realizing the severity of the situation, white house counsel pat cipollone rush to mark meadows, the now. and mark looked up at him and said, he does not want to do anything, pat. >> it is over! you better run, cops! >> right as the violence surged, trump tweeted, mike pence did not have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution. mize was the last thing that was really needed in that moment. it pretty much painted a target on the vice president's back by tweeting that out. >> hang mike pence! hang mike pence! >> i remember pat say something to the effect of, mark, we need to do something more. they are literally calling for the vice president to be -- hung . and mark had responded something to the effect of, you heard him, pat. he thinks mike deserves it. >> working in communications for president trump, i was very aware of just the impact that his words have on his supporters. that sweet tweet suggested to them that what they were doing at the capitol was okay, and that they were justified in their violence. and that it was vice preside

their march to the capitol. >> we're taking this country back. >> had white house lawyers such as pat cipolloney crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. >> but nobody could change trump's mind. and as he, family, and aides arrived at the rally, his chief of staff, mark meadows, was keeping the president's hopes alive. >> prior to mr. trump taking the stage that morning, he was under the impression via mr. meadows that it was still possible. >> at the rally the president had a more immediate familiar concern, crowd size. >> when we were in the off stage announce area tent behind the stage, he was very concerned about the shot. >> usa! usa! >> for the pictures that were shared, he wanted to make sure that the rally space was full. so he's being told it's not that people are waiting to get through these mags, through these metal detectors, people don't want to go through them because they have weapons with them. >> during the hearings, the select committee showed a secret service report that quote, some members of the crowd are wearing ballistic helmets, body armor and carrying radio equ

[laughter] they also played testimony of white house counsel pat cipollone, showing just how much heried to get the president to act. >> did you continue mr. cipollone, throughout the period of time up until 4:17, continue, you and others, to push for a stronger statement? >> yes. >> were you joined in that effort by ivanka trump? >> yes. >> eric herschmann? >> yes. >> mark meadows? >> yes. >> stephen: is the president guilty? >> yes. >> stephen: is a hotdog a sandwich? >> yes. who's your favorite '70s group. >> yes.. >> s stephen: wawas every s sine person i in the whitite house or than the p president h horrifiey hihis criminalal coup attetempt? [screamingng] >>>> yes! yes! yes! yes! yes! [cheers and applause] >> stephen: even though advisors wanted him to make a public address, they knew it would come with a couple of risks. >> president trump's advisors knew his state of mind at the moment and they were worried about what he would say in unscripted comments. >> stephen: yes, they were worried he would walk up to the podium in the press room and start jazz scatting, hang mike penc

we did not know that pat cipollone had asked that. i didn't know.ave much direct communication with the white house. once the riots began, the vice president was in the basement, the loading dock, and he was working with general millito make sure the national guard was deployed. he was working with senators mcconnell, schumer, pelosi and others to make sure everybody was safe. he met with the police chief to make sure the building was secure. our focus wasn't what was happening on the other ends of pennsylvania avenue, it was securing the capitol. >> there was a question whether you could get back on the white house grounds because there was so much anger at your direction coming from the west wing. >> you know, actually, when that night ended at 5 a.m. i went back to the white house, went back into my office. there was plenty of stories that i had had my credentials taken away because of the counsel i had provided to the vice president. >> which is he could not legally do what he could not do. >> they were making the argument after this indictment

very sound serious respected attorneys across the board gave him the same advice, pat philbin, pat cipollonend decided to bring in actively sought out bad counsel from bad faith actors. >> who by the way had no skin in the game who were just free-floating organisms that showed up. >> correct. you do recall -- >> with the people employed by the white house, by the department of justice who had responsibilities -- >> right. these were being paid directly and maybe not even paid by him. you'll recall on election night rudy giuliani saying just go out and say you win -- you won. these are not good faith actors so i think that's going to be a hard thing to convey but i mean, listen, he will throw every one of those attorneys under the bus to protect himself and stay out of jamie. >> they're all active mes of the bar or at least they were at some point, right, when they're giving advice and, you know, he picked -- he picked his counsel there. he was given advice by lots of people. i know when i spoke to the president after the election and i said that he lost, he said, i'm not so sure i lost and t

