Transcripts For MSNBCW All 20240704

President at the United States. The only person who could possibly have told jack smith and The Grand Jury about those phone calls is mike pence. The january Six Committee invited mike pence to testify, but he refused. The january Six Committee did not bother to issue a statement to mike pence since they knew he would ignore it, just as some other elected republicans ignored subpoenas from the committee. Mike pence could not ignore jack smiths subpoena. Mike pence went to court in what he knew was a legally hopeless attempt to block jacks mitt subpoena. Mike pence went to court to try to show trumps quarters, whose votes he wants in the president ial campaign to think that he was forced by Judicial Process to testify to jack smiths grand jury. Mike pence did not just testify to jack smiths grand jury. He became the star witness, and he will be the start witness when the case that the United States of america versus Donald J Trump is presented to a trial jersey in washington, d. C. They will be the first jurors in history to see a first former Vice President at the United States raise his right hand and take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the criminal defendant sitting in front of the jury, the former president of the United States. When the former Vice President is under oath on the Witness Stand, testifying against the former president , mike pence will deliver the testimony that he obviously delivered to The Grand Jury and is described for the first time in todays indictment. On december 25th, when the Vice President called the defendant to issue a merry christmas, the defendant quickly turned the conversation to january six in his request that the Vice President reject the electoral votes that they. The Vice President pushed back, telling the defendant as the Vice President already add in previous conversations, you know i dont think that i have the authority to change the outcome. Obviously, the Quotation Marks around that sentence mean that mike pence gave those words, exactly those words, to The Grand Jury under oath. And another private phone call that only mike pence was a witness to, on december 29th, the defendant falsely told the Vice President that the Justice Department was finding major infractions. And then came january 1st, new years day, the jury in the criminal trial of donald trump will hear mike pence testify, quote, on january one, the defendant called the Vice President and berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the constitution. The Vice President responded that he thought that there was no constitutional basis for such authority, and that it was improper. In response, the defendant told the Vice President , your two on us. That is going to be a very dramatic moment in this trial. That line, your two on us will be the headline in that days coverage of the trial. Your two on us from donald trump to mike pence. Well go a very long way, if not all the way, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that donald trump knew that he was lying about mike pences power to overturn the election. Throughout todays indictment, jack smith confidently writes he knew. Those words, he knew, appear applying to donald trump and the fact that jack smith believes that he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that donald trump knew that everything he was saying about the election in december and january was a lie. On page six, jack smith first to dump as prolific lies. Jack smith uses all republican witnesses in this indictment to prove that donald trump knew that everything he was saying about stolen votes or machine switching votes or dead people voting was a lie. If you are on a Donald Trumps Criminal Defense Lawyer sitting at home tonight, wondering how you are going to fight this evidence, you already know that you cant fight most, because the only person who can dispute with donald trump set in his phone calls, for example, with mike pence is donald trump. If donald trump wants to testify under oath in his own defense, then he can get on the Witness Stand and deny that he ever said that your two on us to mike pence. He can do that. But if donald trump gets on a Witness Stand on their oath, everything about every day of his public adult hood that we know about him tells us that he will commit perjury. He will lie under oath, he will leave the Witness Stand and commit more crimes on the Witness Stand, so now, no experienced legal observers expect donald trump to testify in his own defense at any of his trials. And what that means is for some of the accusations in todays indictment is that donald trump may have no apparent offense. Too many of these accusations. The indictment describes a donald trump crime spree officially begins according to the indictment on november 14th, one week after this network and every other News Organization called the election for joe biden. And ending after the january six attack on the capitol. The calendar day during that crime spree, which contains more criminal conduct described in that day, in dissent that meant than any other day is january six. The indictment, in effect, in its description that they hold them trump responsible for the attack on the capital. The indictment of donald trump responsible for doing nothing to stop the attack on the capital, while it was going on, and the indictment describes donald trump and his coconspirators, including rudy giuliani, continuing to commit crimes after the attack on the capital, when congress had returned to the building to complete the certification of the election, a very last criminal conduct described in the indictment occurs at 11 44 pm on january six, when one of Donald Trumps coconspirators, quote, him out the Vice President s counsel advocating that the Vice President violated the law and seek further delay of the certification. Coconspirator to row i implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation of the electoral count act and a jury for ten days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full of the a massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here. You will recall that the front man for that crime in the indicted state senate was senator cruz of texas, whos asking for an adjournment of ten days. That would have been a violation of law. And the Trump Coconspirator whos asking the Vice President s lawyer to do this is acknowledging that it would be a violation of the law, the coconspirator calls it relatively minor violation. It would have been the biggest constitutional crime in the history of the country if the Vice President had done that, but donald trump and is criminal coconspirators 11 44 pm on the night of january six, when the country finally came for the Certification Process was back on track and progressing smoothly, donald trump and his coconspirators were still. The man who almost never speaks spoke for the second time today in his role as a special prosecutor, when he laid out the criminal case against donald trump, he began with the last day of Donald Trumps crime spree. The attack on our Nations Capital on general sucks, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the sea of american democracy. Its described in the indictment and fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant, targeting and obstructing a Bedrock Function of the u. S. Government, and the nations process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the president ial election. The men and women of Law Enforcement we defended the u. S. Capitol on january six are heroes. They are patriots and The Very Best of us. They did not just defend a building with people sheltering in, they put their lives on the line to defend who we are a say country and a people. Leading off our discussion, Andrew Weissmann, former fbi counsel and chief of the Criminal Division at the eastern part of new york. He is a Practicing Professor at a law school and msnbc analysts. Also neal katyal, former Acting Attorney General and host of the podcast and tim heaphy, former u. S. Attorney who served as Lead Investigator for the january Six Committee. I know that i think for all of, us we have waves that discovery, as we go through this material, as we digest day over the ours, and neal katyal, i want to begin with you. What is your ten pm reaction having digested as much of this as we all have by now to what this indictment tells us . So, lawrence, i think people who watch cable tv, they hear a lot of exaggeration about how important something is or Something Like that, this is no exaggeration, this is a momentous legal event, the most significant legal event of our lifetimes, one of the most significant legal events ever in the history of the country, it is up there voices marbury versus medicine, versus education, dred scott is a defining case for the times, and it is so because this indictment is really meticulous and its detail, but its also really balanced and compelling and lays out a case that a guy who was president at the United States, while he was president of the United States, leverageds office, used his powers to door the will of the American People in the most solemn thing that they do in our country, which is for. To borrow your freeze earlier, this is the biggest constitutional crime in our history, whether or not it was successful in obtaining the cooperation of the ex president pence are not. He certainly tried. We cant leave aside everything about pants, pressuring seven states to change their votes and send fake electors, all the other shenanigans, this is not the behavior of anyone who should be anywhere near the in that states government, if the allegations are right. Of course, donald trump has the presumption of innocence. This is all going to be proved up in court, as jack smith said today, these are just allegations, but if they are right, boy, jack smith, no question, he had to do this. This is an indictment that had to be brought, and you hear trump going on his social media platform saying, this is the biden doj to is doing this because they are afraid of my ability to win the next election, that is there is not a phrase that says how focused that is that comes to mind. At least nothing that i can say on tv. I think the most important thing for our viewers to understand is that jack smith is not part of the biden doj. Hes an independent prosecutor. He is not political. Hes operating under Special Counsel regulations which give him independents, and i know that because i wrote those regulations when i was young Justice Department staffer. No one from the Biden Administration is telling jack smith what to do. These are jacks myths independent conclusions, independent conclusions that the be right. And here, what jack smith has done is continue the work of people like liz cheney on the january Six Committee, people like judge luttig, very conservative Court Circuit judge and many others who are set, the rule of law simple on this stuff. The will of the people govern elections. What you did, donald trump, was interfered with the. You tried to prevent one of the most solemn things that happen in our country every four years, the counting the votes, so its compelling, its detailed, and while jack smith has to prove this beyond reasonable doubt, the most difficult standard in the law, right now, i have feeling like if youre jack smith, air feeling really good about this indictment. Tim heaphy, jack smith is betting on the work that he did at the january Six Committee, what may be the most important work done by a Congressional Committee and Congressional Committee staff that you served on, because this is the first criminal referral that come of congress to the test is department about a president actually, its about the kind of got a president. Lets