history. a former president is now facing federal charges trump as received a summons to appear and u.s. district court on june 13th, that is this coming tuesday. the indictment remains under seal but sources tell nbc news the charges include making false statements and conspiracy to obstruct. the new york times reports the charges also move, quote willfully retaining national defense secrets and violation of the espionage act. according to people familiar with the matter. the charges, of course come after a lengthy investigation led by just special counsel, jack smith. tonight trump by justice depart special counsel jack smith. tonight trump responded on his social media platform. >> they can't stop because it's election interference at the highest level. there's never been anything like what's happened. they figure the way they're going to stop us is by using what's called warfare, and that's what it is. this is warfare for the law. but it's called election

interference. they're trying to destroy a reputationsy they can win an election. i did nothing wrong and will fight this out just like we've been fighting for seven years. i'm innocent, and we'll prove that very, very soundly. >> fact check. when the former president is saying the word "they" he is referring to democrats. democrats did not indict the president. president joe biden did not indict donald trump. it was a grand jury based in florida. that is it. we should also note trump has already pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records here in new york. we've got a lot to cover so let's start off with our panel this evening. peter baker, katie bennett, former u.s. attorney joyce vance who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor, charles coleman, former new york prosecutor and civil rights attorney, anthony -- former justice

spokesperson under attorney merrick garland, and frank figliuzzi, former fbi director for counter intelligence. as i look at you all, here we are on a serious and sober night, a night where we see the justice system, the rule of law working. it works slowly, but it works. joyce, what's your reaction? >> well, i think this is actually the point we've been trying to make all along, steph. we don't know doj is going to indict in any particular case until it happens. it's a long path, it's a frustrating path. what americans can take away tonight is that the process worked, that a career justice department official acting as a special counsel has led a team with evidence sufficient to convince a grand jury to indict the former president, and that is a process not grounded in politics no matter what donald trump tries to convince people of. this is a purely professional

process grounded in the rule of law. that's something i think we can all take heart from. we've been through a tough few years. the rule of law still works in this country. >> charles, we have been speaking about this for months. someone we have not heard from all of this time including tonight is jack smith. he has worked quietly, meticulously, and here we are. anyone who says we know what's in there, we don't. ari melber said it, the whole world is listening to jack smith and he hasn't said anything. >> that's right. i'm so glad you brought that up. the take away is the american public starts to understand what prosecutors actually do. we have been looking at this case far too deeply as compared to another type of case or investigation when we not have the details we have but for the extensive investigative reporting and the leaks we've seen. usually special prosecutors work

the way jack smith has worked in silence with all the different reporters monitoring and trying to understand every turn. jack smith has stayed the course, stayed meticulous. and you asked me why do you thoing they're moving to florida. the majority of what he is alleging occurred took place in florida. he could have brought this case in d.c., but by doing it in florida, he made an expert move that's basically going to take away any argument that trump's team will have to say this is motivated by political motives, this is something you're trying to shop for a vena friendly to government. >> court shopping, looking for a court that will look friendly to

you and trump says he can't get a fair trial in new york. >> in a state you won twice in two consecutive presidential elections, you can't make that argument. and jack smith decided, look, i'm going to go into a firmly red state and indict you there because that's where you violated the law. my take away, my initial impression, jack smith has shown america what prosecutors do. >> you cover the department of justice and understanding what's going on inside is not easy. what can you tell us? >> it's not easy, but i can tell you people have been buzzing all day about the possible indictment. just a bit of color. there's a big training that happen on the seventh floor of the justice department going on for days, and yesterday all those prosecutors were told they might have to vacate because merrick garland may or may not need that room, and i think people have been saying what else could garland need this

room for we would have to leave on a moment's notice. clearly the anticipation was jack snigt was basically going to prepare -- or one of his prosecutors would appear before the grand jury, present the indictment and get the vote. it's a straightforward process. they heard the evidence, a prosecutor gives the document to the jury and they can ask any questions. now, in this case what is anticipated, again, inside the building we don't know and many people inside the building do not know -- what's anticipated and expected what we'll finally see in the indictment is a speaking indictment, basically something that explains to whoever is reading it including the american public exactly what is going on, as many details as possible to explain why this unprecedented case is being brought. and so because the indictment would be fuelsome, if that's at least what's anticipated, they're also anticipating the grand jury would not have too many questions, they'll be able

