2 1 2 years after a mob of his supporters attacked the u. S. Capitol, donald j. Trump has been charged in the effort to overturn the election he lost which culminated in such violence to people, property and democracy that day. If you are just joining us, im here in new york alongside jake tapper In Washington and Kaitlin Collins outside the d. C. Federal courthouse where the former president will be arraigned thursday afternoon. Anderson, we just heard from the d. C. Metro police, the department saying they are working with federal Law Enforcement in preparation for the arraignment on thursday. As for Special Counsel jack smith from whom we last heard after the first of now two federal indictments in the documents case, he spoke again briefly this evening. Take a listen. The attack on our Nations Capital on january 6th, 2021 was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. Its described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant, targeted at obstructing a Bedrock Function of the u. S. Government, the nations process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the president ial election. Since the attack on our capitol, the Department Of Justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. This case has brought consistent with that quitment and our investigation of others continues. Now, Special Counsel Smith singled out members of Law Enforcement who had been defending the capitol on january 6th. They are patriots, he said, and theyre the very best of us. For the former president here, he is now facing multiple criminal charges here, four criminal counts in this, obviously they are conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts relating to obstruction of an official proceeding, and a charge under a law against conspiring to deprive people of civil rights. Provided under federal law or the constitution, all of this is what came down today. Also mentioned but not named are six unindicted coconspirators here. Theyre not named in the indictment but cnn has been able to identify the five that you see there on the screen, were still working to confirm the sixth one here. Four of president trumps attorneys, giuliani, eastman and Sidney Powell all in the white house at the time and Jefffully Clark and prostump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro all here. Shortly after it was unsealed Merrick Garland spoke. He weighed in on this from philadelphia. Jack smith, a Special Counsel to take on the ongoing investigation, in order to underline the departments commitment to accountability and independence, mr. Smith and his team of experienced principled Career Agents and prosecutors have followed the facts and the law wherever they lead. Any questions about this matter will have to be answered by the filings made in the courtroom. Thank you. Joining me now is the former president s newest attorney to his team, john lauro. Youve read through this indictment. What is your defense going to look like . Well, its basically a regurgitation of the j6 Committee Report but our focus is on the fact that this is an attack on free speech and political advocacy and theres nothing thats more protected under the First Amendment than political speech, so at the end, our defense is going to be focussing on the fact that what we have now is an administration that has criminalized the free speech and advocacy of a Prior Administration during the time that theres a political election going on. Thats unprecedented. Weve never seen that in the United States in the history of the United States. So literally what we have is an attack and really an effort to not only criminalize but also censure free speech. Donald trump had every right to advocate for his position while he was president. He saw irregularities. He saw deficiencies in the election process. He raised those. He was being told under oath by people around the country that there were problems with the election. He also saw in realtime that the rules were changing without the State Legislatures weighing in, and ultimately he had every right, in fact, a responsibility as the United States president to raise those issues and now his advocacy is being criminalized. Well, those are secretaries of state who were making those changes in those states because of the pandemic that was happening. You talk about free speech. Jack smith noted trumps right to free speech and to contest the Election Results but what he says in this indictment is that when that did not work, the defendant, your client, pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the Election Results anna that is why hes being charged here, not because of anything related to free speech. Yeah, but thats factually inaccurate because the ultimate request that mr. Trump made to Vice President pence was pause the vote counting, allow the states to weigh ultimately and audit or recertify and under article 2, section 1, clause 2, the actual responsibility for qualifying electors is in the State Legislatures. Mr. Trump had the advice of counsel, mr. Eastman, who was one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the United States giving him advice and guidance. Thats pure politics. You may disagree with it and people have spirited arguments about the law all the time and thats why lawyers are in business, but weve never had a situation where a spirited debate about the constitution has become a criminal case. Whats going to happen when theres a Republican Administration . Is there going to be an effort to criminalize speech by democrats . Is there going to be an effort to characterize something that a democrat politician says thats not that doesnt meet some kind of true standard at the Department Of Justice . That thats going to be the subject of a criminal indictment . Weve now entered a Cons Constitutional Abyss as a result of this indictment. But, john, i should note that youre saying he was just asking him to send him i was just talking to the Chief Of Staff who was with pence that day. He said he was being asked to do something illegal, that pence did not have the right to do to reject them and you mention the attorneys there that you cited, john eastman a coconspirator in the indictment. I should note. And the indictment lists all of the people who control trump his claims about Election Fraud werent true, including the Vice President , Senior Justice Department leaders, the director of National Intelligence cisa which is in charge of making election in the United States are secure. Senior white house attorneys, Campaign Staffers, state legislators. Its not true that there were states where ballots were sent out without people asking for them. Where there were changes in verification, where there were instances where ballots were not being supervised at dropoff places. The president was told given advice that under these circumstances the State Legislatures have the ultimate ability to qualify electors. He followed that advice. Now, you may disagree as to whether or not those things actually occurred or not. Thats why we have political debate. We dont have criminal trials over that. We have the discussion but it matters if those things actually occurred or not, john. Not under the first it matters not at all fraud no, the First Amendment let me stop you there. If hes saying that there were fraud, the First Amendment doesnt allow the president of the United States to go and claim there was fraud when he was told there was no fraud and then try to subvert the election by overturning legitimate electors. I mean, it says it right here in the actual indictment absolutely, the First Amendment protects all speech. If were going to have i if we have a situation where they indict politicians for political speech and whether or not theyre factually accurate then this country will shut down politically, because its a never ending cycle of tit for tat and thats the risk of injecting politics