with our free video app c-span now, or online at c-span.org. >> a healthy democracy does not just like this. it looks like this, where americans can see democracy at work and citizens are truly informed. get informed straight from the source on c-span unfiltered, unbiased, word for word from the nation's capital to wherever you are. get the opinion that matters the most, your own. this is what democracy looks like. c-span, powered by cable. do that in the upcoming three hours. we begin this morning with their first guest, hugo lowell, the political investigation reporter with the guardian. joining us this morning before the arraignment later today. thanks for making time to come in this morning. you have covered a number of the cases, the january 6 cases

particularly at the courthouse, what can we expect and what is typical in these arraignments of suspects in these cases? guest: i think it will be like viewing donald trump and other court houses like in miami were trump will motorcade in this morning and he will go in through the secure entrance and go down the ramp and take a private elevator to where he will get booked and he will go to the usual process. arraignments really are procedural moments, the process by which you kickstart the process so once he's done that, he will go to the courthouse in the courtroom for the magistrate judge and he will enter his not guilty plea. host: the magistrate judge today is not the judge that will oversee his case, correct? guest: yes, the judge that will oversee the case is in obama appointee and has developed a

reputation for being one of the stricter judges when it comes to january 6 amendments. a lot of cases with the rioters and in some cases has handed out sentencing that is even greater and more onerous than what prosecutors have been asking for. host: the arraignment today, the president is represented by his attorneys. who will present the case on the federal government side, the department of justice side? guest: we don't know yet. that miami prosecutor was in florida but we don't know if you will be there today. this will probably be the top prosecutors in the gender six case. it might be jp cooney or other prosecutors. host: is it possible other information is announced at these arraignments, not necessarily other charges but other details that are not in the indictment? guest: it's possible but

unlikely. this is not the venue for the prosecutors to beacon's rejecting new details. sometimes when they go through the scheduling for deadlines and hearings or when trump is next back in court, they will reveal a piece of information like there is an interview going on for a further investigation going on which might change things. host: you have covered a number of cases, presumably you will be attempt to be at the courtiers -- courthouse later today? guest: it will be very busy and this court has in particular is good at managing high-profile cases. they did the paul manafort case in the grand jury activity in the investigation were mike pence provided testimony specific to this investigation. host: is there any word of potential protests at the courthouse today? guest: not that we are aware of.

there are barricades going up around the capital. they will be an increased police presence around the courthouse for sure. in many ways, it's ironic that the former president is being arranged at the courthouse just stepped from the capital which figures majorly in the indictment. host: our guest is with the guardian and his piece just published this morning early at the guardian.com. trump will appear in court to it respond to charges of election subversion efforts. we welcome your calls and comments for our guest on today's arraignment of former president donald trump. (202) 748-8000 for republicans, (202) 748-8001 and for others (202) 748-8002 the text number is (202) 748-8003 and you can

hit us up on social media. i read somewhere earlier today. yesterday that something like almost 1000 january 6 suspects have been tried at that courthouse? guest: it is the biggest caseload for the department of justice and the u.s. attorney's office in d.c.. we expect 1000 more. host: one thousand more suspects? guest: 1000 more defendants to go through the criminal process. that's just the rioters from january 6. host: typically, what were the charges of those cases, at least the ones you covered? guest: it's actually the same charge that trump is being hit with which is obstruction of an official proceeding which is interesting because there is so much on this. we have got a pending decision on some of the interpretations of that in any way that would

undermine the case against trump. if anything, it would be stating how broad the intent was for the statute. the defendants have been arguing that it could be narrow or in some cases a border interpretation. either way, he is being hit with the same charge that all the other defendants are being charged with. host: here are the four specific counts announced tuesday by jack smith. conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction -- intent to obstruct an offial proceing and this one, conspiracy against rights. what can you tell us about that charge? guest: it's an unusual charge to bring here but it makes sense. it's typically used in prosecutions where there is voter discrimination. it was used in the civil war era

which was used to repel black voters but in theory, if you think about how the statue it operates, it is there to protect the constitutional right to vote. the central allegation against donald trump is his actions to obstructing the congressional certifications to overturn the results of the states. he was disenfranchising the american people. this is the umbrella charge that brings it all together. host: that seems like constitutional scrutiny. guest: i think this entire case will go all the way to the supreme court if trump can help it. these are weighty constitutional dictates that affect all the courts in d.c. host: your article this morning is a very helpful chart that trump faces several lawsuits in

the run-up to the 2024 election, showing where we are now with august 3, 2023 and coming up in october, the civil fraud suit in new york city. the 15th of january 2024, the second defamation suit brought bye.g. carol. later in may, this is the other federal case, the mar-a-lago documents case may, 2024. will today's magistrate judge say where this for the timing on this particular case, these charges against the former president, was that a decision that the judge will make? guest: that's a decision for judge atkins. the magistrate judge today is processing him. they will maybe set the date when he is back but they will set a trial schedule in the

