criminal defendant, a former president. for the first time in our history is a criminal defendant indicted we should note, this could be the first of potentially many other indictments. two special counsel investigations, an investigation by the d.a. in georgia, all currently pending. what happens with them we're going to have to wait to find out who knows how long, potentially very soon, though. that wraps up our special coverage of donald trump's arraignment. thank you for joining us for the last four hours. "deadline: white house" starts right now. \s it's all happening, the gang is all here with you on a history-making afternoon

in case i rudely interrupt any of the great minds assembled to talk with us, in a matter of minutes, alvin bragg is expected to address this newly unveiled indictment, indicting donald j. trump. this is thfirst time we've heard from him since trump turned himself in this afternoon. while we wait, a lot is happening at this moment, including developments in the last few minutes we now have our hands on the actual indictment. it's a doozy it's just been unsealed. people are still going through it, processing it, and it's been made public. you can read along with us if you want to. importantly it includes 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election we understand, thank to our nbc

news colleagues, there's a courtroom with trump himself, in his own voice, pleaded not guilty today the former president is on his way to laguardia airport, he's going to fly for mar-a-lago, blah, blah, blah purchasers shared a number of examples of online threats by donald trump in order to make a case that this type of hostile rhetoric could spoil a jury pool, among other things we have "new york times" investigative reporter suzanne craig, she's been covering trump and his finances for years, helping us to understand what we should be looking for. andrew wiseman is back we've been listening to him all afternoon. he investigated donald trump during his work with the mueller report

former florida congressman david jolley is also here. lucky for us, they're all msnbc contributors unlucky for david, he's headed to your home state let's focus on what alvin bragg has done he successfully kept secret really until donald trump was inside the courtroom i heard you say 34 felony counts. >> one thing that's interesting, the speculation before we knee these charges is he would charge some misdemeanors, some felonies, canned this is a bold indictment this is 34 felonies. there are no merchandise the people who are saying, is it appropriate for a former president to be charged with a misdemeanor, which, by the way, it should, because he's not above the law. that's no longer an issue. these are 34 felony counts, which is, you know, kind of

remarkable there are 12 general ledger charges, 11 checks charges, and 11 invoices. it's a little unclear how they got there, just to be fair if you -- it's not required when you plead something, you can just plead the actual language of the indictment. this goes further than that, because there's an indictment, and that has sort of stripped down, just pleading what the charges are, then there's a lengthy statement of facts it's unclear exactly what the theory is as to how they got to the felonies it appears at the very least, it is election crimes it may also be tax crimes, because there are allegations about that they definitely go out of their way in a statement of facts to over and over again talk about the evidence that donald trump was focusing on the election,

that this was not a, how do we keep this from melania trump there seems to be quite a lot of evidence in that clearly the d.a. was concerned about that, and making it clear in this document that they're going to be -- the felony would at least include campaign charges. they obviously will have evidence to present to a jury, up to a jury to decide whether it's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> i want to ask about the i.r.s., you know, i know you have a direction line to them -- [ lau [ laughter ] let me just read the introduction, because it invokes the legitimacy of the question about the i.r.s. off the bat the defend, donald trump, repeatedly and falsified new york business record to conceal

criminal conduct to high damaging evidence during the campaign the defendant orchestrated a scheme can others to influence the presidential election. this is language, andrew, that is almost verbatim of what they used they crowd coordinated and directed, but same evidence -- by identifying and purchasing negative evident about him, to suppress the information in order to execute the unlawful scheme that participants violated election laws, and made and caused false entries in the business records, the various entities of new york participants also took steps that mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme it sounds like more than -- or maybe in addition to witnesses, this is a document-reliant

indictment >> we don't know, but normally when you falsify business records, there could be reasons to do it for non-tax purposes, but in this case, it makes sense to falsify a business record and not having it sort of flow into the tax arena. donald trump could have cut the check out of his personal account and could have called it a day. they decided to bleed it into the trumps on sarks and then it becomes a, what did they do? and then you can see you look at the arrangement that michael cohen made with allen weisselberg, the former cfo of the trump organization, now sitting at rikers for other issues it says the cfo and a, being michael cohn, agreed to an up brehma payment they reached that figure by adding to a $50,000 payment for

another expense, for which lawyer a also claimed as reimbursement. when they gross it up, and it says the cfo then doubled that amount to $360,000, so lawyer a could characterize the payment as income tax on his returns they put it on, so they can then use it >> with michael cohen, payments came up. sort of the black box, whether it also led them to lie on that i can taxes about where that money can gotten i always think when you look at a tax return, even when you filed your tax return, there's a box, to check it, so -- >> yeah.

>> you've got to pay taxes on it, and then they'll come and get you. >> that's amazing. >> but this is a piece of that he had a hush money payment. it wasn't a legal fee. >> i want to talk about what's on our screen, not related -- related to alvin bragg, who really is the man of the hours he's created charts and graphs he has the intention to graphically tell the story this is a remarkable thing to see. let me just stop on this board someone had to go to a printer and have something printed that says people versus donald j. trump. the country's last president is now a criminal defendant phasing 34 felony charges.

>> i was asked earlier today by katy tur a similar quick, raising in court about the danger to the judge and to the district attorney and their families, and you really have to step back. there's just the un-reality of seeing something that says the people versus donald trump we may see one with united nations versus donald trump, that this is not an organized crime says where you're worried about the safety of the d.a., the judge, the garage jurors, the witnesses, this is the former president of the united states i was on a special counsel investigation. i understand the threats that were made. it still is breathtaking that you're in this situation, and, you know, reading something that is both tawdry and scary at the same time.

ed fi-- the final thought i hav is, everyone says this is a sad day, but from the d.a.'s office, the sadness is the fact, the disgrace of the presidency that happened long before today. this is really restoration of the rule of law, in light of what had happened. joel, i want to apologize ahead of time. it's highly likely we've interrupt you. let's spend some time on this. not only the aspect of trump and how his new tv -- burg that, because of the the reliance on norms in our politics, because of their complete and absolute failure to protect any institutions, so donald trump and the bleep storm he shored

in, we had a real conversation between prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys with the judge about the climate -- is that the right word for it? the conversation being fueled by trump. >> yeah. look, andrew used the word breathtaking, about the fact -- that's the kind of conversation you're having, and that these are -- trump has so often been analogized to a organize the crime mobster, in those ways, to see in a formal legal setting, exactly the kinds of protections being necessary for jurors that you would have seen. much more tangible we don't know exactly what he said, exactly what those

exchanges were, but the way it's being characterized, as of course it should be. i'll also say one other thing about this, as you read this document i mean, andrew makes the point that there are some real question and hopefully d.a. bragg will be asked about trying to tie together some things how he gets to federal -- here he comes. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us here today. earlier this afternoon donald trump was arraigned on a new york supreme court indictment returned bya manhattan grand jury on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree under new york state law, it is a felony to falsify business records with the intention of fraud and intent to conceal another crime. that is exactly what this case is about

