President at the United States. The only person who could possibly have told jack smith and The Grand Jury about those phone calls is mike pence. The january Six Committee invited mike pence to testify, but he refused. The january Six Committee did not bother to issue a statement to mike pence since they knew he would ignore it, just as some other elected republicans ignored subpoenas from the committee. Mike pence could not ignore jack smiths subpoena. Mike pence went to court in what he knew was a legally hopeless attempt to block jacks mitt subpoena. Mike pence went to court to try to show trumps quarters, whose votes he wants in the president ial campaign to think that he was forced by Judicial Process to testify to jack smiths grand jury. Mike pence did not just testify to jack smiths grand jury. He became the star witness, and he will be the start witness when the case that the United States of america versus Donald J Trump is presented to a trial jersey in washington, d. C. They will be the first jurors in history to see a first former Vice President at the United States raise his right hand and take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the criminal defendant sitting in front of the jury, the former president of the United States. When the former Vice President is under oath on the Witness Stand, testifying against the former president , mike pence will deliver the testimony that he obviously delivered to The Grand Jury and is described for the first time in todays indictment. On december 25th, when the Vice President called the defendant to issue a merry christmas, the defendant quickly turned the conversation to january six in his request that the Vice President reject the electoral votes that they. The Vice President pushed back, telling the defendant as the Vice President already add in previous conversations, you know i dont think that i have the authority to change the outcome. Obviously, the Quotation Marks around that sentence mean that mike pence gave those words, exactly those words, to The Grand Jury under oath. And another private phone call that only mike pence was a witness to, on december 29th, the defendant falsely told the Vice President that the Justice Department was finding major infractions. And then came january 1st, new years day, the jury in the criminal trial of donald trump will hear mike pence testify, quote, on january one, the defendant called the Vice President and berated him because he had learned that the Vice President had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that at the certification, the Vice President had the authority to reject or return votes to the states under the constitution. The Vice President responded that he thought that there was no constitutional basis for such authority, and that it was improper. In response, the defendant told the Vice President , your two on us. That is going to be a very dramatic moment in this trial. That line, your two on us will be the headline in that days coverage of the trial. Your two on us from donald trump to mike pence. Well go a very long way, if not all the way, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that donald trump knew that he was lying about mike pences power to overturn the election. Throughout todays indictment, jack smith confidently writes he knew. Those words, he knew, appear applying to donald trump and the fact that jack smith believes that he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that donald trump knew that everything he was saying about the election in december and january was a lie. On page six, jack smith first to dump as prolific lies. Jack smith uses all republican witnesses in this indictment to prove that donald trump knew that everything he was saying about stolen votes or machine switching votes or dead people voting was a lie. If you are on a Donald TrumpsCriminal Defense Lawyer sitting at home tonight, wondering how you are going to fight this evidence, you already know that you cant fight most, because the only person who can dispute with donald trump set in his phone calls, for example, with mike pence is donald trump. If donald trump wants to testify under oath in his own defense, then he can get on the Witness Stand and deny that he ever said that your two on us to mike pence. He can do that. But if donald trump gets on a Witness Stand on their oath, everything about every day of his public adult hood that we know about him tells us that he will commit perjury. He will lie under oath, he will leave the Witness Stand and commit more crimes on the Witness Stand, so now, no experienced legal observers expect donald trump to testify in his own defense at any of his trials. And what that means is for some of the accusations in todays indictment is that donald trump may have no apparent offense. Too many of these accusations. The indictment describes a donald trump crime spree officially begins according to the indictment on november 14th, one week after this network and every other News Organization called the election for joe biden. And ending after the january six attack on the capitol. The calendar day during that crime spree, which contains more criminal conduct described in that day, in dissent that meant than any other day is january six. The indictment, in effect, in its description that they hold them trump responsible for the attack on the capital. The indictment of donald trump responsible for doing nothing to stop the attack on the capital, while it was going on, and the indictment describes donald trump and his coconspirators, including rudy giuliani, continuing to commit crimes after the attack on the capital, when congress had returned to the building to complete the certification of the election, a very last criminal conduct described in the indictment occurs at 11 44 pm on january six, when one of Donald Trumps coconspirators, quote, him out the Vice President s counsel advocating that the Vice President violated the law and seek further delay of the certification. Coconspirator to row i implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation of the electoral count act and a jury for ten days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full of the a massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here. You will recall that the front man for that crime in the indicted state senate was senator cruz of texas, whos asking for an adjournment of ten days. That would have been a violation of law. And the Trump Coconspirator whos asking the Vice President s lawyer to do this is acknowledging that it would be a violation of the law, the coconspirator calls it relatively minor violation. It would have been the biggest constitutional crime in the history of the country if the Vice President had done that, but donald trump and is criminal coconspirators 11 44 pm on the night of january six, when the country finally came for the Certification Process was back on track and progressing smoothly, donald trump and his coconspirators were still. The man who almost never speaks spoke for the second time today in his role as a special prosecutor, when he laid out the criminal case against donald trump, he began with the last day of Donald Trumps crime spree. The attack on our Nations Capital on general sucks, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the sea of american democracy. Its described in the indictment and fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant, targeting and obstructing a Bedrock Function of the u. S. Government, and the nations process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the president ial election. The men and women of Law Enforcement we defended the u. S. Capitol on january six are heroes. They are patriots and The Very Best of us. They did not just defend a building with people sheltering in, they put their