Our special breaking News Coverage continues now of the third, he has a third, criminal indictment of former President Donald Trump. Im laura coates. Remember. Not the news tonight, still stunning, even though people expect an indictment to come right now it is here. We have believed it sink in. The 45th president indicted by a grand jury and jack smiths investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. And its not lost on anyone that, while trump is facing charges over the last election, he is, of course, in the middle of his reelection campaign, flora. This is the third time, the third time that donald trump has been criminally indicted informants at this point . Special counsel jack smith charged him in the classified documents probe in june, and the Manhattan Grand Jury charge of the former president for Business Fraud back in march and just listen to what Special Counsel jack smith had to say tonight. The attack on our nations capital, on january six 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. It is described in the indictment, that 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. All right, so what exactly is in this indictment . Our correspondent polo reid is here. So, paula youve been working this for so long, fabulous reporting. You and the team. Todays indictment is laying out how trump views, quote, dishonesty, fraud, and deceit in his efforts to stay in power. So what is standing out to you tonight . The biggest thing that stands out to me is that the former president is the only one being charged today. This is something that our reporting over the last several weeks had suggested to us that we were quite surprised that he would be the only one charged, at least initially at this point. And because he clearly did not act alone. Youre looking at the charges that hes facing right now, three of them involved a conspiracy or obviously he would need someone else and throughout this indictment they lay out exactly how he worked with others to amplify what he knew were false claims of election fraud, to litigate the strategy, to pressure various states, to pressure his own Vice President , and then, of course, on the day of january six, continue to pressure his Vice President resulting in violence and then he and his supporters continued to double down, to try to use this as an opportunity to overturn the election. Again, he was not operating in a silo. So really watching Going Forward to see if any of these six coconspirators will be formally charged. The other thing, one of the other two things that stood out to me is that we didnt get a lot of new information. Weve got some new details from the Vice President s handwritten notes, some interactions with political advisers, we were privy to prior, but given how much Additional Information that jack smith was able to obtain, he got access to mark meadows, a Vice President pence, i was expecting that we would learn even more. So it will be interesting to see if the Special Counsel really releases Additional DetailsGoing Forward, but speaking of really some details, we did get the indictment today. We didnt have to wait until the initial appearance, we didnt have to wait a few days, the country, the world, again gets to see the case today and they dont have to wait. I think that a significant and something that we have been lobbying the Special Counsel to do. Of course, there are unanswered questions, but we have names. The reporting identifies who he believes are at least five of the six coconspirators. We dont know if they will be charged, where their cases are, but this case is historic for him for many reasons No Matter What the outcome will be. So, what are the next steps, paula . The biggest next step is that the former president s Court Appearance and we expect that will happen on thursday, but its unclear, laura, if that will be via zoom. That is an option available to him, or if you will come in person. Now, after that, we know that next week the Special Counsel has at least one more witness scheduled next week and at least another one in the next few weeks. So we know from our reporting, this investigation continues. Yes, the Special Counsel said that, but we know what theyre up to. They are continue to talk to witnesses, witnesses like former new York Police Commission bernie carat. He worked closely with Rudy Giuliani in these efforts to find fraud, to alleged fraud, and then one of the other witnesses, at least one of them is a former trump lawyer. So they will continue to gather evidence and it is unclear, if they will be superseding indictments and additional charges. Weve already seen one superseding indictment that led to additional codefendant, of course the maralago case and there is already a precedent for this unprecedented time. Paula reid, thank you so much. Aaron . Laura, the indictment against trump repeatedly references the six coconspirators that paul is referring to Enter National security reporter Zachary Cohen is here to tell us more about them. The ones that we know now about, and of course one that we dont get, zach. Yeah, erin, the indictment refers to these people as six individuals who trump and listed to assist him in his criminal efforts we have identified five of the six people who are described in this indictment and, if you followed along in january Six Committee hearings, none of these names will come as a surprise, they include people like trumps former personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, attorney john eastman, and even people like Jeffrey Clark, the former doj official who we know is trying to use the Justice Department to overturn the 2020 election. Those details, some of the red are included in the indictment. A lot of this information was publicly known, which is how we were able to identify, in part, some of these folks. The unidentified person is described as a political consultant who helped implement a central theme in this indictment, a fake electors plot. This is one of the cornerstones of jacksons case here. He says that trump and the six individuals tried, effectively, to trick these electors in the seven states to sign the certificates, asserting that they were the illegitimate electors and send them to the National Archives and congress. The idea that pence could use them and overturn the election on january six, we dont know the identity of the six individual yet, but im sure that we will come back with that shortly. So, usually the term used when you talk about coconspirators, and is unindicted and that word, unindicted, the modifier is not president. They are just listed as coconspirators. There is nothing in this indictment that is not purposeful, so that where it is not in there on purpose. It could mean theyre going to be charged, or perhaps they have already had indictments handed up. We dont know. Do you have any clarity on this . Aaron, like you said, there could be a number of reasons including what jack smith told us today when we spoke publicly, which is a rare occasion, but he said they are still investigation and, as paul noted, we know from our reporting that they still have witness interviews lined up including with the Police Commissioner bernie kerik, who can shed light on efforts to find evidence of voter fraud. But, i think the strongest indication is that the investigation is still ongoing and if you are one of the six people that is unnamed in this indictment, or you think you are, youre probably not western easy at this stage. Absolutely, zachary, thank you very much. I should note that will from what we understand with these charges that these are very serious maximum charges is 20 years, 20 years, ten years. This is incredibly serious allegations i want to bring in timothy right now because he was