tie him to the violence on january 6th at trial. also hundreds of military nominees who have been held up over abortion for months, have finally been confirmed. after one senator ended his nearly 10 month blockade mostly with no apologies or no progress. i'm kaitlin collins and this is the source. >> tonight behind closed doors, president biden offering a candid assessment about why he is seeking a second term. something he says he may not be doing if donald trump wasn't running again but of course trump is and as of this moment he's the front runner for his party's nomination. one of his most outspoken critics is saying out loud what some republicans will only say about trump in private. >> he's gone to war with the rule of law and a president who won't enforce the law creates a situation where things just unravel. >> liz cheney is the former vice chair of the january 6th committee, also addressing the rumors that she herself a step into the 2024 republican race to challenge trump in this new interview with anderson cooper. >> i'm going to look at this over the next couple of months through the lens of how do we stop trump and at some level it's not about me, not about what i'm going to do or not do. i look at it from the perspective of right now, absolutely we have to keep our eye on the goal of stopping him. >> the congressional committee that she chaired laid out a roadmap for the criminal prosecution of trump over the riot at the capitol on january 6th and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. the special counsel jack smith, is now revealing how they plan to try and prosecute trump in court. jack smith plans to go back, way back, to tell the jury at the trial about trump's history of encouraging violence also, his longtime refusal to commit to the peaceful transition of power. the court documents that were just unveiled are striking. we will dig into them in a moment but tonight we start with two veterans of the trump administration who have joined the chorus against the republican front runner, former advisor bolton and former deputy white house press secretary sir matthews. what do you make of what liz cheney had to say in these mornings where it's no surprise that she saying this but the fact that she is making them repeated warnings coming out, months before you know, this election is going to get underway, potentially with trump as the republican nominee. >> well, i think the criticism she makes of trump is exactly correct. i don't think there's any doubt that if he were the nominee and elected president he would cause serious damage to the country but i don't think it's existential, and i think it's important for voters to understand what the nature of the problem is, and what the remedy needs to be. i think if you overstate the problem, you are inviting the wrong kind of response from the other side and understating the problem is just as serious. i think trump's election to a second term would mean constitutional crisis on a daily basis but i have faith in our constitutional structures. they are strong and trump tried to steal the election as president, in 2020 and failed. so it will be a tremendous battle and not one that anyone should look forward to but in the end, trump and his acolytes will be defeated pay >> that's interesting, saying that you don't believe people should understate it but don't think they should overstate it. liz cheney, and this interview seemed to address people who think that she is being alarmist with these warnings. i want viewers this to be part of that interview to listen to what she told anderson. >> i think it's naove and a real misreading of what we have lived through to think that we can count on the guardrails that we have in place. donald trump tried to seize power in 2020. he learned the lessons of 2020 and 2021 and so i think anybody who says don't worry, you can count on the balance of power and the institutions, that's really wishful thinking that we can't afford. >> she is basically saying that the guardrails that you are saying that are there, aren't there. >> they were there in 2020 and a lot of people did exactly the right thing, time and time again, and trump's efforts to still be election were defeated. i'm happy to be called naove, it brings back memories of days gone by. i'm not naove but i'm also not an alarmist. you know, bob kagan who i have a great deal of respect for, an old friend, wrote a lengthy piece a couple of days ago comparing trump to julius caesar and the threat to the roman republic. caesar must be turning in his grave to be compared to donald trump but donald trump is not caesar and the roman republic fell not because of caesar alone but because of repeated body blows from the likes of cattle long and pop become its own structures were not comparable to ours. i think you've got to get a grip on this historically and be ready for the fight if trump is elected but not put it in terms that confuse people or actually make it harder to mobilize opposition to tron. >> so what are the guardrails that you think would be there if trump did try to repeat his actions, is at the supreme court, congress, the supreme court you know, he picked three of the justices that are on that court and they now lean conservative, we've seen republican lawmakers, she got booted from her position as republican leader on capitol hill basically because of the same comments that she is making tonight. >> i don't think anybody who knows the six republican justices nominated by republican presidents on the supreme court really believe that any of them are going to do trump's bidding. i am sorry -- by and large i think the judiciary will hold. i think congress, it depends, it depends on who gets elected in some key races, i think too many republicans in the house in particular have been supine and facing trump. i hope that changes but even within the executive branch, people have to understand that he can't just snap his fingers and expect things to happen. and i think one of the constitutional crises that we will see, is when he tells appointees, even his own appointees, to do things that are illegal and unconstitutional, how many of them resign and how many of the career people in the justice department and the military start residing below him. this is the kind of thing that i think will cause enormous turmoil in the country. but it's part of the process of keeping trump under control. >> you mentioned the lower courts. a lot of the lower and mid- level courts, they have a lot of trump appointees that have been confirmed but you mentioned a second term. if he