>>> DEMOCRACY IS ALSO ON THE MIND OF OUR NEXT GUEST, MICHAEL KIRK IS THE FILMMAKER BEHIND A NEW "FRONT LINE" DOCUMENTARY CALLED "DEMOCRACY ON TRIAL."

THAT PREMIERES TOMORROW ON PBS.

AND IT CHARTS SPECIAL COUNCIL JACK SMITH'S INDICTMENT AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, WHICH ALLEGES FEDERAL ELECTION INTERFERENCE IN 2020.

AND KIRK TELLS HARI WHY HE CHOSE TO RELEASE THE FILM NOW.

>> CHRISTIANE, THANK YOU.

MICHAEL, YOUR FILM, "DEMOCRACY ON TRIAL," LAYS OUT THE INVESTIGATION INTO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S ATTEMPTS TO OVERTURN THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION.

WHY THIS FILM, WHY NOW?

PEOPLE ARE TELLING US IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION -- PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND IN THE FACE OF THAT, IT SEEMS LIKE RESOLVING JANUARY 6th AND WHAT HAPPENED, WHETHER TRUMP HAS RESPONSIBILITY, WHAT IMPACT THAT ALL HAS ON THE DEMOCRACY AND HOW THE ELECTION IS GOING TO GO, FELT LIKE THE VERY FIRST PIECE OF BUSINESS WE SHOULD DO, AND "FRONTLINE" ASKED US TO REALLY TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK AT THE TRIAL THAT IS JACK SMITH'S SPECIAL COUNSEL TRIAL, THAT MAY HAPPEN IN WASHINGTON ON MARCH 4th.

TAKE A LOOK THERE FIRST.

AT WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK OF AS THE CENTRAL MOMENT, AT THE END OF THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY, THE BEGINNING OF THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY, AND THE BEGINNING OF THIS PARTICULAR YEAR.

LET'S RESOLVE THAT, PEOPLE KEPT SAYING THAT TO US.

SO, WE WENT OUT AND TRIED TO TELL THE STORY, IN ITS SIMPLEST, AND MOST THOROUGH FORM.

AND WE WOUND UP WITH 2 1/2 HOURS OF WHAT I HOPE IS INFORMATIVE TELEVISION.

>> YOU KNOW, HAVING HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT, IT IS TRULY AMAZING HOW YOU'VE KIND OF TRUNCATED WHAT TOOK WEEKS AND MONTHS FOR THE INVESTIGATIVE COMMITTEE TO COMPILE AND WHAT WENT INTO JACK SMITH'S PROSECUTION CASE.

AND HOW YOU'VE LAID THAT OUT IN 2 1/2 HOURS.

BUT YOU KNOW, GOING TO THAT KIND OF HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE, AFTER REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE CHOSE TO BLOCK ANYTHING LIKE THAT FROM HAPPENING, WE HAD A 9/11 COMMISSION BEFORE, IT WAS BIPARTISAN, THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE, AND YOU KIND OF HAD AN INTERESTING ELEMENT IN HERE OF REPRESENTATIVE BENNIE THOMPSON FROM MISSISSIPPI.

WHY WAS THIS PERSONAL FOR HIM?

>> I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON IS IN WASHINGTON TO ACHIEVE, BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.

LONG, POLITICAL CAREER, COMING FROM A SMALL TOWN IN MISSISSIPPI, 500 PEOPLE, I THINK, IN THE TOWN.

AT THE HEART OF WHAT CONGRESSMAN THOMPSON TELLS US HIS LIFE'S WORK HAS BEEN IS PROTECTION OF VOTER RIGHTS, FOR LOTS OF OBVIOUS REASONS.

HE'S BLACK, HE'S BEEN IN CONGRESS WHEN ALL OF THE EFFORTS TO LESSEN, TO MAKE IT HARDER TO VOTE, HAVE BEEN HAPPENING.

HE THINKS OF THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT, THAT PARTICULAR SET OF EVENTS AROUND THE JANUARY 6th ATTACKS, AS AN EXAMPLE OF -- THE GREATEST MANIFESTATION OF AN EFFORT TO LIMIT THE VOTES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

AND HE THINKS OF IT AS HIS JOB TO POINT THAT OUT.