pat cipollone, his white house counsel knows. pat philbin the deputy white house counsel. really constitutionalist and many other people told themselves that will not. i don't even think the judge is going to let that make the argument. to the jury. it is so far out side. >> do you agree? >> advice of counsel's a little bit in that because trump wants to argue that is not my fault. i had no say, i was relying on my lawyers. that is what makes the naming of those, will not be naming. the discovery of the identity of those coconspirators so intriguing. they are all lawyers. and one aspect of this is maybe smith is in big hurry up mode. can completely finish everything. but the other offensive strategic point is that it takes those people off the table. it is very hard to decide to go and testify in favor of the defense if your name as a conspirator. it's a fifth amendment concerned at that point. >> the idea of, can you walk past every road that says common sense, common sense. obvious, obvious. and go, you know what, i like this one over. here that is what you would essenti

on january 4th, trump had asked the white house counsel, pat cipollone, to deliberately not attend that feel the need to take notes after that meeting? >> i think he took some notes, the reality is that it wasn't specific that, meeting and those notes were subpoenaed by special counsel, so it was part of the testimony that he gave. but, i think that that particular meeting was obviously incredibly important because it was in that meeting that the president was asking the vice president to throw out the electors. and then, subsequently, there came a strategy to say, well, haven't we just returned to the states. >> neither of which were -- neither voyage at 250 years of our republic, neither of which any vice president has done, nor, should i say caitlin, which any republican would have that authority in 2024. so many of us who had concerns initially about the election of 2020, to believe that some of the state laws were changed in appropriately. the reality is that there is no evidence that supported the notion that any of that fraud would overturn the results of any of the states. >> it

from these individuals, like the former vice president mike pence and the white house attorney pat cipolloneo ask you precisely about the former vice president. how key do you think his testimony could be in a possible trial? i his testimony could be in a possible trial?— possible trial? i think his testimony _ possible trial? i think his testimony is _ possible trial? i think his testimony is going - possible trial? i think his testimony is going to - possible trial? i think his testimony is going to be | possible trial? i think his - testimony is going to be very critical in a trial. and in fact, the tidbit that was in the indictment where he had taken contemporaneous notes and said that the president said to him when he was pressuring him to do something that wasn't constitutional, you know, the president complained, "you're too honest" and i think the vice president should wear that with a badge of honour, the former president would say he is too honest. but that indicates that the president knew what he was asking the vice president to do. could have been a legal or had been dishonest.

person of sidney powell, mike flynn, patrick burns sitting in the oval office and team normal, pat cipolloneont of the president and arguing. this is likely going to be in jack smith's case, even though it's not referenced in the indictment, likely to be dramatically developed. the way the indictment reads, it suggests that co-conspirator 20 is a conspirator, shares the agreement with the president to share the transfer of t issue ae voting machines, suggesting that there's some foreign interference that would justify that or appoint sydney powell as special counsel to investigating voter -- i don't know if that person has to have cooperated. it could be he or she, probably he, has been identified and has been named by other witnesses and the d.a. has decided you can't charge every single person involved in the conspiracy. that would be too wieldy. she's narrowed it to 19. some say that's too much. just because someone is named as a conspirator doesn't mean he or she is cooperating. could be, though not absolutely certain. >> all right. up next for us, no one's going anywhere, a conservative

and pat cipollone telling the president he was wrong. >> obviously, you'd like to think as white housedvice you give to the president of the united states that advice would be heeded but of course at the end of the day from my perspective it's the department of justice and the attorney general that has the final word as to what is lawful and what is unlawful. with respect to environmental lawyer being in chain of command there are protocols within each department and agency in terms of chain of command the environmental lawyer is way, way down in the chain of command at the department of justice, it would have been extremely unusual. >> potentially illegal? >> not a question of illegal the president of the united states can consult with anyone he wants in regards to legal advice. but it would highly be irregular. you never know who the president consults in terms of legal advice. it would be unknown precedence. >> former attorney general alberto gonzalez >>> new reporting that details how conversations between trump and his then-vice president pence, multiple conversations provided key