34 false statement made to cover up other crimes. these are felony crimes in new york state, no matter who you are. we cannot and will not normalize serious criminal conduct the defendant repeatedly made false statements on new york business records he also caused others to make false statements the defendant claimed he was paying michael cohen for legal service performed in 2015. this simply was not truth. it was a false statement the defendant made month after month in 2017. april, may, june and so on through the rest of the year for nine straight months, the

defendant held documents in his hand containing this key lie that he was paying michael cohen for legal services performed in 2017 he personally signed checks for payments to michael cohen for each of these nine months. in total, the grand jury found there were 34 documents with this critical false statement. why did donald trump repeatedly make these false statements? the evidence will show he did so to cover up crimes related to the 2016 election. donald trump, executives at the publishing company american media incorporated, mr. cohen, and others, agreed in 2015 to a catch-and-kill scheme. that is, a scheme to buy and suppress negative information to help mr. trump's chance of winning the election

as part of the scheme, donald trump and others made three payments to people who claimed to have negative information about mr. trump. to make these payments, they set up shell companies and they made yet more false statements, including, for example, ami, american media incorporated business records they paid money to keep quiet a woman named stormy daniels less than two weeks before the presidential election, michael co co cohen wired money. that payment was to hide damages information from the public. the scheme was illegal it violated new york election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. the $130,000 wire payment

exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap and the false statements in ami's books violated new york law. that is why mr. trump made false statements about his payments to mr. cohen. he could not say that the payments were reimbursements for mr. cohen's payments to stormy daniels. to do so, to make that true statement, would have been to admit a crime. instead, mr. trump said he was paying mr. cohen for fictitious legal services in 2017 to cover up actual crime committed the prior year in order to get mike at -- michael cohen his money back, they had a scheme. they planned to mischaracterize

the payments as income to the new york state tax authorities the conduct i just described, and that which was charged by the grand jury is felony criminal conduct in new york state. true and accurate business records are important everywhere, to be sure they are all the more important in manhattan the financial center of the world. that is why we have a history in the man hearn d.a.'s office of vigorously enforcing white collar crime nigh office, including the talented prosecutors you say earlier today, has charged hundreds of felony charges this can be said to be the bread and butter of our work we have charged falsifying business records for those who violated federal bank secrecy

laws we have charged falsifying business records for those seeking to cover up sex crimes and we have brought this charge for those who committed tax violations at its core, this case today is one with allegations like so many of our white collar cases, allegations that someone lie again and again to protect their interests and evade the laws to which we are all held accountable, as this office has done time and time again, we today uphold or solemn responsibilities to ensure that everyone stands equal before the law, no amount of money and no amount of power changes that enduring american principle. i'll now take questions. >> we'll have a limit of questions, no follow-up questions. i will call on you thank you.

>> reporter: why no? some are skeptic it's a political move -- [ inaudible question ] >> the investigation we're going to do at the manhattan district attorney's office. i've been doing this for 24 years. i'm no stranger to rigorous, complex investigations i bring cases when they're ready. having now conducted a rigorous investigation, the case was ready to be brought. it was brought [ inaudible question ] >> reporter: "false business records -- another crime, but it did not specifically say what the crimes are

we are assuming perhaps they might be election relate d [ inaudible question ] >> the indictment doesn't specify, because the law does not so require in my remarks,ly highlight a couple from my remarks the first is new york state election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. i further indicated a number of unlawful means, including more additional false statements, including statements that were planned to be made to tax authorities. i also noted the federal election law cap on contribution limits. >> reporter: why weren't there -- charged -- [ inaudible question ] >> i'm not going to go into our deliberative charges the charges were the ones that were brought the evidence and the law is the basis for those decisions.

>> reporter: you expressed a year ago that you expressed reservations for the case -- what was the question in your mind that needed to be answered in order to bring the case to -- [ inaudible question ] >> i'm not going chapter and verse into the thinking. i believe the time period you're talking about, i hadding in office for a couple months the investigation, in my view, was not concluded, and the conduct in particular is a basis for the charges today. since that time we've had more evidence made available to the office and an opportunity to immediate with additional witnesses. as i said earlier, i've been do this for 24 years. i don't bring cases prior to a thorough and rigorous investigation. now having done so, the case has been broad. >> reporter: your predecessor took a hard look at the case and decided not to federal prosecutors decide nod

to charge it do you believe you have new evidence that let to you charge this or why now >> as you i just mentioned, we've had available to the office additional evidence that was not in the office's possession prior to my time here as to part of your question about the federal, i would say they have a strong and profound interested in new york state this is the business capital of the world. we regularly do cases involving false business statements, but the bedrock, the basis for business integrity and a well financials business marketplace is true and accurate recordkeeping. new york state business records. [ inaudible question ] >> reporter: -- tax pumps, which you made your statements -- you

allege -- [ inaudible question ] >> i'm not going beyond the plain language i think it speaks for itself >> reporter: -- violating state election laws, there are charges -- >> the charge is falsifying business records the charge requires, as i specified, criminal conduct that was concealed. one of the concealed crime we allege is new york state election law our statement of facts i believe you have in front of you, you know, goes through things including text messages, e-mails, contemporary unions phone records, multiple

witnesses, all of that will be borne out in a public courtroom in downtown manhattan. [ inaudible question ] >> reporter: -- released from your office mentioned another woman, can you comment how those players are related? >> i'm glad you put your finger on that. it's not just about one payment. it is 34 business records, 34 false statements and business records, conceals criminal conduct. the earlier question about new york state election law, talking about conspiracy, to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. those national means we allege include the conduct set forth in the statement of facts, which is additional false statements, planned false statements of

taxing authorities it is not just that one $130,000 wire payment thanks so much we've been listening to district attorney alvin bragg, who has made history of charging a former president with 34 felony crimes. i want to make sure i understand this i have the support system to do just that. what the d.a. is articulating, basically it's the cover-up in addition to the crime that got donald trump in so much criminal trouble, that over the course of 2017 he made a hush money payments and that the -- there's been a lot of banter, frankly a lot of it goes over my head.

we god some answers on that, too. there was a violation of election laws. we talked about the federal laws that we know we are violated, because the justice department articulated those. michael cohen went to jail for violating those, in part, but it turns out donald trump also violated new york state election laws the falls records made in insometime, during nine months according to alvin bragg, covered up defrauding the voters to support a candidate and also something about the wire transfers tripping donald trump up in a criminal way talk about the sum and substance of what we understand now that we have heard alvin bragg speak. >> i think i have three points to make about that one is, if you look at the big picture, the big picture is what alvin bragg is saying is for a

candidate who ran on fake news and the truth teller, this is all about presenting a fake story of who he is to the electorate lawyers, ami, "national enquirer" with the complicity of people paying off. it reminds me so much -- we were getting here on the first impeachment, the whole idea was again to send afake torrie to the electoral. you wonder why you should care, that's what's going on >> i thought it was smart to talk about -- he made a point at

the press conference to say, this is something charged in new york day in and day out. he talked about ways in this this sort of felony is charged, not as a misdemeanor, but as a felony for bank secrecy, sex crimes, tax crimes, saying this is not out of the ordinary yes, of course, when is the last time you had a president charged with crimes like this, but it was important to explain why he has not being singled out in terms of the manhattan day's -- d.a.'s office. and then when you read the indictment, you're left to wonder what precisely is the crime that lead the bump up. why is it a felony there he did give more information.

he talked about furthering the false statements >> you know, he'll make his motions and a judge will decide, but the issue i think for donald trump, if you are the defense here, you might pick at the edges and might be able to do some damages to some of the charges, but it's really hard to see how you'll have a motion to dismiss that get rid of all of this the idea -- if you're sitting here looking at this, this is going to trial

>> we've had new information from bragg's predecessors. cy vance said he was asked to, quote, stand down by sdny, and sdny, for its part, actually found that trump coordinated and directed the exact scheme described in today's indictment. he was pursuing with much more interest, prosecutors did disagree, but when you heard cy vance talk, he was facing obstacles while pursuing this case not only did he have covid, but the -- he went to the supreme court twice to try to get the tax records, so there were a lot of things that slow-walked it.

where they aren't playing with appraisals you put it down, and i think that that's where he was sort of putting -- i still think that that case could come forward it's a criminal case going to tr trial. >> it's how that anyone who read your tax story -- how it -- what it says is everything is an absolute fraud it's exactly how i would describe a body of recording about taxes. just that nugget of him, that it has to be bigger, it's just at

the heart of him i'm imagining already what defense he'll have i think he would say, i sign a lot of checks. this is something that michael cohen and allen weisselberg, the former cfo, cooked up. w weisselberg is facing charges on another issue with insurance fraud. whether or not by the time this gets to trial, whether there's enough pressure brought on him, he could be a witness if it comes to trial >> i think the quote is going back to alan and figure it out would that be admitted >> i didn't know -- i'm not -- >> he says can't you pay cash? he's really involved

