in describing the indictment, they said that mr. trump tried to conceal a conspiracy, and undermine the 2016 election, to identify and suppress negative information. this was covert and illegal payments at mr. trump's direction, directed to michael cohen and the purpose was to suppress this affair, and this negative information. he paid cohen, and am doing so, he falsified those business records. he falsified his -- as concealing the, another crime, a more serious crime. the prosecutor went went on to that mr. trump has made recent threatening emails and speeches both directed at new york city, the courts here in new york, the

justice system and the district attorney's office. he said these are irresponsible social media posts, that threaten death and destruction and even world war iii. he said these public statements to the district attorney, which included a photo of him swinging a baseball bat towards the district attorney's head was very concerning. they are concerned about this and what potential jurors and witnesses. but they said this will not dissuade the office and they are seeking a protective order. they are very concerned that some of the attorneys or some of this may be leaked or president trump himself would use some of that discovery in a way that would compromise the potential trial. they began discussing conditions of release. they talked about how attorney, defense attorney joe tacopina had -- with stormy daniels and

that could present a conflict. in response, todd blanch, representing mr. trump, said that the people just speck for ten minutes. they haven't seen discovery. they talk about michael cohen, and michael cohen has been standing on the steps of this courthouse revealing all kinds of material that would be relevant in the trial. mr. trump has -- mr. trump has -- sorry, i'm just being moved here. they say that mr. trump has responded forcefully and clearly. he is very upset. he is frustrated. he believes that this is an injustice in -- going on right now. the judge said that taking the rhetoric and the lguage he is using and he is very concerned about it. he said this was free speech, he talked about the investigator, mark pomerantz.

i will have to toss it back to you, lester. >> all right. adam, just to be clear, sorry, the -- lost him for a second. just to be clear, tse charges would be fel then because he is citing the campaign violation perhaps, finance violation? >> reporter: i believe the misdemeanors, 34 counts, falsifying in the first-degree. i defer to laura. >> yeah, actually -- >> if it's falsifying in the first-degree, that's a felony. >> that is a felony. so that means that we can divine that they are using some other predicate crime. doesn't really need to be a felony. so the question is, what crime is it? so the theory of liability because he made false entries. in addition, he violated additional a crime, committed a crime or concealed some other crime and the question is what

is that other crime. >> adam, answer me this. with regard to the d.a.'s concerns about statements and actions and that sort of thing, are they asking for some sort of relief or admonish. from the court? >> they are. they are asking the judge to make some kind of statement, some kind of warning. is judge is a low-profile judge but very firm and goes by the law. so we are going to have to maybe see what his decision is. clearly, yes, the prosecutors want some kind of r they want some kind of not necessarily a gag order, but somethg that will make sure that there is nothing that could influence any potential jurors or witnesses in an upcoming trial. >> and the hearing is still going on, or is it over? >> reporter: it's still going on. >> so we don't know the resolution to that particular question. can you give us any of the color of the room, what the former president's reaction was to all

of this? >> reporter: as you know, lester, the security around the courthouse has been very inintense. we entered the courtroom. there was an in-courtroom -- the main courtroom he was in and then an overflow courtroom. we had to go through two sets of magnatometers. they cleared out the whole building once he arrived and then they slowly let photographers, cameramen and journalists into the two courtrooms. he appeared as we expected. he is on good behavior. as i said, he walked into the courtroom. he sat between his attorneys. he remind quiet. he confirmed with susan nichols and mr. tacopina a little bit. the prosecutors arrived in this courtroom at least 45 minutes prior to his arrival. and again, security very high.

i did not see any secret service agents surrounding him. there was one agent at the door. we expected maybe they would come in and surround the defense table. we haven't seen that. in fact, most of the security has been handled by court officers and really we haven't seen any secret service officers in the building. >> okay. adam, i am with laura and hallie and danny. i think they may have questions for you. >> adam, thank you for your great work. can you provide any information at all about how prosecutors described the actual conspiracy? did they provide any details? did they give a statutory cite, say anything thing other than promoting the election, the purpose of this conspiracy was to bury information been the 2016 election? >> reporter: that's exactly -- he did this all to undermine the election, to identify and suppress negative information that these were covert and

illegal payments at mr. trump's direction. the purpose was to suppress the affairs. he paid cohen with false business records, falsified the cash, and that this was aiding and concealing the concession of -- the concession of another crime. and again, as i said, they went on to say they were very concerned. he wasn't afraid to bring up the threatening email posts and statements that president trump has been making both against the city, the port, the justice system, including the d.a.'s office. they are very concerned not only for their own safety, but for the influence of a potential witness or a juror. the social media posts that is written death and destruction and world war iii, the public statements he made, the picture of him swinging a baseball bat towards d.a. bragg's head, they are very concerned about these