remember, all the conduct described here is conduct of donald trump while he is president at the United States. You see in this indictment things that this investigation was able to achieve what the january Six Committee could not. For example, mike pences testimony. What else do you see, tim heaphy, knowing that youve been in command at this evidence longer than any of us . Yeah, lawrence, thank you for the invitation. As i read the indictment, it sounded really familiar. It sounded pretty much like the aged 45page that we issued. It sounded very similar to vice chair cheneys Opening Statement in our first hearing in the spring of 2022, where she laid out a multi part intentional plan to prevent the certification at the election and to thwart democracy. There is not a lot of new information, this is a compelling story, and i will leave it to neal and others to put it into historical conduct s. But the facts have been compelling and out there for a long time. There are some things, as we mentioned, Vice President evident testimony about their communication that he had with the president that you have already articulated. That is important. 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 weve 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 its 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 than the words are timeframe but the process. Andrew weissmann, i want to give you the toughest job i think i can assign during this hour, consider the situation of donald trump Criminal Defense Lawyers looking at the indictment, looking for how the e defend against the charges in this indictment . So, if you look there is a clear answer to that, as what neal and tim have been talking about is the facts that are laid out in the indictment. Obviously, they need to be proved, and there is no question that the facts that are laid out, because that the huge variety of sources and the fact that amongst almost all of them, there are no motive. These are Donald Trumps own people who are saying this, but the Vice President being one of them. So the facts are going to be very hard to challenge. I also think its incredibly skillful done. They have avoided issues such as the First Amendment issue about incitement, really charged around that. They did not charge insurrections to try to avoid any claim of selective prosecution. They went with a charge that the d. C. Judges and the d. C. C. They did not charge insurrections to try to avoid any claim of selective prosecution. They went with a charge that the d. C. Judges and the d. C. Judge have now assigned to the case are very familiar with, obstruction. So its a very skillfully done. As one a d. C. Judge is said and the Special Counsel mueller investigation, the courts of law are or facts and lost no matter. Why do i say that . How does it relate to the question which is that the defense here is not actually going to be in a court of law. For people who are tethered to the facts and the law, its very hard to see how you challenge this. Even if you pick apart some but this, there is too much here. When i think about my own cases and think about the number and quality of what this is here, its just mindblowing when you think about how strong it is. The solution here is for the president , former president to be running on a should not care, you should elect me or an ally, and i will have a political solution to this. Remember, he is facing three current indictments for conduct that he committed before, during and after his presidency. In manhattan, it was crimes that started before and continued during his presidency. These are all crimes that happened at the end of his presidency, and maralago, the florida case and the crimes that he committed after his presidency. The only answer he has at the federal level today is that people should not care about the rule of law, at least as it applies to him. That is going to be the real test that the American People. It is going to be about a vote on whether the rule of law matters here because that is the only real solution to him given his criminal exposure. You are saying that a jury for him are the voters in the states in the Electoral College that he might be able to win to get a majority to become president to daenerys this case, which might presumably be in the appeals process by the time that you become president again. But you as a lawyer, you do not see where to begin on actual criminal Defense Tactics in the courtroom. You look at this and think is there a First Amendment challenge . This is not First Amendment protected activity. He may try to erase a divisive council defense. There are so many pieces in this that challenge that. There are council of his telling him that you lost the election. Yeah, so starting with the Attorney General at the United States, the Acting Attorney General at the United States, the Deputy Attorney general that the United States, the white house counsel, the Deputy White House counsel, you know what those people all have in common . Those are all republicans chosen by donald trump, with every enters to be completely candid with him. By the way, the indictment goes through chapter for us. Thats a small segment at the proof that will be presented. Again, this is not a factual issue in this case, and the law, especially, 15 12 and three 71, those are obstruction statutes, those are not controversial. Even minor things that could be raised will not be an issue in this case. This is such a core criminality. Weve seen in courts today have been really solid in striking down bogus claims to use a phrase from neil. I do think that what you have to do here in this bill with this politically, which is why this is going to be a test for us as a country, as to how we deal with this. Are we going to actually believe in the rule of law, because if you play this out in terms of if you care about the facts and the law, that the juries