pat cipollone. why is that?f them rejected as crazy town the allegation that there was any fraud that would change the outcome in georgia, or anywhere else. >> my goodness, this thing is only getting harry or by the day. caroline, phil rucker, i will because you're getting ready for another book because it will be a juicy. one when we come back, let's take a deep breath on this one, hate fueled violence yet again. is at the center of another shooting in america. all of it on the heels of some of the most important days and black history. we will get to it all when the 11th hour continues. >> the jacksonville community is grieving tonight. after three people were shot and killed in an act of racist violence. gabe gutierrez has more. >> before the gunmen, seen here on surveillance video, walked into a dollar general store in jacksonville saturday. and killed three people. tonight police releasing new images of the moment at the university. that's when a group of students flagged down a campus security officer. lie

the vice president pat cipollone. they have gotten some additional corroborative information that provides important context and manifestations of the president's state of mind. but core conduct is what we said worth in our report in our hearings. >> obviously you refer to pence. i know you all didn't have a chance to interview him. so obviously the there is some information from that. i'm also curious, because look, 45 pages. he knows he has a lot of information he didn't include. you know you've got to make choices. how much -- paula reid was referring to this question. how much do you think he is holding back. do you think there are some real gems he is holding back, but really crucial pieces of information or no? >> yeah, potentially. again, i don't think he is holding back anything, any part of the core conduct. >> okay. >> i think he has laid out the three objectives of a cone spirs and essentially sketched out the pattern that he is going to prove. i'm certain that he has left out some details, some specific co

the indictment said charges several people close to trump including former white house lawyer pat cipollone and his deputy. do you think they're gonna testify? >> i don't think they're gonna have much choice. in if they already testified before the grand jury, i'm not a lawyer but i have to admit, they've already testified for the grand jury is not gonna be much of a case to avoid testifying in front of a trial. mike pence has already indicated that though he doesn't and i think you're gonna have to re-issue these coconspirators, the six unnamed coconspirators, i think we know most of them, through the circumstances are they going to be charged with gonna be witnesses? are they going to cooperate or not? we've taught in this program before about mark meadows the former chief of staff, so i think that's an open question who testifies and who doesn't. i think it's gonna be hard to avoid testifying most of these instances. >> luke, donald trump attacks mike pence regularly. once we start hearing about more witnesses, do you see him putting something together, like nixon's enemy list on social

why wasn't pat cipollone? volved? why wasn't doj? volved?nstead mark recruited lawyers who he wanted to listen to. >> that's the former chief of staff for vice president mike pence weighing in on testimony from mark meadows, donald trump's former chief of staff, who spent hours on the witness stand yesterday in georgia. and that comes as a date is now set for donal

white house counsel pat cipollone called trump to, quote, ask him to withdraw any objections and allows rudy giuliani was on the phone with republican senators encouraging them to contest election results and the prosecutors allege that allegation confirms more specific detail what cipollone told the house january 6th committee. let's play that. >> if your question is, did i belief he should concede the election at a point in time, yes, i did. >> with us now is one of two republicans who served on the house january 6th committee, adam kinzinger, thank you for being with us. you spent so many months, so much detailed work and credit to you guys for pushing a lot of this forward. i wonder what you read in this indictment, what stood out to you that you didn't know. >> well, not a ton i didn't know. our committee was able to get down to the bottom of a lot of this. i think bringing out the unindicted co-conspirators is very interesting. that, to me, is interesting to see. some of these people, i think that doj was able to talk to, of course, people that resisted the committee. so there wi

