>> BACK WITH OUR BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT. TRUMP'S LEGAL TEAM TODAY REQUESTING THREE MORE DAYS TO RESPOND TO THE DOJ'S REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. WITHIN THE PAST HOUR, A D.C. JUDGE DENIED TRUMP'S REQUEST. KEEPING MONDAYS D-LINE FOR RESPONSE IN PLACE. THAT ASIDE, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PREPARES FOR TWO HISTORIC TRIALS OF DONALD TRUMP. HOUSE DEMOCRATS WANT AMERICANS TO HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT TO THE FORMER PRESIDENTS PROCEEDINGS. THIS AS IT STANDS NOW, CAMERAS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN FEDERAL COURT ROOMS. FOR MORE THAN THREE DOZEN LAWMAKERS HAVE SIGNED A LETTER TO THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM, REQUESTING THE PROCEEDINGS IN FLORIDA AND WASHINGTON, D.C., WE BROADCAST LIVE. THEIR REQUESTS READS, IN PART, QUOTE, IF THE PUBLIC IS TO FULLY ACCEPT THE OUTCOME, IT WOULD BE VITALLY IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO WITNESS AS DIRECTLY AS POSSIBLE HOW THE TRIALS ARE CONDUCTED. THE STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE -- THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES. IT IS NOT A STRETCH TO SAY THAT WASHINGTON MILLS WILL BE OF MASSIVE INTEREST TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE TURNED INTO THE JANUARY SIX COMMITTEE HEARINGS. MORE THAN 10 MILLION AMERICANS WATCHED EACH HEARING. THAT'S ACCORDING TO -- JOINING ME NOW, MARCUS CHILDRESS, A FORMER INVESTIGATOR FOR THE JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE. MARCUS, THANKS SO MUCH. FIRST, I NEED TO GET YOUR REACTION TO THE JUDGE IN D.C. DENYING THE TRUMP TEAM'S REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO RESPOND TO THE DOJ ASKING FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. >> YEAH, THIS IS, I THINK, PRETTY PAR FOR THE COURSE. I CAN'T REMEMBER A CRIMINAL CASE WHERE IT WASN'T A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN PLACE. I THINK IT'S JUST PART OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS AND THE DEFENSE IS ENTITLED TO HAVING EVIDENCE, SO THAT THEY CAN PROPERLY PREPARE FOR TRIAL. THE GOVERNMENT HAS AN INTEREST MAKING SURE THAT THAT EVIDENCE DOESN'T JUST GET FULLY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION VERSUS A CONGRESSIONAL, WHERE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF EVIDENCE DOES GET OUT TO THE PUBLIC DURING THE COURSE OF AN INVESTIGATION. >> AS I UNDERSTAND, IT THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY TWO PATHWAYS FOR ALLOWING CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM. EITHER FOR A JUDICIAL CONFERENCE WHICH, OF COURSE, IS RUN BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, TO VOTE FOR AN AMENDMENT ON ROW 53, OR FOR CONGRESS TO PASS A LAW. DOES EITHER PATH SEEM PLAUSIBLE TO YOU? >> I WISH I COULD LOOK INTO THE FUTURE AND TELL YOU. I'M NOT QUITE SURE. LOOK, I KNOW THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC PROBABLY WANTS TO SEE THIS TRIAL. I KNOW MEMBERS WANT TO SEE THIS TRIAL. TRANSPARENCY IS ONE OF THE GREAT ASPECTS OF A CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION, THAT THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY AND I THINK IT MAKES AMERICANS FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEING COLLECTED AND BEING PRESENTED. BUT LOOK, I WISH I KNEW JUST AS MUCH AS YOU DID. YOU KNOW, WHETHER ONE OF THOSE WERE PLAUSIBLE, BUT I GUESS WE WILL SEE IT PLAY OUT SOON. >> LET ME ASK A QUESTION THAT YOU CAN ANSWER, MARCUS, WHICH IS, DO YOU THINK IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? THE CORE ARGUMENT IS THAT IF PEOPLE GET TO WATCH IT FOR THEMSELVES, IF THEY GET TO SEE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED FOR THEMSELVES, IF THEY GET TO SEE THE WAY THAT