we look at serving the whole family. cecily: no two community schools are alike. john: many of our classes are designed around our own students' cultures. kenny: it's about working with the parents. david: the educators, the parents, the students. rafael: we all come together to better meet the needs of our kids and our families. jackie: it's been really powerful. terry: i'm excited to go to work every day. narrator: california's community schools: reimagining public education. good morning, 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm jose diaz-balart alongside my colleague anna cabrera continuing our special coverage of the united states versus donald trump.

here is what we know at this moment. the former president has been federally indicted on seven charges, it's all in connection with trump's handling of classified documents discovered at his mar-a-lago resort in florida last year. sources tell nbc news that those charges include false statements, conspiracy to obstruct and even one charge relating to the espionage act. we also know that trump has been summoned to appear in a miami court this tuesday at 3:00 p.m. along with the special counsel's team. secret service agents are meeting today with trump's team to begin logistics planning. >> we don't know the specifics of those charges as those are still under seal, but speaking on the "today" show this morning one of trump's lawyers made clear how the former president plans to respond. >> he was upset for the country, but in terms of him, he is a fighter and he is going to come out swinging and he will be fine. he will appear in court on tuesday, no doubt. he is not afraid of this thing. >> also this morning cnn is

reporting that they have the transcript of a meeting where donald trump reportedly admits he had retained secret military information that he had not declassified. we should note nbc news does not have that transcript, but we have another jam packed hour ahead. let's get right to it. >> and with us now to start off our coverage this hour nbc news correspondent garrett haake in bedminster, new jersey. lisa ruben who is in miami and jacquelyn alemany. lisa, abc news is reporting that judge canon who appointed a special master to review the documents seized when the fbi searched mar-a-lago last summer has been assigned initially to oversee this case. what could that potentially mean? >> reporter: josé, that was certainly a curveball this morning for those of us who have

followed this investigation for the last several months. judge cannon as you noted was the judge who appointed a special master and in doing so slowed down the fbi and department of justice's investigation at that time substantially and for several months. she was also overturned on appeal twice by the federal court of appeals in this area, the 11th circuit. the fact that the case has been assigned to her is not something nbc news has independently confirmed, however, if she does have the case it could be for one of two reasons, first, it could be random. usually criminal cases in this district are assigned at random. however, there's also something called a related cases doctrine and it may be that she was also assigned this case because the civil case that the former president brought last year to oppose that search warrant, get a special master appointed, get his hands on some of the documents that were seized from him and be able to contest those proceedings, that was before judge cannon. it remains to be seen whether

she will continue to hold the case and whether proceedings will happen in fort pierce which is where her courtroom is as opposed to the federal courthouse behind me in miami. a number of unanswered questions this morning that have folks like me scratching our heads. >> josé outlined the charges that we anticipate. we know this is still under seal, trump's team say they are under seal, haven't seen this full indictment. when you hear the term "espionage act" it sounds really bad. how serious are these charges against donald trump? >> reporter: i would say, anna, they're very serious but don't necessarily connote what viewers at home might be thinking about when you look at the word "espionage." essentially the espionage act punishes the unauthorized taking, retention or worst of all dissemination of national defense information. it doesn't have to be classified, but more times than not it is, but you have to take that information knowing that you're not supposed to have it

and either hold on to it when you are not supposed to and or show it to other people. we know from publish reporting over the last several months that the general contours of what i just explained is essentially what donald trump is alleged to have done. the fact that it's called the espionage act doesn't necessarily mean that it involves spying, but it does mean that you have national defense information that you shouldn't have and that you might even be sharing it with people who are unauthorized to see it. that in and of itself is a very serious national security violation, even if it doesn't entail the traditional meaning of espionage as common people think about it. >> garrett, you are in bedminster. what do we know about how and when trump will head to miami for this court appearance on tuesday? >> reporter: josé, don't expect to hear from the former president today but over the weekend he has not one, but two speeches to republican party conventions in georgia and in north carolina where i do expect we will hear him focus on this issue intently. it's all part of kind of the

political operations effort to turn the justice department's indictments or any of these indictments against the former president on their heads, use them to rally republicans around him. after that likely come back to bedminster in new jersey, his golf club here and then travel to miami sometime early next week. they basically close up mar-a-lago for the summer so i don't expect him to come down there. this is sort of a moment where the trump campaign is going to try to turn his legal peril into political opportunity. they're strategizing about how to do that best even now. >> jackie, you were one of the reporters who broke this news that prosecutors were likely to bring the bulk of their charges in florida. what more are you learning about why miami over washington, d.c. where we know a grand jury had heard a lot of testimony previously? >> reporter: >> yeah, that's exactly right and actually i just want to quickly dove tail off of some of lisa's reporting with some breaking news that we have confirmed according to people who have reviewed the summons.