and the two jurisdictions do what they need to do and come up with the decision, one way or the other. But to me, it seems very very hard to imagine that a defendant could run one of these trials, let alone all. Three tim heaphy, we have all been doing our own readings at this indictment. The only name in is donald trump. Others are described as Coconspirator One and so forth. Some are described as being lawyers or chief of staff, for example. Mark meadows is referred to in their, at least one says chief of staff. You probably have a better reading than any of us about all of these characters in this indictment, who they are. So my question is, in my reading of it, i did not see a single democrat who would be called as a witness for the prosecution in this case. Every witness for the prosecution that i can identify in this indictment is a republican. Most of the republicans who worked for donald trump. Lawrence, and that again, very common in our investigation. In a conspiracy, the people would not of the conspiracy are insiders, right . People in the room where things have been, who witnessed conversations with the president for relevant offense. Everything that is alleged in that indictment took place in the Justice Department, in the white house, in state legislatures. These are official acts by officials, who as andrew said, were appointed by donald trump or who were elected by people in their respective states, so they will be very hard for a defense in this case if there is a trial to pay these witnesses as partisans are motivated by a bias against the man who appointed them. Again, that is what a conspiracy is. What you want as a prosecutor in a conspiracy is sort of a camera on the, wall and that comes from people who are involved, and they have that here. Jack smith has penetrated the conspiracy everything, from Witness Testimony to Phone Records to email communications, there is so much in detail that is laid out and penetrated, the very end workings of the conspiracy, and the conspirators and those around the conspirators were all part of President Trumps administration. Youre exactly right, the part of your question is that they are all republicans, that makes bias as a potential defense here difficult to sustain. Tim, as a former prosecutor, i want you to take us inside The Grand Jury process that the indictment process. One point of curiosity for me, this is page 40, paragraph 1 50, and its the only mention of Kevin Mccarthy in the entire document. It does not name him. Here first time as the Minority Leader at the house. This is on january six while the capital is being attacked. This is a famous phone call that weve all heard and read about outset at the evidence in this case that says at the pm, the defendant had a phone call with the Minority Leader at the United States house of representatives. The defendant told the Minority Leader that the crowd at the capitol was more upset about the election than the Minority Leader was. Now, we have Public Information that tells us more about that phone call, where Kevin Mccarthy was telling the president at the time that he is a do something to try to stop this, this has to be stopped. Is it possible that Kevin Mccarthy cooperated with this investigation and had a conversation with the investigators in which she revealed that phone call . Or would any prosecutors simply take that from otherwise available Public Information . Its hard to say, lawrence. I noticed that paragraph when i read the indictment as well. I had the same question. When you see a very specific conversation recounted in and indictment, there needs to be evidence that supports that paragraph. If its a private phone conversation between to people, that evidence almost always comes from one of the participants. Here, if Leader Mccarthy as described that phone call to others, who have been contemporaneously reported in. If there is a recording at the phone call of him describing the phone call to others, i am not sure that is the case here. This has been so widely reported. I think we played the tape of congresswoman herrera butler, who told who publicly talked about Mccarthy Recounting to her this conversation with the president. My guess is that the Special Counsel is confident that that conversation is a fact that he can prove, that he has as you suggest a decomposition, who will provide evidence to the jury. Otherwise, i would not be and, you as you go through it, were there any Surprise Points for you in here . Or how many surprised points . I think tims point is totally right, when you read this that the basic scheme and how its laid out in the general Six Committee report is what is reflected here, because that is what happened. So its not surprising, but there are details. I know we talked about the mike pence piece, and its clear that he told the truth, and The Grand Jury and gave that information. Maybe its because i was at the department of justice, like neil and tim, but the facts about jeffrey clark, maybe on a personal level, because i was there were, yes, a lot of it was known, not all of it. The indictment, by the way, makes it clear that on january 3rd, the Acting Attorney General at the United States was jeffrey clark. For some number of hours. Friday morning until the Late Afternoon evening. He is the Acting Attorney General. Nobody knew that, but there is a reason he was, because he, according to the allegations here, over and over again wanted to issue false statements about the department of justice investigating fraud and actually finding fraud and wanted to send that to various State Officials to help overturn the election, and is alleged to have lied repeatedly to the Acting Attorney General, acting Deputy Attorney despicable on this case go to trial and go to trial quickly. But if i were jeffrey clark, i would know as nightfall is the day that he is going to be charged. Before we squeeze in