lives on the line to defend who we are a say country and a people. Leading off our discussion, Andrew Weissmann, former fbi counsel and chief of the Criminal Division at the eastern part of new york. He is a Practicing Professor at a law school and msnbc analysts. Also neal katyal, former Acting Attorney General and host of the podcast and tim heaphy, former u. S. Attorney who served as Lead Investigator for the january Six Committee. I know that i think for all of, us we have waves that discovery, as we go through this material, as we digest day over the ours, and neal katyal, i want to begin with you. What is your ten pm reaction having digested as much of this as we all have by now to what this indictment tells us . So, lawrence, i think people who watch cable tv, they hear a lot of exaggeration about how important something is or Something Like that, this is no exaggeration, this is a momentous legal event, the most significant legal event of our lifetimes, one of the most significant legal events ever in the history of the country, it is up there voices marbury versus medicine, versus education, dred scott is a defining case for the times, and it is so because this indictment is really meticulous and its detail, but its also really balanced and compelling and lays out a case that a guy who was president at the United States, while he was president of the United States, leverageds office, used his powers to door the will of the American People in the most solemn thing that they do in our country, which is for. To borrow your freeze earlier, this is the biggest constitutional crime in our history, whether or not it was successful in obtaining the cooperation of the ex president pence are not. He certainly tried. We cant leave aside everything about pants, pressuring seven states to change their votes and send fake electors, all the other shenanigans, this is not the behavior of anyone who should be anywhere near the in that states government, if the allegations are right. Of course, donald trump has the presumption of innocence. This is all going to be proved up in court, as jack smith said today, these are just allegations, but if they are right, boy, jack smith, no question, he had to do this. This is an indictment that had to be brought, and you hear trump going on his social media platform saying, this is the biden doj to is doing this because they are afraid of my ability to win the next election, that is there is not a phrase that says how focused that is that comes to mind. At least nothing that i can say on tv. I think the most important thing for our viewers to understand is that jack smith is not part of the biden doj. Hes an independent prosecutor. He is not political. Hes operating under Special Counsel regulations which give him independents, and i know that because i wrote those regulations when i was young Justice Department staffer. No one from the Biden Administration is telling jack smith what to do. These are jacks myths independent conclusions, independent conclusions that the be right. And here, what jack smith has done is continue the work of people like liz cheney on the january Six Committee, people like judge luttig, very conservative Court Circuit judge and many others who are set, the rule of law simple on this stuff. The will of the people govern elections. What you did, donald trump, was interfered with the. You tried to prevent one of the most solemn things that happen in our country every four years, the counting the votes, so its compelling, its detailed, and while jack smith has to prove this beyond reasonable doubt, the most difficult standard in the law, right now, i have feeling like if youre jack smith, air feeling really good about this indictment. Tim heaphy, jack smith is betting on the work that he did at the january Six Committee, what may be the most important work done by a Congressional Committee and Congressional Committee staff that you served on, because this is the first criminal referral that come of congress to the test is department about a president actually, its about the kind of got a president. Lets remember, all the conduct described here is conduct of donald trump while he is president at the United States. You see in this indictment things that this investigation was able to achieve what the january Six Committee could not. For example, mike pences testimony. What else do you see, tim heaphy, knowing that youve been in command at this evidence longer than any of us . Yeah, lawrence, thank you for the invitation. As i read the indictment, it sounded really familiar. It sounded pretty much like the aged 45page that we issued. It sounded very similar to vice chair cheneys Opening Statement in our first hearing in the spring of 2022, where she laid out a multi part intentional plan to prevent the certification at the election and to thwart democracy. There is not a lot of new information, this is a compelling story, and i will leave it to neal and others to put it into historical conduct s. But the facts have been compelling and out there for a long time. There are some things, as we mentioned, Vice President evident testimony about their communication that he had with the president that you have already articulated. That is important. I think Pat Cipollone as given to information beyond what he told us. I think that there are people who have had their contact with the president about his resistance to issuing any kind of statement discouraging violence during the riots. Some of that is likely from new witnesses or witnesses that did not provide that information to the select committee. But the essential facts, the core facts, the intentional, Methodical Multi part plan to disrupt the joint session was exactly what weve laid out. Again, it reinforces, lawrence, the facts are what matter. Not lawyers. We talked a lot and spent a lot about lawyers processes, but the facts is what really wins or loses cases, winds for any investigation, congressional or otherwise. The facts here are really compelling. They are really discouraging, and it will not play out in the court of law. The president will have a chance to challenge them, to hold the government to its a properly high burden of proof, that is where this belongs, but against the facts are what are merely striking to me, much more so than the words are timeframe but the process. Andrew weissmann, i want to give you the toughest job i think i can assign during this hour, consider the situation of donald trump Criminal Defense Lawyers looking at the indictment, looking for how the e defend against the charges in this indictment . So, if you look there is a clear answer to that, as what neal and tim have been talking about is the facts that are laid out in the indictment. Obviously, they need to be proved, and there is no question that the facts that are laid out, because that the huge variety of sources and the fact that amongst almost all of them, there are no motive. These are Donald Trumps own people who are saying this, but the Vice President being one of them. So the facts are going to be very hard to challenge. I also think its incredibly skillful done. They have avoided issues such as the First Amendment issue about incitement, really charged around that. They did not charge insurrections to try to avoid any claim of selective prosecution. They went with a charge that the d. C. Judges and the d. C. C. They did not charge insurrections to try to avoid any claim of selective prosecution. They went with a charge that the d. C. Judges and the d. C. Judge have now assigned to the case are very familiar with, obstruction. So its a very skillfully done. As one a d. C. Judge is said and the Special Counsel mueller investigation, the courts of law are or facts and lost no matter. Why do i say that . How does it relate to the question which is that the de