eileen cannon is the judge expected to at least initially oversee these proceedings but another judge that was listed on the summons is bruce reinhart, a magistrate judge in the area who actually oversaw and signed off on the execution of the subpoena that allowed for the fbi to execute a search warrant, the legally executed search warrant of mar-a-lago. but as for the bulk of the charges being indicted in south florida as opposed to washington, d.c., that was just a strategic and legal decision made by prosecutors based on previous cases, including one specific case on obstruction and venue that essentially ruled in the d.c. circuit court that in order to charge obstruction it needed to be done in the venue where that obstruction occurred. of course, we don't know the full spectrum of indictments that could land overall. the indictment into trump

obviously is still sealed, we could be getting that today, but it will offer more insight into the full range of the indictments and if there are any others coming and if those might be potentially happening in d.c. versus south florida. >> let's go back to miami where we have our lisa ruben. we all know that the wheels of justice sometimes seem to turn so slowly, months, years sometimes, but the southern district of florida is known as being a rocket docket. i know you are very familiar with this, josé, being stationed there where, you know, cases move pretty quickly. could we potentially see this case move more quickly than others? >> reporter: you know, anna, i think that's certainly what the special counsel's office is hoping. when we talk about the tradeoff between washington, d.c. and miami, not only was venue a likely consideration as jackie noted that 1971 d.c. circuit case definitely weighing on

folks' minds, but one other consideration is that rocket docket in miami as compared with justice in the federal courts in d.c. which has been slowed by the litany of january 6 cases. jackie and others can tell you that that court system has been entirely overloaded by criminal cases stemming from january 6th. they've seen a volume there unlike anything that they've seen in recent years and you have a bunch of judges there just trying to unearth themselves from the caseload that they have with their combined civil cases and all the january 6th criminal cases. almost every judge or every judge in the district has at least one and in most cases multiples of those. that had to be an influential factor for the special counsel's office as well. go to miami, try to get this done before january 20th, 2025, when former president trump could be president trump once again and have the ability to grind this to a halt because department of justice policy says no ongoing criminal

proceedings against a current president. >> lisa, quicker than in other places. how quick could we be seeing this process under way? >> reporter: that's a very interesting question, josé, and it depends in large part on what kind of pretrial motions of president's lawyers make. this is a guy whose m.o. is delay, delay, delay and nowhere is that more true than in his position as a litigant. so i expect them to make all sorts of motions, including ones that are sort of prefaced by his meeting with the special counsel and department of justice last week where they raised the spectre of prosecutorial misconduct. ordinarily we might see this case go to trial in under a year, however, this is donald trump we're talking about. if there is a motion to be made, however nonmeritorious, if they can get away with it without being sanctioned by the court you can expect the team of former prosecutors here representing him to make that motion and try to slow it down because here delay is itself a

win. all donald trump wants to do is get to january 20th, 2025, when he hopes to be the president once again and escape the grasp of the department of justice and the special counsel's office, josé. >> and garrett is outside bedminster where we know trump is currently. he was the one that broke the news of this indictment, garrett. he and his allies have been speaking out while the special counsel's office and the justice department have been silent, which is typical. is this about trump wanting to control the narrative? >> reporter: oh, absolutely, i think it is. i mean, this is also the second time we've seen donald trump try to scoop his own indictment. remember in new york he posted on social media that he was about to be arrested, he was about a week and a half early in that case. here he actually waited for his attorneys to be advised that he was, in fact, going to be indicted before posting it out here. but donald trump is essentially taking advantage of the justice department's own rules and regulations, the way our justice system works, to fill the space that they are leaving here by

not commenting on this, by having a sealed indictment. he can rally his troops politically for the next several days, use this as a fundraising tool and tool to consolidate support among republicans just like he did in new york city. in that case he raised more than $12 million for his campaign in a week surrounding the indictment. here the tools are already in place, the allies have already been warned, congressional republicans in particular have already been extremely vocal in his defense and his you a tens i believe rivals for the republican nomination have either been hugging him or not saying anything at all. it leaves him a ton of room to raise money and set the political terms for discussions especially on the right. >> garrett, lisa and jacquelyn, thank you all. our special coverage continues. up next, we will drill down on what we know about the charges against the former president. what they mean legally for trump. plus, how the charges could affect trump's run for president in 2024. >> what his rivals and voters

have to say. you're watching special breaking news coverage of the trump indictment only on msnbc. snbc g . ♪ ♪ gain scent beads keep even the stinkiest stuff smelling fresh. the subway series is getting an upgrade! the new #19 the pickleball club. who knew the subway series could get even better? me, i knew. maybe you should host a commercial then. sure, okay. subway series just keeps getting better. if you wake up thinking about the market and want to make the right moves fast... get decision tech from fidelity. [ cellphone vibrates ] you'll get proactive alerts for market events before they happen... and insights on every buy and sell decision. with zero-commission online u.s. stock and etf trades. for smarter trading decisions, get decision tech from fidelity.

