Meet the Press NOW - August 2

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 to 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. Welcome to Meet the Press. I'm Chuck Top reporting from New York. As we enter an unprecedented chapter in American history.

And yes, the word unprecedented, it's going to get used all the time. This is the case where there's no other word to choose. We're going down. You know where we're going, there are no roads.

Former president is now criminally charged for trying to overturn a presidential election loss, even as he remains the overwhelming frontrunner to be his party's nominee for the next presidential election. It's the greatest stress test this country has faced, arguably in over a century. Federal grand jury indicted Donald Trump yesterday afternoon as part of special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into January 6th and interference in the 2020 election. Trump was charged with four criminal caps, conspiracy to fraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights, essentially the rights of those who voted.

Unlike the special counsel previous indictment tied to pass by documents, this time Mr. Trump is being charged for conduct while he was in office. And unlike the last indictment, this one was publicly released for everyone to see almost immediately. The attack on our nation's capital on January 6, 2021 was an unprecedented assault on the Sikh American democracy.

As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the US Government, the nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election. The scope of the conspiracy is laid out in the indictment is wide ranging and sweeping. The indictment refers to six unnamed and unindicted co conspirators who allegedly assisted Trump in his efforts overturn the election in same power.

Based on their descriptions, they appear to be Trump attorneys Rudy John Eastman, who of course was the one trying to convince Mike Pence to obstruct the election returns. Sidney Powell as well as former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and another attorney Kenneth Chesbrough also appears to be alleged Co conspirator number five. We don't quite know who the sixth one is. Smith alleges former president and his co conspirators targeted seven states he lost with a scheme to change their electoral votes through fake electors.

One of the alleged co conspirators even used the term fake electors to refer to them. The United lays out an instance after instance where Trump's hand picked advisors in the Justice Department, the White House and his own campaign repeatedly told him he'd lost and they repeatedly debunked a specific conspiracy theory he would utter to that whether it was one about Georgia, one about Michigan, one about Pennsylvania, et cetera. In other words, Trump knew he was lying and acting corruptly. He certainly was told what he was doing was breaking the law.

It also alleged Trump tried to exploit the violence on January 6 as he remained intent on clinging to power. Of course, charging him with inciting the insurrection did not make it into this indictment. This morning at a sit down with NBC Senate after Trump's attorney tried to argue that his client's conduct was protected by the First Amendment. This is the first time that the First Amendment has been criminalized.

It's the first time that a sitting president is attacking a political opponent on First Amendment grounds and basically making a criminal to stage your position and to engage in political timeout on that one. We've seen that before. While the indictment specifically says that the president has a First Amendment right to speech, he even has a First Amendment right to lie. Absolutely.

This indictment is criminalizing conduct, not speech. Trump is said to be arraigned in Washington 24 hours from right now. But what happens then? When will he stand trial?

Will he stand trial? What happens to the co conspirators? Will any of them flip, any of them eventually get indicted? And of course there's the Republican primary and perhaps the general election.

We're going to get to all the political implications of the last 24 hours and just a bit, we're going to start with some of the most pressing legal questions in this case. So get started. Joined by me, Justice Intelligence course on Candlellian and then with our legal analysis at MC Newsley and Stanis and Tim Hafey, a former U.S. attorney who served as the lead investigator for the January 6th Committee.

And of course they had their own criminal referrals that they sent to Justice. So Ken, let me start with you. I think that it was interesting to see the speed with which we got the indictment yesterday versus the classified documents indictment. I'm just curious, is this the special Counsel's office sort of learning a lesson here.

Or they allow Trump to fill a vacuum for about half of a news cycle. The first time, they didn't allow that this time. I think that's a reasonable supposition, Chuck. Although I will say that there were some complexities in the classified documents rollout that didn't exist here.

For example, you know, they had to notify certain elements of the intelligence community about material that was going to be indictment. They couldn't do it while it was sealed. So there were some things going on behind the scenes that delayed it. It's also true, though, that they unsealed that indictment in Miami more quickly than they had planned to as they realized that Donald Trump essentially had the floor.

And it seems very. It seems certain that they were intent on making sure that didn't happen here, because you could just. You could just see the care with which they took to do the public rollout. It didn't go exactly as they planned, but they got it out quickly.

They had Jack Smith out. He didn't have to make a statement, but he did that. And the indictment is written in plain language, designed clearly to appeal to the American public as well as a jury. When you say.

It's very rare that you say an indictment, what the defendant had the right to do. They started with saying he had right to say that the election was fraudulent. He even had the right to lie about it, but he didn't have the right to engage in an alleged criminal conspiracy. Yeah, that's interesting.

You point that out. You don't often see debate, talking points in an indictment, essentially, what you're saying. Right, exactly. To persuade anything else to glean from why Jack Smith chose to do it on camera, public statement, they're not allowed to say, but it seemed like the symbolism was somewhat mattered to them.

It feels to me like they really believe there is a public education function that they need to do here, that this isn't just. They're not just speaking to the legal community and potential jury pool, but to the public. It was also a kind of a concerted effort to get nature. Merrick Garland had his say as well.

He was at a public appearance in Philadelphia. There were cameras there. He answered a question. You know, he essentially asserted Jack Smith's independence.