posts. again, the potential effect on jurors and witnesses. but he said this won't dissuade the office. they are seeking a protective order. we will have to see what the judge decides on that as well as conditions of release. they want him to be warned about his statements and, as i mentioned earlier, they are concerned that tacopina, his attorney, joe tacopina, had communications with stormy daniels and he will likely not be able to cross examine her if in fact she becomes a witness. that's certainly a conflict of interest. >> i wonder if you can clarify or explain if the judge had any response to what you are talking about here, the idea that some of these threats have been brought up not just against the prosecutors' office but the judge himself. and i also want to check on a point. i think i heard you say todd blanch spoke for donald trump, so donald trump did not say the words "not guilty," is that correct? >> donald trump did say not

agree very are firmly. todd blanch was speaking on behalf of the defense. the judge said we are taking this rhetoric and language that mr. trump is using very seriously. >> dan i think? >> no questions for adam right now. actually, yes. i mean, was there any indication that the conspiracy was anything other than the hush-money payments? for example, anything related to an extortion scheme, an alleged extortion scheme involving the hush-money payments, or was the indication that the payments were exclusively, the felony, the additional crime is exclusively related to campaign finance law as opposed to a state r.i.c.o. statute or extortion or anything else? >> reporter: no mention of that. no mention of r.i.c.o. but you do bring up a good point which i want to bring up. there was no mention of the

alleged affair with karen mcdougal. there was some speculation that the alleged affair with karen mcdougal may be wrapped into this case, and as far as what i heard before i left the courtroom, there is no indication that that's the case, that this is focused solely on the $130,000 that were paid to stormy daniels. >> and we should note, we have not seen the former president leave that courtroom. so we have to assume, based on what we know, that this hearing is still going on, which is considerably longer, i think, than anyone expected. i am wondering, throughout the panel here -- >> reporter: i can -- >> go ahead, adam. >> reporter: that's right. i can tell you part of the reason that it's going on a bit longer is because the first person to speak was a representative, an attorney for the media. and they talked about that this case has monumental significant

to the public and we understand they are competing interests and interests on behalf of the defendant. but he is very concerned on working on a media plan going forward to avoid chaos. it's been a bit chaotic outside the courtroom. sorry, outside the courthouse. you've got literally media from around the world, from japan, from finland and sweden and germany and england and dozens from stations around the country. so he asked that we work together on a media plan goingl forward as we anticipate a trial, that the public is kept aware of what's going on. he asked could we put people in the jury box so we could see some facial expressions of the defendant. everybody in the courtroom is behind the defendant, so we can't see what his facial expressions are.

and then anything that's involved with the court, any documents, anything as part of discovery, because that's made public and, again, laptops. we understand security concerns. this judge typically, he just handled the trump payroll case. he allowed lap stops. the judge said he would allow forward. the arraignment is an unusual situation, the security is very high. so for today, no laptops, no electronics were allowed in the courtroom. but he seemed indicate that going forward not only will he allow reporters to sit in the jury box if he can make it happen, but the laptops will be allowed to be used. >> was there any discussion of change of venue? i know there were formal motions that we know of. any conversation or anything said about change of venues? >> reporter: not while i was in the room. and that would be very unlikely.

but we did hear that maybe there had been some discussion suggestion by the defense team to move to do staten island, another burrow in new york city which is more friendly to conservatives and someone like from trump. >> adam reissen, in the room, has now stepped out and this hearing apparently continuing forward. as you noted, there was media attorneys there speaking about future access and video equipment and that might have slowed down the process. they are in there. an arraignment where typically guilty or not guilty, the former president entering, obviously, a not guilty plea as his lawyers had anticipated. we will continue to watch that camera in the hallway. the former president did not speak as he was going in, simply gave a glance towards a questioner in the hallway there.

we don't know on the way out if he will speak. but i think we're all struck by the d.a.'s office bringing up this issue about the former president's behavior and statements and social media posts, the troubling nature of those and the judge, obviously, aware of them. what have you both learned so far that -- in terms of the strategy of the governor -- or the state going forward? >> so far, as it relates to the political sphere of things, it seems like, frankly, not much yet has changed now that news of the indictment and the charges have come out. we are seeing some of the first fundraising post-arraignment, or i guess during arraignment come out, and that is from trump ally senator cynthia lamb who blasted out his email. also trump opponents have said that they are -- they have put up a billboard that will greet donald trump when he lands in mar-a-lago, west palm beach, makes his way to palm beach, that said nobody is above the law. we are seeing these political

positions here. as donald trump, it's like 45 minutes now he has been in that room. he sat and listened to those media attorneys make their case. he said those two words. and i think that's important and an important piece of color, it was donald trump himself who declared in a court of law not guilty related to these felony charges against him now. >> chuck rosenberg, there was an amazing report there by adam kind of listing out what he saw and witnessed in the time inside the courtroom piecing it all together. where does that leave us? we may not have moved much further than where we were earlier this afternoon. no. >> in one way, we have, lester. the arraignment initiates the criminal process with an actual defendant in the well of the court before a judge subject to the judge's orders on timing and scheduling motions and the like. that said, i agree with and danny. we need to see the indictment to

understand exactly how this case was charged. i will note one thing. if early reporting is accurate that it includes a conspiracy charge, that gives a couple of advantages normally to the prosecutor. conspiracies can run from an early date to a late date. it could encompass a lot of activity. and there is a particular evidentiary value because statements by co-conspirators that are made in furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible at the trial of this particular defendant, mr. trump. and so it's a way legally and ethically for prosecutors to adduce a lot of evidence. if it really involves other women or payments even as part of the conspiracy, it also enables prosecutors to show a pattern of conduct. and the more conduct you can show, the easier it becomes for prosecutors to prove intent.