THE SECOND, AND MOST IMPORTANT THING TO HIM, WAS THE USE OF THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAGS AT -- AT THE ATTACK ON CONGRESS, AND HOW THAT RESONATED WITH HIM IN A LIFETIME OF GROWING UP AROUND THE KLAN AND OTHER WHITES IN HIS PART OF MISSISSIPPI, AND WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE SOUTH, TO LIMIT VOTING RIGHTS.

THE BATTLE FLAG BECAME -- THE CONFEDERATE BATTLE FLAG BECAME A SYMBOL OF THOSE TIMES THAT RESONATES EVEN ON THE STEPS OF THE CAPITOL ON JANUARY 6th.

SO, CHAIRMAN THOMPSON WAS DETERMINED TO DRAW A BRIGHT RED LINE AROUND THAT, CIRCLE AROUND THAT, AND SAY, THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, BECAUSE VOTING RIGHTS ARE AT STAKE HERE, NOT JUST DONALD TRUMP'S PRESIDENCY OR POTENTIAL PRESIDENCY.

>> THE LAYERS OF SHOWING INTENT AND HOW YOUR FILM BREAKS THAT DOWN IS ALSO VERY INTERESTING.

THE PRESIDENT, HE'S WARNED AND TOLD BY PEOPLE THAT ARE CLOSE TO HIM THAT HE OTHERWISE TRUSTED, YET HE GOES OUT AND REPEATEDLY, KNOWINGLY, GOES OUT AND SPREADS THE BIG LIE.

>> WE WERE CAREFUL TO TRY TO INCLUDE COMMENTS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO TOLD HIM THESE THINGS THREE DAYS BEFORE, TWO DAYS BEFORE.

WE HAVE AS MUCH EVIDENCE AS WE CAN FIND.

BILL BARR, THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL, TELLING HIM IT WAS B.S., THAT EVERYTHING THAT HE WAS ASSERTING, HE USED THE RESOURCES OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, TO EXAMINE IT, AND THAT IT WAS B.S., THE SAME IS TRUE WITH SECRETARY RAFFENSPERGER FROM GEORGIA, AND OTHERS.

FINDING THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, OTHERS WHO TOLD HIM, WARNED HIM, SAID, IT'S NOT TRUE, DON'T GO FORWARD AND SAY IT, WE WANTED TO MAKE REALLY SURE THOSE WERE REPUBLICANS WHO WERE MAKING THOSE ASSERTIONS, THOSE WERE PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN SUPPORTERS OF HIS, WHO HAD WORKED WITH HIM ON RE-ELECTION, WHO DESPERATELY HOPED HE WOULD WIN RE-ELECTION.

IT IS THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING THOSE THINGS IN THE FILM, AND THAT FELT TO ME LIKE THE NEXT STEP TO TAKE.

IT'S NOT LIBERALS, IT'S NOT ACADEMICS, IT'S NOT EVEN MOSTLY JOURNALISTS, IT'S PEOPLE WHO WERE CLOSE TO HIM, WHO WORKED FOR HIM, WHO TRUSTED HIM, WHO HE TRUSTED, WHO WERE TELLING HIM WHAT HE WAS ASSERTING WERE NOT -- WAS NOT TRUE, AND HE, DAYS LATER, WOULD, OF COURSE, GO FORWARD AND RESAY THE LIES, AS WE LAY THEM OUT NOW.

>> ONE OF THE REPUBLICANS THAT YOU SPEAK WITH, WHO WAS A SUPPORTER OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, WAS RUSTY BOWERS, OUT OF ARIZONA, A REPRESENTATIVE, AND HE RECALLS HOW HE WAS PRESSURED BY RUDY GIULIANI AND HE KIND OF LAYS OUT THE TENSION, HIS SORT OF MORAL AND INTERNAL STRUGGLE.

>> WHAT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HERE IS THAT RUSTY BOWERS, THIS GUY WHO WORKED FOR TRUMP, WANTED TRUMP TO BE RE-ELECTED IN ARIZONA, WORKED FOR TRUMP'S RE-ELECTION, IS GIVEN A CHOICE.

HE CAN CHOSE BETWEEN HIS OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION AND PRESIDENT TRUMP.

AND HE STAYS LOYAL TO THE CONSTITUTION.

THAT IS THE CHOICE HE'S GIVEN.