He knows, of course, Merrick Garland has been brief on the case all along, and he had a chance to block this and die, and he chose not to. But I thought all that was interesting, and it was all by design. A couple of quick things. One, do we feel like we have a good idea of who's fully cooperating and who isn't.

I mean, I assume now with Mark Meadows being portrayed very honestly, at least in the indictment, hard not to think he's not cooperating, correct? Well, no, I'll tell you, we do not have an idea that is unknowable really. But so, and because I'll tell you this, you know, cooperating can mean different things. Mark Meadows may be cooperating in the sense that he is complying with grand jury subpoenas and turning over everything that he's supposed to turn over.

Or it's possible to hear others could have cut a deal and be, you know, and be subject to criminal prosecution and are cooperating in that respect. Those are two different things. And we really don't know if there are anybody in that category that there are sealed criminal informations with actual cooperators who are, you know, under the gun with criminal prosecution. We don't know the answer to that.

It's certainly plausible though, and it's plausible that some of these co conspirators could take a look at the charges arrayed, potential charges arrayed against them and to got to deal themselves a little bit of action. In the other Jack Smith indictment and investigation. He's asked for a hearing in the classified documents case in front of the Florida judge on conflict of interest issues with one of the defense attorneys. Walk us through it.

Right. So it's a man named Stan Woodward who's represented a number of different people in various of these investigations. And, and his bills appear to be paid by the Trump super pac. So that's important to know.

And the prosecutor, the special counsel is raising an issue of potential conflict of interest because essentially he has, he may end up cross examining his own client on behalf of another client. And that's a problem. There's also an issue with. He's representing people who, you know, appear to the special counsel would badly want to cooperate, but they are so far remaining loyal to president, former President Trump as their lawyers.

Bill, what is he hoping for from the judge that the judge is going to say he can't represent all of these folks at the same time. He wants a judge to force this issue. That's possible. Although I heard Andrew Weissman say today that this may be a wavable conflict of interest if the client says that's okay.

But you know, I think the social council feels like they have to pursue this remedy just to make sure that they, you know, it's on the record. All right, Kendallinian getting started on the Justice Before Ken. Thank you. All right, I got the prosecution side, essentially.

In the defense side, you're represented with Tim Hay, who assisted the January Six Committee, former U.S. attorney himself, and of course, Danny Savos, who's made his living as a defense attorney here as well. So I'm gonna try to get you guys to sort of stay in those lanes for this. So let me start with you.

The. The criminal referrals you guys made to justice, you feel pretty vindicated by what Jack Smith turned in yesterday? Yeah. Looked at the facts have been obvious job for a long time.

The special counsel relied on the same fact and reach the same conclusion that we did, that those facts give rise to violation of several federal criminal statutes. Structure of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defy the United States were precisely the statutes that we referenced in our criminal referral. Not surprise. Right.

Facts make cases, evidence wins trials, not lawyers. And the facts have been fairly obvious here for some time. It seems like if he got additional information, it was arguably because he seemed to have a few more tools. I want to look at the Mark Meadows excerpt in the indictment, and I'm just curious if it.

If how much you wish you could have gotten more from Meadows. A day after the defendant's chief of staff personally observed the signature verification process, the Captain center notified the fence that state election officials were conducting themselves in exemplary fashion and would find fraud if it existed. The defendant, meaning Donald Trump, tweeted that the Georgia officials administering the signature verification process were trying to hide evidence of election fraud and work and then brackets. Terrible people.

What were the tools that Jack Smith you think had that got more out of Mark Metals than you guys were able to? Yeah. So when there's a criminal investigation in a grand jury proceeding, any assertion of privilege can be immediately adjudicated by the chief judge. Mark Meadows, as you know, sort of halfway cooperated with us.

He gave us a lot of text messages, were really important, but then refused to come in and submit to the deposition, even though he'd been subpoenaed, claiming executive privilege. Essentially, his argument was, look, as White House chief of staff, I am immune from congressional oversight. I don't have to submit to the select committee. Our only option was civil litigation, which takes a while.

We did not have the time because we were on a time clock. We were spiring the end of Congress to take that claim to a judge who thought it was meritless, but we did not have the enforcement ability. Jack Smith goes right upstairs to the chief judge who supervises the manager, and that judge immediately makes a ruling. He hears from Meadows, lawyer hears from special counsel, and he makes a call and then immediately goes to the Court of Appeals on a motion to stay.

So he has that hammer to sort of quickly push through privilege assertions, and he has used that effectively to get access to information that we did not have. All right, Dana, bring you in here. What, when you read this indictment, as you were, as Trump's defense attorney, what is the. Do you think is the toughest part of this indictment for him to fight?

Let's start with the facts. Not a lot in the way of facts is a surprise to any of us. So for those of us who have been following along, there aren't a lot of surprises in the indictment. So knowing that the hardest part of the case has always been what it was for at least the last year, since the January 6 committee elicited a lot, if not most, of the facts that we see in the indictment.

So the real question, the only question remaining, was whether or not Jack Smith's team thought those known facts fit into particular federal statutes. And so now we see that, obviously they do. I think any federal case is a bad case for any defendant because the vast majority of federal cases end in conviction. But I think for me, the most damning thing for Trump, if you think about this from a defense attorney's standpoint, everything goes to his intent, ultimately.

