>>> You are live in the CNN
newsroom in Washington.
New drama and a new deadline.
A new legal ruling in the latest
indictment of Donald Trump.
The federal judge overseeing
trump's election fraud case has
responded to a court filing from
special counsel jack Smith late
last night.
Smith wants a protective order
after trump posted this last
night.
It says, quote, if you go after
me, I'm coming after me.
Smith wants the judge to stop
trump and his legal team from
publicly discussing sensitive
evidence and he's citing that
social media post as one reason
why.
The judge has given trump until
Monday.
Smith called it an unnecessary
delay when trump asked to push
it back.
>> A California Democrat who
served on the January 6th select
committee, congressman, thank
you for joining me.
Your sense of what has been
taking place over the last 24
hours, the special counsel is
asking the judge to issue this
protective order to restrict
trump and his lawyers from
publicizing sensitivity
evidence.
They're noting this social media
post that came from trump
yesterday evening essentially
leveling a threat.
An unspecified generic threat.
I suppose some could infer that
he was trying to send a warning
to people involved in this case.
>> Well, yes, it certainly is an
obvious reading of that.
He's coming after people.
I understand some of his
supporters said it was in a
political sense.
But any ordinary person reading
that would come to the
conclusion that he would be
coming after people he perceived
as opposed to him.
Seeking this pregnantive order
is not unusual.
There's a protective order
already in the Florida documents
case.
It is not uncommon in criminal
cases.
If they are going to share all
the evidence with the testimony,
they need to be sure that won't
be put out in the public to
intimidate witnesses, make
people afraid to speak.
And we do know that the
expresident has a record of
threatening and demeaning other
judges, their families, lawyers
who are prosecuting.
So this is not something that is
just out of the air.
And I think the special
prosecutor has a legitimate
concern that people who night
speak up would be afraid, that
witnesses' testimony would be
chilled.
It doesn't prevent the president
from speaking.
It just prevents him from
publicizing the evidence that he
receives from the special
prosecutor.
>> Is it your sense,
congresswoman, based on your
work that the president will
start playing these kinds of
game and it may dove tail with
his defense team's legal
strategy.
If he can go out there and stir
up a hornet's nest and it
promise them to say to the
judge, we need a protective
order.
You can see where I'll going.
The former president could do
this from now until there is a
trial and that would play into
his play book, as you know all
too well, of delay, delay, delay
when he gets into legal hot
water.
>> Well, his game is delay.
We know that.
From the way he dealt with us in
the January 6th committee.
Always delaying matters, trying
to prevent them from being
heard.
I think it is interesting that
the trial judge did not allow
delay.
It as to be filed by day after
tomorrow.
Trump's lawyers asked for an
extension.
She denied it.
So a decision will be made quite
soon.
He's not going to be able to
engage in unreasonable delay
unless the trial court judge
goes along with it, and that's
not her reputation.
She's no nonsense.
>> Just a day after this
arraignment, and this third
criminal indictments, trump was
joking that four may be his
lucky number.
Here what he said at a rally
last night.
>> 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.
>> It's true that trump has
remained the front runner and he
seems to invite these
indictments coming his way.
What is your reaction to what
he's saying?
>> Well, I don't know what to
make of it.
I guess he believes that his
supporters are further energized
when he's charged with a crime.
I think that's kind of weird.
But perhaps it's true.
It has nothing to do with what
kael of justice plan to do.
They have to charge it.
He doesn't have strong defenses
on indictments.
It looks lick his biggest to
defense.
>> And when you read the special
counsel's indictment, did you
see a lot of the committee's
work essentially showing up,
this very important document
from the special counsel?
>> Yes.
I did, actually.
Starting at the beginning, it
was the tail that we were able
to tell from the evidence we
uncovered almost completely.
There were a few things we did
not uncover.
For instance, Mike pence would
not talk to us so we didn't know
he had taken contemporaneous
notes.
We didn't know that the
president said he was too honest
when he refused to go along with
the president in overturning the
election.
We didn't know that there was a
discussion about calling out the
army to American cities if he
succeeded in overturning the
election.
For the most part, the scheme
that the president, then
president was at the center of,
the multifaceted effort to
overturn the election was
uncover.
I think it was upheld to the
special prosecutor.
He would have to interview the
witnesses himself.
He couldn't rely on our
interviews.
But it looks like he went ahead
and did that.
And it was a pretty quick
process for a federal
investigation.
It was less than a year.
Now we have these serious
accusations that have been fail.
>> What is your sense that the
special counsel said that former
trump essentially told Mike
pence, you're too honest?
Does that say to you that you
would have loved to have had him
speak to the January 6th
committee?
That's one of my questions.
Doesn't it set the table,
congresswoman, for the former
vice president to be perhaps the
star witness, or one of the star
witnesses at the former
president's trial in this?
>> Well, when I read that, the
first thing I thought was pence
rebecause theed to lie and
violate his oath.
We already knew that.
I think it was really in essence
to ask and to be part of the
president's dishonest scheme.
It is almost an admission of
dishonesty from trump.
We did hear from the vice
president's people and we did
hear a lot.
The other witness we don't know
about, it doesn't look lake mark
meadows fits the description of
any of the co-could not spaer or
thes that are mentioned in the
indictment.
Now, I don't know whether
something about him is going to
come later or whether he's a
witness.
If he is a witness, he did know
a great deal.
He was with drum throughout the
riot, every step of the way as
the the plot was made.
He.
>> And I assume mark meadows is
someone you want taking the
witness stand.
He did cooperate to some extent
with the January 6th committee
until he stopped.
He provided the very important.
Mark meadows appears to be one
of these individuals who do just
be a fountain of information for
the special counsel in making
this case.
>> I've never really understood
why mark meadows provided all of
these documents, text messages
and the like, and then decided
not too cooperate.
What happened?
Whether president trump, then
president trump prevail upon
him, I don't know.
Obviously, the information he
did provide was very
unlightening and we certainly