the national security of the country in reckless ways. not except in the states' -- the voters, the american people, your friend, neighbors and church leaders cast their votes.the electoral college was set on those votes and he said i want to still be president so i will take steps to thwart that so i can be president. i agree with catherine that it is very expensive and exhausting. the whole process is tearing the country apart. i have children and it is heartbreaking for the country. we are at a perilous point. but it is not the democrats that put us here. like we have a lot of people in the criminal justice system across the country, we have people who have crossed the border illegally, many of them legally, and americans say,

maybe you lost your child but you should not have crossed the border, for example. the worst thing or worse than going to prison people -- prison . donald trump blew through red lights and there should be consequences. it is very sad we are here but donald trump is the person who put us here. and one way to move on would be to just move on politically and get a different person because there will just be more chaos if we have four more years of donald trump. host: henry in michigan on the line for democrats. caller: i am quite sure that if the germans, the french, the italians and japanese had been able to foresee the carnage, the horror, that their choices in 1933 of choosing hitler, choosing mussolini, choosing hero heat though -- hirohito,

and choosing the french government -- if they knew the horrors those choices would cause the world, they would have done everything they could to dismantle that monstrosity. the election of 2024, america is faced with our 1933 moment. and i thank god we have joe biden and kamala harris as an alternative choice. and we can save ourselves if we ignore these fake polls and choose correctly in 2024. john, i would appreciate if you could use your tab and bring up the reports that are now surfacing about trump's dealings with saudi arabia. his real estate dealings. live gol -- liv golf.

if you could bring up the number of trump insiders who prosecuted -- wer prosecuted and alle of the corruption in the trump administration. and then do the same. joe biden's administration. show me where he has been indicted for anything. where he has been found to be corrupt for anything that is factual. where's inner circle has been convicted of any crimes. if you could do that and clarify for the american people, especially the republicans, who seemed to be in an alternative universe. host: do you think that there are more indictments coming? caller: absolutely. i think that the reason why these co-conspirators were not named is because mr. smith would like to expedite this trial and

get donald trump adjudicated. because he can get the rest of them later on. yes, i really do believe there's more -- uh, indictments to come. and i believe the american people, the vast majority of americans, are paying attention. they need to start paying attention and get out to the polls. and we need to get rid of this republican cult. host: that is henry in michigan. kimberly wehle on the legal strategy that the caller was describing. does that seem something that jack smith is doing? guest: it is hard to say whether he will follow-up with indictments of co-conspirators, but i think it is a more straightforward case to just name donald trump and not multiple defendants. that would have delayed it beyond the election. that is a really important number or date for donald trump,

because if he is elected president again, then he could drop the charges. he cannot do anything about it with that manhattan d.a. or if an indictment comes out of the georgia case, but he can basically whisk them away if he is elected president. the caller made a good point, and i am not a historian, but about the 1940's and hitler and what happened in europe. and i think it is important for people, when you hear about democracy, the top-down versus the bottom up government. we have a bottom up government where the people decide. and all of the power for the higher ups is accountable to the people. they do not have inherent power. the king's perilous inherent, it was from god. so they could do whatever they wanted. that's the kind of government that would take an election away from the voters.

that is what donald trump allegedly attempted to do. and on january 6 and before hand. that is the kind of government, donald trump is the boss and what he says goes. if you are in his good graces, that is great for you, but it is arbitrary. that is why it is so serious. arbitrary power is an a boost of power committee does not matter who. so the case is about the guard rails around democracy. joe biden is not abusing the office right now, but it could be a democrat down the road if you do not protect the office and make the office accountable. you have to hope there is somebody who will go there that will exercise judgment and act with integrity. it is a scary thought. there needs to be consequences. host: a few minutes left with kimberly wehle, having this conversation in the day after the second federal indictment out of jack smith's office. the indictment for criminal

charges. we have talked about them already, but i want to focus on the last charge, the conspiracy against the right to vote and to have one's vote counted. it is in reference to an 1870 law enforcement act. the story on that particular indictment from the washington post, a law comes into play in the trump indictment. can you talk as through the history of that? guest: the idea is -- if you think about police officers that bully and violate individual rights at the time. at the time it was formerly enslaved people of color. the law says it can be a crime to infringe on somebody's constitutional rights, like the fourth amendment right against seizure of your body. you have a right to the integrity of your body, so the police cannot beat you up, consistent with the constitution.