And then also there's a defense that, hey, these are my minions, my buffers. They acted independently of me. I didn't know what they were doing. But really, at the core of this, all Trump really has is an intent defense.

And so we see them, the government refute that. In the list of people that told him that this was a bad idea if. If there was not such an organized elector scheme. Right.

Take that out. Do you think his First Amendment defense would be stronger? Sure. I mean, the elector scheme is the most concrete to me.

That to me, is what makes this to me so much harder. And he's a person. Exactly right. But then again, the elector scheme has a lot of people working at Trump's behest.

You have your Giuliani's right. You have even people working with Giuliani. You have a lot of folks that Trump might point to him and say, hey, that Giuliani guy, he's a rogue actor. I didn't know what he was doing out there.

I don't even understand that this is what Trump did. Michael Cohen. I mean, so why would. I mean, it's the best defense.

You know, it's fine, everybody. He's worried about people flipping on him. Should he flip against his co conspirators? By flip you mean can he go into the government and enter into a corporation agreement?

The government's not interested in that. Number one, he's the only defendant. So there's no really right now for him technically to cooperate against the government would be interested in that. I expect that you win the government.

The government would give him an offer that I've gotten plenty of times, which is your client completely indicted. In other words, he can walk into court rule, make any recommendation. He pleats everything in the indictment. Sometimes in federal court, it's so bad that is an option.

But that's not gonna happen in this case. Not a chance. So look, I mean Trump is going to blame other people, right? But the government knows that.

And he's also going to claim massive ignorance. But again, the government knows that and that's why they have all those facts in there about all the people that told him what was going on. Those regionally onion electors. Part of it from the state that was Rudya operating on his own.

Tim, when you've brought a set of charges, more people other than Donald Trump committed crimes here as alleged in this indictment. But Jack Smith chose to single out Donald Trump and not. And it is. How often have you done that?

And is that done simply to get a speedier trial? It's rare. Usually you want to charge all the conspirators together in a single indictment. You don't want to try the same case or present duplicate evidence in multiple trials.

The difference here is the DOJ policy about refraining from taking any enforcement action anywhere close to an election. They have the target of this investigation. The defendant is running for president and therefore there is some haste to bring this case. Take this action well in advance of when people start voting.

My guess is those other conspirators are not off the hook. There may be subsequent cases. Some of them may end up evaluating exposure and potentially reaching some sort of deal. Very hard to say.

Very common in conspiracy cases for conspirators themselves to end up being witnesses against others. As your question, Danny, which is suggesting. So this is not the end of the proceedings here. It's really just the beginning.

And Tim, were you surprised that incitement wasn't included or not? No. That raises more of the First Amendment defense. Right.

Speech is protected by the Constitution as it should be, but conduct is not. That's the line that the jury will have to draw. You President Trump stands up and says the election was stolen and that's his Right. It's only if he says that as part of a scheme to actually take action to disrupt the joint session transfer of power, then it becomes criminal.

So the incitement statute, aid and comfort to an insurrection, those are vague terms that do get closer to speech. I think he's charged this surgically. Looking for a speedy trial. Avoiding some of those legal issues is the best chance of getting this result before the election.

Danny, how would you try to avoid a speedy trial? Here is. I mean, he's made it hard. What's your sense of how likely Trump is going to be able to delay this until after.

There's a paradox going on here. The speedy trial rule is designed to protect defendants, but in federal court, often the speedy trial rule can be better for the government. It's no surprise to me that Jack Smack Smith, a man of few words, found a way to crowbar in the word speedy trial in his very short statement. Because a speedy trial benefits the government, particularly in a case like this, where they've been investigating for years.

Admittedly, Jack Smith started in, I believe, November of last year, but they've been investigating for a long time. Meanwhile, defense hasn't gotten discovery document number one. So in a strange situation, although not that strange, the government is ready to go to trial probably tomorrow. It's the defense that needs time.

So this is the case for speedy trial when in Europe, to the benefit of the government. That's why they're going to try and essentially enforce the defendant's rights. Sure, but what's Trump's best tactic to delay this? Look, he argue that the case is unusually complex.

The Speedy Trial act allows for delay. I have judges that when you make their argument, they say, okay, fine, and they move the trial out one month. Gee, thanks. You know, that's not a lot of help.

Federal judges like to keep their docket moving very quickly. This is not state court where congestion will lead to delays of a century. Cases move quickly in federal court. Dennis, 1080.

I got a lot more questions, but I don't have enough time right now. But I think we're here for both of you. A lot, I hope. Thank you guys for helping us navigate this indictment.

We got an update on some news that had been breaking over the last hour on Capitol Hill. It was a bit disturbing. Multiple Senate office buildings had to be evacuated after D.C. police received a 911 call claiming there was an active shooter in the HARP Senate Office Building.

Well, moments ago, U.S. capitol Police held a press briefing on the incident, saying all three Senate office buildings have been cleared and they found nothing concerning Addie. That was likely a bogus call. Police are now trying to trace the call.