weeks ahead. host: what is the judge's record in terms of severity of punishments for the defendants she has seen her courtroom? guest: very heavy, she appears to have very strong views on january 6. it's evident in her opinion and it's evident in the way she hands down sentences. it's very unusual even in d.c. that this courthouse can see judges handing down longer penalties than prosecutors normally asked for. host: we have plenty of calls waiting for hugo lowell. let's go to new york city on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a quick comment and a question. my comment is it's the scheme,

because a lot of people believe this is the effect of the attack on the capital but what jack smith is looking at as the scheme. he is trying to nullify the trump victory and with an elaborate scheme with attorneys like rudy giuliani who i believe is one of the co-conspirators. in terms of, i have a question. donald trump is looking at probably, if you look at the charges come he's looking at life in prison considering he is almost 80 years old. the question that i would have to you is, jack smith, the doj would have many witnesses as well as evidence that has not yet been presented. they don't bring cases like this loosely and the question i would have is because i heard your

guest say this might go all the way up to assist the supreme court. most likely, the appellate court would rule in favor of the prosecution assuming the prosecution wins. going to the supreme court would be a very extreme measure but i'm -- i basically would like to say that it seems like the doj hasn't ironclad case. they're not bringing this case loosely and i think you'll see so much, a whole lot of other people who will be charged including possibly congress members and members of congress who were conspiring. this is a big, big thing. host: thank you for the call. guest: i think it's right that the department of justice is a very strong case. it does. jack smith is a longtime prosecutor in the public integrity section and this is how you bring indictments.

you bring in witnesses and get their testimony locked down in the grand jury process and you present the indictment. what happens at the appellate level here will be interesting. trump is not appealing necessarily because he things he can win because this is been his playbook throughout his his litigation in his life. he appeals to buy himself time and delay. we see this in the documents case in miami where he is anticipating bringing all of these motions in a bid to kick the trial date is close to the election as possible if not afterwards because he thinks he can survive until the election and if he wins, he can find a way to drop these cases. host: i for the introduction of the six co-conspirators unnamed in this indictment is so that federal prosecutors can focus on donald trump and potentially those co-conspirators would be tried separately. guest: i think that's very likely.

you have six co-conspirators who are described as being adjacent to the criminal acts, close in language and description to the way trump is being described. it suggests they will also be charged at some later date. host: let's hear from rudy from ohio on the republican line. caller: hi, i think trump is going to get railroaded by the jack smith guy. i believe the people should look up barack obama and see what hand he had in all this. if mike pence committed treason, donald trump would have known about it. i think obama is the big guy. joe biden is not the smartest knife in the drawer, the sharpest knife so he couldn't have gotten away with anything without the big guy knowing about it.

i think everybody is barking up the wrong tree. let's investigate here and see what we can turn up. host: the caller mentioned mike pence. yesterday, his language yesterday concluding this suite on fox news. president trump is a gaggle of crockpot lawyers to keep faith with the oath that i made to the american people and to almighty god. i did my duty that day. how likely is it that vice president pence will be called to testify in this trial? guest: it's extremely likely. you saw in the indictment that mike pence's notes, you see how a lot of the conversations recounted in the indictment probably could have only come from mike pence. we spent a long time covering the behind closed doors for legal fight that went on at this

courthouse in the d.c. circuit judge mike pence was figuring out the contours of executive privilege and speech and debate privilege as he was the presiding officer of the senate that day. when all is said and done, the ultimate ruling of the d.c. circuit judge not just a trial judge in a federal court. they ruled there was grounds for him to testify to this grand jury and he provided that testimony. host: next up is andy from sterling, virginia, democrats line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i'd like to congratulate you on your excellent reporting the last couple of years. i'm pressed -- i'm impressed that young men like yourself can report with such clarity. having said that, could you explain to me -- why do the gutless republicans are willing to nominate as a presidential candidate this twice impeached, three or four times indicted

gentlemen, a traitor to this country, someone who has enriched himself and his family with untold billions of dollars, what has happened to this once great republican that now they are occult, the party of trump. what has become of them and could you please, any inkling as to whether or not this orange monster will accept a plea deal from jack smith? jack smith should be nominated for the time men of the year. guest: thank you for the kind words. republicans i think are in a very momentous moment leading to the selection. part of the election calculus is like trump is far ahead of the polls ahead of the nearest challenger. it's true that if he wins the

nomination, and they will have to support him as the nominee. bill barr was on fox news saying he would vote for trump even though he continues to say what trump did was illegal. you do see this conversion behind trump. i don't think is necessarily driven ideologically. as for the plea deal, i think that is exceedingly unlikely. then again with trump, his overarching philosophy, if that's the right word, is going to be to stay out of jail. you talk a lot to trump advisors and the one thing he doesn't want to do is be inside a jail. maybe at the 11th hour, he tries to strike a deal but this is the calculus in prosecution as well.