we are back with breaking news about the federal indictment of former president donald trump. let's delve deeper into the seven federal charges trump is facing now including false statements, conspiracy to obstruct and one charge related to the espionage act. joining us now katherine christian former planet district attorney's office and an nbc news legal analyst. also with us is nbc news senior executive editor for national security david rode and andrews wiseman senior former member of the mueller probe, a professor and an nbc news legal analyst. thank you all for being with us. andrew, one of the charges that we understand trump is facing is conspiracy to obstruct.

does that suggest other people may face charges as well here? >> yeah, that is the one that struck me as the most unusual. we knew that there was going to be a retention charge, we knew there was going to be an obstruction charge. those were all in the search warrant application we have heard about from august. the conspiracy charge is definitely new. so, yes, it does mean that there has to be at least one other person. you can't do conspiracy without another person being involved. we still don't know who that is. my money is on walt nadda who we've heard about in terms of moving boxes, most recently about this pool incident where there apparently was some sort of flood. remains to see whether there's no real issue there. we don't know yet, though, whether there is somebody who is going to be charged as a defendant along with donald trump. it is also possible that person is cooperating and has already pleaded guilty. >> is it possible they've been indicted at the same time? >> absolutely. >> again, those -- the

indictment is sealed and we haven't heard about it. >> absolutely. we could end up with two defendants in the case, it would be donald trump and this other person. it could also be, though, that that person has pleaded guilty and is cooperating and so they are not listed as a defendant in this indictment, but in the charge it would say donald trump and they would name the person who was a conspirator a all remains to be seen but at the very least a potential person to flip if you are thinking about this in terms of what jack smith is thinking, he is thinking an underling if that is a conspirator, that would be a very good person to cooperate. >> katherine, can you help us break down the process going on behind the scenes right now from the grand jury voting to indict to trump's appearance next tuesday? >> it's very similar -- you know, he's gone through this, just two months ago he went through it in the state system. federal system is very different than the state, but it's very

similar. so he will be -- the indictment will be unsealed on tuesday in the state case, also it wasn't unsealed until he went to court. so instead of a state judge he will be going before a federal judge. he will be arraigned on that indictment and he will be treated like every other defendant and he will go through the same process that he's now become very familiar with, except these charges -- and no offense to my former office, the manhattan da's office -- these are much more serious than what he's facing in his state indictment. these involve national security, these are very serious charges and i said, you know, months ago that what was keeping him up at night was not a hush money payment case, it was this case, the special counsel case. and if there is a fulton county, georgia, case, that's what's keeping him up at night. and then the process will go on.

this is not the end of the road. the indictment many defense attorneys say an indictment is just a piece of paper. in many ways they are right. the indictment is not a trial conviction. the next step will be all the motions and the procedures for the trial and let's see whether or not the special counsel will prove mr. trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and get a conviction. >> david, we obviously are in unchartered waters here. i heard you earlier calling it the most pivotal moment for the doj since watergate. explain. >> this is going to be a massive civics lesson for the entire country. it's very important that the justice department be fair to donald trump, that the judicial system in general that he get a fair trial, but i'd like to see, if possible, as soon as possible, the justice department to unseal and release the indictment so that we know the charges against trump. his tactic is to attack and discredit his investigators and he's already doing that and he will do that relentlessly month after month. so i worry the justice

department officials and andrew maybe can speak to this, but you've actually been there, you know, they don't understand -- the public doesn't understand under the norms and making sure there is a special prosecutor who is independent and all the things they try to appear nonpartisan because donald trump is going to attack merrick garland and the justice department and jack smith and say they're part of a deep state coup against democracy. >> does the justice department need to handle this case differently? if they're staying silent because this is how they would normally handle a case, and they want to show that they're following it by the book not treating trump unfairly or differently than any other defendant, and yet he is different than any other defendant. this is the first time a former president has faced a federal indictment. should they change their approach? >> so i think the answer to that is a sort of legal answer, yes or no. this is why people don't like lawyers. and the yes is that there is a

certain amount you don't denigrate the defendant publicly, you don't say this is why he's guilty. that's something that remains for a trial jury. you don't speak about all the proof. but it is commonplace to have a press conference to talk about what the charges are, the allegations and you sort of stress that. that is very commonplace. but to david's point, i do think that this is an important teaching moment that the department of justice needs to actually do and that is where the answer to should they do something differently the answer is yes in my view. it's going to be really important for the public to understand that anyone not named trump who did these crimes would be in the same position. that there are myriad cases that the department can point to to say everyone who had done this gets charged. he is not being singled out. this is not a witch-hunt. in fact, to not charge him would have been to give him the benefit that everyone else does