We should know both chambers of Congress are in recess. So of course the folks being targeted here were the staffers. We got a lot more unpacked this hour of next Hangwright and unrelenting pressure campaign and an angry mob. We got some new revelation tied to Mike Pence in this indictment.

What Donald Trump told him about interfering in the 2020 election. I got Mike Pence's former chief of staff and Ranger Rubens himself, Mark Short. Join you next. 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 Cambridge sunrise challenge from May 25th to 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. Welcome back.

Now let's turn now to the political fallout where former Vice President Mike Pence spoke to reporters for the first time allowed campaign trial about the latest criminal charges against his former running man, including Donald Trump's efforts to get Mike Pence to violate the Constitution and stop Congress from certifying results on January 6th. I want the American people to know that I had no right to overturn the election. And then on that day, President Trump asked me to put him over the Constitution. But I chose the Constitution and I always will.

I really do believe that anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States. Anyone who has someone else to put themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States. Again, I can't assess whether or not the government has the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what they assert in the indictment. And the president's entitled to a presumption of innocence.

But for my part, I want people to know that I had the right to overturn the election. Very animated Vice President Mike Pence there special counsels that includes new relations tied to Mike Pence, including the full extent Trump's pressure campaign to convince him to unconstitutionally reject the certification of electoral votes. In one interaction that the indictment recounts, the vice president responded to Trump that he thought there was no constitutional basis for such authority and that was improper. In response, Trump told the vice president, you're too honest.

We also learned that Pence was documenting some of his interactions with President Trump leading up to January 6th in real time. The indictment points to a January 4th meeting, stating during the meeting, as reflected in the vice president's contemporaneous notes, the defendant made knowingly false claims of election fraud, including, quote, bottom line, won every state by hundreds of thousands of votes. And quote, we won every state. Former chief of staff, the Vice president, Mike Pence Park Short was in that meeting.

He has testified for the grand jury and he's agreed to join us right here. Just short. Thank you for coming on, Chef. Thanks for having me.

So let me start with the former vice president. What we learned about it, about his note taking. Was this something he started doing in that period of the pressure campaign, or is this something he was doing quite often? As you can imagine, the job of vice president states is a pretty overwhelming position.

And there's a lot of information that flows through any single one day. So he would often take notes just to keep a fact straight over time. And I think that much of his book and his memoir, so help me God, you know, he used those notes to help with writing the book. And I think, you know, the special counsel then subpoenaed those notes and therefore he complied with that subpoena.

Is the vice president sort of resigned to the fact that if there's a trial, he's likely to be one of the most important witnesses for the government? I don't know, Chuck. I mean, I don't know exactly how these prosecutions go. I do think that.

I don't think there's much question about what the facts were about the president's pressure campaign with the vice president. It seems that more the allegations on the conspiracy and what the president knew and didn't know. And so I don't know. I don't know if he will be or I will be or others will be called to be witnesses yet.

You know, the former vice president told me he thought that former President Trump was led astray by his lawyers, many of whom are those unindicted co conspirators. In fact, let me play what he said to me the first time I heard in early December, somebody suggested as vice president I might be able to decide which votes to reject and which to accept. I knew that it was false. Sadly, the president was surrounded by crackpot lawyers that kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear.

Do you think that given everything we've learned now, you know, the president just sat there and let these crackpot lawyers do this? I mean, he had no involvement here whatsoever. Is that really the defense here? Well, I don't, I don't think so.

You know, Chuck, I do think he has some crazy ass lawyers around him, but I think there's a doubt he sought them out. But I don't think in any ways the Vice President exonerated him. He's been pretty clear and open that what the President asked him to do was a violation of his oath to protect the country. And he's asking the Vice President to violate his oath to the Constitution on the day of January 6th.

But I gotta say what I think has been the most remarkable thing in the last 24 hours is in essence the President's team putting forward the first Amendment defense. Because I don't know, I'm not a constitutional lawyer. And maybe, maybe they're right that, you know, if you're gonna prosecute people for false information, you have to prosecute Democratic elected officials too. But that's a giant shift from two and a half years of telling the American people the election was stolen.

I have the facts. I just never gotta present my case because Congress wouldn't hear it or the courts wouldn't hear it. If that was the case, he could walk in now and present and the conspiracies would go away. But instead they're saying, look, everyone has a first amount right to mislead the American people.

Well then obviously he's been misleading the American people and misleading out what the Vice President's role was. So what you're saying is he can't have it both ways. He can't have his first amendment rights and at the same time somehow question what Mike Pence did with false information. Exactly, Chuck.

I mean, I mean, again, maybe he does have a first amendment right to mislead the American people. And look, we're in the nation's capital, we're playing elect officials to do that. I accept that. But then you're making the point that I haven't misleading American people for last two and a half years, if that's my defense.

And it's not really that I really thought all this information was true. And the Vice President has authority that no other vice president, 250 years of our republic has ever used more than one that we want Kamala Harris to have in 2024 to unilaterally throw out states. And then that certification. To me, the most powerful part of the indictment was the TikTok on the elector scheme because we can have a debate about what did he believe, what didn't he believe.