[ laughter ] >> do it in 20s and 10s. [ laughter ] >> when you're the ceo, the head of a crime family, of course your defense is, i don't bother with the little details, whatever they're doing here the problem is this is a small organization this is not exxon mobil or jpmorgan this is a small outfit they'll have witnesses up one side down and the other that you couldn't move without him knowing and approving. that won't help. if you thought that donald trump didn't know anything about this, and you did it behind your back, why would you make a tape recording of him what are you talking about this is the first time i've ever heard it does anyone listening if you heard donald trump saying, i'm shocked that you're doing this

of course, not. >> here his is not just directing the scheme, but how the money should be made >> i need to open up a company for the transfer of all that info regarding our friend david, you know so that -- i'm going to do it right away i have spoken to allen weisselberg how to set the whole thing up with funding that -- >> funding -- >> yes, and it's all the stuff here you never know what -- >> it gets it by -- >> correct, i'm all over that. i spoke to alan about it when it comes to the time of financing, you -- >> what agent -- >> oh, no, no, no. >> cohen is, like, we don't have that much cash

i think a couple things we have seen today, one is that split screen from a second ago, i can't help but think alvin bragg digging in, donald trump flying out of to florida, there's something about that there's poetry to that i know he'll give a people later today, but there's some poetry to that. i have boys all over this town i could never get a fair trial in this town you know, something about this whole day has that flavor. we'll talk about this for a long time, because we hear december is the next hearing. man, for people who have been waiting for this moment and can now have this moment today, to now be told they won't have any progress on this case until december of this year, and though a lot of lawyer -- that this case will not likely be

held until after the '24 election, as much satisfaction as people want to have donald trump be held accountable, they'll have to slow their roll today. the big story in all these documents, it's like, we've allen so focus odd michael cohen, is he credible or not, michael cohen. i look at they documents, and i think the trial will be about david pecker he'll be in the middle of this, if not more, and he's all over -- lying it all out as bragg laid it out, the ami people, which has been the subject of a lot of reporting, the fact that he's -- he seems like he'll be the star witness here. >> let me just do this let me ask you to remind everybody who pecker is. >> you should probably answer that, but -- >> famed head of "the national

enquirer." >> wasn't he granted some limited immunity during the federal investigation? >> yes. >> so what he knows may or may not be reflected in the michael cohen sentencing >> that's right. "the national enquirer" in political circles, as you know well, for a long, long time they have established a reputation for do all kinds of stuff to sell tabloids, but they would do the dirty story for candidates and they were almost always right. they have a reputation for being very good on very bad story. so when they decided to get in bed with donald trump, so to speak -- >> no, actually. >> -- figure ratively -- i don't want that image running, but they were to have his back, which was kind of known in the campaign world

dump had a lot of dirty laundry, they would be the ones to get it off. they exposed john edwards, and the fact that pecker was taking a hands off on donald trump, but was in league with him, was seen as an enormous advantage so i just imagine that, notice, it's not that david pecker is a guy who most people would consider a white knight figure in american society. on the other hand, he's not a convicted liar >> let me just read from the indictment, to bring it back to what john is tacking about, because i think some of the narrative does take us back in time to schemes that haven't been talked about. we haven't talked about the doorman story, for example

let me read this from the indictment >> the statement of facts. >> we have woman number one, suppressing her account one month before the election other november 7th, news broke the defendant had been caught on tape saying the host of "access hollywood" i start kissing women, i don't even wait and you can do anything, grab them by the genitals, you can do anything the evidence shows that the defendant and his campaign staff are concerned that the tape could harm his viability and reduce his standing with female candidates in particular shortly after the "access hollywood" tape became politician, the ami editor in chief contacted the ami ceo about another woman about contact with the defendant this goes on to detail exactly

how this worked, exactly how "the national enquirer" was in bed, figuratively, if you want, with the trump campaign. >> this story right here, the doorman story, though, which was run by farrow and others, may have been forgotten about, the allegations that he had a child out of the wedlock denied, but the falsity of that claim became another instance here i think it could get more attention. it was written by in 2018, but now, like many trump things, slipped into the memory hole here it is, prominently displayed in these documents. >> i want to bring in garrett haake in one said, but to this point you're making, it's a good reminder we have no idea what we have no idea about when it's under investigation. >> 100%.

>> they're sprawling, they're opaque by design. >> and so many things in the trump era would pop up kind of shine up above the surface, above the waterline, disappeared, and then there was so much going on, the news cycle was so fast and furious, that a lot of things that i think this case, and maybe others, people kind of forgot, oh, yeah, that was a controversy four years ago. they make dramatic appearances like this. >> garrett haake, i know you were inside the courtroom and the news conference. i want to go back in time to the courtroom. we haven't had an authority on this yet i would like you to tell us the story of what happened when the prosecutor rose and raised the concerns about the kind of content being pushed and disseminated by donald trump i know there was a back and forth with trump's legal team. can you take me through how that

went down? >> reporter: that was a striking moment it cause the trump legal team somewhat off-guard chris conroy, who led most of the state's presentation, argued before the judge not for a gag order, but as part of a discussion of a protective order regarding evidence that would be handed over as part of the discovery process, sort of bringing before this judge this issue of mr. trump's conduct, particularly online. he had printed-out copies of the truth social posts that mr. trump had made, and he included the post about death and destruction, a post of mr. trump holding a baseball bat near a picture of d.a. bragg. he made the argument that that kind of conduct, which in and of itself wasn't as issue, but could be particularly concerning as they move forward if mr. trump had access to discovery access, and turned that same

even of receipt ricket 2w5rd potential witnesses. the d.a. 'office says they don't want this to be out in the stream, and todd blanche made a very trumpian argument here. it sounded like a political argument i hear from some of the republican lawmakers who support donald trump he said, look, my client is frustrated he doesn't want to be here, and basically cut off about judge. he said we're not talking about news trace, but this kind of rhetoric specifically. nevertheless, they went back and forth a bit. before the judge weighed in, making two things clear. first, he made it clear he did not want to get to the point of having to impose a gag order he wouldn't have imposed one today, even if asked because it raises so much concerns about first amendment concerns when you have particularly a candidate running

for office that said, he warned both mr. trump and the prosecution, in terms of the conduct of their witnesses, to be very careful about what they say about this case in public he didn't want to see any exculpatory rhetoric, anything that might inside or call for violence, or anything that might undermine the rule of law. he says if that continues to be the case, he might look more differently or more seriously at other posts and other pieces of information. so conflating two issues here, one, the idea of mr. trump's inflammatory posts kind of flirt with the idea of, you know, political violence around elements of this case. also with the defense's claims that people like michael cohen appear on programs like this one are somehow discriminatory to mr. trump's rights or damaging to the rule of law there, the judge made it pretty clear he's not keen on either of those types of conduct again, he told both sets of

attorneys to make it clear to their clients and to their witnesses he doesn't want to hear a the lo of that kind of talk to anybody in the weeks going forward as the case moves forward. >> garrett, you can give me a "i gotta go" if you have some pressing demands but i want to ask a question about the lawyers. was there any sense that thi judge knew, any situational awareness that donald trump junior was posted anything about the judge's daughter >> it's not clear to me that the judge knew anything about it donald trump senior made a similar post about, you know, sort of alluding to the judge's daughter as well there was nothing in the judge's comments or the comments from the prosecutors that made me think that was the kind of thing he knew about specifically, but

this idea that comments could be perceived as detrimental to the rule of law is the kind of category that could fall under i thought about this a lot over the last couple days this is one of the challenges with a gag order or even this restrictive, protective order around discovery, you know, you might get into a lot of specific discussions over a span of months before the next hearing maybe lengthy discussions about what kind of speech tip tiptoes up to or over at the line. he was not specifically about the kind of speech, but described broad categories that would create additional concern for him. >> what is the issue that has been swirls around today about joe tacopina being in contact with stormy daniels. did that come up >> that was interesting. that was brought of by