to go through the document with some sort of speed and return the indictment as soon as today. >> peter, i was thinking about you earlier thinking peter and his wife must be getting ready for donald trump part 2. you've been covering this man intimately for four years. >> how did donald trump win the presidency in the first place? he won it at least in part by accusing his opponent of mishandling classified information, right? that was hillary clinton's e-mails. time and time again he said this is outrageous, we're not going to allow that in my administration. if you mishandle classified information, you are disqualified from the presidency, those are his words. and here we are seven years later and of course what a difference seven years makes. and here he is in effect now facing the very charges that he wanted to have, you know, lodged against hillary clinton politically her last days of the campaign because jim comey reopened the case and closed it

again days before the election. so there's a certain i don't know irony here i suppose one word for it, paradox maybe another. but it's fascinating to see. he knew all along, of course, having gone through 2016 how important and sensitive information like this could be and how it gets you in trouble. what we saw throughout the presidency time and time again it didn't matter to him. he shared classified information with the russians. he posted online a sensitive satellite image of the iranians. he used a phone even though he told the russians and chinese were possibly listening in. and now somebody's charged him with a crime as a result. >> but you can run for the white house, you can win, but it doesn't mean you can run from the rule of law, and that's what we're learning tonight. again, we have no idea in phase two if donald trump will be found guilty. we do know he's been officially charged. anthony, you have been at main justice in d.c. with merrick

garland watching everything that's transpired tonight. what are your main take-aways? >> a couple observations, stephanie. first, thanks for having me. i was at doj as you said when the attorney general appointed jack smith to run these two investigations, and so it strikes me as so disingenuous really to hear mccarthy and trump and others talk about election interference here. that is completely the antithesis of what is going on. the reason that merrick garland appointed jack smith, a political independent, to run this investigation was to ensure -- to reassure the american people that these investigations were being conducted independently without regard of partisan political favor of any regard. now, another thing i found curious is this nugget of information katie benner just

mentioned about this pressroom at the justice department. my hope, stephanie, is that over the next 24 hours this justice department moves to the court to unseal this indictment. i think we are in a critical period right now. these are some pretty serious charges, and i think the public deserves to know as soon as possible before tuesday what prompted even in excruciating detail these charges. we all know they're warranted, but i believe the public deserve tuesday know more as soon as possible. >> anthony, do you think it was a mistake today that the doj did not put out a statement, that merrick garland didn't do some sort of press conference whether or not he was going to answer questions? because without saying anything you're ceding the floor and microphone to donald trump. >> i think there's two things

that need to happen for doj to make a statement. first, the court is going to have to unseal the documents. the attorney general has said on multiple occasions the doj speaks through its records. what i heard joyce vance and others say earlier and they're absolutely right, within the four courts of an indictment prosecutors can speak. i think that's what can happen. stephanie, one additional point if i may observe. last august there was about a 2 1/2, 3 day period during the search of mar-a-lago when the news became public on a monday, and the attorney general addressed the nation that thursday. i think that could reasonably be interpreted as too much time. and i ran the justice department of communications during that period. my hope here is that the doj will condense that time frame and speak quickly when the court allows to the american people. >> you are definitely the expert on this subject tonight. frank, you have been following

this closely. what's your reaction? >>. >> couple things. one is we're here. the system does work, and, yes, it takes a long time but we got here. i think what's interesting is what we don't know so far. because, yes, we know that there are apparently seven charges, and yes, it sounds like there's a subsection under the espionage act and it's willful retention. but i'm fascinated by the obstruck and conspiracy charges. so there's someone else in this picture, maybe multiple someone els when we're talking about conspiracy by definition. we need to know who that is, and i'm wondering when that's coming and how we'll find out about that. the other thing is just the logistics of this, security around this i spent four years of my career as an executive manager at the fbi. i'm familiar with the tayloratory. it's a challenge from a security perspective on a good day, and

so now you're going to see secret service, the united states marshals, the city police department, the miami-dade police department, and likely the state troopers of florida all coming together trying to coordinate what could be quite a circus based on just what happens in south florida on a regular basis, and someone's got to step up and say we're in charge here. you've got a small city police department about three blocks from the federal courthouse. when i say small about 1,000 officers, much bigger three times larger, miami-dade police department. they're going to have to layer on this. the marshals are responsible for the courthouse security and the people in it, the judges, prosecutors, et cetera. secret service has a protectee here also now a defendant. they're going to have to secure their protectee. fbi going to have to deal with threat assessments, who's