This wasn't you know, this was an action that was taken on his behalf. What was your awareness of how aggressive this electoral vote strategy was? When did, when did you become aware of just how extensive it was? You know, even kind of this day question the extensiveness of it?

In my mind, there were a lot of people throwing mud the wall or trying to see what would stick. And it was, it was, it was not really a real thought out strategy. We were. The vice president, you remember, was traveling the country trying to encourage states to reopen.

As the leader of the COVID task force. The vice president went to Georgia six different times, campaigned for those two special elections. And so many of those meetings that I guess were happening to, to elicit false electors were done really without our office's knowledge, the vice President's knowledge. And so it wasn't really until last day or two that we became really more aware of that.

And interestingly, the vice President asked the senate parliamentarian on January 3 about alternate sets of electors. And he said, you know, we get them, every average citizen will send them in every four years. But it means nothing. It means nothing unless the state is certified.

And so the question is, have other states certified? If you go back to vice president's remarks on presiding over that ceremony, he would say no other slate having been certified by their state. You know, he then move forward to go ahead with the proceedings. Up till now, Republican voters have not been moved by these allegations.

Do you. What do you think? Why do you think that is? And do you think there's a way for their minds to change?

Because if they do, Mike Pence might be their guy. Maybe. Chuck, I don't, I don't know. I think that the realities of each indictment has rallied Republican supporters around the President.

I think that fairly for a lot of Republicans, they look back on those four years, there's a lot that was accomplished, a conservative agenda that they're really proud of and believe that, you know, Donald Trump was defending a lot of our beliefs from. Attack from the left. And so there's, there's sort of a built in, I think, sense of Republicans that he's under attack now we're going to defend him. And I think that, you know, that's understandable.

And I think there was a lot that was great to accomplish. He deserves credit for him. But having said that, you know, I think that the events of January 6th were absolutely tragic. And I think the President had an enormous dereliction of duty on that day and the days leading up to it.

Is this disqualify in Your mind? In my mind it is, sure. I mean, I think if you basically are President United States and you, and you willfully ask your Vice President to disregard his oaths of Constitution, I think that is disqualifying for whether you're conservative or liberal. But I think that, you know, that is, that is a decision for American voters to make move forward.

You've had the, you've spoken with both the January 6th Committee and with the grand jury. Obviously you can't disclose the grand process specifically, and I get that. But I'm just curious the difference. What was similar, what was the same?

How would you compare the two experiences? Well, I wouldn't wish on anyone, Chuck. I mean, I think in both cases I was subpoenas before that testimony. But I, you know, I think that in each case that the people leading those, those hearings were incredibly professional with us.

And, and I think, you know, we told our story and leave it up to others to judge whether or not others events that can be prosecuted from them. You know, Jack Smith did not charge the former President with incitement in some ways, I think agreeing with the potential First Amendment argument on that front. But he did allege that Donald Trump exploited the violence. That's something you and the Vice President would agree with.

Well, I don't want to speak for the Vice President. I think, you know, as I was there in the Capitol that day, that I would certainly agree with that. I think that the President did encourage people to, to march the Capitol, but I think can hold him at all for the violence that occurred. I think that the people who conducted the violence, the ones that married that.

But, you know, when in the midst of the happening, when the President is tweeting out derogatory and inflammatory false information about the Vice President, in the midst of that, I think he bears responsibility for that. Sure. We're have a lot of trials and a lot of hearings and it's all going to happen. You know, I don't know if the legal calendar is now the primary calendar, vice versa.

I'm being a little facetious here, but how damaging do you think this could be, the Republican Party, if the voters decide to stick with Trump? Well, I think that what we saw in 2020 is that probably Donald Trump is one of the only ones in the public field who could not beat Joe Biden in 2024. And so I think it is something Republican voters have to come to grips with. And I think there's a bigger question about where our party is headed.

Is it? I think again, there was much of this accomplishment in this four years. That is tremendous for conservatives. When I was reshaping the court, rebuilding our military, getting the tax reform and securing our border, things that we fought for for many years that we can be proud of.

But at the same time, the end does not justify the means. And I think if we, if we basically embrace the notion that, that we can disregard the rule of law when it's in our interest. And I think that's a big challenge for our party moving forward. Had enough senators voted to convict, would that have been the better outcome?

I don't know, Chuck. I think I have a lot of concerns about whether or not it's appropriate for people to be voting to impeach a president after the term is completed and he doesn't have the ability to defend himself in that proceeding. I think there have been a lot of, a lot of. I think there are a lot of due process concerns with that.

And so I think the Senate act appropriately not impeaching the president. All right. Or convicting. Sorry.

Former chief of staff through and still a political Advisor to former McMahon. Appreciate you coming on. Thanks for your turns. For the Still a deeper dive in what these charges could mean for the Trump campaign.

Standing in the polls bank account I got Steve Kaki at the big board. You're watching the first time. Welcome back. Indictments in New York in the past five documents case a little not former President Trump from his front runner status in the Republican primary.

And once it too early to say for sure that this indictment is going to move the needle probably won't most Trump's 2024 rivals are as reluctant as ever to criticize him. They're not embracing this one as closely this time. It's interesting. As close as Ron DeSantis said he then weaponizes nation of government as president and virus want to call on the field to stand with Trump.