something that's necessary to sustain a charge in front of a jury. so i heard adam in his good reporting talk about a conspiracy. i very much would like to see that, how far back it runs, what the facts are as alleged and who it involves. >> and we will see that, i believe, once it's unsealed. some of those questions will be answered rather immediately. >> that's absolutely right. the indictment will soon be publicly available. we can all pour over it, read through it and better understand what the theory of the case is. but based on initial reporting, it sounds like almost three dozen felony counts. i am not surprised that they are felonies and not misdemeanors. danny spoke to that earlier. i am not sure you need a grand jury just to bring misdemeanor charges in a new york state court. but you're right, lester. we will soon are have the indictment and we can stop guessing and start understanding. >> all right.

we turn to katherine christian again. you wanted to weigh in on that protective order that came up during this arraignment. >> yes. mr. trump hurt himself by his own words because typically in gang cases you see the gang members who are being prosecuted, either they or family members start putting things up on social media, intimidating witnesses on social media, actually using documents that he received in discovery aupd putting it up on social media. i wasn't in the courtroom and the reporter was reporting that the prosecutors were asking for that because of his social media posts, because of his emails. so they are asking for protective order meaning the discovery that they are entitled to within 35 days of the supreme court arraignment, they are going to ask the judge to limit some of those documents to going to the team because they are afraid mr. trump will act like what we see in gang cases and start putting things up on social media, which would be

very intimidating to the witnesses in this case. >> if the judge goes long, he will be issuing orders today on that issue? >> not necessarily today. he could, but typically you put that in writing. they have to disclose voluminous amount of material and then you seek a protective. you say, your honor, we are decision slowing this material but we want to hold back this hunk of material and these are the reasons why. so they have to articulate the reasons why. they could submit materialut they are redacting some things. soill get a piece of paper and it looks like an fbiile, quite frankly. you start redacting information out of there because you are saying tha we don't trust the defendant. not saying we are not trusting the defense attorneys. we are saying we don't trust the defendant to have this material yet. >> all right. let me bring back -- thanks. jonathan dienst, chief investigative reporter for wnbc and of our justice reporting.

the speed of things is slower than we thought, but are you surprised that this protective issue, this language and behavior issue is becoming such a big part of this today? >> i am somewhat surprised. i think regarding the evidence and the discovery, i think it's often in cases like this and in other cases, judges put protective orders to prevent the defense or the prosecution from putting out that evidence as -- to ensure the fairness of the process and of the trial. so perhaps some sort of protective order on that evidence doesn't surprise me. what did surprise me was that adam reiss and other reporters have been able to leave the overflow room and make calls during the hearing in the public courtroom. so i guess they were able in the overflow room to come and go as they please and the doors were not restricted as it is in the courtroom, which is why we haven't heard from garrett or melissa, who are in the courtroom themselves, because they are in there. the overflow rooms sounds like

lesser controls, so some reporters have come out and made calls and provide updates while the hearing is going on. that's what adam was able to do with quite thoroughness. 34 counts, falsifying records in the first-degree,my understanding they could be up to four years in prison, could be as little as zero if convicted. remember, the trump defense team is going to fight this tooth and nail and we will have the -- look to have the charges thrown out and fight it each step of the way. and trump himself was the one who said not guilty in that courtroom. >> one of the things that strikes me about the protective order is if the investigation is ongoing. that's one of the things i wondered if somebody will ask at the press conference, is this it? is this the end of the road or is the investigation still ongoing. he said that the larger investigation and the financial

fraud at the trump organization was ongoing. he said that investigation continued. query whether it actually is, query whether they are doing anything on it. one of the reasons you might want a protective order if you are still digging and trying to get witnesses to cooperate, you are still trying to get sort of the pieces of the puzzle to come together. you want to protect the integrity of the investigation while it's ongoing. >> as a layperson, can you help me understand the difference between a protective order and something more serious? >> a protective order is quite serious. >> not the same thing as a gag order? >> the gag order is different. the gag order would be used to protect the defendant's right to a free and -- protect the right to a trial and a fair trial. the protective order protects the integrity of the investigation and the documents and materials they don't want to show up on nbc's website. >> two it prevent donald trump from talking about documents and materials -- >> we need to see the terms of it. that's why katherine is pointing

out typically you make this request in writing. >> there is strategy here, too. this is the prosecutor's first chance to talk to the judge and kind of set the stage. now i am a jaded defense attorney, so take that with a grain of salt. i may be clouded here. the point is, this is the prosecutor's first chance to exert control over the defendant. why not put everything you can in front of this judge about all this defendant's bad behavior and set a baseline, right? hey, judge, here are all the things this defendant is doing. put him on a short leash now and that will benefit the prosecutors. here's why. if he violates, you can bring him back and he will at minimum get in trouble, at worst he might even be remanded. he might be put in custody for violating a protective order. this is chess. and the prosecution is playing early, aggressively, early by asking for a protective order. it might get denied. but they have planted it in the court's mind that this is something who may be misbehaving