prosecutors for the state. they argued that joe tacopina, kind of the most public facing attorney for dump during this whole process might have a conflict of interest that may lead mr. trump to want to disqualify him as part of the legal team some years ago -- it wasn't clear whether it was 2016 or 2017, that stormy daniels had reached out to had is law practice about he potentially representing her they have might have had privileged communications that would put him in a conflict of interest position here when that question was raised, he stood up and made his own argument about that, saying he never personally spoke to stormy daniels. she only communicated with paralegals in this office. anything she communicated with him or his office was voided out about i the fact she discussed all of it in her book, voiding any claims of privilege that

might have existed he sort of argued this was all behind him, but the judge tried to make it clear and elithed a verbal -- that donald trump was in the rights to have counsel who's not conflicted, and if this is a thing you're concerned about, basically you have the right to say so down the line, but he kind of defended himself on that point in the courtroom i got no indication from mr. trump he was particularly concerned about it it's almost is the thing that could be a head game for the state, too by the way, we're going to mention that one of your own attorneys might be an issue. i don't know where it goes it will be interested to watch the media appearances and the role he plays with the defense team going forward >> i think trump is more likely to fire a lawyer over a moustache he doesn't like than a

legal conflict, but it's so interesting of these things that have been out there all day. we're so grateful to have you there. garrett, thanks so much. >> reporter: you bet david, let me bring you in on this. i understand the equivalence that the judge is giving to conduct, but frankly one of them endangers the lives of the judge and his family and the d.a., and the other weakens the case let's be real, last night jesse waters called the district attorney a felon that's not the same thing. i understand michael cohen's media just put it out there, he's made a lot of them here but the truth is, this is not an indictment that rests solely on michael cohen's testimony or any documents he produced.

your thoughts about today's goings on? >> yeah, look, there is no equivalence. any judge would say to both parties, be careful what you and any possible witnesses discuss in a public setting. that's routine in terms of the vitriol and the excitement to violence, one could argue that is being done in the name of donald trump or people close to him, there is no equivalence on the other side. to have family members of the judge, their photo tweeted out, to have donald trump himself in a fund-raising email, go back to the revolutionary war and the world wars saying now is the time the country is going to turn the corner. this is what mobsters do, but what donald trump does this is why we are entering a more permanent dangerous moment in american history. donald trump will get the republican nomination, having been indicted and convicted.

donald trump could get the nomination for the republican presidency sitting in a manhattan jail i think hit political strength would be that strong so that is something we have to accept the new normal for what it means for our politics. if i could ask a purely legal question of andrew that's been brought up in the last hour, it's very important. it goes to this question of elevating to a felony, the charge if the charge is falsifying business records, which can be brought as a misdemeanor, there is the underlying tie to what we know is the campaign finance violation. you have michael cohen's guilty plea to a federal campaign finance violation. my question for you is this, andrew -- does bragg have to prove that under that question all over again, can he submit as evidence for elevating to this a felony michael cohen's plea

deal what grounds does donald trump have to defeat the elevation of the charge to a felony >> great question. so the fact that somebody pled guilty to the crime is not going to be admissible to prove the case against donald trump. so the fact that michael cohen said, i'm guilty of this federal campaign violation, that might be admissible to impeach michael cohen, to understand his motivation and what he did, but that's not proof itself. under the rules of evidence, it doesn't get admitted in order to prove that felony enhancement, it also is not necessary, though, for the d.a. to prove that crime. but they have to prove this the false filing was intended to further or cover up some other crime.

so it's intent that's what you are trying to do, you are trying to, in this case, conceal some other crime, and what the d.a. appears to be saying is that could include the federal campaign violation that michael cohen pleaded guilty to. a state campaign violation, and ami false business filings, and it appears essentially a state crime. so there appears to be this litany of all sorts of things that could include -- be that sort of felony bump-up it's also important to remember that the jury could be charged that if you don't find a felony, what's incls called a lesser included offense is a misdemeanor. it doesn't mean the judry isn't

allowed to consider that the jury can be told if you don't find a felony, you have this backup. so those are sort of implicit in this case. >> andrew, let me delve into this further just to state this one thing -- there is one issue about what bumps it up to a felony, what do you have to prove? the case generally i'm correct that people think trying to use a federal campaign law violation is a little iffy, compared to a state -- a d.a. from manhattan dealing only with new york laws. that is what -- >> there's arguments -- i will say this, the problem with picking a federal violation as the bump-up is that it's not clear that when the new york law says you have to be doing this

to conceal some other crime, it's not clear that includes a federal crime. so that's the challenge. but here's the problem with the state election crimes is that there is usually for a federal campaign, there is a pre-emption doctrine, meaning so this is like -- now you're -- [ overlapping speakers ] for the state election crime, you can be sure that the defense team is going to say, wait a second, that can't be used, because this is really a narrative that only the federal law governs. that is why the two things i was really interested to hear were the other two possible grounds a state tax crime, i don't see a problem. and ami falsifying, don't see a problem. >> how does this get broader and narrower in your view today? >> i think it got broader that it looks like we have a

conspiracy, but that's not charged. but you've got both -- the scheme, you've got stormy daniels, you've got the doorman who was trying to sell a story i think now it's gotten much broader. you have to -- i know there's been a lot of debate about the charges and we've been talking about it for weeks this is very cinematic when you look at it it is a conspiracy alleged before a presidential election to sway an election. this is more important how we can look at the rule of law and how it should be brought i know we're talking about falsification of business records. when we lift it up, it's incredible >> it's to your first point about who he is at his core is a big, giant lie, his wealth his business accumen, his

success, his political reach, everything is a lie. >> we're going to go back to 2016, for a lot of people which is still the original sin. every politician we have ever worked for in your case or covered in my case, has not been totally straight with the american people who they are they all present certain falsities and certain truths the question is whether you break laws in the process of doing it, or whether you're shading. that's what politicians do routinely. it looks like we're looking to find out if trump, did he break laws along the way >> andrew weissmann, you've been on this show for hours and hours. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> you've been explaining these things to us and i believe about 12 weeks

ago, you cautioned us to broaden the lens and look at this not so narrowly as usual, you were right you're always right. thank you for being part of our coverage and injecting the weeds that we hadn't spent much time in much more breaking news analysis still ahead for us we'll talk with one of the reporters who dove into that story that brought us to this moment and this very indictment, the enquirer catch and kill squeem don't go anywhere. we'll be right back.

for copd, ask your doctor about breztri. breztri gives you better breathing, symptom improvement, and helps prevent flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vison changes, or eye pain occur. if you have copd ask your doctor about breztri. [ ominous music playing ]

vison changes, or eye pain occur. here we go! level up your speed. mario! yea! [ screaming ] introducing the xfinity 10g network. super fast internet today. with even faster speeds tomorrow. woo-hoo! (announcer) enough with the calorie counting, carb cutting, diet fatigue, and stress. just taking one golo release capsule with three balanced meals a day has been clinically proven to repair metabolism, optimize insulin levels, and balance the hormones that make weight loss easy. release works with your body, not against it, so you can put dieting behind you and go live your life. head to golo.com now to join the over 2 million people who have found the right way to lose weight and get healthier with golo.

hi again, everyone it's 5:00 in new york city where the first-ever to be indicted ex-president has just departed he's on his way back to south florida. if you're just joining us on this historic day, we are fresh off the twice impeached now indicted ex-president being arrested and arraigned on 34 felony counts of falsification of business records, all 34 of those are felonies trump pleaded not guilty to all counts the statement of fact that accompanied the indictment says, donald trump repeatedly falsified new york business records to conceal criminal conduct that has damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.