the longer you wait to strike a deal, the less good it is for the government and the less sling and see you get. host: steve on the republican line from santa fe -- san jose, california. caller: good morning. this is a two-part question. the first part is, in light of the failed hunter biden plea deal which was outrageous and the failure, the reluctance to prosecute hillary clinton, how can you not say that there is a two tiered justice system? that's the first part of the question. the second part is what do you know insofar as mr. smith's

losing in search of the supreme court? i understand he has been slapped down repeatedly at least once unanimously. for liberal supreme court justices to slap him down, that's an egregious violation of civil rights. i will take my answer off the air. guest: the way the department of justice operates in these prosecutions is they look for what they call aggravating factors. that's with respect to national security and includes the volume of national security material, the sensitivity of the material

and whether there were any attempts made to obstruct the retrieval or the -- or to proper secure the documents. all of the instances of the aggravated factors the department of justice considers, trump probably hit two or three or four of them. at most, mike pence might have hit one but if you look at jim comey, this would be evident. the second question about jack smith losing in front of scotus, yes, he has been slapped down 9-0 by the supreme court and had a number of field prosecutions including the edwards case. this is the reality prosecutions. you bring a case and you think the facts in the law merit a prosecution. sometimes you do not win but that isn't an indication of prosecutorial conduct or an indication of a case of being

corrupt but it means the case was weak or is overturned on appeal. host: the caller's comments about a two tiered justice system are a common refrain the last couple of days from some republicans anyway. certainly the president or the former president, parts statement reflecting some of that saying thnothing more than the latest corrupt chapter in the continued pathetic attempt by the biden crime fa and their weaponized department of justice to rfere with the 2020 presidential electionhich president trump is the undisputed front runner and leading by substantial margins. why did they wait 2.5 years to bring these fake charges in the middle of trump's winning campaign for 2024? why wasn't it announced the day after the joe biden scandal broke? the answer is the election interference. those are political arguments, those are not legal arguments the president's team will need to make in this case. what are the legal arguments we

expect his team to make on the charges he faces? guest: the statement where he talks about how this came down as we got into the presidential cycle. the delay was trump's own fault because he litigated through the investigation. this investigation been going on since days after january 6. we spent months and months, 16, 18 months trying to decipher the grand jury activity that was going on where trump was litigating every step of the way to prevent -- his deputy white house counsel, he has had months and months of delays it was coming down now because he was litigating it. as to trial strategy, we don't know yet. it's difficult to predict how the defense argument will work. we haven't seen the discovery yet and the kind of defendants that will be involved. they are talking about the first amendment discussion but that

will not work under these statutes. host: from the washington times -- duane is calling from jamaica, queens new york on the independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. you mentioned the two tiered justice system. trump is in a good position. he has millions of dollars being supported by his supporters. a person like me, i couldn't afford what he's going through. all the tax dollars we have been putting in to go after this guy, he is not going to give up. trump wants to stay out of jail. he doesn't want to go to jail. he is so privileged that he needs to do what he needs to do for his people, meaning his supporters and they are so confused. i'm confused at times with trump. he has done this country a

disservice and now we will be claim to the television all day long about this hearing. i understand he is the former president but he will not give up. thank you for taking my call. guest: i think trump is in the best position he can be to face these charges. he has got a leadership committee, his presidential bid, he's got his lawyers on these federal cases and leadership super pac. he probably got tens of millions still left. to fight these charges in its troop compared to other political officials, he's in a better position. someone like jeff clark, the former justice department official who is probably one of the co-conspirators in the indictment, jeff clark will not have the same resources donald trump has. yet he might be hit with the same charge.

in that sense, there is an inherent in equity because donald trump is running for president. host: the caller mentioned how much money the former president is spending on defense, i think $20 million was thrown around from his political action committee? how much more is he expected to spend and at what point does that interview with dez interfere with the fundraising for his campaign? guest: i checked in with people close to trump yesterday and they don't think it will be an issue going forward. they've restructured the way they are spending their retainers. one lawyer was making close to $90,000 per month. that has been brought back and spending is being restrained potentially to stay in for the long haul. host: let's go to macon, georgia, democrat line. you are on the air. caller: yes, i just wonder why human beings cannot see the

forest for the trees. i don't understand that. where is his family? i haven't seen one person defending him. if that was my father up there accused of all of that, i would follow him all the way to the jailhouse. it just doesn't make any sense. they always talk about hunter biden. i heard somebody accuse obama. obama was like he could walk on water as a human being. when i was a little girl in school, i would dish i could see the teachers that would commit anything. you could just see them out, you