and you need to watch him. consider the advantage. if he violates and he comes back and he gets remanded as punishment for violating a protective order, if he is incarcerated, kwi i don't know how you do that, put him on house arrest, an ankle monitor on him and control and monitor him at all times. but every single incumbrance that the court gets, the extreme example is the statistics show if you have a client incarcerated pending trial the odds of getting convicted are more because you don't have access to them. this is again the part of the game, you know, and i'm not saying game in a glib way. both sides play. but the prosecution here is trying to get everything they can and you can't fault them for that. they are here to win. they brought their game face and they are coming out strong from the outside. >> here is another wider photo now from the courthouse that's provided, one of the still photos. chuck todd.

chuck, if you could talk about the political implications. does this change anything, enlighten us, reveal anything that may change the conversation? >> well, right now, no. but let me on this gag order idea or some sort of protective order for this. one of the things that they are -- this was one of the motivations why donald trump announced so ridiculously early is he was gaming out a lot of these scenarios here of being able to try to, number one, he knows that the justice department doesn't like to look like it's interfering in a campaign. it's harder to put a gag order son somebody running for office. there are first amendment rights that come with that. so i think i talked with cy vance about this off camera and he said getting the gag order might be easy, figuring out how to enforce it and figuring out whether it's worth trying to enforce it. >> i am going to interrupt you for a second. we are seeing donald trump leaving the courthouse and not making any comments. there was a microphone there and

reporter asked earlier if he would say anything. obviously, not. this hearing though going on as we know, considerably long than we thought. jonathan dienst with us. the arraignment so over. what happens now? >> up until a couple of minutes ago there was no gag order issued by the judge. i don't know what happened in the last couple minutes there. as of now, we will wait to hear from adam reiss or garrett or melissa russo, who are in the courtroom and they will be coming out. they will not be allowed to come out until i understand donald trump has exited the building. so he will now go down the elevator from that 15th floor. you see the caravan is set up awaiting the former president who is now an accused criminal, 34 counts accused of falsifying business records in the first-degree. he will be brought down the elevator, exit one hogan place on the side of the courthouse there. he will be put into one of the

caravan -- one of the suvs and he will be taken to laguardia airport where his plane is waiting for him and he will be flown back to florida and mar-a-lago where he expects to make a statement tonight around 8:15 p.m. meanwhile, the manhattan district attorney, who scheduled a news conference for 3:30, four minutes from now, obviously, that is going to be delayed given the length that this court hearing went. so we would -- the building across the street and he will explain the charges. now that the hearing is over, we would expect the manhattan d.a.'s office to email the indictment to all of the reporters and i believe that was president trump walking out. >> yeah, that is former president donald trump now leaving the courtroom, walking into into that motorcade. he will be on his way back to mar-a-lago. i want to bring in kristen welker who is outside the

courthouse. >> reporter: well, hallie, we saw some activity here with his motorcade a few moments ago and thought that might be a signal he was about to leave. so as you say, he is now entered his motorcade. they are about to take off momentarily. hallie, you can see throngs of police here, the security here, the mayor of new york has said going into today that they were prepared for this moment. president biden has said he had full faith in the police here to protect this space. and while there are hundreds of protesters, those who support former president trump, those who are critical of him, gathered in a park nearby, i have to tell you they have been peaceful throughout this entire process. now you see his motorcade, hallie, taking off, departing as we speak from hogan place from officially being charged here, pleading not guilty to those 34 counts that we just talked about, and so he is going to

head to laguardia airport where he will head to mar-a-lago as you say. and make those remarks tonight. again, just to remind folks, we expect to hear from a defiant former president trump, right? he was sort of slumped over in the courtroom based on that photo that we saw of the former president. but i expect we will see a very different mr. trump tonight when he speaks to supporters at mar-a-lago. >> he has been traveling, kristen, with a series of aides from his campaign. obviously, with members of his legal team, many of whom are expected to accompany him back to mar-a-lago where, frankly, the crowd will, i think, friendlier than what he has seen in manhattan. he is expected to be in front of supporters. it is entirely possible we will see supporters lining the route that donald trump will come back home. i think there is another key piece of information, the politics of it that we are waiting on, the indictment itself and getting the specifics that we have been discussing

here as far as the legal implications. i want to note something jonathan deanst talked about. the extraordinary security measures, frankly, jonathan, as you have been reporting and you first reported a week and a half ago that have been in place for days now. >> two weeks now from the fbi to the court officers to the nypd, they have all been working and preparing for this day, and this day has come. as you can see, one of the shots before, as the president was leaving the -- the former president leaving the courthouse, there are lines of people, rows to get a look at this day in history. i thought that was pretty -- an extraordinary sight here in manhattan. we understood that there were going to be a few hundred protesters, pro and con, in that foley skbar area around the courthouse. for several blocks leaving 100 center street area, the sidewalks were pretty jammed with people. now you see he is approaching