not get. >> it's a fine line, though. do you say precedent is that everybody gets treated this way, but in this case i'm going to treat this person differently by releasing it, or do you say everybody is going to be treated equally and that includes, wait for the day, and that's when the information will come out? >> well, unsealing just to be clear, unsealing is something that could happen, there's nothing wrong with unsealing now. they could wait until the arraignment or do it now. >> traditionally? >> traditionally you could have a charge which is not under seal from the outset. there is nothing right now between now and tuesday where you can say, oh, precedent would say one thing or the other. i think what we're talking about is having the department actually have a press conference where they really talk about why this is confident with the rule of law and talk about other cases and archibald cox is an example -- i'm dating myself -- of a prosecutor who did speak publicly to educate the public.

i think given that most people are not like me and david who follow all of this, it's important to have a teaching moment where the department of justice can really explain why they're doing what they do. >> katherine, cnn reports that they have seen a transcript where trump acknowledges in 2021 that he had secret military information, that he had not declassified. nbc news has not been able to confirm the report. just how central would this piece of evidence be to the special counsel's case? >> well, it's very important. it goes to his knowledge, it goes to his intent and willfulness to retain it. so, you know, let me just say that the special counsel, jack smith, would not have asked this grand jury to vote an indictment if they did not believe that they had evidence that proved donald trump's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. they still have to prove it, he is still innocent until proven guilty, but this evidence that you just talked about, the audiotape and the transcript, is

just -- it's one of many pieces of evidence that goes to his willfulness. this really is not -- andrew, i'm sure, can attest to this. former prosecutors, prosecutors, we always used to talk about a serious case versus a complex case. some cases are serious and complex. this is not a very complex case. it is a very serious case. mr. trump left the white house, took property that didn't belong to him without his permission. most of that property was national security documents, sensitive information. members of the jury, he had an opportunity to return t he chose not to, he lied, he obstructed. very simple. not complex. but a very serious case. so, you know, the more -- all of his prior inconsistent statements we call it will be used against him and i want to just also add that what andrew said, i think doj has to come

out and make a statement. not before unsealing, but as soon as this indictment is unsealed they have to ethically -- you can't disparage the defendant but you have to educate the public. so as mr. trump and his allies are out there giving misinformation, it's incumbent upon the special counsel and doj to correct the factual record. >> we just got some breaking news that the former president facing indictment, president trump, just shook up his legal team. in fact, trusty, jim trusty who has been on air on multiple networks responding to questions since this indictment is out and blanch -- todd blanche from new york is in. what's your reaction to that? do you know these men? >> i do. so i worked with jim trusty at the department of justice, seasoned former federal prosecutor. you know, i could imagine that this happens quite often when a

defendant is hoping that he is not getting indicted and he gets indicted, a lot of defendants blame their lawyer, even if it's not the lawyer's fault, it's the client's fault for doing what they did. todd blanche, though, is a respected lawyer, he represented paul manafort in new york state court and was successful in arguing double jeopardy. he -- i'd say one thing to be careful about is that todd blanche left his law firm and he now has one and only one client, which is the former president. he may do a great job, but it is somewhat perilous to only have one client because one of the jobs of a lawyer is to say no, is to make sure that you are in control of the case and when you only have one client, that can be somewhat difficult to do that. >> katherine, i know that you know him. what are your thoughts on this? >> well, as you know, he's also

representing mr. trump on his manhattan da indictment and his reputation prior to mr. trump was a very good reputation, he was at a major large what they call white shoe firm in manhattan, very good reputation as being an excellent attorney, but as andrew said, now his only client because he has left that firm is mr. trump, but he's always had a very good reputation. >> this is a statement trump is making on his platform truth social he says i will be represented todd blanche and a firm to be named later. i want to thank jim trusty and jim rowley for their work but they were up a against corrupt and evil group of people. there he goes with the typical rhetoric we're used to hearing. right now, david, trump is driving the narrative in this case and he has gotten his allies in congress on the campaign trail to say what he is saying, pointing the finger at a

justice department that he claims is corrupt, that he's been targeted politically. how does that change? how does the narrative shift so that the american people can feel confident in the process? >> it's a great question and that's what worries me most. so if you think about what, you know, he is alleging, it's that the sitting president of the united states has framed, you know, his main challenger donald trump the former president to prevent him from being elected. and i just think it's very important for justice department officials to take this seriously. yes, trump has lied over and over again, but to respect the american public, to respect this process. i'm glad he's got a qualified and effective attorney, i want this to be a robust, you know, fair and professional trial, but this information vacuum he's going to exploit it and merrick garland held a press conference after the mar-a-lago search, they released the search warrant, he explained why he

