Last summer, the coolest place in the house was in your freezer. This year, it's time to level up. Reliance Home Comfort has over 160,000 five star reviews for delivering the type of outstanding customer experience Canadians have counted on for over 60 years. Right now, don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump.
Call on the experts that know how to beat the heat. Reliance conditions apply. See website for details. You have a reason to care.
You know someone, you've lost someone, you've lived it. The darkest times are no match for what we can do together. Join us for the CAMH Sunrise Challenge from May 25th, 29th. Canadians are waking up with the sun to raise funds for a future where everyone can access the mental health care they need.
The moment they need it. Get up with the sun, show up for camh, and rise up for mental health. Register today at sunrisechallenge Ca that's sunrisechallenge ca this Sunday, criminal conspiracy. Former President Donald Trump is criminally charged for trying to overturn the 2020 election and hold on to power.
The attack on our nation's capital on January 6, 2021 was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. It's describing the indictment. It was fueled by lies. This is now the third criminal indictment against Donald Trump this year.
Every time they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls. One more indictment and this election is closed out. Nobody has even a chance. As the charges mount, will the support within the party continue to grow?
The fake charges put forth by the Biden sham we call a sham indictment. And you know, the man that's I really believe is mentally ill. Well, it's top Republican rivals continue to rally around him or start to attack. And can our democracy survive this critical and unprecedented challenge?
My guest this morning, Trump's attorney John Laura and Democratic Congressman Jane Raskin. And Barrel, a member of the January 6th committee and the former lead January 6th impeachment manager. Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson, New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, Republican strategist Al Cardness, and Kimberly Atkins Storr, senior opinion writer for the Boston Globe. Welcome to Sunday.
It's Meet the Press from NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Chuck Todd. Good Sunday morning. Voters next fall may be faced with unprecedented choice whether to put former President Donald Trump back in the White House or essentially sign off on his sentencing if he is convicted and send him to prison or a Secret Service protected home confinement.
The latest federal indictment accuses Trump of three conspiracies. One to defraud the United States, another to deprive voters of a civil right to have their votes counted, and two counts of corruptly obstructing an official government proceeding. The certification of the Electoral College vote. The indictment details how Trump was told by his vice president, senior Justice Department leaders who he had appointed, the Director of National Intelligence who he had hired, senior White House lawyers who he had hired, his cybersecurity agency, senior campaign staffers, state legislators, many of them endorsed him and state and federal courts, and that there was no evidence of election fraud and that he had lost the election.
Trump's campaign even paid two outside research firms to try to prove his electoral fraud claims. But they never released the findings because the firms disputed his theories and they could not offer any proof that he had won. And Trump is alleged to have repeatedly acknowledged him private that he actually lost the election, in contrast to his public statements. And yet, as the indictment lays out, it was not illegal in and of itself for Trump to lie.
That is protected speech. But it was the actions the indictment alleges that he took that were illegal. Using claims of election fraud that he knew or false to try to get state officials to change electoral votes. Organizing fraudulent slates of electors in seven targeted swing states, deceiving them in many cases to sign on to the scheme.
Sending states Justice Department letters falsely claiming that there were concerns about a specific state's election outcome. Pressuring Vice President Pence to use his ceremonial role to fraudulently alter the election results instead of simply certifying them. And even after an angry crowd violently attacked the cast Capitol, he still tried to persuade members of Congress to prevent certification. In many ways, the predicate was set here on day one of the Trump administration, when the president directed his aides to insist on an easily disposable lie about his inaugural crowd size.
Arguing that more people witness Donald Trump's inauguration than President Obama's, despite the video evidence. And a day later, hearing the press, the president's counselor, Kellyanne Conway, offered this awkward explanation. You're saying it's a falsehood, and they're giving. John Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that.
But the point alternative facts. Look, alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods. So his presidency began with alternative facts and apparently ended with alternate electors.
And it may all add up to a scenario where voters have to decide whether to put Trump back in the Oval Office before he is sentenced to not forget that Republican senators decided not to hold the president accountable via the process that the founders believe was the better process for this impeachment. In fact, this is Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell explaining his vote to acquit Trump after January 6th. President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen. We have a criminal justice system in this country.
We have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immune for being accountable by either one. So instead of doing the tough work in the Senate, they left it to the voters who are going to be stuck with the burden of upholding the rule of law if Trump is convicted. An unprecedented test of our democracy. Prosecutors had asked the judge in January 6 case to issue a protective order over discovery evidence after Trump posted this on Friday on social media.