know. where is his family, where is his family? host: the rest of the trump family in any of these cases? guest: the trump organization is his family. his family is not been mentioned in these indictments at all. they have not made mention but there is a passing reference to melania trump in relation to one of the codefendants hauling the boxes around which is interesting given how much focus the january 6 committee when they hold that hearing based on trump's own family and their testimony and think about ivanka trump's discussion about how she believes bill barr said there is no evidence of election fraud that would've changed the result of the election. when you talk about jared

kushner and talk about i wasn't really there. he is trying to put some distance away from january 6. i wonder when it gets to trial that this is where you will see the transcription testimonies come out and illustrate the point that even trump some family -- own family did not believe this. host: there were more serious charges in the mar-a-lago case. are more charges likely in this case related to january 6? guest: it's possible i may know that the grand jury and d.c. has been hearing evidence about potential fraud with respect to the save america pack and how they were fundraising and they want to stand up a legal defense fund and they got the money and didn't use it and didn't pay lawyers. we note there are further interviews scheduled with the counsel's office with -- with rick -- with witnesses that will talk about that. host: the grand jury that handed

down the indictments, they are still in panel and their work is not yet done? guest: that's actually pretty common in these cases. they will hand down indictments and then there will be continued investigations afterwards. you cannot use a grand jury to continue to investigate. there has to be a goal oriented purpose. you sit earlier the indictment was worded in a way that they just wanted to get an indictment out fast. maybe it is based on the political schedule but it's possible you will see more indictments and especially more superseding charges. host: going back to your chart in the guardian, where do you see this trial fitting potentially? guest: it's becoming a very crowded trial schedule for trump. i think the judges will have to figure out and call each other up and figure out where they can fit in these pretrial motions.

maybe it's spring 2024. because you don't have a restriction here, we expect the trial to go farther. host: let's hear from dawn in montana on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was wondering how one american news had people justifying about fraud in the elections? there must be tapes available about pulling ballots out from under the table, recounting, a truck load of ballots all across state lines.

all kinds of testimony under oath. why haven't they brought that out as it pertains to a corrupt election? by the way, i am a gutless republican, thank you. host: the dykman directly addressed -- the indictment directly addresses fraud. guest: even further back, the department of justice immediately after the election looked into some of these claims. it was to maybe play create trump and both of the instances which the caller mentioned were debunked, the thing about putting ballots on the table, that was not the case in georgia. also the korean air cargo plane, they looked at bamboo strands in

ballots. as reporters, we talked to people who were involved in that aspect and they said they did not find any bamboo strains or anything to suggest they came from a courier. many of these have been investigated and many have been debunked. host: next is charlene from texas, good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say that it's funny that the republicans are really upset about hunter biden but when it comes to trump, they are afraid of the fbi. they were domestic terrorists. america is the largest maker of terrorists abroad and at home. it's just what they do. what they did is terrible for democracy. i think if we had kamala harris

and kevin and get the both sides together and get their heads together, they could do something but they won't. democracy will probably die but we are in a new world. we could have a president may or may not be going to jail. he could be president in jail. we need to understand this is breaking territory, we don't know what's going to happen. it will be fun to watch along the way. host: bold new territory here? guest: i think that's right. i don't know if we will be in a situation where we will have a president who is in jail. if trump wins the election, winning the election from a jail cell is impossible because there's a legal counsel memo that said presidents may not be impeded in the institution of their office. that won't happen but it's true that we may be in a situation

where this time next year and before the election, if trump is convicted on these january 6/interference charges, he may be a convicted defendant looking at possible jail time as he goes into the election which only raises the stakes for everyone. host: this is ulysses in kansas city, missouri, democrats line. caller: good morning. concerning the commitment of the followers and whether there is any concern there could be a commitment or endangerment such as jury nullification to disregard the facts? what, if any processes are in place for the jurors to address that? i guess judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

it seems that people are now saying maybe it won't happen. that's my question. guest: jury selection, jurors take this seriously and we've seen this repeatedly in cases in the january 6 cases and related cases. steve bannon's case when he was indicted for contempt of congress and you really get a diverse set of jurors. there are ways for the prosecution and defense to strike people with conflicts but judge chutkon has given narrow jury instructions and these statutes are not difficult to acquit or find a decision either way. the language is very straightforward. we will have a definition of the

benefits by the time this goes to trial. host: do you think the trump legal t-mobile push for -- that the trump legal team will push for a change of venue? guest: it's possible because they may find a way to delay this further. it would not be out of the realm of possibility. i don't think there's any way that will succeed. the crime took place in d.c. and it will be tried in d.c.. host: we know you have a busy day and we thank you for your reporting in the guardian. he is the political investigations reporte