in the last hour, manhattan d.a. alvin bragg spoke about that scheme >> it's not just about one payment. it is 34 business records, 34 false statements in business records that were concealing criminal conduct, and the earlier question about new york state election law, where you talk about conspiracy to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. those unlawful means, we allege include the conduct, you know, set forth in the statement of facts, which is, you know, additional false statements separate and apart from the charged ones in the documents. planned false statements to taxing authorities it is not just that one $130,000 wire payment >> let's bring into our coverage our esteemed panel

joining us at the table is former district attorney catherine christian, a veteran of the manhattan d.a.'s office, and jim is still here. catherine, your reaction to everything that's transpired today? >> well, for people who are hoping there could be more than, you know, charges related to stormy daniels and the catch and kill, they might be disappointed but these are 34 felony counts, so it's a serious case you can argue oh, it's ovnly about a porn star. every single count involves a document falsely entered into mr. trump's business with the intent to defraud, and with the intent to conceal other crimes he is alleged it is new york state election law and the federal laws involving the

contribution of the caps so some people were hoping for a tax fraud charge but it is a serious case, and there will be lots of motions filed by the defense, they said so they had their own mini little conference outside but the statement of facts and michael cohen with the baggage he has, everything according to the d.a.'s office that he is accusing mr. trump of, has been corroborated and he can be considered, you know, i dealt with coop erators before, sort of trump mini me. that's why you can believe everything he says because mr. trump trusted him. >> mary, if you could just take us through what the world saw today. it's a lot more than the last president of this country, about 25% of our population has

reverenced a larger swath has disdain, and i guess a big swath is indifferent. but the world over saw america's last commander in chief charged with 34 felonies today >> i would point to the framing that alvin bragg used, the district attorney. i think it was very smart on his part in the first two paragraphs of the statement of facts, which frankly are much more interesting, the indictment itself he paints this as part of a scheme to influence the 2016 election and if we start back in 2016 with a scheme to influence election, and then we think about where we have come since 2016, including the 2020 election, the ongoing scheme to override the will of the people, even in if 2020 election, i think this is just the beginning of the painting of a picture over a series of years of donald trump's, you know, attempts to undermine democracy, attempts to

undermine the rule of law, attempts to avoid accountability i think what the world saw is that this is a man who is finally being held to account. and so, you know, christine talks about the individual count, and they're important, but i think understanding where this fits into the bigger picture of this concerted day by day and year by year effort is really important for all to see. >> someone familiar with this investigation told me that what will come into focus today is a coverup, and that we have as a country this historical analog to richard nixon that the coverup that is the crime more easy to understand to your point, one of the benefits of having two hours and all these people here, i have time to read let me read the beginning of the statement. the defendant, donald trump, repeatedly and fraudulently

falsified new york business records that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 election. from august 2015 to december 2017, the defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying as purchasing negative information about him, to benefit the defendant's electoral process. to execute the scheme, they violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business record of various entities in new york they also took steps that mischaracterized for tax purposes the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme and then it goes on and it -- you're right, the most compelling narrative of the crimes that took place in this crucial window is exactly this period, from august until any

election day and that was the period in which this catch and kill scheme was pursued aggressively at donald trump's direction. it's clear that a lot of these witnesses were made available. why do you think we didn't -- when there was a change in administration hear anything about this case being re-examined? >> you know, that remains a question that -- there's a lot of speculation about, and i can't answer, and i don't know whether any of it had to do by the time we had a change in administration, we also had the january 6th insurrection, the justice department focusing, you know, huge amounts of resources, not only on the individuals who violently assaulted the capitol, but working their way up from there and certainly we're seeing that now with jack smith's investigation. i don't know if they thought kind of going back into history to a case that was an older

case, would subject them overly to criticism about being overly political, and they wanted to keep their eyes focused on the more recent, more violent crimes and things that were really, again, go to the heart of our democracy. this is where i would say, again, as we just discussed, the way this is framed, this is just the beginning of going at the heart of our democracy, and as you just indicated, this time period where these payments took place in that august of 2016 until the election, that was a crucial time period. that's when -- in fact, this is in the statement of facts, that's when the hollywood video came out with some really pretty outrageous statements that former president trump was caught on tape saying about women. i remember at the time thinking this was surely the end. and it wasn't the end. but if you pile on top of that the stormy daniels allegations, the karen mcdougal allegations,

or attempts to pay them off, that could have been all the more damaging. this effort to influence elections started before 2016. it continued to 2020 it's continuing today. and it's going to continue into the 2024 lelection we have to be vigilant and talk about those efforts. and hopefully he will be held accountable. not just for this but so many other things that are being investigated right now >> mary, i don't mean to defend or explain away doj's actions, but you are probably the most senior former department official we have been given access to. your framing and pointing us accurately to alvin bragg's framing begs the question, is it not an equal obligation that the united states department of justice, in service to our democracy, follow up on this case, or at least shine a light on why they declined to prosecute it if that was merrick garland's decision when he took over in march of 2021.

>> well, you know, merrick garland has said many times that the department of justice speaks through its court documents, its pleadings, indictments, motions, briefs, and it hasn't spoken on this i'm not going to hold my breath and wait for a.g. garland or the deputy attorney general or anyone else at doj to speak out about this i do think it's probably something that was the subject of high-level discussions. there probably were meetings with the muter there is to -- with the prosecutors there to talk about the evidence. relying on someone like michael cohen, which would have probably been necessary, is always something of a risk. but on the other hand, the department of justice relies on cooperators who pled guilty to serious crimes, including in many cases violent crimes, all the time so it's a risk that we're -- we,

i still say we it's been years and years since i was in the department. but once a public servant i guess always a public servant. but it's something that the department is used to. i wish i had a better theory or better answer, nicolle, but i just don't you know, other than what i have offered just now i would love some day to hear more about it, but i don't know that we will >> so harry, you are in a similar situation as mary. every time you are on, it's because i and our viewers rely on both of you we give federal prosecutors and former doj officials all the authority and trust of everyone to help talk us through these times. i don't know anyone who is relied upon more than folks hike you and mary to that end, jesse waters of fox news called alvin bragg a felon

yesterday, and should self-indict. the ex-president charged with 34 felonies today was posting on social media to his millions of followers about the judge's kids we're in a moment where alvin bragg and the judge and everyone involved in this case, the future jurors, will be at risk for doing their duty at citizens i believe as a country, we deserve an answer as to why sdny who examined the same facts and federal laws that are black and white, the conversation about which crime was the second crime, you don't have to have that at a federal level. it's campaign finance violations when and how and why does alvin bragg get the backup from the federal system that looked at the same evidence and found the same criminality from donald trump? >> all right, so this has been something that's been dredged up by bragg's doing

let me raise two points. first, as to the commentary by doj, remember part an parcel what mary was just citing, when you decide not to bring a case, you don't talk remember who did talk? james comey. it is prejudicial to defendants and it's a good reason for it. let me just say, i wasn't there, nicolle -- >> let's talk about comey, though that's a great parallel. comey would say that he talked about it because there was a national interest. don't you think -- >> he said he was wrong and he dirtied up the process >> are we worry about dirtying up donald trump? >> it's not something that merrick garland would be doing, even if we might like it salaciously. but one other point, i just urge everyone to think about this in its time it is now march 2021, garland

had just taken the reins his number one lookout is to right the ship at doj. he's generally focused on not relitigating the past, and he's got quite a lot to go after for donald trump i think it's an understandable reaction, you know, maybe not to fight about it today i just -- that he would say look, for now, we've got plenty on our plate, and if we come out of the box in my second week here, charge him here with rel relatively trivial and insignificant crimes from before he was president, talk about the department being subject to being pilloried on being political. so it's just important to think about it as of march 2021. but i like to focus on bragg >> do you think bragg's case is trivial? >> no. i really don't >> you just said so.