the entrance to the fdr drive, which will take him north towards the try bridge and laguardia where his pretty much is waiting for him. the former president trump of the united states, 42 counts of falsifying business records and conspiracy and leaves as an accused criminal. he pleaded not guilty. an extraordinary kay. we wait to hear more from the reporters in the courtroom and the overflow rooms about what went on inside during that 40, 45 -- >> danny, what do you think his lawyers are telling him? now that they see what the prosecute prosecution has put together, are they saying, don't worry, you are fine, there is no case here, or is this the moment that you have to acknowledge this could be a big deal? >> i think donald trump isn't as intensely involved in look at the indictment as his lawyers are. i picture his team parsing it

out chltz there can't be much that surprises them. there can't be much that surprises all of us. when this indictment comes out, i really doubt we will see some crime in there that we never imagined, never heard a fact about. consider that most of this stuff has been publicly known since, what, five, six, seven years? we have had the documents. we have had the checks. we have had the contracts. so you i don't think there are a lot of surprise ds. most likely it's his legal team huddling together. what do we do next? what motions are we filing? they probably already figured that out. trump may have taken a glance at it, taken a look at it. it's written in legalese, indictments are. you have the dates of the conspiracy, the different counts. but if you haven't looked at a lot of indictments, there isn't usually a lot of information that's helpful to a layperson to who is trying to learn about their case, especially if it is, as i suspect it is, a bare bones indictment, not a what's k5u8d a speaking indictment where in the modern era of adobe and microsoft word people insert

photographs and charts. you do see that in the federal context. for example, a chart about the money-laundering or struck churg counts. you have might see that here. you might see a chart of the checks, payments, when made. you might see that in in indictment. it's possible. it's not the kind of thing i think trump will interest himself with. he knows the basics. he knows what he is charged with. he is going to say, lawyers, you handle it until i decide that you are not handling it the way i like you to handle it and then i will get new lawyers in. >> he expanded his legal team as recently as yesterday. we continue to watch the former president make his way to laguardia airport. kristen welker is outside the courthouse now that that convoy has cleared that area, what are you seeing? >> reporter: well, lester, the voy has cleared, but former president trump supporters are still here. in fact, there is a trump sign unfurled.

of his protesters holding that. this cruder crowd is largely calm. they are somber. i think it underscores the mixed emotions today, the fact that, yes, the former president is using this moment to strike a defiant stance, but this is an historic moment. the first former president to face an indictment. and his supporters based on what i'm seeing outside of the courthouse really seem to understand the gravity of that, the significance of that. you talk about the fact that had there is so much unknown legally, the path forward is unknown, and politically it is unknown as well. we keep talking about this. the fact that in the short term this may bolster mr. trump in the primaries, but it's not clear how it looks as the primaries drag on once debates start and if he makes it to a general election, how that plays with independent voters, women voters, it's a real question mark moving forward. >> kristen welker, thank you. we want you to stay tuned. we expect to hear from manhattan

district attorney alvin bragg, a previously scheduled news conference schedule today start about now. we will take you about when he takes to the podium. nbc news legal analyst kristen gibbon, let's talk about the discovery in this case, the research, you know, the grist of the case. >> yeah, so we can expect the discovery is really just the exchange of information. any information that is favorable or unfavorable to the defendant wnl the prosecution of the case. the defendant would be entitled to that. so that's the prosecutor turning over anything from statements, probably from stormy daniels, maybe even miss mcdougal. there will also be potentially motions to uncover any of the testimony or evidence that was given to the grand jury. keep in mind, the grand jury proceedings are secret. but there are certain rules governing the disclosure of that

information. so depending on if the prosecution asserts that some of the evidence should remain under seal, that will also be a challenge by a trump team because reasonably they want every single thing, testimony and arguments that were made before the grand jury that was relied upon by them to indict. >> all right. again, watching in motorcade make its way up the fdr on its way to laguardia airport where the former president will return to his home in palm beach and deliver a speech that he has widely promoted tonight to the american people. that will be covered about, by the way, on nbc news now, our streaming channel. >> lester, you know, we are getting the indictment in here as well. i'm reading through it as we speak. i am looking at 34 counts as adam reported in court there and falsifying business records in the first-degree, which we know is a felony. and looking to see here how they

outline, obviously, what the second crime is here. you can see it on the screen there. we're scrolling -- >> it's automatically a felony or -- >> if they escalate it, find a way to step it up. that's what we are searching for now to see how they describe it. it's pretty bare bones. a lot of boilerplate language repeated for each and every count there, as i said, 34 counts, falsifying business records in the first-degree. >> 16 pages long, this indictment is, just girlfriend you a sense, it is literally out in the last 45 seconds. she is reading it live as we are getting it hire. it does not appear to that so-called speaking indictment -- >> no, it does not. >> which means in the next couple minutes when we hear from manhattan district attorney alvin bragg that would be his opportunity to elaborate on some of what our own adam reiss reported wept down in court. . so description of that prosecutors think, the idea that they believe he tried to

suppress information ahead of the 2016 campaign. >> lester, this is the moment legal analysts dread because a document like this comes out, it's 16 pages, but we are frantically going through. we have only just gotten it and we are getting a look at the first charges. indeed, it is falsifying business records in the first-degree, a felony. we should find out soon what that predicate crime is that was used to elevate what is ordinarily a misdemeanor into felony land. >> i am going to let you go through that. i will go to nbc news national correspondent gabe gutierrez who was inside the courtroom. just came out. what can you tell us about the proceeding? >> reporter: lester, this indictment is not a speaking indictment. i can tell you what happened inside that courtroom. definitely had a lot of speaking in it. it is unlike any arraignment i have ever seen. it went on for at least 45 minutes and it devolved into open arguments in this trial.