authorized that search. so i think it would be a step forward for someone from the justice department to unseal the indictment, not disparage the defendant, donald trump is american, he deserves a fair trial, but share the public with more information. >> nbc can confirm that judge eileen cannon will be presiding over this case. your reaction to that? >> i'm concerned and if she handles it through the trial she made some very unusual rulings in the course of the litigation surrounding the search warrant. >> appointed by trump? >> appointed by trump. let me just, again -- i just -- this is, again, a huge moment in american history. dozens of judges, including trump-appointed judges, rejected his claims in 2020 that the election had been stolen. the judiciary upheld the 2020 election. the judiciary was the strongest branch almost in defending democracy. so judge cannon, you know, i want to be fair to her. maybe she can rule in an

unbiased way but she made several rulings overturned quickly by her superiors in federal appellate court that were seen as unusual. andrew can speak about this more. she has a moment, a chance here in american history to oversee a fair trial and i hope she does that. >> andrew, my understanding is judges like this would be selected randomly. so it just happened to end up back in her lap, but given her history in the case, would this be a situation in which because of public perception of, you know, whatever, they would choose to intentionally shift this away from her court? >> so i think there's still some unanswered questions. one, was this a complete random selection. the idea that out of a dozen or so judges it just happened to then go to the same judge and magistrate judge could happen mathematically, but seems unlikely. the other was whether somehow it got related to her because she

had this civil case before, but usually criminal cases and civil cases don't relate to each other. so that could happen. and then it's possible that it was just random. to your point, whether she stays on the case or whether she either reduces herself voluntarily or is asked to recuse herself because of her prior service on the case, i think still remains to be seen. i think david was very polite in describing her rulings. i and others were very critical of her decisions. you have to remember it is unusual to be reversed in the way that she was, but she was reversed not once, but twice by an extremely conservative appellate court. the decisions were to put it bluntly scathing. i mean, she really got the law completely wrong and that's not me saying that, that is the court of appeals. so the idea that she's back on the case, it would certainly be

a very large challenge to see her rise to the occasion. i always thought after the first reversal she might rise to the occasion but that didn't happen and she had to be reversed again. it will be interesting to see whether she stays on the case, i think that's still an open issue. >> david, i want to reiterate that certainly you have mentioned a few times the historic aspect of this. how do you see this historically? >> i just see it as the biggest test of the american public's faith in our court system. you know, in our lifetimes. many people are upset with the supreme court, they feel that recent rulings have been politicized, criticism of clarence thomas getting these trips. and then if you have, you know, a trial that doesn't seem fair of this, you know, public interest it's really difficult. again, i want to be optimistic. the appellate judges that overruled aileen cannon, two of the three of them were trump appointees also. so there's many trump judges who

are making, you know, fair, fact-based decisions and hopefully she will, but, again, it's just an enormous moment, i think, for the country. >> we are continuing to get new information by the moment. it seems like. i'm going to talk to you about this one. katherine, we have this statement now from jim trusty and john rowley, the two trump attorneys who are apparently no longer with him after this indictment and, again, trusty the one who has been on camera defending him all morning long, this is what they write. this morning we tendered our resignations as counsel to president trump and we will no longer represent him on either the indicted case or the january 6th investigation. it has been an honor to have spent the last year defending him and we know he will be vindicated in his battle against the biden administration's partisan weaponization of the american justice system. now that the case has been filed in miami, this is a logical moment for us to step aside and let others carry the cases through to completion. is this a logical moment for this to happen, katherine?

>> well, i'm not going to question the credibility. there are times when you are representing a client when you have irreconcilable differences and then you leave. if you have already made a court appearance you have to ask the permission of the court. so the logical time i would think is when you and your client are no longer having a meeting of the mind. i think that's really what's going on here. as was said earlier, you know, i'm indicted now so let's get rid of you and let's get a new attorney. i think that's probably more what's going on, though i don't have any insight and knowledge, but, you know, mr. trump goes through attorneys, you know, it's like a cycle. you know, you don't like what -- he doesn't like what you're doing, you're gone. mr. trusty was very gaseous to his now former client but i think there's a lot more going on than now is a logical time to

leave. i think they just are no longer on the same page. that's just my opinion. >> what do you think, andrew? >> i think that there's more to learn and wrath rihn said could be totally right that this was just a difference of opinion that the client decided this was i want to change, it could have been that the lawyers decided and this was a gracious way of letting them sort of resign as opposed to being fired. also one of the things katherine said i think is important that at this point if a lawyer stays on the case and files a notice of appearance and becomes counsel of record, you can't just withdraw. you have to get court permission. so a lot of times in court you will hear defense counsel say, well, i'm waiting to file my notice of appearance because i'm waiting for mr. green. i remember when i was a young prosecutor i was like what does that mean because i was really naive. what it meant was they were waiting for their client to pay because they want money up front because they don't know whether