If you go after me, I'm coming after you. Citing Trump's habitatting judges, attorneys and others associated with legal matters pending against him. And while they claimed that social media post was on something else, not on this. Last night in South Carolina, Trump didn't do anything subtly.
He attacked special counsel Jack Smith directly. Deranged Jack Smith. He's a deranged human man. You take a look at that face, you say, that guy is a sick man, there's something wrong with him.
And join me now is one of Donald Trump's attorneys in this specific case, John Laura. Mr. Laura, welcome to the big press. Good morning.
Let me start with this is the defense to this indictment. He didn't do it or he was allowed to do what he did. The defense is quite simple. Donald Trump, President Trump believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election.
And as any American citizen, he had a right to speak out under the First Amendment. He had a right to petition governments around the country, state governments, based on his grievances, that election irregularities that occurred. He had every right to speak about the important issues that were taking place after the election. Certainly Mr.
Pence, his vice president, agreed with him that there were anomalies and discrepancies in the election process. And Mr. Trump had every right to petition government and enforce his First Amendment rights. That's why this indictment is an attack on the First Amendment, the government, the Biden administration would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump did not believe that he had won the election.
They will never be able to do that. And that's why this prosecution is so ill conceived. You mentioned that he had the right to do all these things. Well, he did all of those things.
He filed his petitions in court, he got A couple of recounts. All of the he. Everything you outlined as saying he had the right to do, he did have the right to do. He executed that strategy.
And apparently when he didn't get the result that he liked, then he kept looking for another strategy. At what point does he accept the truth that he didn't win? Well, he believes he won, and the Biden administration will never be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't. But what he's being indicted for ultimately is following legal advice from an esteemed scholar, John Eastman, that he could petition his own vice president and ask his vice president to pause the voting on January 6 to give the states one last chance to certify or re audit.
That was the ultimate ask that President Trump made in his ellipse speech. That's clearly protected. Let's go back, if we could, and see what was going on in January 6th. Both Vice President Pence and President Trump saw that they had 10 million votes more than they had in 2016.
No president has ever lost under those circumstances. They also saw that Joe Biden outperformed Hillary Clinton by 15 million votes, even though she was an inspirational candidate and Joe Biden was sitting at home in his basement. They also saw that President Trump won almost all of the disputed counties. In addition.
In addition, they had over a thousand people come forward and under oath say that there were discrepancies in the election. And finally, and most importantly, what. What President Trump and Vice President Pence saw were that the rules of the game had been changed by local electoral officials contrary to the state legislature. So he took what he was entitled to do, which was petition Vice President Pence on January 6th.
Once that petition was completed and Vice President Pence rejected his position, it was over and it was a peaceful transition of power. Look, I got to unpack a couple of things here because some of it is just sort of political spend. And I understand that. Let me get to this issue of the esteemed legal scholars.
I understand the esteemed legal scholars. Here's what the former Attorney General, Bill Barr, said about that strategy. I'm going to react to it. I don't think this defensive advice of counsel is going to go forward because I think the president would have to get on the stand and subject himself to cross examination in order to raise that.
And he'd also have to waive attorney client privilege. Is the president or president going to take the stand? Advice of counsel can be raised without anyone taking the stand. That's just plain wrong.
But what we had was a very, very Thoughtful memo by John Eastman, who was a professor of law, dean of a law school, head of a constitutional scholarship program, and well understood and well renowned. He had been a Supreme Court clerk and a 4th Circuit clerk. Even Mike Pence said he was the legal scholar that was developing a lot of these points. People disagree about constitutional principles all the time.
Certainly Mr. Bart may have disagreed with Mr. Eastman. That happens every day in our government.
It never leads to a criminal charge. But one thing for certain, President Trump acted under the advice of counsel when he petitioned. So under the First Amendment, petitioned Mr. Pence.
If. So what you're arguing is if the President did violate the law, he did so because he got advice from council to violate the law? No, that's what people misunderstand. In order to have a violation of law, you have to have criminal intent, and in this case, corrupt intent.
And what that means is that you have to have some desire to do something unlawful. If your, if your attorney is telling you that you have a right to petition Congress, then that completely eliminates any criminal intent. So under those circumstances, you are not violating the law. Your actions require you to state your position, but it's not a.
It's not a violation. So you would be acquitted. Let me get you contact. Regardless of your conduct.