>> EVEN IN THE PAST -- >> RUSTY BOWERS SPEAKS WITH A MORAL AND LEGAL CLARITY THAT'S VERY NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND.

>> WE CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THE OUTCOME OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

IT'S MY OATH, AND -- AND I HOPE THAT I'LL NEVER BREAK THAT.

I KNOW I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT PERFECT, I'M CERTAINLY NOT A PERFECT WITNESS.

BUT I AM A WITNESS.

AND -- I HAD MY SAY.

AND I WASN'T TRYING TO FLOWER IT UP.

WASN'T TRYING TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST RUSTY.

>> WHAT WAS THAT EMBLEMATIC OF?

THERE ARE SO MANY REPUBLICANS THAT YOU TALK TO IN THE FILM THAT ECHO THAT SAME STRUGGLE.

>> WHAT GIVES ME HOPE, BRINGS AN OPTIMISM TO AN OTHERWISE VERY NEGATIVE LAST FEW MONTHS MAKING THIS FILM AND SENSING HOW JUST VIRAL THE ARGUMENT, TOXIC THE ARGUMENTS HAVE BECOME IN THE COUNTRY AND AROUND THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, IS THIS IDEA THAT -- THAT RUSTY BOWERS, GABRIEL STERLING, SECRETARY RAFFENSPERGER, A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS -- CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, THESE ARE AMERICANS, CONSERVATIVE AMERICANS, PRO-TRUMP, WORKED FOR TRUMP, WANTED TO VOTE -- THEY VOTED FOR TRUMP, WANTED EVERYBODY TO VOTE FOR TRUMP, WERE HEARTBROKEN WHEN HE LOST, THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, HAD ALSO TAKEN AN OATH TO THE CONSTITUTION, AND THEY FOUND THEMSELVES, THEY TELL US, THEY SAID IT TO THE COMMITTEE AND THEY SAID IT TO US, THEY FIND THEMSELVES IN A MOMENT, A CRITICAL MOMENT IN THEIR LIVES, WHERE RUDY GIULIANI, JENNA ELLIS, ONE OF TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS, OR TRUMP HIMSELF, ON THE TELEPHONE, ASK THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT THEY FELT UNCOMFORTABLE DOING, THAT THEY THOUGHT HE WAS ASKING THEM TO LIE AND IN EVERY CASE, THESE AMERICANS, THESE RIGHT WING, CONSERVATIVE, TRUMP SUPPORTING AMERICANS, CHOSE THE CONSTITUTION.

>> YOU KIND OF RETELL PRETTY IMPORTANT SCENES IN THE OVAL OFFICE.

CERTAIN MEETINGS THAT HAPPEN WITH HIS ADVISERS, EVERYTHING THAT RUDY GIULIANI SUGGESTED TO THE PRESIDENT, AND HOW TO DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, THE RESULTS GOING FORWARD, TO HOW THE PRESIDENT TALKED TO MIKE PENCE DAYS BEFORE JANUARY 6th.

EVEN ON THE MORNING OF.

YOU KNOW -- >> IT'S AN AMAZING THING, HARI.

BECAUSE OF WHAT THE COMMITTEE HAD, THE SUBPOENA POWER, YOU CAN HEAR WHAT HIS DAUGHTER THINKS WHEN HE'S FIGHTING WITH PENCE.

YOU CAN HEAR WHAT HIS OWN ATTORNEYS THOUGHT IN MANY CRITICAL MOMENTS.

IT WAS A SUPERCHARGED ENVIRONMENT AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE GREAT GOOD NEWS FOR THOSE OF US WHO PRACTICE LONG-FORM JOURNALISM, A LOT OF IT EXISTS, EXISTS ON THE RECORD, EXISTS BY PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO TALK TO US, EXISTS BY AUDIO RECORDINGS AND VIDEO RECORDINGS.

IT'S PRETTY HARD TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, IN A VERY SIMPLE WAY, THAT THE CROWD WAS REALLY JUST SLIGHTLY UNRULELY, THEY GOT OUT OF HAND, BUT THEY DIDN'T REALLY COMMIT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VIDEO OF THE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR BEING COMMITTED.