they can withdraw, they may have to stay on the case all along. again, this is speculation, but like this would be a moment where if you are going to file a notice of appearance, you know, mr. trump is notorious for not paying bills, you might say if i'm going to do that i need to make sure that i'm actually going to be paid. >> i have to wonder if potentially they are withdrawing because it's hard to defend trump in this case. is that a possibility? >> i think just that it's hard wouldn't be enough. it could be more what katherine is saying which is that you're being asked to do things that you are just not comfortable doing. you know, it was hard to defend him during the investigation as well and they absolutely haven't seen the charges so i don't know that that would be the thing. just that it's a hard case. i mean, a lot of defense lawyers relish that. being a defense lawyer it can be very, very difficult, a lot of times you know your client is guilty, the government has a lot of proof but you do the best you can to raise reasonable doubt. i don't think that would be

the -- the reason. >> it's interesting that both the lawyer team and the former president in his comments with now the case moving to the florida courts. so the implication is, oh, things have changed geographically so this is a time to change. that's the official line from the trump folks. katherine, christian, david and andrew, i thank you all very much for being with us this morning. really do. up next, how some of donald trump's republican rivals for 2024 are capitalizing op trump's indictment. we are live on capitol hill with brand-new reaction from congressional republicans. you're watching special news coverage of the trump indictment only on msnbc. l news coverage of the trump indictment only on msnbc.

we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch.

38 past the hour. new reaction from donald trump's 2024 republican presidential rivals to the indictment. moments ago former vice president mike pence addressed

it during a campaign stop in new hampshire. >> and after years of politicization at the department of justice, we will restore public confidence in american justice. >> former south carolina governor nikki haley also just weighing in on twitter saying, quote, this is not how justice should be pursued in our country. but former arkansas governor asa hutchinson is the only prominent republican in the race to call on trump to drop out of the race entirely. >> joining us now is msnbc anchor lindsey reiser and suffolk county new york an nbc news contributor and pbs news hour co-anchor and former texas republican congressman will hurd. lindsey, what are we hearing from voters about this indictment? >> we are in the most populous county in the country that went for trump in 2020.

it was by razor thin margins, only 232 votes separated trump and biden, but that was a seven-point shift for democrats from 2016. we are in long island on suffolk county, this is a place of tremendous pride here, people i'm talking to saying i've lived here for 30 years, wanted to raise my family here, this is a quaint quintessential main street usa here, they have a beer fest tomorrow, pride parade on sunday. there is a large truck going by, i will try not to compete with that. we have been talking to people about their reaction to the news, it ranges from i don't care and i'm sick of the news to saying goodness, to this is a witch-hunt. go ahead and listen. >> well, i think that it's the best time. i feel as though it's important that he is held to a standard that all of us are held and just because he is a former president

doesn't mean that he should be shielded from doing the right thing. >> i think it's a sad day in this country where a former president is indicted on charges of withholding government documents which could be very sensitive. and he is defending himself saying it's a witch-hunt, where anybody else would be charged accordingly. he is no different. he should be charged accordingly. >> i think it's a witch-hunt going on. they are frightened he is going to become president again so they're doing everything they can to put him down. >> reporter: and so that couple that i talked to they said they see no difference -- even though we know the facts of the case are different, they see no difference between the classified documents that former president trump took and the classified documents that were found in president biden's wilmington garage. they see the doj as being

politicized. of course as you see like anywhere else in america split in this county and that includes the reaction we're getting today. >> a recent yahoo gov poll found 63% of americans say this is a serious crime. so there may be a difference in what the former president is facing legally by american perspective. do you see this as something that could hurt trump politically finally or no? >> reporter: josé, you're right, there may be a difference, i think it is just simply based on the facts too early to know. i mean, the evidence will present itself, we will see how voters weigh this and whether or not it matters to them. especially when those early republican voters do start to show how they feel about this. federal charges are certainly different than the previous charges brought and the indictment brought by the manhattan da. they do carry more weight and would carry a higher penalty. to the broader picture here i think what we're seeing among

his rivals in the republican field is a reflection of where much of the party is right now. there is this scale of response from hutchinson to ramaswamy, ace say hutchinson basically saying the legal issues are a distraction and should disqualify him. ramaswamy said he would pardon mr. trump if elected in 2024. most of his rivals in that early nomination contest right now fall in the middle. they are walking that fine line that many of them have to walk right now which is to say they want to distinguish themselves from the current front runner early in this process, that is mr. trump, but also not alienate his base. when asked whether or not it hurts him or helps him, i certainly think that mr. trump thinks it would help him. remember we only knew about the fbi search on his mar-a-lago property because he told us. he announced it to the world and similarly he announced to everyone that he was being indicted in this particular case. we saw the impact of the