so people like pat cipollone who asserted privileges, would be rudy giuliani similarly testifying buterting privileges. the other big unknown here is the steve bannon, roger stone, the potential connection between the folks on the ground, the oath keepers and the proud boys and the white house. we candidly did not establish that direct connection. there was some communications, but the sort of linchpins of that potential communication may very well be the folks like steve bannon and roger stone and mike flynn who were in direct communication with folks on the ground. and in direct communication with the president, mark meadows and folks in the white house. that connection would be very, very interesting, and it is not something candidly we were able to break. that get me to my last point to go back to the discussion that ari was having with harry about charges. seditious conspiracy is a charge that -- not jack smith, but the department of justice has used against the folks on the ground. that requires intent that force be used. it requires there to be knowledge of an intent to use for

specifically told him, and that includes pence, the attorney general bill barr, and it includes pat cipollonel, and seven other people, and you go through the governor of arizona, the governor of michigan, sitting court justice in wisconsin. a jury can sit here and say, oh, this is what trump says. here is sworn testimony from ten people saying, oh, now, i told him that is wrong. the prima facie case of dishonesty we'll be right there for the jury to see. >> i agree with you that first charge is the simplest and clearest thing that donald trump is accused of. i want to read, for the audience, how it was presented. the second or third page of the indictment, it says, from honor about november 14th, 2020, through honor about january 20th, 2021, the district of columbia, and elsewhere, the defendant, donald j trump, did, knowingly, combine conspire, confederate, and agree with coconspirators known and unknown to the gradually to defraud the united states by using dishonesty, fraud, and deceit, to impair, obstruct, and defeat the lawful, federal government functioned by which the results of presi

i think pat cipollone as given to information beyond what he told us. i think that there are people who have had their contact with the president about his resistance to issuing any kind of statement discouraging violence during the riots. some of that is likely from new witnesses or witnesses that did not provide that information to the select committee. but the essential facts, the core facts, the intentional, methodical multi part plan to disrupt the joint session was exactly what we've laid out. again, it reinforces, lawrence, the facts are what matter. not lawyers. we talked a lot and spent a lot about lawyers processes, but the facts is what really wins or loses cases, winds for any investigation, congressional or otherwise. the facts here are really compelling. they are really discouraging, and it will not play out in the court of law. the president will have a chance to challenge them, to hold the government to it's a properly high burden of proof, that is where this belongs, but against the facts are what are merely striking to me, much more so

you played the clip earlier of pat cipollone saying essentially where are the facts.inary proceeding where they said where are the facts to show that you should not be disbarred for making these claims. it didn't appear there. it didn't appear in any of the over 60 cases in court. so it is notable to me that donald trump is trying to do this in a form where there's no cross-examination. there's no jury. it's going to be completely one sided. and to neil's point, as if this really is the case, make a forum where there actually is accountability. there is actually a testing of what you have to say. >> neil, donald trump's team tried to get the manhattan d.a.'s case moved to federal court. it failed. could he get this one moved to federal court? >> he's certainly going to try but i think there's three problems with it. it's true there's a federal statute passed after the civil war that allowed some state cases to be moved to federal court and i have no doubt that trump is going to want that if for no other reason than federal courts generally don't have cameras absent fr

why wasn't pat cipollone? volved? why wasn't doj? volved? instead mark recruited lawyers who he wanted to listen to. >> that's the former chief of staff for vice president mike pence weighing in on testimony from mark meadows, donald trump's former chief of staff, who spent hours on the witness stand yesterday in georgia. and that comes as a date is now set for donald trump's federal election interference trial. we'll have legal analysis on both of these big developments in just a moment. >>> plus new polling on president joe biden's re-election bid and the major concern that most americans have about a possible second term. >>> good morning and welcome to "way too early" on this tuesday, august 29th. i'm jonathan lemire. thanks for starting your day with us. we'll begin this morning with a decision that sent waves through the nation's capitol yesterday, a start date for donald trump's federal election interference trial. in washington, d.c. district court judge tanya chutkan ordered jury selection to begin on march 4th of next year, just on