You keep saying some certain things that the Vice President Pence apparently agreed with. Let me play what Vice President Pence says the former President asked him to do. Here's what he said he was asked to do. Let's be clear on this point.
It wasn't just that they asked for a pause. The President specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject votes, which would have resulted in. In the issue being turned over the House of Representatives, and literally chaos would have ensued. So he's just disputing the version of events you're describing?
No, not at all. He's substantiating it in this respect. There were some preliminary discussions along the lines that Vice President Pence described, but the ultimate ask, which was done at the Ellipse, was to pause the voting for a period of time. Now, issues like this get discussed and thrashed about all the time, but the ultimate.
The ultimate call made by President Trump was to ask for a pause. If you read Vice President Pence's book, he agrees completely with President Trump that there were these anomalies, discrepancies, even fraud in the election. Vice President Pence one of those debated in Congress. President Trump asked that they be debated at the state legislature.
So you had a disagreement There. But once again, these kinds of constitutional and statutory disagreements don't lead to criminal charges. And One thing that Mr. Pence has never said is that he thought President Trump was acting criminally.
Indeed, Vice President Pence is an attorney. If he at any point said or thought that Mr. Trump. President Trump was acting unlawfully or contrary to criminal law, he would have said that.
No one ever suggested that President Trump. By the way, there's another. He said the president asked him to violate the condom, which is another way of saying he has underrated. He never said no.
That's wrong. That's wrong. A technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law. That's just plain wrong.
And to say that is contrary to decades of. One last thing, if I could go ahead. Well, no, because this is a constitutional case. This is.
This is going to be the most important civil rights constitutional case in decades. And there's one other issue that's very important. Everything that President Trump did was while he was in office as a president. He is now immune from prosecution for acts that he takes in connection with those policies.
Administration has not addressed that. An interesting legal place you're going to go. That will also create some constitutional questions. I want to get you to respond, though, to something that seems a bit more straightforward on intent.
It's the infamous phone call in Georgia. Let me play an excerpt. The ballots are corrupt. And you're gonna find that they are, which is totally illegal.
It's more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's it. You know, that's a criminal. That's a criminal offense.
All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state. If he had proof he won the state, why did he threaten the Secretary of State with a criminal. With a criminal charge?
That wasn't a threat at all. What he was asking for is for Raffensperger to get to the truth. He believed that there were in excess of 10,000 votes that were counted illegally. And what he was asking for is the Secretary of State to act appropriately and find these votes that were counted illegally.
That was an aspiration. Hold on one second. That was an aspirational ask. He's entitled to petition even state government.
But that doesn't. That doesn't involve obstruction of federal government. But what the Biden administration has said is somehow President Trump obstructed a federal proceeding that relates to what was going on in the states, and President Trump had every right to ask the Secretary of State, I believe that this election was conducted improperly. There are deficiencies here.
I want to see if there are more than 10,000 votes, or whatever the number was, that were counted illegally. Once again, that's core political speech. Bringing up a criminal violation is somehow speech. I mean, it's the way it sounds, like somebody saying, that's a mighty fine.
It's a mighty fine restaurant you have there. Be a shame if something happened to it. I mean, that's. It's no different than, I mean, oh, it's a big threat here.
Oh, no, no. Chuck, have you read the First Amendment? I mean, political speech is the most protected speech that we have under our Constitution. It's important to go back and read the text of the First Amendment so you can actually say that a government official is acting criminally.
That's protected by the First Amendment. If we lose the First Amendment rights, then. Then heaven forbid, we lose the right to freedom. We lose the right from you appear.
We lose the right. We lose the right for you. You're not allowed. You're not allowed to use speech.
You're not allowed to use speech, though, in order to get somebody to commit a crime and what he was directed, you're saying he didn't commit. You haven't. You haven't read the cases because, for example, you can encourage someone not to register for selective service. I could.
I could see you, Chuck, you know, registering for Vietnam. I can go up to you and say, chuck, don't register for that, Ward. I violated the law. Keep walking.
Go home. No, that's protected speech. My speech is corrected. That's the point.
I can ask you. No, no, no. By the way, there's a Supreme Court case. You gotta read it.
Right on point. Hammerschmitt. And it says that's not illegal. You know, we can have this discussion, but people need to start looking carefully at what our country stands for, what the Constitution stands for.