just within the past few moments we learned that the prosecution wanted a trial for january of 2024. just next year. that would place it snack in the middle of a presidential election. since then, the defense came back and said they want a little bit more time and wanted to push it back to the spring. new information we have, it is that over the next few months there will be discoveries and basically the next time a scheduled court appearance for the former president is december 8th. many months from now. still, lester, i can go through this quite a bit. it basically started with the prosecution laying out its case right here. as my colleague adam reiss reported, this is 34 felony counts of falsifying business records with the intent to -- with a conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election. i will let you go through the indictment. i have not seen it myself. but i can tell you it that the

prosecution laid into the defense saying that over the past several weeks there have been irresponsible social media posts that the defendant had said that there will be death and destruction because of this indictment and that the defendant has also directed threats at the d.a.'s office. these threats led to increased law enforcement efforts. i was able to get a clear view of former president trump. we had the monitor facing him. he was sitting in between his defense attorneys and he was looking mostly silent, most of the proceedings, only able to say -- actually, this is mr. trump's defense team. if we can look over here. tony? in is the president's defense team here, joe tacopina. i'll continue my description, lester. let's see if we can take -- you may want to take this response live. this is todd blanch and joe

tacopina. i am not sure if we have a camera there. >> we can see it. >> i am trying. hold on one moment. . we are trying to listen in. joe tacopina, attorney for former president trump, is speaking to a gaggle of reporters, trying to get our microphone there. >> it's not a good day. it's not a bad day. i don't expect -- i don't expect this to happen. in this country, you don't expect this to happen to somebody who was the president of the united states. and on the one hand, on the one hand, there is not really any surprises. i know there was a lot of talk over the past several weeks, the

past several days about what is in this indictment and what's going to be there that we don't know. there must be something besides what we have been talking about for the past four, five years. there wasn't. there was nothing. the indictment itself is boilerplate. it doesn't allege any federal crime, any state crime violated. it doesn't allege what the false statement is. and it's really disappointing. it's sad. and we are going to fight it. we are going to fight it hard. >> were you surprised by anything in the indictment? >> no. >> how about you, joe? >> there were no facts in there. normally in an indictment you have alleged fact. they said this was a false business -- aid and abet another crime. we are not seeing what the other crime is. >> can you can you talk about his demeanor? >> when you say what his reaction was, what do you expect his reaction was? his reaction was exactly what happened if it happened to

anybody i am looking at now or anybody that's hearing what you are saying. he is frustrated. he is upset. but i tell you what. he is motivated. it's not going to stop him or slow him down and it's -- it's exactly what he expected. to that extent, there is no surprise. but he is also -- he is also shall de is also upset and frustrated and disappointed and mad that this happened. >> what about the warnings against the -- the rhetoric on -- >> there was not a warning. what do you mean? >> from the judge talking about -- >> the judge did not warn -- the district attorney made a statement addressing what they perceived to be -- i am not sure the words they used, inappropriate rhetoric of some sort. obviously, we responded and the judge just took it in. the judge didn't warn. the asked the parrots to consider what they are saying and not -- >> did not admonish the president. >> did the president use

language that incite violence or civil unrest? >> he did not request the president not use language. he requested that everybody involved -- >>ing correct, both parties. >> from using language that's inappropriate. >> by the way, that includes -- that includes the witnesses. the witnesses for the people, he was talking just as much -- >> the former president -- baseball bat -- >> i don't know where you got that. >> by the -- >> no, it wasn't. first of all, first of all, first of all, that picture was not swinging a baseball at-bat. if you want to distort the facts, go ahead. he wasn't swing ago baseball bat at anyone's head. that was a picture of him showing off an american made bat. someone else put that next to him and in an article posted that. >> not using language that incites -- >> guys, here is what we are going to talk about today. we are going to talk about the insufficiency of this case. i will say this. the unsealing of this indictment

shows that the rule of law died in this country. everyone is not above the law. no one is below it either. if man's name was not donald trump there is no scenario we'd be here today. based on these charges -- >> for what? >> when? >> yeah, tonight at 8:00. >> i don't know. you'll hear it. >> you should tune in and hear it. >> did you think that was realistic? >> no. >> can you guys talk about -- >> the situation about the unity among defense attorneys -- look at this. look at us. look -- >> come out together? >> we don't know -- >> they come out together to speak with one voice. there is no disunity here. that's gossip and it's nonsense. we have been working to the and we will be working together. >> this is to me, quite frankly, is the best team i have ever worked with of lawyers. i am honored to be working with these guys. it's a family. it's a team. we have one mission and we will achieve that mission. >> what's your next move?