indictment it says trump was ignoring your advice, that of other senior justice department officials, pat cipollone, the white house council, the director of national intelligence. is it a credible defense to say he was listening to john eastman? >> i don't think that dog is going to hunt, as you say. first as to people who had some knowledge of whether or not there was fraud, everyone was telling him that the election was not stolen by fraud. and then as to the issue of what he could do legally at that point, he went through all the lawyer -- he wouldn't listen to all the lawyers in the department -- in various departments or the white house that had those responsibilities or his campaign. he would search for a lawyer who would give him the advice he wanted. but i'm not even sure you would characterize what eastman said as advice. it will be interesting to see, but i interpret some of what he was saying essentially was well, you know, it's unclear here, and you can make this argument. i'm not saying the courts would accept it, and so forth. and you act on that at your own hazard. also, i don't thi

and as i understand it, president trump kind of joked that this is the first time pat cipollone and rudyi agreed on something, so, you know -- >> is there documentation of that? >> i don't know if there is any written document, but there are multiple eyewitnesss to that. that's the meeting where at the end of it, she was barred from the white house, along with mike flynn and patrick burn. >> and let me just quickly tie up something, i'm not an attorney, don't play one on tv, you left something hanging out there about mr. kerik, for police commissioner of new york city who served time on a completely unrelated charge, is there any chance he is cooperating? >> he is being cooperative. he does not have any criminal exposure himself. so it is not like he needs a cooperation agreement. but he is providing information to the special counsel as he will provide information to the defense team relevant to both of their cases to ensure what is presented in court is the full and honest information about what happened during that period of time. so i would say, you know, cooperating is kind of a loa

when pat cipollone, white house here is p person w had b house, that was donald trump. indictone the other thing is, he made a missions that he had lost, he said to aides, how can you believe i lost to this guy? and he asked mike pence on meters day to reject the certification and he then said you are too honest. that is a person who has a guilty mind and knows that he lost the election. >> by the way pence is now marketing on that as part of his memorabilia, campaign that he is doing, but th are just m>> let me ju ou b 20 and stil so anyone say >> you meaor s >> well, here' to his li foa long i am salivating bec one of includ all includ all inclu miller, the want to go you on you on m that havoc on>> if he i bit acost>> people al w aid donald trump knew that he lost tand what he was doing, from that point forward was trying to orchestrate an administrative or procedural coup. and what led up to january six and ended up being almost a coup unfolding before our eyes. i mean, i talked to a white house adviser who said yes he understands he lost, he will sometimes grumble

why wasn't pat cipollone and the doj involved.ted outside lawyers who he wanted to listen to. i think that undercuts the notion that this is all part of my federal responsibility if i'm not getting counsel from the people hired in your office to serve the white house in that role. >> in the center of the case is the call with georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger. mark meadows said that call was to get over the roadblock and land the plane on the whole transfer of power to joe biden. what do you make of that explanation? >> again, i think the vice president at that point was focused more on travelling the country and trying to get states to reopen after much of the threat of covid was behind us. we weren't involved as what's happened in georgia. as i said many times, i think the actions taken were wrong. i don't think there was evidence of fraud or that the georgia election was stolen. to call on raffensperger to find 11,000 votes i think is going to be a pretty challenging defense for them. >> do you think meadows in that

i think pat cipollone as given to information beyond what he told us. i think that there are people who have had their contact with the president about his resistance to issuing any kind of statement discouraging violence during the riots. some of that is likely from new witnesses or witnesses that did not provide that information to the select committee. but the essential facts, the core facts, the intentional, methodical multi part plan to disrupt the joint session was exactly what we've laid out. again, it reinforces, lawrence, the facts are what matter. not lawyers. we talked a lot and spent a lot about lawyers processes, but the facts is what really wins or loses cases, winds for any investigation, congressional or otherwise. the facts here are really compelling. they are really discouraging, and it will not play out in the court of law. the president will have a chance to challenge them, to hold the government to it's a properly high burden of proof, that is where this belongs, but against the facts are what are merely striking to me, much more so