coming, who's going, what's the threat picture. it's quite a challenge they're going to be facing. >> as a reminder this city was bracing for massive protests, a circus, chaos. it went pretty smoothly then. besides the logistics, he is set to appear in court tuesday. walk us through what happens when he does, joyce. >> right, so the first issue will be what deal does the secret service negotiate with the marshal service for bringing him in? and this is obviously unprecedented, but in a situation like this they will raise security concerns and use that to ask for an expedited process. the former president will not come anywhere close to being in contact with other inmates as he goes through this process, and then he'll be presented before a federal judge. he'll likely be arraigned on the charges at that time. they can be delayed a little

bit, but i think they'll do it all at once here for the obvious reasons of consolidating this process to avoid upsetting other functioning in the courthouse as much as possible. he'll enter the standard plea at that point in time. he'll enter a plea of international, and then this case will proceed from that point on. there'll be a question whether or not the former president will be detained pending trial. i don't expect he'll be it tained in the federal system. that is cal clals whether or not he's a flight risk or danger to community, and he's not a danger to the community in the sense that federal judges understand that prong of the test to work, so i think we'll see him released on his own recognizance but perhaps with an appropriate bond. he may be asked to wear an ankle monitor or engaged in some form of monitoring pending trial. donald trump like anyone else wloz been indicted in our criminal justice system will be a defendant. he'll not be able to make his

decisions how this proceeds. he'll have to talk with probation officers who will begin the process of doing a work up on him. it'll be a position that trump is not used to being in, one where he's not in control in any way at all. >> given that, charles, what kind of defense can he mount? >> that's the court of public opinion. in terms of the court of law as we talked about in this case you have two main elements. you have the actual act itself and the intent behind the act. and that's what you need to secure a conviction. his attorneys are not going to be able to retain the act itself. you know the documents were there. they were recovered from mar-a-lago and you got notice from the national archive as well as several organizations the records were being sought. so the actual act is not the question. their only approach is going to

be, which is why we heard so much in the news about this, is his intent. which is why the significance of the recording that came out that jack smith has about him talking about the fact he had this document and he had to show it because of peter baker's wife, he wanted to try to embarrass her after the story she wrote, that becomes so important. the dress rehearsal becomes so important. those notes from his attorneys that were breached becomes so important because that's where the intent lies, and his attorneys are going to try as best as they can to show he didn't have the requisite intent, which is why they originally tried to argue that merrick garland and the doj approached this as an administrative matter as opposed to a criminal matter. i don't think it's going to be successful. but, stephanie, one of the things that fascinates me of this case in particular -- >> that it's a former president of the united states. >> that part. and the fact that of everything he's dealing with, this was the

one that you really have no one else to blame for, and you brought this all on yourself. stormy daniels, hush money, i want do be president so bad, i'm not saying it's okay or saying it's legal, but i understand it. i want to hold onto the presidency, i want to stay in power. again, clearly illegal but understandable in terms of your motivation. dwrour in mar-a-lago four months after you are no longer president and you get a letter from the national archives association. at that point everything that you have, it's not illegal. you have not crossed the line. >> and other people as we've seen have taken things out of the white house and said i did not realize this. >> you could have easily gotten out of it. at that point you've been given notice and you crossed the line, and now you embroil yourself into this string of illegality. you brought this entirely on yourself for no other reason,

and you just didn't want to follow directions. >> and the question to that, sir, is why. well, our next guests are not going anywhere. we have a lot more to cover. and later we're going to talk politics. what does trump's 2024 competition and republicans in office today think of tonight's news? the 11th hour just getting under way on a historic thursday night. historic thursday night.

our breaking news coverage of donald trump's indictment on federal charges continues. our panel still with us. frank, i want to pick up where charles left us off. why would donald trump put himself through all of this legal trouble and expense and reputational damage if he wasn't trying to leverage these secrets and information on these documents? who would let themselves get charged with seven serious charges all because they like to hang onto things for nostalgic

purposes? >> the answer there would be donald j. trump, stephanie. i think we need to understand a couple of things because you asked a really important question that's going to be on the mind eventually of jurors. and legally it's not necessary to discuss or prove any particular motive. we don't know all the seven charges, but what we're hearing at least one of them is this willful retention of national information, right? that doesn't require that you've given this to a foreign power, that you've shown it to anybody, you've just unlawfully and willfully retained it without authority to do so. so you consider and say technically this is one point, no one cares. the jury cares. they're going to want to know. it's likely no one is going to say it's absolutely certain jack