It applies to President Trump just like it applies to everyone else. If we eviscerate our First Amendment rights, we will no longer have a country where people can freely speak their minds. Have you been able to find any evidence? I know the campaign paid for two studies.
They didn't find any evidence that would find enough fraud, overturn the election. Have you found any evidence yet? Because you have said you plan on relitigating the 2020 election, and nobody has found any evidence to back up Donald Trump's claims. And it's been two and a half years, we will be litigating the 2020 election because much of that has not been litigated.
But what we do know, which is not in dispute under any circumstances, is that local, state election officials changed the rules in the middle of the game. They sent out absentee ballots. All of this, every single. Go ahead.
You're not trying to make a. You're trying to create a conversation for no reason. No, this is. No, I don't.
I don't want to. Chuck. I'm just trying to let you know that the criminal rules are different than what you're talking about in a criminal case. The government has a burden of proof.
We don't have any requirement to prove anything. All we have to do is put the government to its test. And one of the things that will be shown at trial is that there were these institutional anomalies where state election officials unlawfully broke the law and Mr. Trump was entitled to petition government and assert that he was right.
That's part of the First Amendment protection. We don't have to prove fraud. People don't understand that. All we have to do is that President Trump was acting with his.
With his conviction that this election was conducted improperly. I just want to let viewers know that everything you've said and all that he actually went to the courts. All of this was. Was actually deemed legal.
That was done in the states. All of this was. But, look, we're not debating this. One last question for you.
I need to get you to react to what your client is saying about the prosecutor. Here's what he said last night. Deranged Jackson. He's a deranged human being.
You take a look at that face, you say, that guy is a sick man. There's something wrong with it. Do you believe he's deranged? President Biden in April of 2022, said he wanted President Trump prosecuted and he wanted him out of the race.
He repeated that in November of 2022. As a result, President Biden has put in motion a political prosecution in the middle. Middle of an election season. And obviously, everything is open to politics.
I'm not involved in politics. I'm just representing a client. I'm ensuring that justice is done in this case. President Trump is entitled to a state in court, and he'll get it.
Do innocent people attack prosecutors? This is a political campaign right now. This prosecution was instituted by President Biden, and in the middle of that campaign, people are going to speak out. My role is not to address anything about prosecutors, but I will Say this, there's been a history in the Justice Department of rogue prosecutions.
They went after Arthur Anderson, a major, a major accounting firm destroyed the company and the DOJ lost nine nothing. They went after the former governor of Virginia in a prosecution. A Republican governor who was convicted unfairly reversed 9 nothing. And now the Justice Department, the Biden Justice Department is going after a former president for acts that he carried out in fulfillment of his oath as president of the United States.
Are you confident the former president can be trusted with discovery and isn't going to weaponize what he learns about Mark Meadows or others who may cooperate? Well, I'm shocked and I can find you a lawyer to address this, but I'm shocked that all the news media outlets aren't protesting what the government is trying to do. They're trying to say that we have discovery that's not sensitive, but we don't want the press to hear about it. And, and Mr.
Trump, our team is saying, President Trump is saying that if there's evidence out there that the government has that's exculpatory or informative, then the press has a right to know. But the Biden administration doesn't want the press to know that. I'm shocked that there aren't petitions now filed in the district court opposing what the Biden administration is doing. John Laura, the defense attorney for the former president, appreciate you coming on and sharing your legal respect with us.
Thank you, sir. Good to see you as always. Thank you. Let me come back.
Derek Card of Congressman Jamie Rascket of Maryland, the former Jan. 6 committee member and former lead impeachment prosecutor. Next. Last summer, the coolest place in the House was in your freezer.
This year, it's time to level up. Reliance Home Comfort has over 155,000 five star reviews for delivering the tech of outstanding customer experience Canadians have counted on for over 60 years. Right now, don't pay for 12 months on a featured air conditioner or heat pump. Call on the experts that know how to beat the heat conditions apply.
See website for details. Welcome back. For more than two years, Democratic configuration racing and laying out the case. First for impeachment, then for criminal prosecution of Donald Trump's conduct before.
And on January 6, as the lead impeachment manager, Raskin argued before the Senate that Trump should be convicted for incitement of insurrection, making arguments which sound familiar. Today, President Trump tried to bully state level officials to commit a fraud on the public by literally finding books we saw trying to get state legislatures to disavow and overthrow their popular election results and replace them with Trump electors. And as a member of the House's January 6th elect committee, it was Raskin to present the committee's recommendation that the Justice Department charged Trump with four counts obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and assisting in an insurrection. While the special counsel chose not to charge Trump with inciting or assisting in the insurrection over false statements, but he did charge him with the other recommendations in addition to adding the conspiracy against rights.
