Straight from the source tonight what a quotes that jack smith's says came from donald trump's mouth as the special counsel and the judge are revealing blockbuster her new evidence and the election case against donald trump also, what melania trump just said about abortion that stands in stark contrast to the reality in america, because of her husband's three supreme court picks, the eyeopening new quotes from her new memoir james carville has some advice for democrats tonight, include one moment in last night's debate that he says, they aren't seizing on nearly enough they'll want to know what that is. I'm kaitlan collins, and this is the source tonight, as donald trump is sowing doubt about the 2024 election, we're getting just about as close, but look as we may ever get and what his trial may have looked like for what he tried to pull off the last time. Judge tanya chutkin released 165 pages of evidence from special counsel, jack smith which paints a far more detailed picture than we knew before about the lengths and the depths of desperation that trump is accused of going too in order to cling to power after he lost the 2020 election, taken this scene, the day that trump's supporters stormed the capitol, january 6, trump, whom jack smith says is alone in his dining room. That is just off the oval office, is watching it all play out on television. Is twitter open on his phone? when an assistant of his walton, after learning that vice president pence was in such serious danger, he had to be taken to a secure location the assistant rushed into the dining room to inform the defendant and hopes that the defendant would take action to ensure pence's safety instead, smith writes, after the aide whose name is redacted in these filings delivered the news the defendant looked at him and said, quote so what that is from a firsthand witness about the value that trump placed on the safety of the person who is second in line to the presidency and as much as we're learning about trump in this new filing tonight, we're also learning about what a lot, lot about what pence's delicate dance and to, to push back actually looked like behind the scenes, the filing contains details that presumably could only come from mike pence himself, whether from his own testimony to the grand jury or speaking with investigators. Here's how you can tell. Look at this smith is detailing a private lunch this happened on november 16th, in which pence tried to encourage the defendant to accept the results of the election and run again in 2024, to which the defendant, who of course here is donald trump responded, quote i don't know, 2024 so far off and yet here we are. Here was donald trump just yesterday do you trust the process this time around? i'll let you know about 33 days now we don't know if history will repeat itself in 33 days, but tonight we do have a much better in much better inside into trump's playbook and what it could be. He is laying down a lot of the groundwork that we saw in 2020. Smith is alleging that was when one of trump's attorneys told him that his claims about there being widespread election fraud would not hold up in court. Trump responded, and i'm quoting from the filing now, the details don't matter smith also as testimony from another witness who says they heard trump tells several members of his family this after the election quote, it doesn't matter if you won or lost the election. You still have to fight. Like hell i legal sources are cnn legal analyst, former federal prosecutor, jennifer rodgers, and criminal defense attorney joey jackson, and jennifer it's the sowhat moment that really stood out. It seems like there's an indication of who this person is, an assistant to the president who worked very closely with donald trump, is not someone who is broken with him in a real way. But when you read this and this person ran in to try to get trump to call off the crowd understanding? what this information could mean to trump. And he just responds. So what? well, this is why the brief is so interesting because i believe the brief actually said they don't intend to try to admit that into evidence, but it's there. Why is there? because this is a twopart document. This is for the public, this is for us still all say, well, this is a really powerful case against the former president. This is really, really bad. What he did. It's also, of course trying to convince judge chutkin and the judges up the chain that all of this evidence should come in because it's not subject to the supreme court's immunity decision has those two things, but that is really more of an atmospheric point. I would say they don't intend to try to admit that, but they want everyone to know this was a bad guy acting in bad faith. And the case against him is really powerful and for everyone following along at home, what they're trying to do is say, hey, despite what the supreme court said about presidential immunity, we still have a case here. This can still go to trial and joy part of that is a criminal defense attorney how did you see it when they talk about how they say they have someone from the fbi who can testify to the activity on trump's phone that day. That his his 20 app was open during the afternoon of january 6, that he was using it paired with dan scavino, his testimony, and only dan scavino and donald trump had access to that twitter account? yeah. Kaitlan as a defense attorney i'm concerned about this for a number of reasons. What's this? this is the motion which lays out from jack smith's perspective what's going to be admissible? what is my proof? what is my evidence? and it's not only about the cell phone data, it's about a number of things. Number one, i see a mike penn shaping up to be an all star witness here. Remember, you would think under the conventional wisdom of that supreme court case that you can't talk about mike pence, right? immunity applies. He's the vice president, don't touch it no. Jack smith says, wait a second, it's a presumption of immunity. However, who is mike pence? his running mate? what do you doing running as a candidate, not as president. So you're going to have mike pence really taking the stand it moves forward, giving evidence with respect to the conversations he had with his boss concerning this fake elector scheme concerning his presiding over the senate and ditching the real ones and putting in these other ones. And so that's going to be problematic. What else kaitlan, i'm concerned as a defense attorney, all of these statements and set were made and things that were done with the state people coming from arizona, georgia, wisconsin, pennsylvania, take it as you will, but all of the pressure on them. And then when the outset of this segment you showed the january 6 that's all coming in because that was the culmination of this pressure upon everyone to say iowan you lost. So there's a lot to work for and work with as a defense attorney to refute if the matter goes forward at all of this all of this comes in. Yeah. And their names are redacted. Brian kemp and doug ducey, who is then governor of arizona. Brian kemp still the governor of georgia. And it does it says like, you ppi 17 is georgia governor brian kemp is blackout. I think we know that it's him, but it talks about how trump had this intense pressure campaign