smith's team explored this question deeply and may not have come up with an answer because it's donald j. trump. >> and frank, some are saying the espionage act, they pulled this relic from history to try to dig something up to charge him with. this is what chelsea manning, julian assange, edward snowden, this isn't something that we've seen in decades. >> it's actually quite common. in fact, so common you generally don't hear about when it happens. some low level analyst somewhere took some things home, got upset, disgruntled employee. i think it was last week an air force colonel got charged for this. didn't obstruct, didn't lie, got charged, sentenced three years. no obstruction, no lying, three years. so it happens. it certainly happens. you've got to show you're on notice. again, the interesting thing he was not only on notice, but now we're seeing a conspiracy

charge, stephanie. he did this in concert with other people, and who are they? and the conspiracy part of this means they had to know what they were doing was a crime. you can't accidently conspire. you can't just go i would no idea, i just moved some boxes, i had no idea. when you see a conspiracy charge, people knew what they were doing. and who was the one directing them? most likely donald j. trump. >> anthony, what's the department of justice's conviction rate in this kind of case? >> 99.96%. it's pretty high. let me think if i can about where frank left off. the key to understanding merrick garland's justice department is -- is understanding his absolute devotion to the rule of law. and that for him, that phrase is not just some lawyer's turn of a

phrase, it's a foundational aspect of american democracy, and it means at its core and we've talked about this all night, treating like case alike. that's why that case frank just mentioned is so important, and there is a long history of cases from this justice department and higher justice departments where government officials have willfully retained government documents, classified documents, national defense information that they were not supposed to have, and they went to jail. >> went to jail. peter, we've already heard a lot from donald trump tonight. what else should he expect in the coming days? >> we'll hear a lot more about this obviously, but what's going to be interesting to hear is not from mar-a-lago. we know what he's going to say. a number of them have said about

the alvin bragg indictment out of manhattan, well, that's too far, this is too petty and enough of that. thus will they say about a federal indictment, not a local indictment but a federal indictment involving the nation's secrets? i think we should pause for a second. there's a difference between local prosecutors even in manhattan as big as manhattan is local prosecutors and a federal indictment. there were a lot of people concerned in plafrp like, well, you know, is it really an idea for presidents to be subjected to a local prosecuting? you can always find a local prosecutor and there's some concern about that. this is not that. this is the united states department of justice representing the nation as a whole making a statement about criminal liability and that's a big deal. does that mean other republicans

treat it as a big deal? or do they treat it as just one more part of the conspiracy president trump likes to talk about? >> katie, do you want to weigh in on that? right, this is quite different from cheating on your spouse, cheating on your taxes. this is a national security issue potentially around our secrets. >> yeah, i think we can see trump run into battles with the court because he's going to be inclined to say things that he shouldn't. and inclined to say things he's been told by his lawyers and by a federal judge he shouldn't say, so it'll be interesting to see what happens when he starts facing punitive action, you know, if he continues to violate rules, if he starts facing punitive action. those things include fines, they include jail time, and this is going to be happening in the midst of his presidential campaign. this will be not only the first time in history we've seen a

former president and potential presidential nominee be indicted by the justice department, it could potentially be the first time we see somebody try to campaign in the midst of a federal prosecution to use a federal prosecution for campaign purposes. so we're going to see lots of thorny legal issues spring up potentially even from this indictment and this case itself. you really can't predict how trump will behave, but i think it's safe to say since 2016 he'll not be inclined to follow it rules and not be the clined to do what he's supposed to do. this will almost be mueller on steroids where you had a prosecutor who played by the rules and everything which meant leaving large blocks of silence over a series of months to be fill by trump. this time, though, it's a prosecution so trump fills those silences and he could face consequences depending on how he does it. >> yes. but, joyce, robert mueller in hindsight got criticized trying to be too careful given the

political environment. jack smith is meticulous here and quitt, but the time line. given what katie just laid out for us and that this election is not that far away, debate stages are being built, what is the time line going to look like? >> so the southern district of florida where this case has been indicted is what's called a rocket docket. these are judges that like to keep their daukts clear. and although there's some variation between judges -- we'll have to see which judge is assigned to this case -- as a general matter i expect we'll see a trial date set within the speedy trial act period, something like 72, 73 days following arraignment. and some issues that will come up that will extend that pipe period, but typically in this district the judge has put a lot of pressure on the parties to go to trial in a timely fashion,

and this case will proceed without the benefit of the sort of delay that donald trump is used to inserting into legal proceedings, and not only will this be the case in the trial court, in the district court, but these matters will be litigated in a circuit court of appeals, the 11th circuit where the former president has already had two cases go up to the court of appeals in the course of his efforts to kneecap the search warrant at mar-a-lago and the justice department to use the information they retained during that search. donald trump will not find a permissive court environment. i would expect him to be affordload the due process any other defendant receives. and that's something very important for us to understand. donald trump should be treated fairly like any other defendant. he is presumed innocent until he's convicted by a jury of his peers.