So join me now is the Democrat congressman who've been referring to there, Jane Raskin. Marilyn. Congressman Raskin, welcome back to the press. Thanks for having me.
Let me first start with a couple of things we heard from Mr. Lauro. You spent 25 years constitutional law professor. So I kind of get Professor Raskin's take on this.
We play one quick clip of something he said to me about the Constitution. A technical violation of the Constitution is not a violation of criminal law. That's just plain wrong. Now, he had the word criminal law there, but it was my Constitution.
You violate the law. Well, first of all, a technical violation of the Constitution is a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution in six different places opposes insurrection. It makes that a grievous constitutional offense.
So our Constitution is designed to stop people from trying to overthrow elections and trying to overthrow the government. But in any event, there's a whole apparatus of criminal law which is in place to enforce this constitutional principle. That's what Donald Trump is charged with violating. He conspired to defraud the American people out of our right to an honest election by substituting the reality legal process we have under federal and state law with counterfeit electors.
I mean, there are people who are in jail for several years for counterfeiting one vote if they try to vote illegally. Once he tried to steal the entire election. And his lawyers up there saying, oh, that's just a matter of him expressing his First Amendment rights. That's deranged.
That is a deranged argument. He also seemed to hint that everything he did as president may not be. It may not be constitutionally charged with. This sounds like the old Nixon defense.
You know, I could do it because I was president. Well, first of all, he's charged with a conspiracy. So there were lots of people who were involved in doing it. But in any event, the law that applies to the rest of us also applies to the President of the United States.
Of principle. They understood very well during the impeachment when they were saying, well, let's not do it during impeachment because he's already left office. Deal with this as a matter of criminal law. That's what Senator McConnell said.
That's what a bunch of the Republicans said. Now it's like a three card monte. You, you can't get him for impeachment because he's already left office, but you can't get him for criminal law because he once was president. I mean, America can see what's going on here.
This is a guy who wants to appoint himself completely immune from the rule of law. That applies to the rest of us. He chose not to charge insurrection. It sounds like Jack Smith wanted to avoid a debate over the first matter.
Well, there's a criminal statute, aiding and abetting. We're giving aiding comfort to insurrectionists, which to the mind of the January 6th committee, Donald Trump definitely did. I mean, he's calling them great patriots. He's saying never forget this day.
He continues to laud them to this very day and saying that when he gets back in, he's going to pardon all of those people. I mean, they're convicted of assaulting our police officers and he's talking about pardoning them. A lot of them have pled guilty to seditious conspiracy, conspiracy to overthrow the government. So.
Yeah, but he's being charged with conspiracy to obstruct the federal proceeding the joint session Congress and conspiring. He defrauds all of our voting rights. He tried to steal the election away from us. Do you, do you, do you like how Jack Smith did this or do you wish he added insight?
No, I think that, I understand there were prudential and tactical reasons for doing what he did. And I think it's excellent because the basic point is the deprivation of our civil rights. Abraham Lincoln said it best. He said an insurrection attempt to topple an election is an attack on the first principle of government, which is the right of the people to choose their own leaders.
When you read the indictment, it's really strong on the alternate electorate. Right. There is actions that are specific, actions are taken. It really sort of throws away the whole speech defense because it was.
You start to see everything. During the impeachment trial, you didn't have the scope of the alternate elector scheme. Obviously by the time you guys had handled the committee you did. Do you think it would make a difference if it had over the scope then?
Well, I think it should have made a difference psychologically for the senators like McConnell who voted no, but you know, in a juridical sense, what they were saying was that the Senate did not have jurisdiction to try Trump because he's a former president. Now, seven Republicans rejected that. All 50 Democrats rejected that. It was a 57 to 43 votes to convict him of inciting a violent insurrection against the union, which was the most widespread bipartisan vote in American history to convict a president.
And of course, you know, Trump is bragging about the fact that only 57 senators voted to convict him of that he beat the constitutional spread in his way. But I think that he's met his match now in a special counsel who is holding him to the letter of the criminal law. We're going to have campaign that's going to be filled with a lot about. Republicans are talking about Biden a lot here.
