Jack: The long awaited results of the January 6 investigation are in and Donald Trump has been indicted with fourth -- four crimes.

A preview of his upcoming trial and the impact it could have on the 2024 race for president.

Special addition of "Metro Focus" starts right now.

♪ Announcer: This is "MetroFocus", with Rafael Pi Roman, Jack Ford, and Jenna Flanagan.

"MetroFocus" is made possible by Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III, Filomen M. D'Agostino Foundation, The Peter G. Peterson and Joan Ganz Cooney Fund, Bernard and Denise Schwartz, Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

And by Jody and John Arnhold, Dr. Robert C. and Tina Sohn Foundation, the Ambrose Monell Foundation, Estate of Roland Karlen.

Jack: Good evening and welcome to "MetroFocus".

Donald Trump is headed back to court after being indicted by a grand jury.

Special Counsel Jack Smith announced the former president is charged with four felony counts related to his account -- attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election culminating in the January 6 attack on the capital.

The charges include conspiracy to defraud the U.S., conspiracy against rights, a charge that Trump attempted to deprive American citizens of their constitutional rights to have their votes counted.

This comes weeks after committal indictments of Mr. Trump's handling of classified documents and his alleged push money payments to Stormy Daniels.

A fourth indictment in Georgia still looms.

Joining us now with more on the historical significance of his indictment, and how the charges could impact the 2024 presidential race are Terri Austin, Ronato Mariati, andRussel Paine.

We have a lot to talk about.

Let's jump in right away.

The first place to start is the charges themselves.

What legally they mean.

A formal federal prosecutor, we will start at the beginning.

That should be the notion of conspiracy.

Three of these four counts involved conspiracy.

Give us a working definition, what you would say to a jury about what a conspiracy means.

Ronato: Conspiracy as an agreement -- is an agreement to commit a crime.

It requires that it be written down, there needs to be two people and meeting of the minds, that they want to work together, to commit some other crime.

Jack: Let's start at the top.

The first count is conspiracy to defraud the U.S.. That sounds really big and expansive.

Give us a working definition in this case, what this count is alleging.

Ronato: It is a lot.

The defense will have an argument that it is alleging a lot of different things.

What he is coming down to is, there is a conspiracy to try to defeat the lawful functions of the U.S. through the handoff of power through the electoral vote counting process.

At was done through a variety of different ways.

Whether it involved using the Justice Department to create a misunderstanding or misapprehension about potential voter fraud.

Whether it was about trying to pressure the vice president to stop the vote counting process, or fusing fake elect -- using fake electors, claiming they were the true electors when they were not.

Jack: The middle to counts, fairly straightforward.

Conspiracy to obstruct the governmental function.

The third count is the actual count of obstructing or attempting to obstruct that.

The fourth one is unusual put -- unusual.

It is conspiracy against rights of individuals.

The indictment says the right for voters to vote and for their vote to count.

Unusual count, not something people have seen in the past.

A quick definition of this.

Ronato: That is a big question.

Because it is not entirely -- I do not think it is clear.

There will be some motions that the defense will make to clarify that.

It is fair to say it has never been done before.

This type of charge, the statute has been charged, in different contexts.

What he is trying to suggest is that the votes of the people who lawfully voted and expected their votes to count in a particular state like Georgia, where there was an attempt to deprive them of their vote through unlawful means.

Jack: An unusual -- in the past it is a construction statute.

It had to do with the civil rights battles.

We have not seen it in the recent past.

Terri, question to you.

Were you surprised at the counts that came out of this grand jury?

Terri: They made complete sense.

Congress investigated this issue and handed off to the DOJ and that is how we got the Special Counsel.

If you watch those proceedings, they did leave -- lead up to specific count.

What Jack Smith is trying to do is say this was something that was done against the U.S., it was done against Congress, and it was done against individual voters.

That is the circumference we have.

He wanted to make sure he addressed all of the injured parties.

The specific allegations within those charges may complete -- make complete sense.

It is specific as far as the collecting, counting, certifying, that is what they did as far as those states were concerned.

They were trying to say the process was wrong, the Dominion voting machines were not right, people who were cheating, people in Georgia throwing away both.

Specific allegations for these three areas, it makes complete sense.

Jack: From your perspective, you have been reporting on this, let me ask a bigger question, what are you seeing in terms of the political reaction, the reactions from other political allies, political critics of the president, what is the sense you are getting?

Russell: we know that most Republicans are lining up to support President Trump, including most of his opponents.

Vivek Ramaswamy issued a statement talking about how he feared that this charge would be an instigating event in America's slide into a bed in our Republic, the term he used.

What you are also seeing is a few Republicans who are coming out against Donald Trump.

Most notably, Vice President Pence who said this indictment was disqualifying for him.