HE'S TREATED, THEN IT WILL BUILD TRUST IN THE PROCESS, ITSELF. AND I WONDER, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THIS, TO SOME EXTENT, GIVEN THAT THE 16 HEARINGS WERE TELEVISED, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE WITH. >> LOOK, I DO THINK IT'S TRUE. IF WE LOOK BACK AT OUR JANUARY 6TH HEARINGS, I THINK IT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT WE PUT FORTH, THE THEORIES THAT WE PUT FORTH, THAT HAS EVEN MADE THIS INDICTMENT BELIEVABLE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT A SURPRISE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT WE WERE ABLE TO PUBLICLY TELL OUR STORY. SO, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT, RIGHT? THAT THERE IS SOME TRUST IN TRANSPARENCY. BUT THEY'RE ALSO OUR CORE RULES, AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES. AND, SO IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT. >> ALL RIGHT, WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL IS TELEVISED WHICH, OF COURSE, IS THIS HUGE ISSUE OF THE MOMENT. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO HAVE TO PRESENT A CLEAR STORY TO THE JURY. AGAIN, AS SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE THIS WORK AND THOUGHT THROUGH THESE CHALLENGES, I THINK WE GOT A GLIMPSE OF IT WITH THE INDICTMENT, RIGHT? THE CASE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LAY OUT, THE STORY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LAY OUT. WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU LEARNED FROM YOUR WORK DOING THAT FOR THE ONE SIXTH COMMITTEE THAT'S APPLICABLE HERE? >> THE MAIN THING THAT JUMPED OUT, TO ME, FROM THE INDICTMENT, FROM OUR HEARINGS, AND WHAT I ANTICIPATE WILL BE IN THE TRIAL, IS THAT AS YOU JUST SAID, IT'S SUCH A CLEAR THEME AND THEORY, AND THAT IS WHAT MATTERS WHEN YOU'RE PRESENTING IT TO A JURY, RIGHT? WE CAN TALK ABOUT CHARGES OR FACTUAL NUANCES, FIRST AMENDMENT OBJECTIONS ALL WE WANT, BUT IT'S THAT THEME AND THEORY THAT MATTERS, AND IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL LAID IT OUT. I MEAN, HE SAID THAT, ONE, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP LOST THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND TO, DESPITE THAT, HE WAS DETERMINED TO REMAIN A POWER. THAT IS THE CASE RIGHT THERE. THAT'S WHERE ALL THE FACTS ARE GOING TO FLOW THROUGH. THESE PRE TRIAL MOTIONS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE READING. DURING JURY SELECTION, DURING OPENING STATEMENTS, ALL THE WAY THROUGH CLOSING, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE PRESENTED DURING OUR JANUARY 6TH HEARINGS IN OUR REPORT. IT'S THE SAME THEME THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP LOST THE ELECTION, BUT HE WAS DETERMINED TO STAY IN POWER. AND SO, I THINK WE SAW IT PLAY OUT DURING OUR SUMMER HEARINGS LAST SUMMER, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE A VERY SIMILAR THEME PLAY OUT DURING THE PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND DURING THE TRIAL AS WELL. >> MARCUS, I ONLY HAVE ABOUT 30 SECONDS LEFT, BUT I DO WANT TO ASK YOU WHY YOU THINK THE SPECIAL COUNSEL DECIDED NOT TO BRING ONE OF THE CHARGES THAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED INCITING AN INSURRECTION. >> LOOK, I WILL GO BACK TO MY DAY AS A PROSECUTOR AND I THINK YOU REALLY WANT TO KEEP CHARGES AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE. I THINK A CLEAN NARRATIVE AND PRESENTING A STRAIGHTFORWARD STORY WITHOUT DISTRACTIONS IS ALWAYS BEST FOR OUR JURY, AND LOOK, I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVIDENCE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS COLLECTED. I DON'T KNOW IF THEIR ANALYSIS IS, BUT I DIDN'T DO KNOW THIS INDICTMENT READS RELATIVELY CLEAN AND I THINK THAT A JURY WILL BE ABLE TO DIGEST THE NARRATIVE THAT THE SPECIAL