a commercial break here. Tim heaphy, how are you feeling tonight about what the Justice Department and jack smith and what maryland has allowed jack smith to do with what you handed them from the january Six Committee . Yeah, lawrence, i appreciate the question. We were criticized and continued to be by a lot of people as being partisan, as being onesided, as not having a Counter Narrative or crossexamination. This indictment shows that we were right. Our process was thorough, our process was credible. I have yet to see counter facts, Counter Narrative or anything to crossexamination or otherwise that changes at the core facts. Again, this comes down to facts. It was not as creating anything, it was us Finding Facts that jack smith is now only making stronger. The, the president will have his take, as they should be. If there are facts that rebut these allegations, its time for us to see that we havent. We did not see them. Jack smith has not seen them. Neither as erica seen them. That is what our system provides, and well see if it tim heaphy, neal katyal, Andrew Weissmann tank you all for starting off our discussion tonight. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe will join our discussion next. Breeze driftin on by. You know how i feel. You dont have to take. [coughing]. Copd sitting down. Its a new dawn,. Its a new day, its time to make a stand. And im feelin good. Start a new day with trelegy. No oncedaily copd. Medicine has the power to treat copd. In as many ways as trelegy. With three medicines in one inhaler,. Trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flareups. Trelegy wont replace a rescue inhaler. For sudden breathing problems. Tell your doctor if you have a Heart Condition or high Blood Pressure before taking it. Do not take trelegy more than prescribed. Trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. Call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating,. Vision changes, or eye pain occur. Take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. Ask your doctor about oncedaily trelegy. And save at trelegy. Com. When i first learned about my dupuytrens contracture, my physician referred me to a Hand Specialist. And im glad he did, because when i took the tabletop test, i couldnt lay my hand flat anymore. The first Hand Specialist i saw only offered surgery. So, i went to a second Hand Specialist who also offered Nonsurgical Options which felt more right for me. So, what id say to other people with dupuytrens contracture is this dont wait find a Hand Specialist trained in Nonsurgical Options, today. Immediately after the january i found mine at findahandspecialist. Com. 6th attack on our democracy, career men and women of the Justice Department engaged in what has become the largest investigation in our history. In november, last, i appointed jack smith, Special Counsel to take on the investigation, in order to underline departments commitment to accountability and fairness. Mr. Smith and his team have experienced, principled, Career Agents and prosecutors have followed the facts and the law wherever they lead. And the questions about this matter will have to be answered by the following joining our discussion now is professor Laurence Tribe, who taught Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School for five decades. One of the former students is the Attorney General at the meditates, Merrick Garland. Professor tribe, Andrew Weissmann is still with us in the studio. We all shared public doubts about how Merrick Garland was handling this before he appointed jack smith. What is your sense of how Merrick Garland has handled this case thus far. I think the appointment of jack smith was a breeding stroke. His experience has made it clear that he was ready for this, and he proceeded as fast as he could. I do think that Merrick Garland did not proceed as fast as he might have. I think what many of us fear, namely that this will drag on, that even if there is a verdict or conviction, for example, there could be an appeal that would last into the ex presidency, and if the next presidency is held either by donald trump or by one of his acolytes or by virtually any republican, there is the horrible prospect that this will all be wiped away, and that it will be relegated to historical footnote. It will never be just a footnote because as your guest correctly said, this is monumental. Unlike some of the other monumental cases, like the ones that i neal katyal mentioned, greg scott, brown v. Board, not a those were subjected being erased by the results of a political election. What is quite unique here is however radiant, and however well grounded in facts and law this indictment is, and i certainly agree that it could not have been better, i agree with Andrew Weissmann that its skirts the First Amendment problems that may have existed if it were focused on siphon. However brilliant it is, it is subject to being white out, but that really makes me think about how vulnerable and fragile our legal system is, hostile is, how even the fact that the dramatic victory you paint when you read the indictment, the fact that all of that is going to be hidden from the American Public unless we can some how convince the judges with power to make the decision that they should be a televised trial, which i think it should be, it can all be hidden, and that points up the way in which our ecosystem is vulnerable. The rule of law is powerful. It can prevail and preserve democracy, if this trial is allowed to reach a firm conclusion. I think that the conclusion that the facts will point to is a conviction in all likelihood. But if it goes to study, or if there are and differences, or as Andrew Weissmann says, politics over takes it all, in the old to make or a public opinion, if that includes people who just dont care, who basically say, yes he did it, but we dont care. We dont trust our institutions enough