gets a second term, he's been blunt about what he would do with that. he's talking about using the justice department to go after his opponents. do you think when he says that, do you think people are listening to that and it's breaking through to republican voters what he plans to do with a second term? >> will i don't think it's breaking through enough. we will see in the third debate tomorrow. i think the opponents to trump i am large have committed the same mistakes other candidates did in 2016, they are attacking each other instead of attacking trump. more need to do it to show he's not fit. look, i'm perfectly well aware of what trump can try and do with the justice department. he tried to do it to me with respect to my book in 2020 and his political appointees at the top of the justice department did the bidding of the white house, and trying to suppress publication of the book. the real question is, because others have learned as well, certainly trump has learned from his experience but others have learned as well, how he will try and manipulate the justice department and we will see how it goes. we will see how many of his nominees get confirmed. we will see how he feels not just with a few people being and acting positions in a place like justice or the defense department but with everybody being an active positions, i think he could be tripping over his own shoelaces in fairly short order, if people keep their eye on the ball. >> it is a big, we will see. ambassador bolton, thank you for your time tonight. more now from another trump white house insider, sarah matthews, former press secretary for trump and testified in the january 6th hearings and resigned in the wake of the attack on the capitol. what do you make of what ambassador bolton was saying, do you think some of liz cheney's claims about what a threat trump is our overblown? >> i don't, i understand what he's trying to convey what he says he doesn't want to sound like an alarmist i think we have to look out what trump is saying and pay attention closely. his call for doing away with part of the constitution, he said he wants to rid the country of people he deems as vermin, he says he wants to weaponized the doj to enact revenge on his political enemies. so what would encourage people, we sound like alarmist when we say that democracy is at stake if trump were to be elected again, but you have to pay attention to his own words because he is saying these things and unfortunately it doesn't seem to be penetrating through to the public and i think it's in large part because his campaign has adopted a basement campaign strategy circa joe biden's 2020 campaign and they actually have shielded him from public view and have been more strategic with his appearances, so i think that as we get closer and more into the 2024 race, it looks inevitable that he will be the republican nominee, then i think the american public will be more tuned in but at this point, it doesn't seem like they are. >> i'm glad you brought that up. trump is not going to the debate. when you talk about him being shielded. he knows he would get attacked by some of the people, people like chris christie on the stage but liz cheney was asked about how republicans view what trump has been saying, framing this as biden is the undemocratic anti-democratic candidate in this race, that's what he's been accused of. this is what she told anderson. >> i think that the overwhelming majority of republicans understand that that is disinformation and that is a lie. that's been trump's method of operating. he knows that it is a real threat to his political success, if people recognize that he himself is trying to unravel democracy. so he's trying to turn that threat around but i don't think it'll work. >> do you think the overwhelming majority of republicans see it that way? >> i think if you look back at the 2020 race, a lot of people voted for joe biden because they thought that democracy was at stake. that was a large focal point of his campaign. and so there were some reluctant republicans and even some reluctant democrats and independents who went along with his candidacy because you know, they believed in the message, so obviously, now joe biden is going to run on the same message in 2024. and i know trump views that as a potential weakness of his. and he is trying to as liz cheney said, project and put it back on biden. i do worry, i don't know if republicans, the vast majority, don't believe that, i do think there is a significant number of republicans, especially when you look at the base who do view a biden presidency as detrimental to the country. they are unhappy with the current state of things but i don't know if that message will be effective on independence who are the voters that trump would need to win over most in order to win in a general election against joe biden. >> thank you for your time. also ambassador bolton. next we will talk about the new filing that we mentioned a moment ago. it reveals how special counsel smith plans to convict trump at the upcoming election trial. it's a fascinatiting document. also it's all a blur, what the republican speaker of the house says about protecting the january 6th rioters. the special counsel's office offering a taste of what evidence prosecutors plan to present in washington stemming from his attempts to overturn the election. what we learned is a plan to establish a pattern basically of trump's claims of voter fraud going as far back as 2012 . prosecutors point to the scene in detroit in 2020 as evidence that the trump campaign wanted riots to happen, they also want everything that trump has said about the rioters to be used against him pointing specifically to moments like this one. >> what would you like me to condemn? who? the propolis? stand back and stand by. >> if i win, we will treat those people from january 6th fairly. we will treat them fairly. and if it requires pardons, we will give them pardons. >> with me now senior analyst and former federal prosecutor ellie honig, allie, the trouble in detroit, comments about mitt romney's campaign, how does that tie back to this indictment? >> prosecutors are trying to establish a pattern. the argument that prosecutors are making is he does this every time, 2012, 2016, every time he loses an election, primary or presidential, he tries to break the mold and he tries to get people to rise up and that's exactly what prosecutors will argue here. the judge will have to decide whether she invites that in. it's a tough call. >> they are tying him closer to the violence on january 6th than they did in