you said it's trivial. >> i said relatively many people have pointed out in the overall menu, it goes least to the wickedness of trump i think it is significant for the reasons mary made, although i found what's most interesting about the indictment is that it does -- when you read that statement of facts, nicolle, which is not part of the indictment, the next thing that follows is the conspiracy itself so he's basically with the indictment -- he's kind of an empty vessel to pour material in, including the statement of facts. that's an interesting strategy on the one hand. we'll see legal challenges of the sort that everyone was anticipating, coming into this juncture but he's left himself maximum flexibility. it's going to be this open-ended thing while bragg is not talking in the public eye, trump will be starting at 8:00 tonight

and that -- the indictment itself does give the grace for him to say what is this 34 accounting records it's not, i agree, but he made the indictment very, very bare bones. >> here's the thing, and maybe this is just the peril of mixing legal and political analysis if a dead body that trump had, you know, taken credit for making dead had been produced, he would call it trivial they sounded like rudy giuliani. you can roll tape on rudy during mueller. you can roll tape on cohen you can roll tape on everything from inciting an insurrection about the united states government with admission of hanging mike pence, to falsifying business records. and trump says the same thing to

his face >> yeah. i think -- i keep thinking from the moment this happened that history writes about this, that this case will not be trivial, and it won't be trivial because it does this important thing some people alluded to the eyes of the world, they see the american justice work out how it is supposed to, that a former president can be brought to justice. it feels like this very large thing has happened, which is a thing that was once unthinkable, moved from the realm of the unthinkable to the thinkable, to now it's happened. and for other -- whether it's the special counsel or the d.a., the district attorney in georgia, or wherever, the grand jurors, the discomfort with something something so big

first, is no longer there. it's now a thing that's happened we have indicted an ex-president i just can't help but think that even if he doesn't have a direct influence on any of the direct that if we see additional indictments in the case for things that are less trivial, the insurrection case, the georgia case, all of those are more significant in terms of public policy and the history of the country. if we see one or more indictments in those cases, history will write about it and say this is what broke the ice that is the narrative people will write, and i'm not sure they're wrong. there is just a thing that happens in the culture and the psychology of people that have to sit in jury rooms or sit in rooms with prosecutors, that a thing that's never happened before, it is just hard to get over to do that thing. once it's happened, now we have to judge the law and a lot of these cases, the law is on donald trump's side.

>> the january 6th committee investigated donald trump. some of them aren't serving in the republican caucus any more, but they can live and tell >> it's the shattering of the myths of, donald trump gets away scot-free. no, he lost in 2020. he's untouchable he's houdini all of these bs phrases that president trump perpetuates more than anybody every time something like this happens, he loses in a presidential election and he costs the republicans the senate >> three times >> every time one of those things happened, it's just another chink, a puncture wound in the midst of donald trump is somehow this untouchable, you know, he always gets away with it he never pays the price. it's starting to add up, all the

prices he's paid, and again, that's how you ultimately make progress you do it bit by bit by bit and the whole thing crumbles like a jenga game >> i want to ask you, i'm aware of the fact that we have two very different world views from mary and harry mary pointed out that alvin bragg's framing is elmental to democracy. merrick garland may have decided this was too trivial or may have been too busy. maybe may were too busy. how does that feel, and just

take me through from cy vance revealing for the first time he was told to stand down i have some refrain that suggests that the disposition of that case, and then some federal prosecutors think it's too trivial for doj to touch >> well, and i was -- i worked for cyrus vance, and i was watching that yesterday. he said he was asked to stand down it's not trivial i said there are going to be people who say, it's just about the porn star case no, it is about someone who is going to become president and then becoming president, conspiring to promote his candidacy, to violate election law, to violate the federal election law and, yes, he's innocent until proven guilty, clearly but i agree with john, this is a statement i now in private

practice to clients, when they ask me can i do something, i say well, the president of the united states was indicted for that, so no, you can't it is about, you know, being -- treating everyone without fear or favor people are saying, you're doing this trivial case, he's the former president as you said, you would have been indicted for it. it's a novel legal query but so what. it is a serious crime. 34 of them and look at the photos of mr. trump today and him coming into the courtroom. he looked sober and serious and reserved he knows this is a serious deal. who wants to be charged with 34 felonies so i've never seen -- he looks the way i've seen criminal defendants who are like, oh, my gosh, i'm in trouble that's what he looked like today. people need to see that, too

>> did you say angry or hangry >> hangry. i want to give harry a chance. that's a room you don't want to be in. >> harry, the floor is yours >> yeah, just very briefly, that sort of ton of bricks feeling. i've been in a lot of arraignments, and his bravado does disappear look, please do not mischaracterize me as saying that this crime is trivial on the contrary, i've been saying for weeks it's important for bragg to take it out of the caricature position of an accounting error and putting it in exactly this frame of -- i've been saying it's not the crime, it's the time, meaning it's a scheme to distort the election that is not trivial. i use the "t" word with

relatively just to try to describe possibly garland's mindset when he comes into office and is considering a menu of crimes possibly to investigate against trump. separately from that, it's important, and i 100% concur that the basic notion is not about the payout or the affair, it is precisely about the very serious matter for just the reasons mary says, it could have altered a presidential election that entire scheme beginning, as they now have the ability to made it, but it's not in the indictment with the agreement with the "national enquirer" in 2015 and going into the white house that is not trivial, nor have i said anything close to that for the last several weeks >> and i was asking you to try to explain to us why merrick garland might have passed on it.

let me follow up with this, you know, the justice department, under donald trump, jeff sessions appointed a special counsel, robert mueller, to get to the bottom of whether russian coordination with the trump campaign impacted the 2016 election it seems that it is at least not a novel notion to get to the bottom of threats to democracy would you like to see whether or not this justice department looked at it from that perspective before they decided to pass on snit >> that's a real toughy, because the general policy is you don't want to comment when you say no. i take your point, there is an exception to the policy when it's very important, public issue. so i can certainly see that now. but what's on the other side is the comey debacle. you know, and that he is now

potentially being vindicated so the reason for the decision, yes, i guess so. but, you know, but to me the most important thing is we are now actually litigating it i want to say one more quick thing, i'm confused generally about the point, and maybe your guest can answer what vance said he was told to stand down, because i thought he did pursue the investigation up to the time he hleft office and said bragg would make it. >> he told -- >> i just think we need more facts there. >> it's something that he says in an interview with chuck todd on "meet the press." it's a comment he's making for the first time, and i think it's something that certainly -- i asked congresswoman zoe about

it i think we're all saying the same thing, the timeline would be very helpful. i would say one more thing we're going to cover the threat environment in these united states, we talk about political violence tragically, it's become a new normal we talk about paul pelosi as someone who was the victim of a heinous crime that could happen to the family member of anybody in the arena that is because of donald trump. and alvin bragg has a back story to it. that is that doj, under merrick garland, did not pick up cases for which they found criminality on donald trump's part i will never stop asking where doj is, and i guess my last question, catherine, would it be helpful if doj brought this case >> well, they're not going to

now, because mr. bragg brought it so it was -- the time to do it is when michael cohen pled guilty and went to jail for it the little fish and the big fish got away so it's just not going to happen now. and that are bragg did it. >> any thoughts about him personally as we see his family come under political attack? >> well, it's heartbreaking. he's just doing his job. i just looked at my phone. i just got a very offensive tweet, or email. an email, you know, about my appearance today and it's a little bit racist so it's -- i know that office, i was there for over 30 years. they're ethical. they don't prosecute cases that they are political that's just the office it's been so it's an unfair critique of him. >> thank you very much