chief investigative counsel of the january Six Committee. So timothy you look at this with an eye on like no one else. You have been through reams and reams of information, hundreds of hours of interviews, all related to the january Six Committees investigation, which was exhaustive. So, when you read through this 45page indictment from jack smith and the Special Counsel, did you learn anything, did anything surprise you about how it was presented . No. Erin, thank you for having me. It reads very much like a truncated version of our report. It actually reads very similar to vice chair cheneys Opening Statement in the first of our summer hearings. It was during that period of the first proceeding where she laid out that there is a multi part, intentional plan to disrupt the joint session and prevent the transfer of power and put pressure on state officials, at the department of justice, on the Vice President , and ultimately at the capitol. That is exactly what his alleged in this indictment. There is not a lot of new information, other than some details about direct communications between the president and the Vice President. The president and pat cipollone, is so the counsel has gotten additional corroborates information that provides some important context, about the President Stage of mine. But the core conduct that is described is what we set forth in our report. I know you refer to pence, i know you didnt have a chance to interview him, so there is some information from that, but im also curious. 45 pages, we know that he has a lot of information that he didnt include and you know that youve got to make choices. So, how much, paula reid was referring to this, this question, how much do you think he is holding back . Do you think there is real jabs that he is holding back. I dont know what the right were, despite crucial pieces of information, or no . Potentially. Again, i dont think he is holding back anything, any part of the core conduct. I think he is laid out some objects of conspiracy, and essentially sketched out the pattern that he is going to prove. I am certain that he is left out details, some specific conversations, and specific events and allegations, that is a common. A prosecutor would never put absolutely every fact that he or she has gathered in an indictment. This is a pretty detailed, but as you said, erin, my guess is that there are some additional facts that would be further proved of the allegations that we will find out about at trial. So when he went through everything and all the information that you had, you recommended criminal charges, a recommended investigation. Im curious, when you go through this, he did not charge trump with a Seditious Conspiracy, inciting a mob, those charges are not in here. Does that surprise you, or does that disappoint to . No. He charged the two lead councils, the exact too that the select committee referred for his consideration, the obstruction of and conspiracy to defraud the United States. Seditious conspiracy, we consider did not include that in our criminal referral. That requires a prosecutor to prove intent to use force. There is evidence of that against the proud boys and oath keepers. We look very hard for evidence that the president was in communication with or somehow was aware of their plans or actions and we werent able to establish. It doesnt mean it isnt there, we just werent able to establish that. This is about the Special Counsel has not either, otherwise you would have seen Seditious Conspiracy count. He is, you are not going to issue an indictment as it improves well Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, in a case of this magnitude. And im not surprised at all that he chose obstruction of the professors will proceeding. It doesnt require any intent to use violence, but rather for him to obstruct, interfere, or impede the joint session. We found that hes only gotten more evidence since then. And, as you pointed out, you would need to go responsibly with what he felt he could prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, requiring a unanimous jury for conviction here. Thank you very much, timothy, we appreciate your perspective. Thank you. Laura . My panel is still here with me in washington d. C. And there is something that keeps going in my head, everyone, about this, and that is the notion of the First Amendment aspect of it and, especially, what is happening in terms of whether or not trump is going to be able to build a defense, really, in this case. So youve got to his allies in Congress Rushing to his defense, as you well know, but his lawyer was actually on with Kaitlan Collins earlier and, well, listen what he had to say about the First Amendment issues. The ultimate request that mr. Trump made to Vice President pence was paused the vote counting. Allow the states to weigh in ultimately and audit or recertify. And under article two, section one, clause two. The actual responsibility for qualifying electors is in the state legislatures. Mr. Trump had the advice of counsel. Mr. Eastman, who is one of the most respected constitutional scholars in the United States. Giving him advice and guidance. That is pure politics. What do you think . The idea, talking to lawyers here about the advice of counsel. Will that be the ultimate protection . As long as your lord told you to say so, thats it. When john eastman tried to resist turning over documents, he saying attorneyclient privilege. But there is no privilege when the lawyer ilpclient to commit. But my friend said about the constitution. You can turn that document upside down inside with. You will not find the power he is describing in the constitution. You notion that pence for the first time in American History had the power to pause. He is purely ministerial. Basically the guy, if it were, england the guy who walks in with the mason the funny had. Okay, he has no power to pause the proceeding. Its not in the constitution. Trump knew that full well. 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 dont 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 counsels 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. Its 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 essentially have to say. Because youve got the attorney, the Deputy Attorney general. White House Counsel. You are former white house lawyer, you have all these people saying including Secretaries Of State and beyond, what you are saying is not true. And the complaint says, you know thats not true. Can you really say look i was just following my counsel. Or were they following him . Again, i think that is what hes the only name defendant in this case. I think that they want to make it clear that he was the one driving this. And that they, he just got advice from a number of folks that said very credible lawyers, some of the best lawyers and constitutional scholars in washington, now you can do this. And yet, he went to others, got a Second Opinion and was few drivein conversation . To get the answer you want it or was he just going out and seeking council . This idea of plausible deniability, i mean its kind of a sexy concept. Except in politics, is it realistic . Im not a lawyer, but it goes beyond the attorneyclient to me argument. The case that political speeches that broadly protected. I mean that is fundamentally the case the lawyers make. That you could almost use political speech as a shield to do anything so long as you are doing it while being a political candidate. And i think that we have been looking at this as though that is a political argument. Could impossibly be a plausible legal argument. But if you are looking at the Supreme Court that is actually more conservative than the court that gave us citizens united. I think it is worth aski