the indictment. so how does the judge make that call of whether to allow this if it's not actually alleged in the indictment? >> she will be looking at, if you going to have a fair trial here. her concern is if you let into much bad evidence, the jury will be inclined. but i think what the judge has said in other january 6th defendants, she has repeatedly talked about the missing co- conspirator, she has talked about basically the former president's culpability here. so i think she's coming into this looking at this case, that has a connection between him and the violence and i think jack smith is going to have an opportunity and likelihood that she's going to allow it to come in. >> you think she left it in? >> i think she does. and i think that jack smith will be successful in telling that narrative. >> the trump campaign is pushing back saying jack smith is trying to interfere in the election including claims that weren't found in the indictment. we will see if that argument breaks through. the other thing is they point to an alleged co-conspirator saying, the campaign employed encouraged rioting and other methods of obstruction when they learned that the vote was going in the favor of biden, how does that help make their case? >> that may be a reach by prosecutors, technically a person can be liable for acts committed by their co- conspirators but what the judge has to balance is how relevant is this evidence and on the other hand you can't let in evidence that's overly inflammatory. and judges do get reversed from leading into much evidence. the worst case is a conviction that gets thrown out by the appeals court so i guarantee you the judge is guarding against that. >> is that a real concern? >> it's always a concern. >> that would be donald trump's dream if he was convicted and it was overturned. it would fulfill all of his arguments. >> but the judge is an experienced judge and she will not let that happen and this is common here, prosecutors are constantly going to want to get in as much as they can, they want to paint the worst picture of the defendant. the judge will find the balance but what is important is there is evidence that connects the president former intent without violence here. in the document, jack smith talks about references 187 minutes where the former president did nothing as the capitol was under attack. and i think that is prohibited of his intent to obstruct the proceedings. does that mean that it's evident that he wanted violence or harm? not necessarily but it does show that the violence that was occurring was part of a broader plan to obstruct congress which is one of the charges he is facing . >> thank you for coming in tonight. is we are looking at this document, trump is preparing for this criminal trial that's expected to happen, it's the earliest of the ones he's facing when it comes to the serious charges, the new speaker of the house, mike johnson, is busy trying to muddy the waters about january 6th or at least may be blur them. the speaker who ordered thousands of hours of january 6th riot footage released is now saying all the security footage is not public yet because his team is busy detecting the rioters in that video, the ones who illegally went into the capitol, from law enforcement. >> we have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don't want them to be retaliated against. and for them to be charged by the doj. >> many of them have been charged by the doj. speaker johnson's office later tried to walk back the claim saying you did not hear him say that he was not having that attention, they issued a statement that said faces are to be blurred from public viewing room footage to prevent all forms of retaliation against private citizens from nongovernment actors. the department of justice they said already has access to raw footage from january 6th. have a feeling the former deputy director might disagree. he joins me now. i do wonder, andrew, what you make of what speaker johnson is saying here. we do know the authorities have this footage but what do you make of the suggestion that the people who were illegally there, in the capitol, what do they need to be protected from law enforcement? >> before i get to that let me touch the security issue very quickly. you know, the idea of releasing tens of thousands of hours of private, internal security video, you have to ask yourself, have we ever seen tens of thousands of video from inside the kremlin or tenant square, the answer is no, i get it, they are not democracies but when you expose the infrastructure of your security precautions to protect that space. and so there could be some negative repercussions to doing this, i can tell you that there are plenty of foreign intelligence agents who will be watching that video closely. putting that aside, this is really a remarkable occurrence, so in an active transparency, the speaker has decided not to be transparent with the faces of the people in the video, i don't really understand that but what he's doing, effectively, is hourly and with some level of pride, working against the department of justice and the fbi, both whose duty is to bring the rioters and the people who committed crimes by attacking the capitol. you know, i spent a lot of time knocking heads with folks on the hill when i was running the fbi but i've never seen anything quite like this. he's actually taking steps to thwart the actions and the effectiveness of the fbi, and being very public about asking the public for assistance in identifying the people of those videos. >> a lot of them posted the photos and videos of themselves doing this, on facebook, that's how they found some of them. as we are looking at this and there is this idea of detecting people from federal law enforcement. i want your reaction to something that a former high- ranking official in the trump administration cash patel, who may go on to be another one, what he said he would do if he is picked as trump's next cia director. >> cash, i know you are probably going to be head of the cia. do you believe you can deliver the goods on this in short order in the first couple of months so we can get rolling on prosecutions westmark >> yes, one thing we learned the first go-round is we've got to put in all america patriots top to bottom and we've got them for law enforcement, we've got them for offensive operations, we've got them for dod, cia, everywhere. >> what is your response to that? >> i mean, where do you begin. it's a stunning lack of understanding about what the cia is, what their legal authority is, the fact that they have no auth