into the criminal justice system. So right now people disagree with president trump. Whats going to happen four years from now if somebody disagrees with President Biden in terms of what he said during the election . Thats why we dont criminalize political speech. Political speech under the First Amendment has an almost absolute protection. Nobody gets to judge whether its true or not except the American People and we do that in an election. We do that in an election and in the case of a president by impeachment but we dont indict people for speech. John, i got to stop you there. But trump is not being indicted for lying here. He is being indicted for using unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and trying to subvert the Election Results. Well, whats the unlawful means . There was an effort to get alternate electors. That he was trying to overturn yes, fake electors who were not legitimate. That was used in 1960 by john kennedy, and it was a protocol that constitutionally accepted, so theres nothing wrong about that, in fact, in the indictment itself it doesnt allege that there was anything wrong. And the final ask that mr. Trump made to Vice President pence was simply pause the voting. Theres nothing inherently unconstitutional or illegal about that, in fact, he had an opinion from a very wellknown constitutional scholar that said thats fine, that thats legal. Mr. Trump is not a lawyer. Hes his own attorney said that was not fine, that that was certainly illegal that he was asking they werent just asking for a pause. He was asking to overturn the legitimate results but, john, let me ask you is trump going to show up in person, john, let me ask you this, is trump going to show up in person for his arraignment on thursday . Thats up to the court. The court makes those decisions so were prepared to follow whatever the court rules are. The judge issued a summons and he will appear either virtually or in person. Okay, so its not clear if its virtually or in person but one thing its up to the judge. Your client you have to look at his last john you have to look at what he said at the ellipse. You good to let me finish. Your client, john, is on tape the Secretary Of State of the State Of Georgia, john, you got to let me finish my point. Go ahead. I let you finish your point. Absolutely. On tape with the former with the Secretary Of State from the State Of Georgia asking had him to find him one more vote than he would need to win the state. Thats not asking for a pause. Hes asking for votes he did not get. He was asking for the Secretary Of State to identify votes that were not counted properly and factor that in and, by the way, that discussion took place with dozens of people on a phone call with lawyers involved and no one was suggesting doing anything illegal and no one during that call said, mr. President , thats beyond the bounds. This is politics. This indictment is about pure politics. We engage in vigorous debate in this country about politics. What we dont do is criminalize political speech. This indictment is a game changer. Its the first time that weve taken political speech and said, were going to criminalize it. By the party thats in control against the party thats contesting the next election where the two individuals involved are going to be running for office. That is an incredible set of circumstances. John, if you believe that you have a good defense here for your client do you believe this trial should happen before the 2024 election . It should not interfere with the election but really what the indictment has done is identify seven states should it happen before the election for. Where there were irregularities. I need to look at what evidence will be presented. I can see it lasting nine months or a year but mr. Trump is entitled to a defense. The government has had three years to investigate it and now they want to rush this to trial in the middle of a political season. What does that tell you . We deserve as much time as any american citizen to defend on these issues as anyone else and for the government to have three years to do it and then expect us to do it in three weeks or four weeks is just ridiculous. Every Single Person in the United States is entitled to due process including the former president. Okay, john. Well, just note given what your client was saying they took too long to make the charges but john, good to see you. I know well see you many times Going Forward as youre representing the former president in this case. Back to you. Back with van jones, jessica roth, elie honig, david urban and geoff duncan. You heard a lot from the president s former president s new attorney, elie, what do you make of his case . Interesting take. Im unconvinced by that argument and heres why. Even if you take it as a given that it is extremely broad in the realm of political speech its not true that to quote the lawyer there as he said First Amendment protects all speech of the thats not true. One of the lines even if you go all the way out to the margins is fraud. Now, lying itself is usually protected by the First Amendment but lying to steal something, that is criminal and that is fraud and the theory made in this indictment is that he lied in order to steal the election. Theres also factual problems. One being a lot of these statements in the indictment were not made behind a podium or not made to the media. They were made by donald trump and others Behind The Scenes to try to influence people and so theres much less of a First Amendment concern there but i think thats a really fascinating insight into the way they intend to defend the case. I think what we just heard is a preview of the defense that theyre going to be making up until the trial if there is a trial and at trial and really try to relitigate also whether or not the election was stolen which i find remarkable. There are have been finding after finding after finding that there was no Election Fraud by courts and yet the defense will be that there was and an argument for delaying the trial is going to be we have to investigate whether there was Election Fraud. The argument he was making while the president is not a lawyer he was listening to great constitutional scholars, im not sure if thats Rudy Giuliani or mr. Eastman. Both of who are coconspirators here unindicted at this point. Is that a valid argument . Well, there is such a defense called advice of counsel and defense but requires good faith reliance on your attorney. There were plenty of attorneys telling him, i mean, his actual attorneys not the tork of the United States. Attorney general, top officials he pointed Top White House attorneys. White House Counsels office and he had enough respect for to put in the highest offices at the Department Of Justice telling him theres nothing to the theories these other people were trying to hard to sideline and not let them speak to you, theres nothing to them, they are false. One way which the indictment is structured masterfully so that it is readable is it goes through all the schemes with respect to each of the contested states and talks about how trump floated a theory that he was given by the lawyers who should not have been participating in these discussions, how he has then told by the lawyers who know better that once he has appointed to government positions that these are false and this entrump goes on to repeat them as though they are truth and so you just see that as a reprise throughout the indictment. He says something, he is told by the lawyers that know better that its false and goes out and repeats it. The reason its politically effective for trump to do this, first of all, theres no excuse for what he did, and so the last refuge, the scoundrel, the First Amendment. This idea that were being silenced, the kind of Grievance Culture that trump has created, florida theres a group that is silenced and all im doing is talking.