>> ONE OF THE INTERESTING INSIGHTS THAT THE FILM RECOUNTS IS THE TESTIMONY OF CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, AND SHE WAS KIND OF THE INSIDER THAT MADE THE TESTIMONY THAT DAY IN FRONT OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHE TALKS ABOUT IS THE PRESIDENT'S DISPLEASURE WITH THE CROWD SIZE AT THE ELLIPSE.

>> HUTCHINSON HEARD CRUCIAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT TRUMP KNEW ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR VIOLENCE THAT DAY.

>> WHEN WE WERE IN THE TENT BEHIND THE STAGE, HE WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SHOT, MEANING, THE PHOTOGRAPH THAT HE WOULD GET, BECAUSE THE RALLY SPACE WASN'T FULL.

>> THE FORMER PRESIDENT WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE CROWD SIZE.

WE LEARNED THAT SOME OF THE CROWD SIZE INSIDE THE BARRICADE WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WERE UNWILLING TO PASS THROUGH THE MAGNETOMETERS.

PRESUMABLY BECAUSE THEY HAD -- THEY WERE CARRYING CONTRABAND WEAPONS.

>> SEVERAL THOUSAND WATCHED FROM THE LAWN NEAR THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT.

>> I OVERHEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, YOU KNOW, I DON'T EFFING CARE THEY HAVE WEAPONS.

THEY'RE NOT HERE TO HURT ME, TAKE THE EFFING MAGS AWAY.

>> NONE OF US WHO COVERED TRUMP FROM THE VERY FIRST HOURS OF HIS PRESIDENCY SHOULD BE SURPRISED THAT HE'S INTERESTED IN CROWD SIZE.

WE ALL REMEMBER THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT HIS INAUGURAL EVENTS AND HIS AMERICAN CARNAGE SPEECH AND HIS DISAPPOINTMENT THAT THE CROWDS WEREN'T BIGGER AT HIS, FRANKLY, LIES THAT IT WAS BIGGER THAN IT TURNED OUT ACTUALLY TO BE.

SO, HE WAS ESPECIALLY, I THINK, ATTUNED, HAVING INVITED HIS SUPPORTERS TO WASHINGTON ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY, TO DISRUPT CONGRESS AND AS THE SPEECH WAS ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE, TO WANT THEM ALL TO BE ON CAMERA, TO BE A VISUAL MANIFESTATION OF HIS POWER AND HEFT, AND THE THREAT THAT THEY PRESENTED, I'M LEAVING ASIDE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE CAUSED THEM TO GO UP TO THE CAPITOL BUILDING AND COMMIT UNLAWFUL ACTS, BUT JUST FOR THE VISUAL ALONE, THE OPTICS OF IT ALONE, HE WANTED THEM TO BE IN THERE CLOSER.

AND AS HE SAYS, ACCORDING TO CASSIDY HUTCHINSON, THEY'RE NOT HERE WITH THEIR WEAPONS FOR ME.

I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROTECT ME.

THEY'RE NOT HERE FOR ME.

AND I THINK HE BELIEVED THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING IS THAT THEY WERE BODY ARMORED UP, NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT ENOUGH OF THEM WERE BODY ARMORED UP AND PERHAPS CARRYING WEAPONS, AS WE KNOW, THERE WERE PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING, AND STANDING UP ON THAT HILL, THAT -- WHEN WE FOUND THE SHOT OF THE SMALL CROWD, THE SMALLER CROWD AROUND HIM AND THEN YOU CUT TO THE WIDE SHOT UP AT THE -- PICTURE OF THE MEMORIAL BEHIND THEM, YOU SEE THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THE MAGNETOMETERS, THAT, IF IT WAS A SECRET SERVICE AGENT, I WOULD BE VERY ANXIOUS ABOUT WHETHER I WOULD TAKE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES UP TO THE CAPITOL BUILDING, ONCE THOSE PEOPLE, WHO HAD NOT BEEN THROUGH THE MAGNETOMETERS, WERE ON THEIR WAY UP THE STREET.

>> A LINE OF DEFENSE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S LAWYERS HAVE USED IN DIFFERENT COURT FILINGS, AS WELL AS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, IS THAT THERE ARE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED BY THE PRESIDENT, ON CAMPAIGN STUMPS, SOCIAL MEDIA, IS PROTECTED BY FREE SPEECH, AND YOU TALKED TO DIFFERENT LEGAL SCHOLARS ABOUT THIS, AND I'M SURE THIS IS GOING TO COME UP IN THE TRIAL, AS WELL.