on them to overturn the results. Doug, that one point is saying, okay, somebody or evidence, what are you looking at trump never gets back to him. Yeah. I'm packaging it all. Were packaging it and we're sending it right to you and of course, there wasn't anything to say then that's part of this scheme is we're going to tell you something's coming, but we just need this to happen now. We need you to do it for us now. And then don't worry about it. What kind of fill it out on the backend and then when they say no, they shipped to another thing. I mean, what this brief is very good at is demonstrating that they worked in a whole bunch of different ways, bunch of different angles coming at it from every possible angle. And when something didn't work mark, then they would shift to something else. Is it supreme court proofed just on your read of it? i think it is. I mean, they obviously took out the doj stuff which they had to take out is it a stretch on the pence stuff? i mean, they do have to convince the judge that the presumptive immunity doesn't apply here, but i think they've done it. I think they've done it. I mean, i would be a little hesitant because i also wouldn't have said that the supreme court would say that pence while acting as president of the senate in terms of the certification, should have been even presumptively immune. So you know, who knows, but i think they've done a good job with it. And trump is responding to this tonight. I think we have a new we have a quote from him on camera. We'll see if we have that in a moment, but but joined the other, what he was saying on truth social is the justice department is disobeying. It's own rule by, by putting this information out. This soon. Obviously with the argument about how close to an election you can take action against one who's running instead election does that apply here given this prosecution, this indictment happened over a year ago. So here's what i'd argue, kaitlan, his team that is the former president has gone through great lengths at delaying, delaying, delaying and so to the extent that we are here in this process and now is not the fault of the justice department is the fault of your team and attempting to delay it and keep writing on truth social. If you look at everything about this 165 pages, there is tweet after tweet after tweet, that the special counsel seeking to admit into evidence suggesting this is not official conduct. This is him again, being a bully from the bully pulpit as it relates to state actors, attorney general's governance it cetera, as it relates to pence, you better do the right thing. And so the more he tweets is a lot of admissions in there from the former president that i think are going to be problematic at trial. Yeah, that's a good point. Standby because we also have an attorney who previously represented donald trump on this case, jim trusty joining us. Jim, as you look at this, what do you make of the news? so evidence that we've got today, how strong do you think it is? how worried would you be if you were still representing trump in this case i'd probably be angry more than worried. I mean, you can't overreact to a government pleading, but i want to go back to what jennifer started with, which is really an important comment here. This is a pleading that is for public consumption as much as it is for actual legal logistics. I mean, look, you can have a death penalty trial where your limit, your page limits for a filing. An important case where life and death rides on it is 45 pages. This is 165 pages. It includes a lot of gratuitous information, a lot of what i would say because optimistic information, when it comes to mike pence and mark meadows, i mean, those are under the supreme court ruling it's a real stretch to pretend that president trump turned to mike pence and says, i only want to talk to you and your in your context of being the president pro tempore that you are a legislative mike pence for this moment. Not an executive one. So i think this overreaching when it comes to exert privilege, blowing up attorneyclient privilege, you've got a document before a judge chutkan that she's got to look at and decide of every single aspect of that is admissible. Everything that they're trying to get in. If it is admissible on her level, it's still going to go right back up the chain. And then up to this freedom corps. But this is new territory, difficult territory, but they're there reaching, they're going too far when it comes to pence and meadows because they are obsessed with having them on the witness stand. But that's a good point about it will be appealed whatever this decision is, we know that that horse has already left the barn, but on the quotes from trump about the, you the, details don't matter, and it doesn't matter if you lost her won, just fight like hell, doesn't that undercut the defense that we've seen, which is that trump just wanted to have a free and fair election, wanted to make sure all the votes were counted look, i think you can't take this as gospel. I mean, the bottom line is, it's a very politicized pleading we just heard comments about how the defense was trying to well, first of all, there's plenty of people in there that probably have axes to grind. There's going to be honorable people and dishonorable people, but this is not the crucible of cross examination. This is a jack smith pleading for both the court and for public attention. Again, in a case where jack smith pushed this ridiculous theory of a speedy trial a nonincarcerated defendant who is waving speedy trial really had to go to trial before super tuesday. That's the tell here that this entire thing is politicized. A real part of justice wouldn't be pushing for a speedy trial. They'd say, we're going to be transparent. We're going to turn over everything we can turn over. And you tell us when to try a judge that didn't happen? been hearing that poisons everything that comes after it. Well, i mean, the judge here is the one making the decisions. It's not jack smith who released this today was the judge, but but jim, you represented trump on this issue. So when trump is claiming and his team is arguing, everything that was done was in his official capacity as president therefore, they've argued none of this can go to trial the special counsel saying it's hard to imagine stronger evidence that conduct is private, that when the president excludes his white house counsel and only wishes to have his private counsel present. I mean, if it's white house business, why would the chief attorney in the white house not be allowed in the room? what's great about that is what follows next, or what would traditionally be covered by attorneyclient privilege communications. There is no executive privilege, no attorneyclient privilege in the mind of jack smith during this whole investigation. He had to go to a new grand jury to clean up the indictment, to straighten it out in terms of the potential for what was going to be admissible at this trial and what's going to be fought over in a hearing. And if he's made one mistake from appellate review of any of this is an overreach. It's not just that he had something inadmissible. It's contaminating the grand jury. This really reeks of, you can call them as you can call it desperate patient. But