His testimony is going to be important for this case.

He was there and was supposed to be a key player in this scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

There are other players on the Republican side who have come out against Mr. Trump.

Including Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson.

I don't know there voice carries a huge amount of sway with the Republican electorate.

In terms of Democrats, the big player, President Biden, has not commented.

Jack: The White House has been careful to stay away from this.

Russell, a political offers nation -- observation.

When you talk about the base of President Trump, he famously said when he was running in 2016 that he could walk out onto fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and would not lose any votes.

It is they reaction you are seeing to these charges, these are significant -- we should stress, these are allegations, the Former President is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anyone else.

But does this -- when you look at the reaction to these charges, from his base, those that support what he has said?

Russell: I think there is going to be little that comes out in this case that would change the opinion of the members of President Trump's base of voters.

His most ardent supporters trust him over almost any other source of information.

With these past indictments, these allegations are more serious.

President Trump has received a polling bump, as Republicans argue it is a witchhunt and they are coming after him.

Jack: Were you surprised that this indictment did not include an insurrection charge?

We have seen them levied against those who were actively involved in January 6.

We have seen convictions, members of the Proud Boys.

On number of people may have suspected that an insurrection charge would be part of this indictment.

Is that surprising Terri: -- Terri: It is not that surprising.

He did not participate in the January 6 riot physically.

What they did say is he exploited violence for the riot, he wanted to delay the election certification.

So they tied him into it.

But probably because he was not physically there.

We know he made speeches right before, and possibly that is why they are saying he is exploiting the situation, encouraging them.

I think that is as far as they wanted to go.

I think it makes sense to leave it.

They want to make sure this indictment is something that is tight, they don't want to have any sort of allegation that might not convince a jury that this is something he should be convicted upon.

Some of it may be, but you want to have a jury say, yes I think he did all of those things.

There is doubt there, you might not be able to get convictions on all of them.

Jack: Help us understand the notion of unindicted co-conspirators.

There are six listed in the indictment.

Most people think that five art identifiable.

-- five are into to file -- five art identifiable.

People are up in the air about who number six is.

Explain to us the notion of why and indictment would list unindicted co-conspirators who are known to the grand jury, why they are not charged?

Ronato: We talked about it earlier, conspiracy laws means two people agree to commit a crime.

That is a separate crime from the underlying one.

If you and me agree to have a bank robbery, whether we come pleaded or not, -- whether we complete it or not, we ultimately don't carry forward with that, we can be charged separately with conspiracy.

If we go forward with that we could be charged with bank robbery.

All of those people technically did commit crimes.

But the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to each person.

They may have better evidence regarding one person than another.

That is why you often see and unindicted co-conspirator.

We have great evidence to prove if you are -- to prove one person made this agreement, but understanding what was in the other person's head is hard.

It is complicated.

There are other reasons as well.

Sometimes there is a decision made by prosecutors that some people are not worth prosecuting.

And you want to charge it that way to get evidence, as a conspiracy, but you don't think those people are worth charging.

Here, what I think may have been the case, is that Jack Smith made a decision that he wanted to proceed to trial as expeditiously as possible.

He thought that if he charge or people, that would delay it.

Jack: That is a good point.

The notion of which of these cases goes to trial first.

Oftentimes, when you see unindicted co-conspirators, it may well mean it is somebody who has already flipped, providing information to the government and the prosecution.

Have you seen anything that would suggest to you any of these six people have flipped?

Terri: I think we might conclude John Eastman might have.

I do not think Rudy Giuliani would have at this point.

These are people that we are thinking are the six unindicted individuals.

They have not been named.

Based on the information, people are thinking that those individuals, including Sidney Powell, mostly lawyers are the individuals they are saying are the unindicted co-conspirators.

They have a person we do not know who it is.

It is hard to say whether or not they flipped or are providing information.

That is part of the reason they have not been named.

Jack Smith is trying to keep his options open.

Just because they are not indicted today, does not mean they will not be indicted tomorrow.

He can get as much information from them, keep investigating and a possibility of making no promises and going forward with an indictment.

He is trying to keep his options open.

Jack: That does not mean they cannot be indicted on the road.

Let me come back to something Russell touched on.

That is the ability of the Former President to leverage these charges against him for fundraising.

And the impact that the legal bills and bills of other people involved, being taken care of by his political action.

Talk about what you found with regard to how much of that money is going out, and what we have seen in the past about his ability to use this as a vehicle to enhance his fundraising.

>> Across three committees, I believe he spent somewhere in the range of $57 million in the first half of this year and $40 million of that was spent on legal fees.

Which is a massive bill.

Whether or not this turns into the organization running out of money, that remains to be seen.

Obviously going through all of these different cases is going to be expensive.

But I would expect him to use this to fund raise.