WHAT DID THEY TELL YOU ABOUT THAT?

>> HE HAS THE RIGHT, AS HE ASSERTS, THAT HIS DEFENSE TEAM ASSERTS, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO SAY THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT BE TRUE.

HE HAS THE RIGHT THINGS TO SAY THINGS.

HE HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT JUST LIKE I DO AND JUST LIKE YOU DO WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW FROM THE EXPERTS WAS, WHEN DOES IT BECOME A CRIME?

WHEN IS TALKING ABOUT A CONSPIRACY A CRIME?

WHEN IS IT, AS THEY SAY, YELLING FIRE IN A CROWDED THEATER WHEN THERE ISN'T A FIRE?

WHAT IS THE -- IS THAT A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT?

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT, THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH?

YOU DO NOT.

AND THE LIMITS ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN SAY WITH IMMUNITY, IS IT LIMITED?

HIS DEFENSE TEAM CAN SAYING, HE CAN SAY ANYTHING HE WANTS, HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

AND IF PRESIDENTS CAN'T SAY ANYTHING THEY WANT, AND IF THEY ARE NOT FREE TO SPEAK, BE CARE FUL OF ANY RULES THAT COME AROUND THAT LIMIT THAT.

BECAUSE BE CAREFUL, ONE DAY, YOUR PRESIDENT, THE ONE YOU LIKE, THE OTHER SIDE MAY BE TRYING TO GET HIM OR HER FOR THEIR SPEECH, FOR THINGS THEY SAY, IN OFFICE.

SO, THAT FINE LINE, THAT ARGUMENT OVER THAT FINE LINE, TRUMP'S LIES, ARE THEY ILLEGAL?

AND WHEN AND WHERE WOULD THEY BE ILLEGAL IN A CASE LIKE JANUARY 6th?

THAT'S WHAT WE SET OUT TO EXPLAIN WITH -- WITH THE EXPERTS, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXPERTS, AND I HOPE WE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF MAKING THAT CLEAR FOR VIEWERS.

>> YOU KNOW, WITH THE 30,000-FOOT VIEW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS FILM, WHO IS THE INTENDED AUDIENCE HERE?

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT IT WOULD DO ANYTHING BUT HARDEN THE VIEWS OF HIS EXISTING SUPPORTERS.

EVERY TIME THE PRESIDENT FACES ANOTHER INDICTMENT, IT SEEMS LIKE HIS SUPPORT INCREASES AND HE'S ABLE TO PARLAY THAT INTO A CAMPAIGN DONATION AND SAY HE IS THE VICTIM, THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT TO GET ME, THIS IS A WITCH HUNT.

>> I KNOW MANY, MANY MAGA SUPPORTERS WHO SAY IT'S PUBLIC BROADCASTING, HOW CAN I TRUST IT?

I'M NEVER GOING TO TRUST IT.

I KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO.

WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT THAT?

THERE'S ALMOST NOTHING THAT I CAN SAY OR DO IN A FILM THAT WOULD MAKE ALL OF THOSE TWO SIDES IN A VERY DIVIDED COUNTRY EMBRACE AND CHANGE ANY OF THEIR BEHAVIORS.

BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGES PEOPLE'S BEHAVIORS.

SO, MY JOB IS TO LAY IT OUT THERE AS STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND HONESTLY AND, IN A WAY, THAT'S COHERENT AS A NARRATIVE, AS I POSSIBLY CAN, AND HOPE THAT IF THERE ARE -- AND I SUSPECT THERE ARE, BETWEEN 7% AND 11% OF AMERICANS WHO ARE GOING TO MAKE UP THEIR MINDS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP RETURNING OR JOE BIDEN CONTINUING TO BE PRESIDENT, AND MAYBE THIS INFORMATION WILL HELP PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR MINDS.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ASPIRE TO DO, AND IN SOME WAYS, IT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPERATIVE TO TRY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT CONVICTING HIM WITH WHAT THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE DID.

WE'RE LAYING OUT THE BLUEPRINT FOR WHAT THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS HAVE CONTENDED.

>> THE FILM IS CALLED "DEMOCRACY ON TRIAL."

MICHAEL KIRK, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> MY PLEASURE.

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.