pat cipollone. why is that?own the allegation that there was any fraud that would change the outcome in georgia, or anywhere else. the outcome in>> my goodness, ts only getting harry or by the day. caroline, phil rucker, i will because you're getting ready for another book because it will be a juicy. one when we come back, let's take a deep breath on this one, hate fueled violence yet again. is at the center of another shooting in america. all of it on the heels of some of the most important days and black history. we will get to it all when the 11th hour continues. th hour continues. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ get it with gurus. cargurus. this is your summer to smile. to raise your glass and reconnect. to reel in the fun and serve up great times. to help you get ready your aspen dental team is celebrating 25 years of affordable care with an epic summer of smiles event. right now, new patients without insurance get a free full exam and x-rays. plus, everyone can get 20% off their treatment plan. but hurry, because while these su

pat cipollone asking him to stand down on the election, rejecting certifying the votes part.act that there are six unindicted coconspirators here who could very soon become conceived indicted coconspirators. those indictments could shed a lot of light on what they are also doing behind the scenes. >> that's right and to be clear, we have not named these people and we do not know that they will face charges, but the way we've seen jack smith do these indictments so far as he starts out with a certain piece and then he expands. we saw him expand in the documents case last week with the superseding indictment and a new codefendant for trump who works for him. you are seeing in this bra around trump's world how many people this indictment touches on. i think that always creates a sense of in anxiety for trump because as i said before likes to project control and have control so much. >> what about mark meadows? the idea that he is not mentioned here in this indictment. obviously there has been suspicion in trump world that he was cooperating with the special counsel's team. what

i'm worried about what's coing my way but i also think it's worth noting that the lawyers like pat cipollonehat went into that room and beat back the idea of doj sending that letter, that beat back the idea of some of these things or of some of the things that were ongoing -- you know, hearing a meeting was taking place and jumping into that meeting that's the right thing to do as a government lawyer. their job is not to represent the president in his individual capacity and what he was going to do with an election. their job is to protect the institution of the president and i represent the institution of the presidency, and that's what they were doing, meaning the folks who were white house lawyers at the time. >> yeah. copy. john lauro represents the president now, as does the gentleman mr. kajeweski represents one of the trump fans who based on what they were asked to do went into the elector fraud. i mention both lawyers because they have for whatever reason interlocking defense, which is, hey, we didn't mean it. it's not really fraud if we were kind of just playing around. take a liste

other members of the justice department, but he was told that by his white house counsel as well, pat cipollone indictment in four jurisdictions today, and he wouldn't be putting the country through this. he's not doing this for us. he is doing this because he can't help himself, and i think the first smart decision he's made in this regard in a long time was canceling that ridiculous press conference monday where he was going to unveil evidence to us he's apparently been hiding from the american people for nearly three years. i don't think so. i think it would have been another junior show of "the apprentice" we would have been watching on television. >> responding to the desantis campaign attack on you, auditioning as an msnbc show, there'sing there polling. quinnipiac says 32% of democrats have a favorable view of you versus 17% of republicans, and you're the most favored republican in another poll among democratic voters. that's great for general but is it out of step with where the republican primary electorate is? >> look, poppy, i had no question about the fact that when you want to tell

. >> remember how eye-popping that testimony "pat" cipollon was? won the january six committee initially got kicked off its investigation, mark meadows complied. he handed over more than 6000 pages of documents and communications it. seemed he was participating. but then, he probably did not a one 80. he said she's -- refusing to testify before the committee. meadows then went basically radio silent for a long time. we did not know what he was up to. he just as special counsel jack smith federal investigation began to lead up, leading to rampant speculation both amongst trump's inner circle and as well as many legal experts that he was cooperating with smith's office and that was why he was so quiet. his refusal to comment about anything also -- a speculation. >> how you testified before the grand jury? >> i don't talk about anything [inaudible] >> do you feel that it's appropriate the investigation? >> in august, meadows was not indicted in jack smith's federal case and he wasn't named as an unindicted coconspirator either. but, meadows was indict