He is already fundraising off of this latest indictment.

As I reported, his political organization is selling T-shirts that say " I stand with Trump".

I suspect that $47 is a reference to him wanting to be the 47th president.

Jack: We heard that special prosecutor's statement underscoring the fact these are allegations, the Former President is entitled to presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.

We have also heard him use the term speedy trial.

Should we look at that as a signal of him saying, I have two prosecution, I am going to move this one forward first.

And if he is, why would he want to do that?

>> I do not think it is exactly what you said, he used that term, but he also used it when he announced the Mar-a-Lago case.

He is eager to move these cases forward quickly.

He believes it is important to get these cases done before the election for a variety of reasons.

One could surmise what those reasons are.

However that is an indication of his view, not an indication of reality.

In Florida he has run into reality.

To be blunt, his hyper aggressive schedule there was never realistic.

I never thought that case was going to go to trial before the election.

I wrote a column in Politico.

A few days after the indictment.

I would bet my house it will not go through -- to trial.

He is approaching this one, this is his only hope, to use the Star Wars reference, Obi-Wan Kenobi.

This is his only one -- only hope.

Will it happen, it is possible.

Jack: Looking at this one, as opposed to the document case, this has a single defendant.

The documents case has all of the national security elements that are woven through it that are going to require hearings, credentials, approvals for various levels.

Looking at the practicalities, single defendant, multiple defendants, national security issues, a pattern we have seen here.

Would you think you would be able to make an argument to move this one forward quicker than the one in Florida?

>> Certainly quicker than the one in Florida.

The one and Florida involves classified documents.

That requires all sorts of special rules regarding discovery and review of documents.

You cannot just do it from your lap top and between your other meetings.

If you are a lawyer.

There is a law that allows for an interlocking appeal.

In other words, what the defense can do is make extraordinary request regarding classified documents, the government -- the defense will put the government in the position where they have to give over things that the defense is not entitled to.

Or put things on pause and go up for an appeal, which would put everything on pause.

That case has multiple defendants, one just got charge.

There is so much you can do in that case to delay.

This one, is there a chance it will go?

Sure, if you told me this was what -- was not bottled drum.

-- was not Donald Trump.

I would say it is possible that it could go.

And it is possible it could not.

If John Doe was like, could you do a bunch of things to make it not go?

Yeah, probably.

The judge may be motivated to move it through.

Jack: Let's look ahead at possible defenses.

Money -- one may well be that the Former President would say I am relying on the advice of my counsel.

I have a lot of lawyers, some of them said no, some of them said yes.

Talk about the ability to say that I am insulated from criminal responsibility because I relied upon the advice of lawyers.

Ronato: Terri: I think he will try exactly that.

What I was told to do, my lawyers were supposed to know the law.

But ignorance of the law is not a defense.

He can attempt to deflect.

I think a jury might try to say, if I were in your position, might not know what the law is.

But he knew he was lying, people were telling him, you did not win the election, you have to know that you have to stop this lying.

I do not think that would work.

He is trying to say he had a first amendment right to say he thought the election was a hoax, it was something that was stolen.

He is going to try to claim.

He knew better.

I do think we have in this indictment specific evidence of knowing better.

We have individuals all around him, in his cabinet, the apartment of justice -- Department of Justice.

People advised him that this election was one fairly and squarely.

There might have been some fraud but it did not change the outcome of the election and you know that.

I do not think he will win on those arguments.

One of the things he is trying to do is change the venue from D.C..

He thinks it is not a fair place to be.

He has requested that it get moved to West Virginia.

I do not think that will happen.

I think his lawyers will make a ton of emotions -- motions.

Jack: Last question.

We hear people saying, can you run for president if you are charged?

If you are convicted?

If somebody is convicted and is in prison at the time?

Short answer.

Ronato: Yes, yes, and yes.

I think Eugene Debs did that.

Jack: He did.

Socialist party leader.

You all have been marvelous, who have been so informative helping us understand what is a complicated criminal and political situation.

We look forward to talking with you again in the near future.

♪ Thanks for tuning in to "MetroFocus".

You can take our award winning program with you on the go with "MetroFocus" the podcast.

Listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts so you never miss an episode.

Or simply ask your smart speaker to play "MetroFocus" the podcast.

Also available at metrofocus.org, wliw.org/radio, and on the NPROne app.

♪ Announcer: "MetroFocus" is made possible by Sue and Edgar Wachenheim III, Filomen M. D'Agostino Foundation, The Peter G. Peterson and Joan Ganz Cooney Fund, Bernard and Denise Schwartz, Barbara Hope Zuckerberg.

And by Jody and John Arnhold, Dr. Robert C. and Tina Sohn Foundation, the Ambrose Monell Foundation, Estate of Roland Karlen.

♪