>> i am going to go home and have some food. >> what about the chance -- [ multiple speakers ] >> when do you start filing motions? >> the judge set a motion schedule -- >> the judge set a motion schedule that requires motions filed in four months. so that's when we will be filing motions. >> this notion about how this is sort of like a novel or a -- do you -- >> it's not a notion. it's a fact. there is nothing else to say. the district attorney, this office has existed for decades and decades and you can find one if you like. you will never see a charge like this ever. >> you understand. simple as this. a state prosecutor is prosecuting a federal election law violation that doesn't exist according to federal election law officials. simple as that. >> will there be anything else in your motion to the -- >> we haven't -- >> there is all that talk -- can someone address that?

>> could potentially post discovery on social media -- >> impromptu news conference outside the courthouse with the attorneys for former president trump who right now is nearing laguardia airport for his return to florida after a 45 mirn-long arraignment hearing in which a number of issues were discussed, including some of the tone of language that had concerned the d.a.'s office from the former president. but his attorneys strongly defending the former president and challenging the d.a. to come up with facts, which they think are not in evidence right now. laura jarrett has been working this set of documents we have received here, the actual indictment. >> yeah. >> can you help us understand? >> what we have here is an indictment laying forth the exact counts. those are statutory cites that relate to the criminal code in new york. the 34 counts falsifying

business records. in addition, we have a lengthy statement of facts, some 44 paragraphs in length. we talk about a speaking indictment. of this is from the rooftops telling the story of what happened. we are still going through it. but part of what is interesting is it's laying out a narrative in the language of conspiracy, but they haven't actually charged conspiracy as a separate count, which is interesting. and i wondered how they were going to do it because we all knew they were going to need some hook to escalate this to a felony. it's laid out in the narrative description but not charged as a separate crime which will be interesting and i am sure the president's -- former president's lawyers will attack that and figure out a way to say that that's not a proper way to do things. it is interesting to note how explicit they are about the former president's role in what they are saying is essentially a scheme to defraud the american public --

>> an active participant? >> active participant. he had meetingings about this and did this for the sole purpose of -- to make sure that negative information did not come out before the 2016 election. that is certainly what michael cohen pled guilty to. it's certainly what the publisher of "the national enquirer" pled guilty to as part of his non-prosecution agreement. we have heard this story told before by federal prosecutors in those agreements. we have never heard this story told before as explicitly as we are hearing today from the mouts of the state district attorney in manhattan. >> there are no names in the statement of facts. you're right, laura. this is separate from the indictment itself. it lays out all of what we have been talking about, the sort of color narrative, if you will, of what happened. based on some of the identifying piece its of information, the amount. hush-money payments, it seems at this point that this is about karen mcdougal and stormy daniels. stormy daniels of course an adult film star who today is out with a new essentially magazine

feature talking about how she hopes to feel at some point vindicated, karen mcdougal, a former playboy model who received hush-money payment that came through a publication kind of a catch and kill scheme here in the statement of facts the prosecutor's office is laying out. >> and i want to read a little bit of it because the language is just so striking. talking about from august of 2015 to december of 2017, the defendant, the former president, orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress his publication and benefit the defendant's electoral prospects. it goes on to say, in order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws. they don't say federal laws, state laws. and may cause false entries in the business records of various entities in new york, the

participants took steps that mischaracterize ds for tax purposes -- not charging tax crimes, but saying took steps that miss characterizes for tax purposes the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme. they used the statement of facts to sort of tell the story but they are not charging those things as separate crimes. >> are they telegraphing that may come into play at some point? >> somebody asked the district attorney at that press conference -- >> is doesn't someone to actually prove the crime used to launch this case into felony land. so at this point they don't necessarily 23450ed need to charge it. they appear to go alleging it, whether it be an election law violation, a tax crime of some kind. it seems straightforward that we're just talking about falsification of business records that is made into a felony. i don't think that's an accident that d.a.'s office is being a little vague here because they don't necessarily want to commit to anything. you don't want to do that in an

indictment, commit to something you can't prove or aren't planning to prove. make no mistakes about it. you are going to see motions, number one, that new york has no jurisdiction to enforce anything related to election law unless it is somehow new york state election law. you are also going to see a motion that because the payments were made by michael cohen, and allegedly made by michael cohen to benefit trump personally and his family, that takes it out of the purview of election law. in other words, because it wasn't to benefit the campaign, it was to benefit his family, therefore, this is not a viable charge. now, other defenses that won't be the subject of a motion to dismiss but will surely see them at trial, will be the advice of counsel defense. hey, i just did what my lawyer told me to. anyone who knows donald trump knows that's probably not likely. donald trump doesn't take the instructions of his lawyers any more than he takes them from anyone else. heads of state, anybody. and if he doesn't like what his