to care about preserving them, then we are in real trouble. We have a system that might go to slowly, might be too opaque. And a system that is not all guaranteed to trial for politics. That is my overall view of where we are. Andrew weizmann has a conch s question. Professor, turning to something more granular, with the tsunami indictment, i was struck by the way that it was charged. One of the things that was not charged was referral from the january 6th committee for insurrection, and instead, there was the more normal, i would say, Obstruction Charge that has been charged so many times in the d. C. , january six cases. I want to get your take on that, whether you thought that was a rise choice on jacks part . I do think it was wise. I have to say that part of me was hoping that the insurrection was be charged because if this was not an insurrection, and if donald trump was not guilty of giving aid and comfort to an insurrection, dan no ones ever guilty at their crime. That set, that would have introduced many complexions and complications. As i say, that is not a charge that is frequently made, and there would have been flames of selective prosecution. We will charge him with fomenting and insurrection, why not some of the other people who are on the ground . It seems to me that what jack smith did was quite brave. What he did was take the elements of an insurrection, the violence, the attempt to use force to overturn the results of the election, and he made all that relevant to a charge basically under section 2 41 of depriving people of the right to vote and their meaningful vote. The way that it is all put together, the violence become something that the former president exploited, whether or not he incited the, whether or not he gave it any comfort, but its clear that he exploited it in various ways, and because he exploited and, it all becomes relevant atmospheric. The jury will hear everything that needs to know about the, and it seems to me that in that way, jack smith made a decision that was sensible and a strategic, even though it did not necessarily satisfy all at the appetites that many people who suffered as a result of the insurrection would have liked. Theres one other element, and that is if you have been convicted of an insurrection, you cant hold public office. I would have been much easier for donald trump to argue, although he would have argued it anyway, you see them charging me in this unusual way of something that would prevent me of being president again, they are trying to rub you devote. I am not the one who saw your votes. What jack smith has done is taking the argument off the table, and we know from Donald Trumps history, taking an argument off the table does not prevent him from putting the table and making the argument anyway. At least, it removes it from any remote claim that will be possible. Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, thank you very much for joining us on this historic night, really appreciate it. Thank you, lawrence. Congressman adam schiff will join our discussion next. Im Jonathan Lawson here to tell you about Life Insurance through the Colonial Penn program. If youre age 50 to 85, and looking to buy Life Insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. What are the three ps . The three ps of Life Insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. A price you can afford, a price that cant increase, and a price that fits your budget. Im 54, whats my price . You can get coverage for 9. 95 a month. Im 65 and take medications. Whats my price . Also 9. 95 a month. I just turned 80, whats my price . 9. 95 a month for you too. If youre age 50 to 85, call now about the 1 most popular whole Life Insurance plan available through the Colonial Penn program. It has an affordable rate starting at 9. 95 a month. No medical exam, no Health Questions. Your acceptance is guaranteed. And this plan has a guaranteed Lifetime Rate Lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. So call now for free information and youll also get this free beneficiary planner. And its yours free just for calling. So call now for free information. Here is some of the testimony from Arizona Republican speaker at the house to the january Six Committee that became part of todays indictment of donald trump. At some point, did an attempt make a comment that they did not have evidence but a lot of theories . That was mr. Giuliani. What exactly did he say, and what exactly came up . To my recollection, he said, we have lots of years, we just dont let the evidence. I dont know if that was a gaffe, or he did not think what he said to. But both myself and others in my group, the three in my group and my counsel, both remembered that specifically and afterwards, kind of left about. Joining us now is democratic Congressman Adam Shift of california. He served on the january six select committee and was the Impeachment Manager for the first Impeachment Trial and the senate of donald trump. Representative shift, so much of what we read in the indictment today that reads as familiar to us is because that the work of your committee, like the testimony from rusty bowers, which is right there in the indictment as part of the charged crimes . What is your feeling tonight about the way that jack smith took what you handed to him . I think all of us on the committee feel that we mattered, that the facts that we brought to the public attention when we brought it to the attention of the Justice Department were integral to their decision to charge and how they charged. I think that the Special Counsel did what he did with the maralago case which is, charge it conservatively, not charge everything that he might but charge the storminess counts, where the evidence best fit the facts and law. I think thats exactly what hes done. This is also an interesting situation in that the public has seen a lot of this evidence