indictment and being found liable of not only sexual abuse but also defaming e. jean carroll in the manhattan case and that did not seem to have any impact, in it seemed to strengthen his case. you will to remember mr. trump has spent years undermining the work of the department of justice, claiming that he is being targeted, delivering this message of victimhood and that has resonated and taken hold with his supporters. we don't yet know if voters will see this federal case as different from previous ones, though. >> congressman hurd, what are your thoughts on this indictment? >> well, my thoughts is first and foremost nobody is above the law and, two, you're innocent until proven guilty. but i think it's pretty strange and crazy that many of donald trump's opponents are running to his aid to defend him rather than criticizing him because if the shoe was on the other foot, you know donald trump wouldn't be -- wouldn't be helping them. and the reality is will this solidify support amongst donald trump's supporters?

yes, it will. but does it help against independents and conservative democrats that want to see something different? is this going to happen with the six out of ten americans that do not want to see donald trump run again for office? absolutely not, it's not going to help. and ultimately the american people fail because guess what we are not talking about, we are not talking about how do we ensure the american treatment is accessible to all and not just a few. we are not talking about how do we win this new cold war with the chinese government. we are not talking about how do we defend our border. and that's a problem. and that just shows this is more baggage that donald trump has and is going to prevent him from talking about the future and it's just another example about how donald trump only cares about one thing and it's not the future of america, it's his own self-preservation. so in the end the public loses and what we need the department of justice to do is show a level of transparency. when you have an unprecedented

move like this, you have to have an unprecedented level of transparency and i think your panel before -- before this one did a great job of explaining that. >> you've said you're considering running for 2024. have you made a decision? does this indictment perhaps inform your decision? >> well, my decision on what my future is going to be is going to come soon but it doesn't change the fact that we need -- the republican party, we need a moderate republican party that really is about person responsibility. we need to act that way and we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard and forget about all this whataboutism. so to me this is the critical element that we're seeing in this indictment, and guess what, we're going to be here again when the -- everything gets shaken out in georgia as well. one more example of the baggage donald trump has. and i have to remind folks, too, joe biden wants donald trump to

be the nominee for the republican party because he knows he can beat him. and so this is something that, you know, people saying, oh, he's trying to get donald trump out of the race. no, joe biden and the democrats want donald trump to be the republican nominee. >> lindsey reiser, amna and william hurd, thank you so much. we will go live to capitol hill about who is not talking about donald trump's indictment. you're watching special coverage of the indictment only on msnbc. e of the indictment only on msnbc. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today.

welcome back. this morning we are getting brand-new information and new reaction from lawmakers on capitol hill following the indictment of former president trump. overnight house speaker kevin mccarthy tweeted in part, quote, it is unconscionable for a president to indict the leading candidate opposing him. joe biden kept classified documents for decades. again, that was mccarthy. he also said, quote, house republicans will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable. joining us now from capitol hill is nbc'sthere? >> reporter: what we have seen here on capitol hill, at least until a few minutes ago, was a fascinating breakdown. house republicans for most part immediately rallied to the former president's aid. you showed what speaker mccarthy said. others in house leadership said similar things immediately on twitter. this is a moment where congress is out of session. we can't see these lawmakers

ourselves. nevertheless, the people who we would seek out are probably on the senate side of the building. for the most part, that's where leadership had been silent, until up until a few minutes ago, when we heard from the number three senate republican, coming to trump's aid as well, tweeting in support of him. there are some people who are tweeting about this in opposite fashion from what most republicans are doing, specifically i want to point you to what senator mitt romney said, that this is something that trump brought upon himself, in the words of romney, he did so by not only taking classified documents but by refusing to simply return them when given numerous opportunities to do so. not exactly surprising to see romney speaking out once again against the former president. no love lost there between those two men. it is a reminder that even though it looks like so many in this republican party, potential rivals and actual rivals for the

presidency, but also people here in the halls of congress, many of them are pointing to this as a moment of an inequal use of the justice system against the former president. frankly, i have seen some house republican lawmakers suggest that there shouldn't be a 2024 primary because trump is under attack. on the house side, you are watching republicans rally to the former president's cause. >> ali vitali, thank you, from capitol hill. this just in. according to "the wall street journal," an associate of president -- former president trump has been charged in the special counsel's document case. >> let's bring back catherine christian, an nbc news legal analyst. we knew this was a possibility, else when we got word there was a charge with regard to obstruction conspiracy. what's your reaction to this

news? we have not independently confirmed this. >> you can't charge conspiracy unless there's another person. two or more people agree to commit a specific crime. one of them takes an overt act in order to achieve that goal. reporting is that a witness observed mr. nauta removing boxes in mar-a-lago and putting it in a storage room. the problem is, that happened after a subpoena was served requesting those documents. that is a crime. it's concealing, it's hiding evidence that you know is wanted for a proproceeding, a legal proceeding. if you are served a subpoena for documents, the way you protest it, that you decide you don't want to comply, is you have your attorney go to court and you move to quash it.