harry, john, mary, stick around. right now, i think harry is trying to find his car i'm just kidding when we come back, we'll talk to one of the reporters who dug this up and shared wit the public in the first ple.ac it's now contributed to the indictment of donald trump "deadline: white house" continues after a quick break. with flexible multi-cloud services that enable digital innovation and enterprise control, vmware helps you keep your cloud options open. (vo) in one second, sara (woman) and enteyesise control, (vo) will get a job offer somewhere sunnier. relocating in weeks. (woman) weeks? (vo) yeah, weeks. (woman) gotta sell the house. (vo) don't worry, sell to opendoor, and move on your schedule. (woman) yes! (vo) request a cash offer at opendoor dot com. i think i'm ready for this. heck ya! with e*trade you're ready for anything. marriage. kids. college. kids moving back in after college. ♪ finally we can eat. ♪ you know you make me wanna...♪ and then we looked around and said,

wait a minute, this isn't even our stroller! (laughing) you live with your parents, but you own a house in the metaverse? mhm. cool...i don't get it. here's to getting financially ready for anything! and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha?! ♪ yeah, yeah ♪ new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. so cozy. how many rooms are in there? should we go check it out? yeah. we get to stay here all weekend! when you stay at a vrbo... i call doing the door code! ...the host doesn't stay with you. it looks exactly like the picture. because without privacy in your vacation home... it's a full log cabin guys. ...it isn't really a vacation... we can snuggle up by the fire. ...is it? wow, oh my- [birds chirping]

our customers don't do what they do for likes or followers. their path isn't for the casually curious. and that's what makes it matter the most when they find it. the exact thing that can change the world.

some say it's what they were born to do... it's what they live to do... trinet serves small and medium sized businesses... so they can do more of what matters. benefits. payroll. compliance. trinet. people matter. donald trump, executives at the publishing company, american media incorporated, mr. cohen

and others agreed in 2015 to a catch and kill scheme. that is a scheme to buy and suppress negative information to help mr. trump's chance of winning the election as part of this scheme, donald trump and others made three payments to people who claimed to have negative information about mr. trump. >> manhattan d.a. alvin bragg explaining the catch and kill scheme, directed by the ex-president that he and his allies pursued in order to better his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election bragg's indictment mentions multiple payments in the scheme to adult film starr stormy daniels, karen mcdougal and a former trump doorman that had a story about trump fathering a child out of wedlock

jim, i remember all of your reporting on this. i remember dragging you in here to talk about it, and i remember you in the -- in the documentary made about "the new york times" that the beginning of one of them talking about how this went down explain, just remind us how catch and kill works and how much it benefited trump and trump alone. >> well, as a great american said, it's deja vu all over again. i never expected to see it like 24 well, okay, catch and kill, right there is a tabloid term for grabbing a story, catching it, and killing it before it goes out, usually by paying a source that is going forward with that story. in the case of candidate trump, as we reported in great detail,

there had been an effort with him and the national enquirer to get ahead of any story, to lock them down, and it's been clear now, as you talked about michael cohen, the president's then lawer and fixer, when he struck his plea deal with prosecutors, he said that his intention in helping in the catch and kill deals was to protect president trump, or then candidate trump, during the leadup to the campaign, to protect his reputation similarly, american media, which owns the enquirer, has spoken about the arrangements to pay off particularly stormy daniels and the fitness model karen mcdougal, who is alleged to have had an affair with trump, that was done again to help him in his campaign in campaign finance parlance, federal law i'll note, these are things of value. yes, it's a huge dollar amount, but these are dollar amounts spent to help someone in a campaign setting

that's what is alleged to have happened here and other players have said that's what they were doing. >> when you saw in today's indictment that the scheme is very much described as the frame of the felony counts, does that surprise you what did that bring back to you in terms of understanding the story and how it works in terms of catching and killing the stories. w >> on one hand, i'm not surprised because trump, in the other case with the people that were investigated in relation to these cases, he was individual one. so he was always in the mix of this we knew about meetings with trump and david pecker to talk about being as the documents are called, eyes and ears for trump to make sure the stories they

were listening out for stories that could hurt him. so it really is something to see this as the first time a president is indicted. that these are the cases, and i'm very interested that these are records charges. of course, we always knew that these payments, the way that they surfaced, there was such a complicated way the way the money was moving, all of that was always -- these were always triggers as we were doing our reporting. >> let me play you some of the players in their own words talking about how they interacted with one another and how the money moved and who was at the center of it. >> 2016, prior to the election, i was contacted by keith davidson, who is the attorney -- was the attorney for ms.

clifford, stormy daniels and after several rounds of conversations with him about purchasing her life rights for $130,000, what i did, each and every time, is go straight into mr. trump's office and discuss the issue with him when it was ultimately determined, and this was days before the election, that mr. trump was going to pay the $130,000, in the office with me was allen weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the trump organization he acknowledged to allen that he was going to pay the $130,000, and that allen and i should go back to his office and figure out how to do it >> everybody knows what happens. michael cohen is sent to prison in this case pecker is immunized. why did they go through all

that what do you think the point is of this investigation, that we learn all this, because cohen is under criminal investigation, he's larged, sentenced, he goes to prison. pecker is gived limited immunity the federal government gives him a limited immunity, i don't know if i'm using that term, but he has immunity to testify in the federal case what do you think they were looking for? cohen wasn't running for office. do you think there was some point where prosecutors and investigators were pursuing the facts wherever they led, and then that stopped short? if you could just see that effort with the same witnesses and same facts with what was unsealed today >> well, what we thought at that time was going on was a couple of things. first of all, david pecker was very tied in at that time with

trump and his world. so david pecker knew a lot trump was very concerned about what david pecker knew our reporting at the time had shown that trump wanted to get more out of david pecker that may concern him. so the case and investigation was continuing what we also know, though, is that then attorney general barr, he would come in as this case was ongoing, he did not love this case. and he's spoken about that he didn't love this idea that people are talking about now about campaign finance case, this idea of an in-kind contribution so it was clear that the leadership at justice didn't love this whole investigation. so that could have been mixed up but a lot of it was shrouded to us, and that david pecker deal was always quite fascinating but very importantly, now, if david pecker spoke about this in

terms of helping trump keep something quiet, to help him in an election. that is still something of great value, i would think, for this case, depending on how prosecutors make that linkage. >> hey, jim. i want to go back and think about this in a broader way, and talk a little bit about just exactly what it meant, and we're going to relitigate the 2016 election, these ghosts are coming out of the closet the story about the doorman and the doorman's secret, a story that was written about in 2018 now it's back here in the middle of this statement of facts you know, the one thing that i have learned is usually if there is a story about a presidential candidate that's dirty in some way, the national enquirer is first on it and usually is

right. they do their tabloid stuff, but when they get into it and look at the steamy side of a presidential candidate's personal life, they're often on the money. given that of everybody i've ever seen run for president, people in the press corps assumed there was more dirt on trump than anyone, yet we went through all of 2015 and 2016 without getting into any of it was like the whole story really about this deal between trump and pecker, that is what made it possible for trump, until we got to the end of the campaign and "access hollywood" opened the doors, would that allow trump to state through? >> that's the question, if you could go back in time and trump were given a chance to do it all over again, what we have also noticed, including from this "access hollywood" tape, this was such a pretrump presidency

moment it was assumed these stories would be devastating to him, and that tape was not devastating to him. these stories did break during his presidency one of them, "the wall street journal" first got on to this whole mechanism, catch and kill and protect him before the end of the campaign. these things weren't hurting him. yes, there was this assumption that these things could -- these stories would really hobble his candidacy. i think in retrospect, that might have been wrong. that doesn't matter. what matters to prosecutors is obviously what they did to quiet them "the enquirer" had indeed terrified presidential candidate after presidential candidate trump comes along, he has something different, he has this relationship where he's a friend of pecker where he could benefit on these catch and kill deals. >> that's amazing.