through the january six hearings. So its unusual that the country does not get to see a trouble for the trial takes place. But weve seen a lot of the witnesses already. Weve heard the testimony. Weve been able to evaluate some of their credibility and perhaps, its appropriate here because as Professor Tribe was pointing out, there will be a trial on this, a verdict we hope on this but ultimately, the American People may have the final say. As we have seen before, there are two juries, the jury that will try the case and then the jury at the American People that may be called upon to decide the day what someone capable of committing these acts in the oval office who would be there for capable Undoing Justice that maybe served in the trial. If my myself is thinking that in the first few minutes of having this indictment in my hands today and reading it, where it would be tonight if Speaker Nancy Pelosi had not appointed a special january Six Committee . Youre absolutely right, lawrence. That was the foundational decision that made this possible, the decision to create the committee, when you will remember that there were bipartisan commissions, the republican and democrat that were charged in those discussions came to an agreement, and then it was rejected by mccarthy, i am sure at the urging of trump. What they got was the select committee at the commission gone forward, the rules were the other party could have essentially vetoed any subpoena, but instead, we have a select committee with real chief. The speaker also made a hugely consequential decision not to seek to of the wouldbe insurrectionists, jim jordan and jim banks on the committee and instead to see liz cheney and adam kinzinger. That made all the difference because suddenly, witnesses would come forward, would not come forward otherwise, the hearings were worth watching because these witnesses came forward. And it did not involve to the usual congressional circus. Youre right, and so many ways, at nancy pelosi not been speaker, i shudder to think what has been a vote of democracy in its entirety but, certainly, i dont think that we would have gotten to today where the work of the committee was so much a part of this indictment. We have more detail in this indictment that your committee was able to get because jack smith could compel Vice President former Vice President mike pences testimony under oath, so we now have to. It fits and is exactly what we expected to it to be. There are new quotes like donald trump type by pence that youre too on us, but were there any surprises in the indictment for you other than small bits of dialogue that we have not come across before . Lawrence, the surprise if anything, was how closely tracked the work of our committee. The new information, as he say, came through witnesses. Pence, cipollone, others, who either were not talk to us at all or in the case of cipollone, would not answer questions about these are conversations with the president. I think what stood out to me is the same as what stood out to andrew and probably because i am a former Justice Department person. That is jeffrey clark, just the arrogance of saying, the response there are pointing out the council, if you try to stay in office, they will have rights in every city of america, that is what the Insurrection Act is for, just the arrogance of that, the willingness to put the country through that. I frankly reminded me something of what bill barr said before he decided when he finally found a line he would not cross when hes asked about how history it would reflect on his work, and his response was something to the effect of, we will be right in the history. A lot of that hubris really came out in this indictment and in particular, that conversation with jeffrey clark. Congressman adam schiff, thank you for your service in the first version of this investigation at the january Six Committee and thank you for joining us tonight. Well be right back. woman oh. Oh hi there. Youre jonathan, right . The 995 plan yes, from Colonial Penn. Your 995 plan fits my budget just right. Excuse me . Arent you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan . Yes, from Colonial Penn. I love your Lifetime Rate Lock. Thats what sold me. She thinks youre jonathan, with the 995 plan. Are you . Yes, from Colonial Penn. We were concerned we couldnt get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. Thank you. Youre welcome. Im jonathan for Colonial Penn Life Insurance company. This guaranteed acceptance whole Life Insurance plan is our 1 most popular plan. Its loaded with guarantees. If youre age 50 to 85, 9. 95 a month buys whole Life Insurance with guaranteed acceptance. You cannot be turned down for any health reason. There are no Health Questions and no medical exam. And heres another guarantee you can count on guaranteed lifetime coverage. Your insurance can never be cancelled. Just pay your premiums. Guaranteed Lifetime Rate Lock. Your rate can never increase. Pardon me, im curious. How can i learn more about this popular 995 plan . Its easy. Just call the tollfree number for free information. soft music time for tonights last word. The president bears responsibility for wednesdays attack on congress by mob rioters. Theres no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events a day. Donald trumps republican events of the day. Donald trumps republican accusers get tonights last word. The 11th hour with Stephanie Ruhle starts now. Understand that donald trump, former president of the United States has now been indict. Currently the d. C. Grand jury investigating his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The attack on our nations capitol on january 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. Described in the indictment it is fueled by lies. The Justice Department engaged in what has become the largest investigation in our history. The counts include