Well, one of the reasons I'm running for President Harris is to reconstitutionalize the federal government and these agencies that have become weaponized, the FBI, the DOJ against political opponent. Do we have a single standard of justice or do we have a track of justice where if you're connected to the SW Trump, you get off whether it's Hunter Biden, whether it was the guy Durham tried to prosecute or are we gonna live under a single rule of law? It would be easier for me if Donald Trump were eliminated from competition. That is not how any of us should want to win because that is bad for this country.

That's why it's important for those of us competing against Trump to take a strong stand against these politicized indictments. And joining me now from where else the Big Board is NBC's senior national political response, Steve Kornacki. So, Steve, we've seen the polling bumps before. I don't know whether at this point we would consider them a bump or this just what it is.

But, yeah, we've never seen evidence that the indictments hurt Trump. Yeah, we've seen, we've seen it help him in a big way. And we've seen just what you're saying there, that it didn't hurt. So overall, just average the polls together right now.

That's where Trump is running on the Republican side, almost 40 points over his nearest competitor on the stance, nobody else in double digits. And here's the trend line this year. Trump is this blue line at the top is the orange line under. And you can really see it's hard to remember now, but earlier in the year, DeSantis was relatively close to Trump.

You know, coming up, a bad 22 midterm for the Republican Party, but the good one for DeSantis. And then it was right here at the end of March, Trump was indicted in Manhattan in the Stormy Daniels money case. And that's where his numbers shot up. That's where DeSantis fell.

And yeah, you can see a couple other developments. The E. Jean Carroll trial, the indictment of documents case, it's not a basically been stable set. So the first time he got a huge boost, moved over 50%, moved 25, 30 points ahead of DeSantis.

And I had multiple Republicans come on the show and say Alvin Bragg is Donald Trump's secret weapon. That indictment did it. They're not sure about the other. It is interesting to me to see the fundraising reports.

These aren't polls. We can't tell you that. But if you, if they were seeing fatigue among donors with these indictments, one can't help but wonder if it will eventually translate into public opinion. But show us that.

Yeah, so, yeah, a similar sort of timeline here. And we're looking at here are the contributions to Trump's campaign. And you can see again, this is that period we're talking about here, the indictment in New York by Alvin Bragg. Then it was a few days later, April 4, he was actually arrested and arraigned.

The media spectacle raised in that one day, nearly $4 million, $3.9 million in that one day. And you can see in the subsequent, the arraignment in Florida, the indictment that came right before that this was on the Mar A Lago documents case, just not. I think it was 1.3 million on the day of his arraignment here. So you're talking about one third.

He was arraigned in Manhattan early April. Nearly 4 million arraigned in Florida documents case. 1.3 million. Now, we'll see on this one.

Is that just the nature of this indictment, the series? Is it all that? Is that gonna trigger something else? You know, it is notable on the Florida because they seem to almost try harder to make money off of Florida.

They put more effort into creating an event out of Florida. New York, they seem to shy away from it. That happened organically. They try to make it work, and it didn't happen.

So you wonder what these things do. I think this story from for eight years now, the first time something happens, you get all the coverage. It's unprecedented. We've never seen it.

And that may have been what we saw with Manhattan. Very quickly, if we're looking for a group of Republicans in the electorate to watch, to see which way they're moving, what group are you looking for? Evangelicals in Iowa. I mean, if anybody's gonna catch Trump, they've gotta start in Iowa.

So if those folks are somehow offended by these things, then all of a sudden, maybe there's a passion. Two thirds of the Iowa electorate is going to be even delicate Christian Trump almost fished third Iowa in 2016. He's 30 points ahead now. But I mean, that's the movement.

If you're not Republican, that is not an electorate that we've seen a lot of movement in. All right, see. Right, so you got it. So joining analysis dashboards with all what this might mean for the Republican primary.

Dasha, you just heard Steve there. He basically said, isaiah, what's the one group of voters, I guess we should watch right now, see, don't move at all. And he. This sort of your theory, which is, well, let's check the Iowa stuff.

That's the Iowa evangelical. You know, if they move, okay, then maybe voters are going to start moving. But you've been on the trail. Yeah.

Does January 6th move? I know we know that classified doctor does and we know Swami Daniels does with these, with the Republican base. What about the Danish existence? Well, when I talk to voters, there are sort of two camps here, and I'm talking Republican primary voters.

Right. You and Iowa, New Hampshire did all these early states. For Trump, there's a reason that he can let go of this issue of election interference, and that is because for his red meat Base. It is what brings people to life, and it is what sort of lights up that very uncanny, completely unparalleled connection that he has with his voters.

He have never seen anything like him. The election. This information is the. It really.

It reminds people of the club that they're in and the club that got sort of. That got snubbed by everybody else. On the other hand, the people that aren't fully in that club, that don't have their gold card right, they don't like us in the end, and we'll be in trouble. You tell us nonsense.

That's right. But then the other folks, the January 6th issue is the One World. He was a fantastic president. We love so much of what he did.

But that. That's the one. You know, I don't know about that day. I've even talked to voters that have said I was with him until January 6th and that that could be the crux of the same church.