lawyer is saying, he fires them and get a new lawyer. we know that. but you can bet that you will see an advice of counsel defense at trial and that that will be one of many that they will try to assert if this case ever gets to trial. believe me. they are going to have -- you saw it at the press conference. the defense team is going to be filing motions. i suspect a lot of them. they will try to chip away at this case. best-case scenario, if they throw out the felony and leave alvin bragg only charging the president with misdemeanors -- this is a little beyond my pay grade because it's political, this would be a huge win for donald trump if the first prosecution by alvin bragg precedes only as misdemeanors in new york city, that would not be a win even if you convicted him on those misdemeanors -- >> well, characterize it for me. is this any weightier, any more serious for the former president right now than it was, you know, a couple hours ago? >> so far, i have seen 0.0

surprises. there is nothing new in the statement of facts or indictment. i am surprised slightly this exclusively about hush-money payments. you see this on page one of the indictment, what you see is that they took one event, say february 14, 2017, and you see the first four counts of the indictment are all related to february 14, 2017. so they are taking really one transaction and extracting four different crimes from that transaction. that as i'm it's sitting here might raise another motion, which is that they are trying to make multiple crimes out of a single transaction. these are concepts like multiplicity in, you know, criminal law that if the government tries to charge to heap on too many crimes that are really just one transaction, you might be able to get the indictment dismissed. long shot. these are all long shots. judges hate to take cases away from prosecutors. they like to give them their day

in court. but by filing those motions what they do is they preserve it for appeal. so if things go badly at trial, these are all preserved issues for appeal. they are issues of law that an appellate court with quiet reflection may take in a different direction. that's the strategy as i see it. i have no doubt we will see those motions in the coming weeks and months, however much time they have to file. >> let me bring in chuck rosenberg. chuck, your reading of this case? >> yeah, lester, katherine is still here. i would love to ask her a question. but if not -- >> she is. >> well, katherine, if you don't mind, in my federal practice we would typically propose a speaking indictment. there is a separate document here, a statement of facts, and it has an indictment number on it, which i assume correlates to the 34-count indictment.

how does the district attorney's office use that statement of facts and what is its legal weight in the proceedings? >> you know, i tell you, chuck, i am at a loss. when i looked at this indictment and saw that every single count, because i heard reporter earlier talking about conspiracy. i am like, oh, there is a conspiracy count. there is no conspiracy count. so there are 34 counts of the same charge, falsifying business records. and the statement of facts talks about the playboy model, karen mcdougal, and stormy daniels. so it appears that this indictment is solely about the hush-money payment to miss daniels, the catch and kill regarding miss mcdougal. the statement of facts, quite frankly, i haven't seen this, it's usually, if you are charging conspiracy, you list out all the overt acts. that's sort of how you get all the information in there. well, floss conspiracy count.

so i agree with danny. there is going to be very substantive motions, and danny said that if they can reduce these felonies to a misdemeanor, remember, even on the misdemeanor charge, you still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr. trump put this false entry in his business records with the intent to defraud. so even that is not so clear. that's the argument they are going to make. i am a little -- i was actually saying, oh, you know, now there is going to be conspiracy and talk about tax crimes. so it's -- i am not going to say it's shocking, but i'm surprised the 34 counts are falsifying business records and involve miss daniels. >> are you saying this is a weak case? >> i have always said it was a tough case because you have to prove intent to defraud. for the felony, you have to prove, in addition to intent to

defraud, the intent to commit another crime. if that other crime was the campaign finance law, well, it's a novel theory, which makes it a tough case. it's a tough case because the main witness is michael cohen. now, i use cooperators all the time. you can't do an organized crime case without a cooperator. you corroborate every word, every accusation he makes. you could argue mueller is sort of trump's mini-me. that's why they got along. that's why he worked for him so long. it's a tough case because, like i said, if it's really solely about this hush payment to this porn star and it's based on campaign finance law, it's going to be tough. it doesn't mean they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but it will be a tough case. >> and, katherine, do they have the opportunity to revise this indictment or are they stuck with what they have? >> well, in order to prevent an indictment or to -- you have to

get permission. court. so maybe there is another case they are investigating. i have no idea. but this is the indictment. this is, you know, what know, you know, spent the months on and decided to vote on. and i'll be interested to hear district attorney bragg's press conference. i am sure, you know, all the reporters will is ask the same question. >> yeah, and chuck, weigh in for us as well. is this a strong case? >> maybe. and i'm hedging only a little bit because when you don't have a speaking indictment, when you don't have the prosecution laying out how they are going to prove each of their counts, you have to assume that there is something that supports that, that undergirds each of the 34 counts, lester. we may not know the answer until perhaps the defendants file a motion for a bill of particulars asking for more information about each of the counts. we may not know until we see the

evidence adduced at trial. and by the way, i just want to make a distinction between something that's weak and something that's serious. because sometimes these words are used interchangeably, but at least to me they mean something different. a case could be extraordinarily serious, a homicide, but not have a lot of evidence, and, therefore, be relatively weak. no forensics, no motive, no confession, no eyewitnesses. another case could be relatively, i don't want to say trivial, but less serious and be incredibly strong because you have documents and witnesses that con can testify and help prove each count. so this is a less serious but it doesn't necessarily make it a weak case. for us to assess the evidence, we're going to need to see something more from the prosecutors. >> nbc news legal analyst kristin gibbons is with