And I know that a lot of the technical defense of the president, well, the president didn't do anything wrong. But as Michael Kinsley once said, the real scandal in Washington is not what's illegal, it's what's legal. Should there be a code of conduct, something for family members here? Because the appearance of what's not good?
Yeah, I mean, we know that there is a lot of, you know, influence in Washington that's based on people's family connections. Last names matter a lot on case here that, you know, you know, and I have repeatedly asked Chairman Comer on the Oversight Committee for us to look at that in a serious and substantive and methodical and nonpartisan way. But he's instead decided to just pursue the Hunter Biden thing as a one off, as a way to score cheap political points. He doesn't want to talk about Jared Kushner, who brought back $2 billion.
Not million, $2 billion from Saudi Arabia to a company he created the day after the Trump administration ended, when there's still blood all over the Capitol. Yes, yes. Why indicted former president is neck and neck with the current president? Well, it's a great question.
I wish that Lincoln were around to pose it to him because it's his political party that they've dragged into the mud here. And that was a pro freedom, anti slavery, anti, no, nothing, pro immigration party. And now it's become a cult of authoritarian personality. And, you know, even the candidates running against Trump dare not challenge his clear betrayals of his constitutional oath.
Donald Trump knew exactly what he was doing. And we had lots of testimony about that before the January 6th committee. His own White House counsel told him that he was wrong. The Attorney General of the United States, who was like the biggest sycophant of the Trump administration, said the arguments he was following were BS.
And so he had to have known 60 federal and state courts rejected every argument about electoral fraud and corruption they brought forward. And still he went ahead. And even if he did believe it, as his lawyer saying, which I don't think he did, but even if he didn't make no difference, you might believe that your bank owes you some money, you don't have a right to go rob the bank and get that money back. Thanks so much for having me.
President Trump now faces a total of 78 felony counts across three criminal cases. And more criminal charges are becoming in the state of Georgia later this month. Why is Trump's legal jeopardy fueling more support, it appears, from within the party? Welcome back, panelists.
Here I am, senior Washington sportsman Alan Jackson, Ankar Ali Jackson, now the Recorder, the Chief 5 outspoken New York Times Republican strategist Al Cardinals and temporarily active senior pinion right for the Boston Globe. Both of you have a lot of breeze. Three of us don't, but that's okay. More legal help here.
Here's what Donald Trump said last night about his current legal prediction. Every time they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls. We need one more indictment to close out this election. One more indictment and this election is closed out.
Nobody has even a chance. We've already defeated the Republicans. Hallie Jackson was actually Friday night, he had done head rallies both Friday night and last night there. He's been right so far, fair.
And there's no polling out even today. That shows more than half of Republicans think that his indictments against Donald Trump are an attack like attack against people like that. Right. He is reflecting and channeling what he hears from his base, from people who support him, from his loyalists.
The dynamics seem unlikely to change at this point. The question is what dynamic change for those who are hoping to dethrone Donald Trump as the king Republican Party. We've seen this sort of semi sharpening of tone from Romansis, semi sharpening of tones from Mike Pence, who's now the central figure. I don't want to talk about that One second.
No. I'm going to do the montage of the candidates now and you'll see the array of those at the bottom of the polls with tough rudder, those closer to Trump with not so tough rudder. Here it is. Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.
It's another sad day for America. I mean, now we have a former president that's under indictment three times in D.C. they will go after you if you're Republican. The facts be damned, Republicans don't have a fair shot there.
DOJ continues to weaponize their power against political opponents. It seems like they spent a lot of time protecting 100 Biden and Democrats. Like most Americans, I'm tired of commenting on every Trump drama. I've lost track of whether this indictment is the third, fourth, or the fifth.
Alcorn. Those that basically are at the bottom of the polls feel comfortable criticizing the former president. Those who think they can win the nomination are trying to go after the process. Does that anyway win?
Well, look, at this point in time, Donald Trump has effectively tied the indictments to Joe Biden and a political maneuver. Once these cases go to trial, if he's indicted by a grand jury, the facts change and the circumstances change. And this is no longer about Joe Biden. This is about grand jury.
This is about a jury who has convicted him of very serious crimes. And if that leads to a sentencing hearing, that's a whole new set of circumstances. And so, so far, it works well. Are we forecasting that it'll continue to work well through the election?
Not if there's a conviction by a jury of his fears. I mean, Peter, the likelihood that this trial is sometime after the primaries and before the convention is pretty high. Yeah. So whether everybody's fully focused on it now, I understand it's like, oh, another Trump died.