you don't then decide, i'm going to conceal and hide the documents. if it's true that he is being charged with conspiracy, it would be because of that act. there probably are other acts that we don't know about, which we will find out on tuesday when the indictment is unsealed. it's not shocking, because when i first read that he was observed doing that, i said, well, he is probably putting himself in jeopardy. he could get out of jeopardy if he gets a lawyer who will -- we call them flip, cooperate with the prosecution. if he has been indicted, if it's true, he hasn't cooperated. cooperation means you are not indicted. >> donald trump is reacting to this news. >> of course. >> unclear he has any inside information. he probably is reading what we are reading. he writes, i just learned that the thugs from the department of justin will indict a wonderful man, walt nauta, who served with me in the white house, retired

as senior chief and transitioned into private life as a personal aide. he has done a fantastic job. could these words by the former president be looked at as trying to influence the case against nauta or the actions of nauta in this case? you mentioned the possibility of flipping somebody like nauta. >> you know, there's a reason why in his new york state manhattan case the prosecutors asked for aprotective order and received one. i anticipate they will do the same thing, prevent statements like that for people who are either a defendant in the case or a witness in the case. that's not a gag order. mr. trump is allowed to call it a hoax and witch hunt. when you start targeting witnesses or evidence in the case, then you cross the line.

i'm not saying mr. trump has committed a crime. but he is doing what he has been doing all through all of the investigations that have been swirling around him. which is why it's very important for doj to come out and they don't have to unseal the indictment. they can do it on the day of the indictment in agreement and explain the charges and explain as andrew weissmann said earlier, why mr. trump is not being treated any differently than other people. there have been other people who have been charged with these very serious crimes. some have had facts that are similar. some are more heinous. we remember -- at least i do -- general david petraeus. he has a criminal conviction for mishandling documents. it's a misdemeanor, but it's a criminal conviction, which is a mark on his record. the different between him and mr. trump is he owned up to it and he pled guilty. obviously, mr. trump should not

plead guilty if he is not guilty. i'm just highlighting the difference. it's not unheard of that this is a charge that would happen. mr. trump is not being singled out. i think the department of justice needs to say that publically. >> catherine, thank you very much. joining us, eddie glaude, an msnbc political analyst. >> how big of a test is this right now for the country? >> it's huge. are we a nation of laws? does the rule of law obtain? i think it's inflection point. we are at a moment culturally, a moment politically where the country is deeply divided. 70 million folks voted for donald trump. do they have trust in our legal system? do they have faith that he will be treated fairly? we are at this inflection point. where will we end up as we come

through this, as we go through this? >> i'm wondering, it's just -- there are so many moments where they should be inflection moments. is this, do you think, in the long term going to be something that could change hearts and minds of people about our system and the pillars that make democracy the most important political system on earth? >> well, we will see. we will see how the proceedings -- how they take place. we will see how folk will accept the outcomes or whether they will. i was thinking that what is really important is that in some ways donald trump -- how can i put this? he is the kind of result, the consequence of what we experienced during the nixon years. people talk about watergate, ford's pardon. at the heart of watergate it wasn't just the illegal activity. it was the idea of executive branch, the imperial presidency. the expansive scope of executive

power. trump inhabited that without any commitment to the norms of the office. by holding him to account, in some ways we are actually addressing something that's at the heart of the problem of our current government, this expansive notion of the executive power. a lot is at stake here. we will see what will happen as we make our way through. >> i can't help but notice all of the headlines this morning. we have this wall. it gives you a sample. historic charges. trump charged over secret files. what's amazing is this is not the first time that trump has faced charges since being an ex-president. indicted again from the daily news here in new york. the chicago sun times, the first former president to face federal charges. >> these headlines are being seen in newspapers across the world. >> you are right. >> just like that. >> you are right.

final thought to you, eddie, about what this moment is going to mean in the history books. >> well, it's going to be a moment where the nation faced itself. we're at a crossroads. we have to make a choice of who we will be. will we double down on defending this man who thumbed his nose at some of the basic norms, or will we double down on democracy? that's the question. here we are. >> thank you so very much. that wraps up this edition of special coverage of the trump indictment. >> wonderful to be here alongside you. thank you to our guests for joining us this hour. stay with us. andrea mitchell and chris jansing pick things up right now. good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in new york, along with my colleagues, chris jansing,