this statute has been used since then, and has been condoned by the supreme court to be used when there is an attempt toake a different constitutional right, and that is your right to vote. here the prosecutors are claiming donald tru, through the six enablers named, tried to injure or intimidate people on their free exercise of their right to vote by essentially trying to cancel votes, to switch outcomes, to lie about false votes in order to basically change the outcome of an election from the legal outcome to an illegal one that favored him. host: a caller from ashburn, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i just have a comment to make. and i will try to make it brief. i legally immigrated from a third world country, where we

were under a dictatorship. and my first cousin was part of that apparatus in that country, then we had a revolution. i suppose you both will know it. and when we were able to throw that dictator out, my brothers and i were part of the private citizens group that reported movements of troops in the military. to make this story short, i am concerned by what i am seeing in the united states right now. i legally immigrated here thinking law and order will be the main theme, right? for me experiencing a dictatorship. but i am seeing now a similarity between the dictatorship with the belgians and justice

department being weaponized. that's all. host: anything to add? guest: living here in washington, i have the opportunity to meet people like louis who immigrated here from dictatorships, and think we need to listen to their life experiences because americans cannot imagine what that is like. and cannot imagine it could ever happen here. it is important to hear that life experience when uss for yourself how serious we are in terms of the threats to american democracy. host: willie in katy, texas. a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. great you have had kimberly wehle on prayer the one millionth time. now you can put on mike davis or maranda devine. someone who can counteract what she is saying. i spoke to you about two or three years ago, kimberly wehle,

and i read your book by the way. and, uh, i kind of highlighted all the stuff i thought was wrong in it. the book is a little heavier now. you said jack smith is laying out a narrative. and i think that he is laying out a false narrative because -- there's -- my question is the person who has free-speech rights, and the answer is yes. all the folks that another caller talked us through that tried to dispute in the chamber the 2016 election, they weren't -- no one said that they were forming an insurrection. the bottom line is a few years ago, i asked you about the clinton campaign an the fbi. concerns with russian collusion.

you called it a conspiracy theory. well, you are going to find wha t' going ons trump is that times three. guest: thank you for reading my book. it is nice to talk to you again. this is not based on speech. i think that there would be first amendment questions if donald trump's speech at the capitol, inciting people to march, if it had been a basis for a charger that would have been an issue. there are other claims here that are first amendment problems and i'm sure his lawyers will break them and the judges will rule on them. i, as a lawyer, are comfortable with these things being hashed out because of rules of evidence and other procedural rules applied to make sure that the facts that go to a jury are accurate and the system is fair.

we will see how it plays out now that it is in this arena with guard rails established to protect mr. trump's rights. host: the viewer mentioned your book. your latest book is how the "pardon of power works and why." white is now the time to remind america about how the pardon works? guest: it will be out next summer. the question it addresses is the broad scope of presidents' and governors' power to parting crimes. there's winners and losers. it is a relic of a monarchy. i think that there is a question as to whether donald trump might have pardoned himself, might have had a prophylactic pardon, knowing that there would be investigations ongoing. and if that emerges at the federal level for these charges, i think the book will be highly relevant in ssa and whether that actually carries legal weight or

not. a question i ensure would go to the supreme court. host: a pardon he tucked in his pocket for himself? guest: what one of my friends called a pocket pardon. prophylactic, because you can pardon yourself -- not yourself, that is unclear if a president can do that, but a president can pardon actions for crimes that have yet to be charged. that happened with richard nixon. nothing was charged, but president johnson pardoned him for crimes relating to the behavior that took place while he was in office. so, in theory, donald trump could have drafted a document that said i hereby a myself for any crimes that arise out of actions i took as president. i do not know if it is there, that is speculation. but he is a smart guy. and it would not surprise me because it has not been tested.

there is no law or supreme court decision that says that pardon would not work, that it would be ineffective. one thing donald trump has done for us is he has made us challenge the boundaries of democracy and boundaries of the law. he keeps pushing us in these places and testing. that could be a good thing, the stress test, but i agree that the jury is out on whether he will survive this one or not. host: what is the process of a pardon? can you have unannounced pardons? do they have to be posted somewhere, like the federal register, to then be established and be legal? guest: there is not a lot of caselaw on that but there is caselaw suggesting it needs to be public. that it needs to be made public. but the pardon power is very terse in the constitution itself, but the supreme court has indicated if it is not made public it is ineffective. and there is just a basic

argument, too, that you could pardon yourself because it's a conflict of interest and the idea behind the separation of powers, the idea of having a separate congress and presidency is there's no power concentrated in one place. if a president can pardon himself, it means he could commit any crime he wanted and it say it does not matter. that is inconsistent theoretically with a republic or democracy, where the power does not come from god, it is not handed down from a divine force -- the power comes from the people. the only way for it to work is to have checks and and balances and accountability if you abuse power. if you could just pardon yourself, there are no checks and balances. it's a bad argument that the pocket pardon would work. but we might see that. i think it is a possibility in my book talks about that, going right back to the bible, to