it is the integrity of that process, that will permit the american people to accept an indictment and a prosecution and a conviction if this case proceeds along that path. >> charles, how might this impact the january 6th investigation or even the georgia interference investigation? >> stephanie, earlier i talked about the fact now we're seeing what prosecutors do, and what jack smith is likely to show us is donald trump can walk and chew gum at the same time. this case is possibly a test case for doj in terms of how to look forward. i said that because it's important to understand as you've already sort of alluded to, the fact we haven't heard about january 6th doesn't mean it's dead in the water, so now jack smith has this indictment going and this moving and this investigation has been concluded, he has an opportunity to turn his resources and attention to january 6th, and we may see movement there. it is not guaranteed jack smith is going to bring charges or put

that in front of a grand jury, we simply do not know, but it is something we'll be watching. and as far as fannie willis is concerned, the way i look at it is this. for people who believe that today donald trump hit rock bottom, i would strongly disagree. today was one of the days that donald trump began to learn that there's way worse he can fall. he hasn't hit the basement yet, and additional indictments may be coming. >> we're going to leave it there. peter baker, katie benner, joyce vance, andrew coleman, and frank figliuzzi, thank you for getting us started on this important night. coming up the gop is in defense mode. two republican strategists here to weigh in when "the 11th hour" continues. e to weigh in when "the 11th hour" continues. and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price.

a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling.

now, let's get into the politics of all of this. democratic strategist and former executive director of the new york state democratic party, and mark mckinnon, former advisor to the george w. bush and john mccain. he's one of the co-hosts of "the circus" on show time. mark, your reaction today. >> well, listen, this is -- donald trump's death may come from a thousand legal cuts ultimately. his super power has always been he's untouchable, and this is the federal government now saying we're coming after you, and this is a situation where once he starts to bleed, and there's going -- he's going to bleed throughout this process, you can see his support

evaporate pretty quickly. as soon as supporters realize that this is not going to help him win either the nomination or the general election, his support could dissipate, you know, remarkably quickly given his history of -- of maintaining his solid support. this is a different -- i think this is a different situation. and by the way, i think what's going to be interesting is going to see how his republican opponents will react. and we've seen already the breadth of the reaction from -- who's already dedicated himself and we also had asschg hutchinson who had an interesting statement. donald trump is the target of an ongoing criminal investigation and should step aside for the good of the country above his candidacy.

so this is going to be very interesting to watch to see how competitors in the republican primary respond. >> bazell, what's your reaction to the news? >> this is coming from someone who still has a tearstained jacket from 2016. >> you've got to take that to the cleaners. >> now i'll take it to the cleaners. listen, when we talk about accountability, this is moving in that direction. i do think that for so many voters who were concerned that for all those thousand cuts mark was talking about, that there was nothing going to penetrate. this was a federal indictment, this was serious business. and there's a "the washington post" article i think last week that talked about i think it used two words the breadth and specificity of this case. and that is not something that is easily dismissed because it shows that there were a lot of people involved, there was a lot going on, there was

inintentionality behind all this behavior, the motives of which i believe we'll find out at some point. but that intentionality, that breadth and specificity is what is going to be really hard for donald trump to be able to throw away, and it's going to be even harder for a voter to turn away from it, as they make their decision about 2024. >> mark, this isn't going to change things for the hard core maga trump supporter, but what about the rnc? does this give them an out? >> i don't think initially it does. i think they're going to have to take sort of the posture most of them which is to say it's a political attack. they're going to blame democrats although obviously it's an independent counsel. they're going to make it a political attack, and they're going to adopt nar weaponizing government tactic and defend trump. you know, whether or not they'll

go as far as others is unclear at this point. if they're truly the party of law order and they'll wait to render evidence before judgment and wait until trial before offering pardons. there's an element to this that occurred to me. which is before this happened i thought if donald trump didn't get the nomination, knowing donald trump you could see how he would take out his revenge on say ron desantis by stichlly running as an independent just to win the votes in florida and denied desantis the presidency. that would be very much in the donald trump play book. this could change that equation, if he thinks that a pardon is out of the equation of whoever gets the nomination, then that could change his strategy about he does in the general election. >> all right, we're going to continue this conversation because we're already getting a whole lot of misinformation from elected officials for facts