Now I'm going to be come April, May, actually, that'll be the case. That's right. It'll be showcased day after day after day after day. And Republicans at that point will have largely chosen their nominee.
Right. And they'll be stuck with him. If they decide that they want to switch game down, the convention will be afterwards. Presumably somebody could try to engineer something at the convention if he is convicted, they decide maybe we should have a rule by not having a convicted felony.
At the moment, in many states, delegates are legally tied to the person they voted for. But politically speaking, with this indictment in particular, it naturally blunts what Donald Trump's biggest argument is. What? They're coming after me to come after you.
Meaning Trump supporters. The count in the indictment, count four, talks about how Donald Trump attacked the civil rights of every American. It was the opposite. He was not protecting you.
He was attacking you for his own political power in the most authoritarian way possible. That will naturally blunt it in the same way that we saw after the January 6th committee hearings. We will see that. We could see that shift.
I still go back to what if you don't debate Trump on this, how else are you going to get into the primary discussion. And I talked to one person close to former Vice President Mike Pence in preparation for today. He said, listen, he's leaning into it now because if he doesn't, then when. Right.
He's selling hats that say too honest because otherwise when was he going to do it? That's exactly. And by the way, didn't rule that out. You know, pointed to the fact that the former vice president has written a lot about it in his book.
But this is a guy who, you know, believes in the rule of law, etc. On the other side, I spoke with as well, who said you also hear More from DeSantis about this, not because DeSantis wants to be talking about it, but because their new strategy now as part of this post campaign reset is to get DeSantis out talking more, doing more me and doing whatever they think he's going to get asked. Now, if Biden led by 10 points in a general election, Donald Trump Republicans would be having a different conversation with them. Oh, of course they would.
You got to think about the consequences. There's an election and there are people in the ballot in Congress and in the states and they want one thing more than anything else to get elected or real. They're afraid of alienating those Trump supporters. They're afraid of alienating them.
And then, but then, you know, Trump's numbers keep staying up. They're not going to speak against Trump. A conviction takes place. The circumstances change.
You know, there might be a mass grant. They may impeach. They may be going with an impeachment as a way to, quote, be counter. In fact, one of these Fox News commentators suggested it is counter programming.
Yeah, that just shows how badly broken they're willing to break the Constitution as opposed to lose an election. And I think that's exactly what Democrats would need to point out politically to make very clear to voters as we head into this really consequential election are headed to the abyss and we don't seem to have anybody figuring out how to pull us out. We cut back a conservative boycott. Bud Light is causing real trouble for the world's largest ear nick.
Americans are divided over whether companies should take stands and political issue now. Welcome back Data Analog time. This week Aniser Post announced a 10.5% decline in their second quarter revenue and was primarily due to a consumer boycott of Bud Light after the brain partner of the transgender influencer from Instagram ad. But it's not just Bud Light that's been the target of boycotts for the most Part Americans, they seem less than excited when any company takes any sort of political stance.
Let me show you this. Overall, as you see here, 58% think it's appropriate for companies that get involved in politics. When you look at it by political party, Republicans are the most against it, but independents don't like it. Democrats are basically split down the middle.
Now, have you boycotted? Do you do these things when companies take Sands? As you can see, more people boycott than buy. When a company takes a stand, and that is across the board, a majority of Republicans boycott.
As you can see, there's a plurality of independents and a plurality of Democrats. Again, take a company stand, you're cost yourself money. But like Chick Fil a, we've seen it. Left or right, it doesn't seem to matter.
Now, a few other things we want to hear. Who does the boycotting? Who's most impacted? Well, not surprisingly, income matters here.
The more you make, the more comfortable you might be thinking that a company can take a political stand. The less you make, the more appropriate it is because you know what you want to know about the politics. You just want the cheapest product. Also of note, there's a bit of an age disparity here, which may be something Anha push didn't really figure out.
Younger folks don't mind companies taking stuff. Older folks can't stand it. Perhaps a lot of older folks drink blood light, not number ones. The threat of a third party candidate is becoming more likely in the 2024 races.
Voters say they are opposed to another Biden Trump rematch. Donation of forces flirting with o' Brien as a centrist back by no labels. Cornell west is seeking the Green Party on it. Well, in 1980, as Jimmy Carter faced off against Ronald Reagan, a matchup that some people didn't like, Republican Congressman John Anderson of Illinois decided to leave his party and launch an independent bid.