jesus. and, you know, even before that. hopefully it will be an interesting read for folks. host: it will be out next summer. a a few minutes left with kimberly wehle. a couple more calls before you run. this is connie in california, and independent. caller: good morning. i have a question. when -- ok, nancy pelosi, waters, chuck schumer -- whatever they are -- when riots were going on in different states, people were killed, property destroyed, and all that. rioters were jailed, but the democrats put bails up for them. do you recall if any of those waters and shive, do you recall

ever having them saying people, stop this, this is not american. i love my america. and i did not hear any of them go out and protest order tell the people to stop rioting and come to their senses, no. but when it came to the capitol, and it was their lives that were in jeopardy, and they were all afraid, ok? but they did not think of the people killed or the property destroyed. they did not come and interfere with that. even alc, whatever her initials are. i did not hear any of them go out and tell the people they should stop doing that. host: kimberly wehle? guest: a couple things.

there is a difference between property and human beings. on january 6, it was about people. there were deaths and donald trump had control of the crowd. the indictment talks about how he waited hours before he called off the crowd. he had the power to do that and he didn't. i think the story is not the riot. that is not with the indictment is about. it is about the step-by-step, multistage planning and attempt to take an election from the people for donald trump to med that he did not legitimately win. it was not his. that's the story, not the rioting. the indictment is not about the rioting. it is about a plan, and it details a step-by-step the people involved over many months, starting in november and going past january. when one thing did not work, he tried it something else to take power for himself. that is the story, not the rioting.

yes, nancy pelosi and others were fearing for their lives, another reason why people should take the indictment so seriously. host: sandra, a democrat, good morning. caller: no morning. this -- good morning. this indictment is so important to our democracy. the problem is the people of the united states are so confused, for whatever reason. don't you think that there should be a televised event, so everybody can watch, with transparency, what happens in court. and the rule of the law that is set by our government, by the people, to show that no person is above the law. guest: i do think it should be televised. it would be highly unusual, the

federal court would have to make the decision. i think it is unlikely because it would start a process of televising federal trials, but it is a possibility. i think that one of the reasons why we are here has nothing to do with even that facts of the case, donald trump -- it's the fact that online, on social media, there's so many lies and misinformation and it is there on purpose to distort thinking. it did not occur in the 1970's when richard nixon was potentially impeached. that's why we are in such a pickle right now. it is hard to even believe facts that are verifiable and would be accepted under the rules of evidence, because people are hearing things that sounded true but are so untrue. i want to get back to reading the indictment, everybody needs to have information hygiene so

go to the original sources. many of us are being lied to and manipulated by via information. that is why we are having debates -- bad information. at that is why we are having debates that we are having. i think that these are provable facts. you can say i do not care, that is find my but these are provable facts. that is the debate we should have, what to do about the facts, not whether they exist. it has to do with our social media culture. and our brains are not prepared to handle that. host: if you are looking for a place to redo the indictment, we will show it to you here on the screen, but you can also go to c-span.org to find a link to the indictment if you want to read it yourself. many news organizations are doing it, so it is available for anyone to read. the special counsel has encouraged americans to read it

in a fairly brief news conference yesterday, announcing the latest indictment. one for two more calls. andy in kentucky, a republican. caller: good morning. what was president trump's number as president? was it 45? this is a joke. i cannot listen to you people. this lady is a total communist. host: do you have a question for the guest? caller: well, why does she hate our country? host: all right. unless you want to reply we will go to ted in boston. an independent. caller: oh boy. ok, i really appreciate the last hour with the guys, you have done a service for the country and you should be proud and i am thankful for it. this whole thing, i am glad we started talking about hitler,

because it reminds me how easy it is for dictators to gain control. for dictators taking control. what it must've been like in the 1940's where people were essentially rain washed like the republicans are today. i don't know what we do about it. what is your advice to do about it? these republicans seem to be in a bubble. they are incredibly gullible. they are fed a news source that is all segregated from the rest of reality. they are in another universe. this is getting serious. i think the quality of c-span has declined because of their participation in these discussions and social media. the guest did a good job of tying together the effects of social media, religion, and these republicans' sheltered worldview and lives. host: let me give kimberly wehle the final minute here. guest: this is a response to both of the last comment.

i think we are all people, we are human and we have a value system. we know how to live our lives with integrity. calling people names and going to black and white thinking and pointing fingers and othering and undermining people's humanity will not bring anyone together. i would say sit down and identify what makes you a good person or what parts of yourself are you proud of. that is how you should live every day of your life, including when we come around these discussions around politics. maybe then we can see through all the lies to some degree towards this common light that i think we all do have as americans and as people. it is something around kindness and truth. it does exist we will not get there by attacking each other. host: kimberly wehle is the university of baltimore law professor, legal contributor to abc news. a guest on this program on occasion.

in ways that congress can implement protections.