sake. the president was not behind this indictment. democrats were not behind this indictment. it was a grand jury in the state of florida. facts matter. you'll get them here on the other side of the break. et them other side of the break. v could. ♪ rsv is a contagious virus that usually causes mild symptoms but can cause more severe infections that may lead to hospitalizations... ...in adults 60 and older... ...and adults with certain underlying conditions, like copd, asthma, or congestive heart failure. talk to your doctor and visit cutshortrsv.com.

as expected trump's 2024 rivals are weighing in. ron desantis and tim scott slammed law enforcement. chris christie said let's wait for the facts to come out. but of course nonof the

politicians have any insight into the charges. like the rest of us, they have not seen the indictment, they have not seen the evidence. basil, the speaker of the house kevin mccarthy reacted on twitter falsely implying joe biden was behind the indictment. and i've said it over and over for facts sake presidents don't indict, grand juries do. how harmful is this misinformation? how can he say this is an injustice? >> he can say it because here to for, that strategy has worked for a good chunk of the republican base. blame the democrats for weaponizing the justice department, weaponizing the congressional hearing process, that's the impeachments. for a period of time it seemed to be working. i don't know that we're in a period where that is going to work any longer. even if you think of joe biden as a managerial president, someone that doesn't excite you but he's getting the job done,

what has happened is that in 2022 -- 2020 and 2022, a good chunk of independents and a lot of disaffected republicans decided to side with democrats. the republicans can keep using this technique and talking this game, but is it able to rest these independents and this affected republicans back to voting? i do not think so. any other republicans who don't tackle this issue, but if someone like a chris christie who does have sort of a bigger platform -- >> he said let's wait for the evidence. >> but if he actually comes out and a lot stronger and finds a way to at least use this as a wedge to sort of let trumpism die with this indictment, then i think they have a shot. but right now just a denial is not going to work because the voters have already said that your claims of your hair being

on fire, it's just not working. >> mark, what about silence? not all republican lawmakers are jumping to trump's defense like kevin mccarthy or steve scalise, john thune, mitch mcconnell. nothing. >> well, silence would be recommended until you see the evidence, until you see the charges. that would seem to be the smart way to go and the right way to go and the righteous way to go. i think what's going to happen, stephanie, is that you're going to see a lot of the candidates in the republican primary, let's just take ron desantis as an example, i think what he'll do -- first of all, the thing donald trump hates more than anything is the perception of a loser. so desantis is going to say i'm a winner or he's a loser. and listen, this is guy twice impeached, now twice indicted, maybe more to come, and the first guy since grover cleveland almost a hundred years to not

only lose the presidency, but to lose the house and the senate. so i still think this is a political attack from the justice department and the biden administration and the democrats, but we just can't afford to ride on this titanic any longer. the ship is going down. >> you know who can afford anything? big, big donors. mark, where do you think they go here? right, when you think about really big gop donors at the end of the day you watch them kind of wait it out, figure out who the winning horse is, and then drop the big check because they want to make sure their taxes remain low and they've got the president on speed dial. do you think they're going to put their pens down and wallets away and let this play out? >> yes, 100%. scared money never wins and i think the smart mun eis going to sit pack and let this play out. there's no reason to be laying out big checks for donald trump right now when we haven't even

seen the charges or the trial. i think they've got a real rationale now to hold back. >> the white house is being very quiet, notably quiet. do you think they'll stay that way? >> yes. be above the fray. there's no reason to comment on this whatsoever. what is joe biden doing? he's governing. what are the democrats and hakeem jeffries are really doing? he's governing. that's what the american people elected them to do. by getting into the muck they give the republicans an opportunity to talk back. it gives them the platform they do not need. a political mentor of mine told me when i first got into the business if you see a boulder rolling down the hill, do not get in its way, and that's exactly what joe biden needs to do, get out of its way. >> tat is some good advice. thank you both for being here. >> yeah, do not catch a falling knife. >> do not catch a falling knife and do not stand in the way of a

boulder rolling down a hill. from all our colleagues across the network of nbc news, thanks for staying up late with me. net for staying up late with me.

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam.

and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪

for the first time in american history a former president is facing federal charges. the seven criminal charges against donald j. trump are connected to the hundreds of classified documents found