why wasn't pat cipollone involved? outside lawyers who he wanted to listen to. and so i think that undercuts the notion that this was all part of my federal responsibility if i'm not getting counsel from the people hired into your white house to serve in that role. >> jennifer, what do you make of that argument? >> i agree. there are kind of two rebuttal arguments here. he wasn't actually doing the job. he was going outside of it. and then there is a little issue as well. i think the judge is just going to have to sort through all of this and decide whether he was acting within the scope or whether he overstepped the bounds. and i think there are decent arguments on both sides, but ultimately the better arguments are on the prosecutor's side here. >> elie, what did you make of what marc short told me? >> i think it was a good point. it's one thing for mark meadows to say just sort of generally what i was doing was within the scope of being chief of staff. but when he was confronted on the stand yesterday with specific

i think pat cipollone has given some additional information that he stopped short of providing to us, this is all because jack smith has the ability, because this is a criminal proceeding, to go immediately upstairs to the chief judge of the district court that is supervising the grand jury, and get rulings on privilege issues. we did not have that ability. congress does not have the same rules congressional oversight doesn't have the same rules as a criminal grandeur, ems by for us, it was civil litigation, which lawyers knew would not run its course before it expired. so, he's using that power to get more information and again, likely adding really important new details to the core story that we set forward. >> in a broad sense, was there anything, i guess, that surprise you about the indictment? i mean, the information you didn't expect to see, for example? perhaps this charge that we have talked about, this kkk charge that i don't believe was one of the recommended charges from the january 6th committee. >> no, i can't say anything surprised me. there was a menu of statutes that c

that's pat cipollone and his team, and they were pushing very hard against all these things.he work of the people of the united states in pushing against those things. >> the white house counsel's office. >> yeah, the white house counsel's office. you know these folks, people around donald trump. what do you say to the defendants? >> they have been alleged to have committed serious crimes here, right? the fact that they're being brought in, no shock they have to go through the same processing and everyone else goes through. they're going to go through an arraignment. they're going to file motions. they're going to try to take some of the cases. they're going to try to break them off. we've seen some of that already. but i do think that it's not a proud day for that administration to have this happen today in georgia just like the other indictments, right? >> mm-hmm. >> and granted it's alleged activity. innocent until proven guilty. but the chief of staff to the president of the united states was indicted. the president of the united states indicted. and a bunch of his lawyer

were trump supporting conservative republicans like boba, like the former white house counsel, pat cipollone. you live in georgia, i don't think governor kemp or lieutenant duncan, or raffensperger i don't think there is a chance in heck with that if there had been evidence of fraud, and otherwise that would've swung the election to donald trump that they would not have embraced it, and stood by donald trump. every single one of them. >> i think you're right but we talked about this earlier, you do remember that they changed the election laws in 2021 after the 2020 election under the guise that there were some irregularities and things and it be fixed. change in place for drop boxes, people that they're with absentee ballots, they try to capitalize on this idea. and now suddenly it appears that they've grown a conscience. if you think about this indictment and i step back sometime from the case, because i think that lori's have to think about how to lose even if the motion is coming on monday. 154 of the 187 at acts that are alleging this and i made a good while he was as a president of the

trump supporting conservative republicans like bill barr, like the former white house counsel pat cipollone. you live in georgia i don't think governor kemp or lieutenant governor duncan or secretary of state raffensperger, i don't think there's a chance in hell that if there had been evidence of fraud and otherwise that would have swung the election to donald trump, that they wouldn't have embraced it and stood by donald trump, every single one of them. >> i think you're right, but i do -- we talked about this earlier. you do remember they did change the election laws in 2021 after the 2020 election under the guise there were some igregularities and things they needed to fix, changing places for drop boxes, changing who could deal with absentee ballots. they tried to capitalize and play on this idea, and now suddenly it appears they've grown a conscience. if you think about this indictment, and i kind of step back sometimes from the case because i do think that lawyers need to think about how to lose and even before the coming motion on monday and the federal judge will hear this. 154 of t