completely amazing > i have no words. the only thing i would say is, i think this is worth a conversation for all of us to have about whether this would have hurt him or not but i think it's important to include the context that trump thought it would so it may be true it would not have hurt trump, but trump didn't think so. that's why he paid $130,000. >> trump thought that, and i agree with jim, who knows? >> i agree, too. >> but it's also the case that in the early days of trump's candidacy when he was first running and he became -- he talked about this, he becomes the candidate of the evangelical right. would that have happened if all of the dirty laundry was out from the very beginning of the

campaign >> in hindsight, i think yes they voted for him after "access hollywood" but in the moment we didn't know. >> i think early -- it is crucial to know that trump built some very unlikely alliances in the republican base, especially with the evangelicals, that were not taken for granted when he first ran. he believed in the beginning he could do all kinds of transgressions, but he thought this was crucial >> he wanted to pay her in cash. >> he thought this was important. >> jim, i hope you stay near the camera between 4:00 and 6:00 thank you for spending time with us coming up, donald trump locked in another court in another case today a potentially hugely consequential ruling there we'll tell you about it. don't go anywhere. ttle bro? ♪♪ i'm not touching you, i'm not touching you! ♪♪

turns out, some wishes do come true. and it turns out the general is a quality insurance company that's been saving people money for nearly 60 years. mom! for a great low rate, and nearly 60 years of quality coverage make the right call and go with the general. ubrelvy helps u fight migraine attacks. u put it all on the line. u do it all. so u bring ubrelvy. it can quickly stop migraine in its tracks within 2 hours... without worrying if it's too late or where you are. unlike older medicines,

ubrelvy is a pill that directly blocks a protein believed to be a cause of migraine. do not take with strong cyp3a4 inhibitors. most common side effects were nausea and tiredness. migraine pain relief starts with u. learn how abbvie can help you save. ask about ubrelvy, the anytime, anywhere migraine medicine. with a majority of my patience with sensitivity, i see irritated gums and weak enamel. sensodyne sensitivity gum & enamel relieves sensitivity, helps restore gum health, and rehardens enamel. i'm a big advocate of recommending things that i know work. you're doing business in an app driven, multi-cloud world. that's why you choose vmware. with flexible multi-cloud services that enable digital innovation and enterprise control, vmware helps you keep your cloud options open. (cecily) oh hey seth, you getting ready to roll? (seth) yup! and enterprise control, (vo) right now is the best time to roll into verizon and switch. (seth) i got this incredible iphone 14 pro on them. (cecily) oh, love the camera. (seth) also an ipad. that's how i roll. (cecily) ok, wow. (seth) and this apple watch. all three on them.

(cecily) nice. (vo) that's right! switch now and get iphone 14 pro on us. there's more! you get apple watch se and ipad. all three on us. that's a value of up to $1700. (seth) and now that i'm rolling with verizon, i get why more people choose it. (vo) but hurry! this offer won't last long. verizon. give your small business one tech solution that checks all the boxes. it's all here with the comcast business complete connectivity solution. peace of mind with cyberthreat security. the power of the largest, fastest reliable network. plus, save up to 75% a year with comcast business mobile. the complete connectivity solution. from the company powered by the next generation 10g network. get started for just $49 a month. and ask about an $800 prepaid card. comcast business. powering possibilities™.

and there's more, more bad news for the disgraced twice impeached now indicted ex president today in another investigation, the federal appeals court has rejected trump's bid to stop former top aides, including exchief of staff mark meadows from testifying in doj's january 6th investigation. doj had been locked in a legal fight, a back and forth over forcing meadows to testify, along with others including trump's speechwriter stephen

miller former department of homeland security deputy ken cuccinelli, on-ratcliffe, and robert o'brian. it's not clear if trump's team intending to fight the ruling. luke, we've talked about this a little bit we've also analyzed what we know from these people in the somewhat limited information they shared with the congressional probe to be a huge deal you and i were on together with tim hafey who said this group unlocks everything for special counsel jack smith. >> it's an extraordinary development for the grand jury investigation into january 6th i mean, this is a group of people that for the most part, some of them did talk to the january 6th committee, but there's quite a few than list including mark meadows who refused to come in before the january 6th committee and answer questions, and we know he has so much firsthand knowledge about

the plans to overturn the 2020 election and specifically what donald trump was thinking and doing at specific times. you'll recall, of course, the testimony that mark meadows was in and out of the oval office on january 6th and was involved in discussion about whether or not donald trump supported the hang mike pence chant that came out in committee hearings this would be first time prosecutors would ask him under oath about donald trump's mind set as that violence was unfolding at the capitol, and he would have firsthand knowledge of those conversations so it is a very big development for this investigation. >> mary, it also tracks with this more opaque phase of the jack smith probe where there is work going on we don't know about, but most of the legal battles are going in doj's way >> yes, just one of a series of rulings that we've learn about

recently that have gone in the department's favor, and of course this is one of a series of losses that trump has had on the issue of executive privilege, right these date back years. he's been arguing all of his advisers and people close to him should not be able to testify, whether it's in front of congress or in front of a grand jury because of executive privilege, and that privilege is not absolute it yields to a demonstrated specific need, particularly in a criminal investigation i think what we're seeing here is the difference between a criminal investigation, the power of a grand jury, and a criminal investigation, where enforcing subpoenas is much more challenging. it has been attempted and done sometimes, but it's much more challenging. but here, you know, these are things where there's case law that plays it can be, you know, analyzed with respect to the facts, and each one of these witnesses, each one of whom has something important to say, and each one,

the importance of that, the demonstrated specific need for it as part of the criminal investigation is something that the court of appeals found persuasive. >> luke, just take me inside what our understanding is of the state of being mark meadows. does he believe to be cooperating in any of these probes is -- still his attorney have they gone completely dark >> they have been no-commenting everything about these investigations, but my understanding is georger the will ger is still representing him. they participated enough with the january 6th committee to in the justice department's eyes to avoid a contempt of congress charge but now this is really the big moment, because if mark meadows has to come in and testify, you know, that could potentially open up the entire investigation, because, you know, most -- when you talk to the january 6th investigators, they say he is the central

person except for donald trump himself, who knows everything that was going on, who was talking with all the members of congress about the objections, who was talking with the rally planners about putting on the big rally, getting all these thousand of people to come on january 6th. he was going down to georgia he's on the call where they try to talk to the election officials to get the results changed. every single aspect of the january 6th plan, mark meadows is involved. so, yeah, you know, could he refuse to go in before the grand jury even after a judge's order? i think he would be risking jail time if he did that, so that would be quite a development if that happened. but i would suspect he now ends up facing questions. >> i think about something mary said, which is the notion, the whole picture of the last couple of weeks, which is the special counsel's, like, doing business.

like, all of a sudden it's like quietly cooking with gas, right? a lot of people were skeptical when he was appointed. people said it's going to cause more delay why do we need it? we're rewarding trump. decent arguments but the skeptics noticed he's winning on all these things. look at that guy, he is an absolute doppelganger for coach beard on ted lasso they look exactly the same but that guy, seems to break it all open. >> he is pursuing with alacrity. they're all full steam ahead, absolutely thank you all so much for being part of our conversation and our coverage on a historic day we are grateful. break for us we'll be right back. -can't hear you, jerry. -sorry. uh, yeah, can we get a system where when someone's bike is in the shop, then we could borrow someone else's?

-no! -no! or you can get a quote with america's number-one motorcycle insurer and maybe save some money while you're at it. all in favor of that. [ horn honking ] there's a lot of buttons and knobs in here. you're doing business in an app driven, multi-cloud world. that's why you choose vmware. with flexible multi-cloud services that enable digital innovation and enterprise control, vmware helps you keep your cloud options open. ♪ what is it about the first warm breeze of the season that makes you feel lighter than air? ♪ no matter where you are... when it crosses your path... you'll feel compelled to take to the road and see where it leads. ♪ the first step begins at the lincoln spring sales event. going on now, for a limited time.

(vo) right now is the best time to roll into verizon and switch. (seth) i got this incredible iphone 14 pro on them. at the lincoln spring sales event. (vo) that's right! switch now and get iphone 14 pro on us. there's more! you get apple watch se and ipad. all three on us. this offer won't last long. verizon

you may have seen the little box on youre