but in general, yes, but, the but is he is somewhat the passive observer of events. he couldn't stop mark meadows from the next day moving to remove, even though he would prefer 30 days. he couldn't stop ken chesbrough from looking to fall the speedy trial which is the last thing that he. once he couldn't stop the georgia elector, who today. said it was all trump's, team trump's doing. and therefore i should be able to get immunity. so i think that he is, in, part not the captain of the ship. now everyone is going in many different directions. there is nothing like actually being booked to sort of so really focus on your own self interest. and there comes a part from, trump in some ways so i agree generally. except for when he's looking at, in part is the hand that i
ramaswamy. and mike pence. well mike, why don't you say, this join me and making a commitment. that on day, one you wouldn't pardon donald. trump and the only candidate on the stage. who encouraged him to say it. here's how we move our nation forward. by turning the page forward. that's exactly >> what i don't want to be convicted of these crimes. you >> can't be able to make a commitment, the same justice that was -- >> i was a politician that for. -- >> i've actually given pardons, and he usually follows a finding of guilt and contrition by the individual that's been conflicted. so the president the united states would give consideration pardon request. >> i mean charlie that was just a weird conversation but that is the problem right. where they're stuck in that discussion. >> yes and what's even more bizarre is that ramaswamy supposedly is running for president of the united states and you think he'd actually want to get in the, race take down the guy in the, lead and
disentangling these cases and finding ways to form a common strategy with other codefendants. or trying to remove his clients from the bigger case. which is something that fani willis does not want to happen. she has tried to keep all these 19 codefendants in one big grouping, with the exception of kenneth, who is trying to sever himself off from the rest of the case. but steve stayed out in a very interesting moment to watch. >> there's a lot of talk about, that the idea that she would like to try this as one. case she built it as one case. ken chesbrough wants to peel himself off. donald trump wants the opposite of a speedy trial. he wants the thing to go as long as possible until after he becomes pressed again -- so that you could say you can't a president. but the question and maybe chesebro thinking here is that i forced to do a speedy, trump but she's not ready to go. >> that's exactly the strategy, the strategy is okay, you have
information. but i don't see that in this indictment. and i know a lot of people who come on msnbc would disagree with me. but, just i think that what we see from john smith this that he has the information. he can make a convincing, case publicly speaking through his court filings and he doesn't. >> you know, harry, lost in all of this conversation about the number of indictments that donald trump is already facing is the fact that jack smith still has pending investigation among farther things that donald trump could be indicted for. i want to ask, you do you think that it is likely that we will see more from jack smith? and if so, how does that complicate what donald trump is already dealing with on a legal front? >> everything this complicates. nothing simplifies for trump. i agree. and i do think he made a big deal. much of what he did kind of took the baton from the january six committee. but he was independently interested, and clear in the fundraising piece. he had people in the grand jury. nothing has happened with that.
makes it mistake that they could capitalize on. >> and that's the difference, if you end up with various trials, that's what ends up happening. >> katie benner, u.n.i., so many, weekends and mornings would talk about where the justice department, one where merrick garland was. and this was in the days before anyone knew jack smith's name. what is happening on that side? there has been a serious development in the jacks mitt kates. and that is not someone q, who had testified one way i've gotten themselves a new lawyer, that was not paid by donald, trump and it's not change their testimony or at least that's what the jacks mitt thomas told the judge in that case. >> yes, it's gonna be interesting to see what happens. and people start getting lawyers who are not paid for by the trump team. because we saw some of this happening during the january six hearings. and again the january six hearings were, lower it wasn't a criminal trial so it will be interesting to see if people stop being represented and
listening to that. and the congressman was saying that i don't know if ramaswamy is running against him. but was anyone on giving trump. it's kind of unclear to me, desantis just a little bit before i came on here was asked about the arrest, today in iowa and he just awkwardly said, well i'm just happy that i'm in the field of dreams instead. and it's, like, okay i. guess but you're losing by 20. points and your competitor was just arranged for the fourth time. 91 felony count and you know i worked on a bunch of campaigns. and speaking we look for any opportunity that we can to get an advantage against the leader of the, race the people who are beating us. so it doesn't seem like any of these guys are coming -- >> well let's talk about one of the three people in the race, who might be. and that's chris christie. who had tried to make the argument tonight. let's listen to, that charlie.
the jury. it will show why he was doing this in the lengths to which he went. but for many of these charges, it is not legally required. you can think you won the election. you know what that doesn't entitle you to do? it doesn't entitle you to threaten criminal prosecution of the secretary of state of georgia to get him to change the outcome of the georgia vote. what you can do is go to court. well, they went to court and they lost. so this is when we're to tim's point, this is an incredibly strong hand. what we're really dealing with here, though, is the former president is -- has -- it's not going to be a question of facts and law, because that is just overwhelming. as you've pointed out, nicolle, over and over again, there is no articulated defense here. the defense that you're hearing from the president is i embrace what happened. it is a good thing what these people did.
political arena. that's where all of trump's defenses seemed to be designed to really plan to really nail, because the legal analysis of what they're contending seems -- mary's word, pretty meh. i'm not going to play it. he said on fox. accusing president two things. number one some kind of effort to obstruct the january 6th count. just a mob descending on the capitol and the only thin pause in counting so seven contestant states could reaudit or recertify. never heard of anyone getting indicted for asking for an audit. trump was looking for the truth to find out exactly what happened in those seven contested states. that'scriminal. his own people said about known falsity and known illegality of the eastman -- this is pat
blocked procedurally by courts that dismissed cases without discovery. but he conceded to us that they never found it. i think the documents that kerik and giuliani turn over will essentially confirm that they had random leads, but they were never able to establish to this day, right. and therefore -- and that was conveyed to the president and his enablers repeatedly, yet they continued to assert the debunked claims. they continue to this day to assert it and raise money on it. and that, as you just said forms intent. at a certain point, it becomes clear evidence of specific intent to defraud, specific intent to obstruct the official proceeding. i think, again, jack smith is holding a very strong hand because of that strong intent evidence. >> well, and andrew weissmann, you have bill stepien there. he was chris christie's former campaign manager, saying because of that, i, quote, stepped away. it wasn't honest or professional at that point in time. before he left, though, i
he is running to not have to go to jail. he wants to win or have a republican ally win. and that is his only legal out is through that political lens, because, you know, a normal defendant would say something like i had no idea that this is what they were going to do on january 6th. i was not supporting it. i took steps afterwards to stop it or prevent it. but instead, as donald trump's wont, he is just embracing the wrong and the unthinkable and the illegal. and so he's really now running on a very different track than the one that harry and i used to work in, which is the system where facts and law and a court are the things that prevail. >> well, and there is a through-line. he has been trying to do it i think since day 16 of his presidency when he wanted