Here's how he pitched his candidacy on this program. In contrast to these two, both of them ex governors, I think I represent the broad political center of this country. I will make it abundantly clear that you don't have to go back to some prior decade to find the solutions to the problems of the future. You don't have to be content with a kind of demonstrated incompetence that we have seen in the White House for the last four years, that there is a third way and I represent that third approach to the American voter.
John Anderson would end up winning less than 7% of the vote when we come back. As former President Trump went to court on Thursday, President Biden went for a bike round. But that split screen moment tells us about how President Biden plans to handle his potential rival's legal drama. Welcome back.
I want to start with something that Toulouse Ola, Nina Naripo wrote yesterday in the Post. Peter baker, country lacks unifying voice in the aftermath of Trump charges the indictment's aftermath showcases the country lacks a trusted, singular voice of moral authority, one who could speak out on one of the most contentious and consequential judicial actions in political history. We are staring into the abyss on the edge of the cliff. We can pick our metaphor, put the rule of laws on the ballot and nobody's reassuring us right now that everything's okay.
Institutions as a whole are all under attack or their faith is being diminished, whether it be the Supreme Court, Congress, the media, of course, obviously, and now the justice system. Right. Because now increasingly largely because Trump is out there telling people this, a lot of Americans believe the justice system can't be trusted. The courts and the prosecutors and Justice Department.
What did John Lord say to you over and over again? He didn't say the special counsel. He didn't say the Justice Department, said the Biden administration. Right.
Obviously a strategic choice on their part to make this as political and partisan as possible, but it actually works. And a lot of people don't believe in the system now. But the issue with that is that while John Lauro and the Trump team are lashing this decision by the special counsel to the Biden administration, it's a bit of a one sided fight because the Biden administration, the White House and a Biden advisor tells me all of you, I'm sure too they have, they feel like they absolutely want to keeping these arms like distance because otherwise I undermine and this is me speaking everything that President Biden say would do which is not interfere with the workings of the Justice Department. I wonder though, if that doesn't increase the satisfaction among Democrats would like to see more muscular response.
It should. If it hasn't, it should. There is a way for Biden, the president to say this is a special counsel and I'm demonstrating how a president does not just rule a Justice Department, but certainly keeps hands off an independent special counsel from what they're doing. But at the same time, candidate Biden has to say, look, I am the candidate who will continue to protect the right to vote, to protect the rule of law.
I am the president that signed the Electoral Cal Reform Act. I am this. The other person is the president who was charged with trying to subvert democracy. He has to be able to make that claim, that has to be the top part of his campaign going into 2024.
If he can't enunciate that message, he's in trouble. All I know is that the country is more unhappy than it's ever been before. The pollution political system seems to be broken. More than 50% of the voters don't like either candidate.
You've got almost two years worth of divisive trials coming up. You've got so much at stake in this country. You've got foreign wars, you've got global stress. This country is going to go through 18 months.
I will truly test our ability to remain a strong united nation. And I think we're all worried about the leaders to meet the moment. Right. I don't know if we do.
I'm very worried. Look at Biden's numbers now. Right? Okay.
In a lot of ways, things are going well for him now. Inflation is down, unemployment is really low, growth is up. Crime, immigration, all these indicators are off their peaks. And yet his approval date rating is the one that's not changing.
It is stubbornly where it's been now for two. You think they're punishing, but look, Trump's numbers never move. It's just elected leaders getting punished for this horrible political depression. Everybody feels like, yeah, we talk about economic depression.
We're in a political depression, not a recession, a depression. I feel like they push all elected leaders over this. I think that's true, but it's also, we haven't had any generation come up yet to have a chance to test themselves and to present a new, a new voice and fresh faces because the older generation is still hanging on, basically. Which is why we were talking briefly about third or fourth options in our country.
This country cannot stand for long, this disruption. And there's no doubt in my mind a third and fourth options will run if our system allowed for it. Better be a home run. Yeah.
The problem is our system makes it so hard, you know, to do this. But the pressure is building. At some point. This all legal group as part of the effort, they've now qualified in about 12 states.
I think they'll keep it going. Other times when we're in a trial. Yeah, people are going to be shopping. They end up picking small or large, but they're going to look for medium.
Anyway. Thank you, guys. That's all we have today. Thanks for watching.
We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press. He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together.
Then one night, the Marine died. And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Makowis and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Datalab. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.