Right to have their votes counted. All fuelled by what jack smith calls Donald Trumps widely disseminated and knowingly false claims that the election was stolen, as he counted on violence to help him remain in power. We will bring you new information on the six unindicted coconspirators, including trump attorney rudy giuliani, who pressured officials to manipulate the vote count in multiple swing states. Trumps attempts to get mike pence to stop counting the certified votes. We will have the latest responses from trump and his lawyers as well as his rivals. Our reporters and legal experts also. Good day, everyone. Im Andrea Mitchell in washington. A few blocks from the federal courthouse, here we are. Former President Donald Trump tomorrow has been called to appear tomorrow afternoon before a Magistrate Judge to face charges in a new indictment with four counts from Special Counsel jack smith. The 45page indictment alleging three separate conspiracies, which built on the mistrust the
Sexual abuse former president. But also the most important trial of our life times. The United States of america versus donald trump. Tomorrow, trump will be arraigned in a washington, d. C. Courtroom. Hes expected to plead not guilty to four criminal counts, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy to violate the right to vote and obstruction of an official proceeding. This latest indictment of the former president handed down by special counsel jack smith is an incredibly detailed and damning account of an attempt to subvert democracy and forcibly overturn the 2020 election. It pulls from firsthand accounts including people very close to the president and sets up a potential block buster trial with star witnesses, including his former Vice President and countless maga senators and members of the and members of congress. The core of the case is broken down into three parts. The first part details how trump was fully aware that he lost the election. F
these weren t fake electors, these were alternate electors that john kennedy did in 1960. different situation. explain the difference. that is so ridiculous and so wrong, i ll try to make this extremely brief. 1960, after the election kennedy got 300 pre electoral votes which was a large number given it was a close popular vote. he won over nixon only by 100,000 votes. southern electors and southern politicians were terrified that kennedy would be for civil rights and integration. they waged a plan to try to blackmail kennedy and say to him and his people, unless you promise there will be no integration, we will have a campaign among southern electors to vote instead nor the white supremacist senator harry byrd, of virginia and you, senator kennedy, will not be elected.
electors and their ku klux klan backers and advisers, and they really were, what do they suggest? they said to southern electors, who were supposed to be voting for kennedy, instead you shouldn t vote for kennedy, you should threaten to vote for harry byrd, the white supremacist senator from virginia, and tell kennedy that unless he promises no desegregation, no action for civil rights, we will tell the southern electors to vote for harry byrd. that s like jesse james or jack the ripper. so this lawyer is saying it s okay for us to do this because jesse james did it or jack the ripper did it. that s how far we ve come. you want to call that historical precedent? it is, but it s a precedent of corruption and evil and racism. unreal. okay, exit question. in your view, as a presidential historian, should this trial be televised? of course it should.