I don't know that there. I also don't know that people are paying enough attention because this is indictment number three. And I think either for the folks that love Trump, they've written it all off, or people are so tired of the indictments that they're like, you know what? We need to get past this legal set.

Let's talk about the agent table issue. Is it any sense that DeSantis or Tim Scott or Nikki Haley. I know what Christy and others are doing here, but in Pence. But I'm talking about the three right now that might have a shot at knocking them off.

You get a sense that any of them want to dabble in this. DeSantis left himself a window. He said in a statement, I haven't read the indictment. That was interesting.

That was interesting. Weaponization of the department. He said it loves to read. So I'm curious what he'll say and if and when he does read this.

It's a component, whatever you think of it. Right. It's a good read. So he might be leaving himself some wiggle room there.

I mean, if he's his closest rival, you're in a Republican primary. I found his statement to be, oh, it wasn't as supportive of Trump as you might have thought. And it came a little quicker than it did last time. That's Burns.

Okay. How do you like him now? Coming to the former president's defense after this latest indictment, Speaker Kevin McCarthy called the night in an attempt by the Justice Department to distract from investigations into Hunter Biden and anybody else that may be associated with Hunter at Least upon it, the number of three. House Republican called the indictment of sham and reiterated the GOP talking point that Biden is weaponizing the Department of Justice against a political rival.

And House Judiciary Committee chairman ardent support of Donald Trump. And Jordan tweeted, quote, president Trump did nothing wrong. So join me now, this John Casey, former 2016 presidential candidate, he's now an NBC News analyst. And you know, after reading the indictment, I'm curious what you thought because here we are, we're gonna go through our election now with a rule of laws on the ballot and we had a venue where we could have resolved this, but the Republican Party chose not to to use it.

And that was called the impeachment trial. When you look at this indictment, where would we be in as a country had Mitch McConnell gone the other way? Oh, that's impossible for me to kind of answer, Chuck. I guess it would have made a very, it would have sent a message to Republicans by Republican leaders that Trump is not acceptable.

So it probably would have been maybe not a knockout, but a knock down punch. And I was interested in the question you were asking about who should you keep an eye on, Chuck? I mean look, you have your solid Trump Trumpers there, I don't know, 30, 35, 37%. But you have two other groups.

You've got the Never Trumpers and you've got those people who are kind of like, yeah, you know, yeah, I probably would vote for Trump. The person who would be able to unify those two. And they're hard to do because the Never Trumpers are Never Trump. And those who kind of like, you know, who kind of are for Trump, they don't want you tearing his skin off.

So how do you bring those two together? That's the best chance. That's what I would watch are those people who kind of, yeah, I might go for Trump, but you know, I really don't like him. That's the group I would keep my eye on.

So, but I guess the question is, are there too many Always Trumpers? And what I mean by that is they're so always Trump that if it's not Trump, they're out. And what's your. There's a lot of people in the Republican Party fear losing his most ardent supporters in a general versus, you know, putting together the coalition you were just talking about.

You know, Chuck, you're run for president, you gotta be who you are. And I think that that person, person that can thread that needle or somebody that can become formidable and then all of a sudden everybody's talking about him. The other thing that hasn't been said here is with all of Trump's legal problems mounting, I mean, everywhere you look around, it's another indictment. Could we get to the point where Trump says, I'm gonna cut a deal, and if you cut a deal, he would have some excuses to why he did it?

I'm not saying he's gonna do it, I'm not predicting it. But I think it's a real possibility that is being considered right now. He says, there's no way I'm gonna quit. Oh, really?

With all these things staring in the face? I wouldn't discount that possibility. And then who picks up the pieces? We're gonna have to see better for the country to have these trials before the election or not.

Well, look, I mean, the judicial system should work just the way it works. Lawyers have their chance. The people who are being defended have an opportunity to do what they do. But I think that justice has to be seen here in all these things.

That's my sense of it. And however that legal business plays out, I mean, what's best for the country? Justice is what's best for the country. Not that there's some slip shot.

Look, we keep talking about, you know, who's the best candidate, how should they position themselves, what's best. Why don't we just figure out what's best for the country and go for that instead of all the machinations about what politically work. It doesn't work. This poll, in that poll.

That's not what makes great leadership of challenge. The problem is, is that I think the country thinks what's in their best interest is not to have either Biden or Trump run. And neither man is going to abide by that. Well, and that's why you see the rise of the potential.

Not the third. It's not a third party, but the third party, the third movement, which is, you know, there's no labels. And one of the things that's interesting is I'm told that the Democrats predominantly are the ones that want to keep them off the ballot. So they're the ones that don't like voter suppression, but they're having some voter suppression when it comes to whether that labels.

Keep it on. Yeah. You know, change is coming, Chuck. It's coming.

Well, and that's the point I was trying to make this point on Sunday, is I don't think the general public, who doesn't live and breathe this the way you and I do, is fully appreciate my own 19 year old daughter said to me the other day, wait, it's going to be Biden and Trump again? And she just was like, it didn't compute. And she has to, you know, she's in college. She's not total osmosis these days.

But was, what does that moment look like on May 1, right, where the Republican Party nominated and also have these trials. Right. What do you expect their public reaction to me, you know, Chuck, I guess the bulk of the country is going to say they don't want Trump. I don't think there's any way Trump could ever be president.