. >> pat cipollone didn't get that and they're two star witnesses into the coup that they're chargedlping to make happen. >> richard donohue, there are tons of lawyers who didn't get charged with crimes and only the lawyers that helped trump carry out the crimes. can you talk about how dangerous it is to suggest that lawyers are now being targeted in an unprecedented way? >> yeah, rudy is right. it's no accident that trump's lawyers are being targeted. it's because he picked not lawyers, he picked henchmen to help the coup. we have that decided in d.c. with the federal judge who said attorney-client privilege should be purist with respect to the stolen documents investigation because these attorneys were in on the helping and that's what's happening right now with, for example, john eastman or jeff clark. these are not people zealously advocating for their client. that's what eastman said i was zealously advocating for my client. no, they filed 62 lawsuits and lost them all. that's lawful means. they were trying to go outside of the courts. we lost 62 times all of the way up to the u

when this evidence plays out on television in a courtroom, in atlanta, it will be bill barr and pat cipollone and mike pence. people that worked very hard for the president that wanted him to win. it will be very hard for him to creditably make the narrative that this is all a witch hunt. this is all manufactured. that this is all politically motivated, when the people speaking, the people providing the evidence on which that case is based are all close allies of his. i think it underscores his strategy here which is, barb mcquaid has said repeatedly on your show and others, it is a political strategy. not a legal one. >> right. >> his defense here is one of public relations and an attempt to stall until he potentially is reelected as president. it is not a legal defense. it will be very difficult for him to mount a credible legal defense. >> one more question and then i want to bring the others in. even the strategy of severing his case from the others, the evidence is the same. they're charged as a criminal conspiracy. a criminal enterprise. they're all charged with by and large the same st

were to have one or both of them testify, there is, as you say, this problem of literally keeping pat cipollone out of the room. that's not how you behave if you're trying to get to a good faith answer as to what the law is. you would have all the relevant people in the room. let's just think about how george bush or barack obama would have handled this situation where lawyers disagreed. you wouldn't go shopping and exclude the people whose advice, including your own white house counsel, were giving you. there's just a lot of factual problems with even the sliver of the allegations for which there is some reason to think there is legal advice that would not constitute advice of counsel. >> frank, thank you for your patience. let me get your thoughts on a few other aspects of the indictment, specifically trump's comments over the last few days. we talked about this many times. january 6th, even by the fbi's own definition considered a domestic terror attack. we now have the man who incited that attack facing accountability while continuing to spew violent rhetoric against law and order officials

why wasn't pat cipollone involved or doj involved? instead mark recruited outside lawyers who he wanted to listen to. >> and so i rely on you, carol, as a veteran reporter, there was a time when the chief of staff to the president of the united states was the big office. they were not taking orders from other people. they were the one who was telling the president, this is out of line. can't do that. and to mark short's point, this is not mark meadow's business to be doing on his own. there is white house counsel and other people he could have relied upon. so it is interesting how he's trying to paint the whole picture of the mark meadows show trying to land the plane and keeping everybody in order doing my job. >> absolutely, ali. and what is interesting about the landing the plane statement is that while meadows testified in court the other day that he didn't necessarily believe all of the fraud allegations, but he felt like it was his job to be with the president, to figure out if some of them were true. what he was saying behind c

trump was being told by barr, other members of the justice department, and by white house counsel pat cipollonest-election period regarding interfering with the election results, that he was going to be involved with the criminal justice system for the rest of his life. now, that's a problem for donald trump in another way. he can't claim ignorance here. he can't claim he didn't know that he was treading on or over the line because his own lawyers in his own justice department and his own white house counsel were telling him you need to stop this, sir. because what's going to happen here is you're going to wind up in criminal are problems. he should have listened to his lawyers back then. and now what he should be doing is trying to cut the best plea deal that he can or otherwise he's going to be exposed to real criminal consequences over the course of the next year to two. >> final question, governor, why do you want to be president of the united states? >> joe, because i want our country to going back to doing big thing. we've become so small in the way we divide ourselves, pit ourselves get