I think we've made up our minds. Voters have made up their minds. And I think if it's Trump and Biden, Biden will do better than he did the last time. For those people who are Trumper's, Chuck, I keep going back to this conversation I had with this gentleman, very smart guy.

He, I said, well, what would change your mind about Trump? He said, nothing, because I don't believe any of the elites. I don't believe the news media. I don't believe anybody else.

As far as I'm concerned, he's fine. So you make a good point about not just your daughter, but a lot of people, they're not riveted at all this stuff. They see this happening, they shake their heads. And remember, 17% of Republicans in that last poll that I think NBC was connected to said that Trump has done something that's seriously wrong.

17%, last time I checked, it's like 83% think, oh, you didn't do anything wrong. So with Republicans, we got, we just got to see the water that goes under the bridge. I think that anytime you're indicted, it's bad for you. But the question is, where are those, where are those voters in terms of not just never Trump, but those who are kind of semi sticky to him?

You know, I, I know where you keep coming back to, which is, you know, we know the country doesn't want this, but how do you have that? You know, I can't take it any more conversation with a large electorate in our, in our siloed society. Well, this is a big problem because, as you know, Republicans look at Democrats as an existential threat to their way of life. Democrats take a look at the Supreme Court decisions, and they're saying Republicans are an existential threat to, to our country, both sides.

And it's not everybody searching for this middle. They're in a lot of middle. There's people that look at this for various reasons, and I think a lot of them are cultural about the other side being an existential threat. We have to get out of it.

I think we get out of two ways. When normal people go to the bowling alley and they're hanging out together and they're getting to know each other and it starts a conversation. But secondly, you're going to think this is out there. I think just like we saw in the turn of the 20th century, we're going to need some sort of a spiritual awakening where people look at people that they don't agree with, realize that they're all made in the image of God, and that they have to have respect for them.

Until that happens, we stay in this. In this position where you're in one place and not another. And I don't like you, and you don't like me, and you represent something that destroys my way of life. That's dangerous and striking.

For number I've seen recently is a majority of people don't trust other people. And that's fits to what you're saying. We have to want to build community again. And it may.

Until we do that, we may not break the cycle. Chuck, always say, yeah, let me make one other point here. I used to say that a cataclysmic event could change things. Covid was.

And it made us even more polarized. It changed things. But I'm optimistic we'll get there. Never count out the Big Guy to give us the inspiration we need to bring us together.

I always count on the son of a mailman. I do. I do. I miss you, buddy.

Good to see you. I miss you, Chuck. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. While the alarm bell's going off over the United States credit rating being downgraded and how January 6th apparently played into the decision. Welcome back. We're tracking some major economic news that's overshadowed by the big indictment.

And it does actually have January 6i Stitch, which is one of three major credit rating agencies that downgrade the US's credit rating, citing, quote, erosion of governance on fiscal and debt related matters. It marks the first major downgrade since 2011. Debt ceiling standout. The agency cited the January 6th insurrection as an area of concern for US governance.

Earlier this year, Fitz put the US rating on a negative watch during the political fight over the debt ceiling. So let me bring in NBC News business and data reporter Brian Sean. Brian, it's interesting to me. It just goes back to.

You could say we've had governance issues going all the way back to 2011. Okay. You could say we've had some issues of our. Of our Constitution and our political stability.

With January 6, the debt ceiling shoe now got resolved and it's still in the outbreak. Yeah. And that's the reason why I hear from Danielle and saying that she thinks that this was hard to remain. I mean especially for two happened two months after we avoided it going off and cliff and debt ceiling negotiations.

What Fish is trying to say, it's the culmination of all these things. So they didn't declare it after January 6th. They didn't declare it immediately after the debt ceiling stand up because they wanted to see the totality of the situation. Can the government not only get on one page in terms of avoidance in the future, but also deal with the debt issue independently?

Because we know their concerns with agent population shut can we pay our Social Security bills in the future? So the Talibola is the reason why Fish says they have a down radio us so we're no longer the super triple A rating, automatic AAA rating. You do the combination right, we don't have to play across the board. What does that mean to the average consumer?

Well, the options two are nothing. Okay. Magnag Ratings is really all about even financial markets. And it's interesting to see her from Jamie diamond on cnbc, the head of the largest bank in the country.

He says I don't really think this matters because financial markets still hold US Treasuries, which is American debt, as the highest. So even though Canada, Switzerland are rated above the United States, they are among those countries that are rated above. But people still think United States government debt is more worthy than those other ones. What it does say, in fact is that there are some is it pension funds that they can only invest in certain AAA credit debt.

Is that where this comes in even at all? Yeah, it was Golden Saxo that talked about this in many cases. There are some comments that say you have to be in AAA rated debt. In most cases they're going to see more companies that are similar to the tune of the most highly rated debt.

Which means that that is still click. There's still redo this. They can look at it again in the next few years. But again, SEC can never rerate it.

So thank you for some clarification. Thank you all for being with us this hour. NBC News now coverage continues with Hallie Jackson right now. 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 Mankiewicz and this is Trace of Suspicion. An all new podcast from Dayline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts,