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, katy tur.

a federal grand jury indicting former president donald trump for allegedly violaing the espionage act, conspiracy to obstruct and making false statements in connection to more than 100 classified documents he retained and did not turn over after leaving office. the former president facing criminal charges months after being indicted by manhattan's district attorney in connection to a hush money scandal. all while widening his lead in republican presidential primary polls in the race to face joe biden in 2024. >> a lot of developments in just the last few hours. at this hour, there are big changes to the trump legal team. the lawyer who spoke for mr. trump throughout last night and this morning is resigning, along with his fellow attorney, replaced by todd blanche as leader of the upcoming defense in federal court. breaking this hour, trump

writing in a social media post that walt nauta, who worked at mar-a-lago, after working in the trump white house, is also under indictment. aileen cannon will be initially appointed to oversee the case. there are seven federal charges against trump after the investigation by this man, special counsel jack smith. at this hour, we do not know how many criminal counts are associated with each charge. trump is expected to appear in court on tuesday. >> the first person to notify the nation of this legal development was former president trump himself. first posting on his truth social page, then releasing this video last night. >> there's never been anything like what's happened. i'm an innocent man. it's a hoax. i'm an innocent man. we will prove that.

seven years of proving it. here we go again. very unfair. that's the way it is. >> prominent republicans, including kevin mccarthy and rival ron desantis are coming to former president trump's defense, despite having no north of the details within the federal indictment. we are keeping a close eye on the former president's social media pages for any reaction. we will bring you details on these federal indictments as we get them. let's bring in justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian outside the courthouse where the former president will be arraigned on tuesday, garrett haake is in new jersey, where donald trump is now, and with us in new york, laura jarrett along with andrew weissmann, former lead prosecutor for special counsel robert mueller's investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election.

laura, i want to start with the breaking news about donald trump's lawyers. they are both resigning. handing it over to todd blanche. what do we know? >> we are trying to figure it out. to have this happen just three days before an arraignment is obviously not the position you want to be in when you are facing such serious federal charges. we know todd blanche, a very well-known, well respected, former federal prosecutioner who -- prosecutor who andrew knows well. someone well respected within the legal community. someone who has been added to the president's legal team recently. they were also defending him in the investigation into january 6 and the president's role in trying to cling to power. they resigned from both of those. we will try to figure out what the back story is.

the timing is not ideal. it's problematic. he is now left with one attorney -- he says he will hire other people. we will see who he gets. he needs somebody with experience, i would imagine, in florida, someone who is familiar with how the rocket docket works, someone who has experience in very serious matters of national security. >> andrew weissmann, let's talk about jim trusty. he has his own take on the presidential records act. i want your reaction and laura's. >> up until the presidential records act, any former president could possess anything they want. that was just kind of the nature of the business. we entrusted them with the nation's secrets. if they want to keep stuff, they can keep it. the pra kicked in because of richard nixon. what it anticipates is nothing criminal. there's no criminal statute within the presidential records act that says it's a violation to possess any of these things.

what they say is, the world is presidential or personal. the president of all people, the former president, makes the call. if the archivist disagrees, it doesn't turn criminal. they can sue civilly in washington, d.c. >> andrew, your rebuttal? >> what i will say is, this may be a good reason he is no longer on the case. that's just -- in some ways, it's a useful thing for him to say because it's so much like look at the birdie. it's not the law. this is a criminal case. it's not about the presidential records act. talking about what the law was before president nixon doesn't really address what the current law is. i know jim trusty knows better and that he has a difficult case. but that is just not the legal regime he is under, nor does it in any way address the obstruction of justice.

when you get a subpoena that says turn over documents and you don't turn them over, that is a crime if you do it knowingly and intentionally. >> when you heard him with the answer, did you not think that's what donald trump wants him to say? that's where he has been focused. i guess my question is, what happens between 7:00 in the morning when he is on "today" vehemently denying anything here that happened that was bad and then putting out a statement saying, we have parted ways? >> i will speculate. it can be that donald trump, like many people who get indicted, blame their counsel. between the time of the investigation and when they are suddenly charged, they are like, this is your fault. when it's really not. it's the client who did the acts. the other is that when you are defense counsel in a criminal case, you have to file what's called a notice of appearance. you are now counsel of record in a criminal case. you cannot withdraw without

court permission in a criminal case. what you often see when that happens is a defense lawyer says, look, if i'm in the case, i need to have money up front, because i may be stuck for a year, a year and a half. the defense lawyer would say, i'm waiting for mr. green. when first heard that i was so naive. who is mr. green? my supervisor was just like, this is hopeless. >> for anybody out there who might not know who mr. green,we are talking about money. >> exact wli. >> pay me now. >> that's what i had to be told. >> let me ask laura about judge aileen cannon. when people saw she was assigned, there were raised eyebrows. >> it shouldn't come because she was appointed by donald trump.

there are plenty of judges that we have seen that have had adverse rulings against the former president on any number of different suggests and were fair minded. she has past experience on this very issue as it relates to the search warrant that the fbi executed last year. she made a number of controversial rulings is fair to say. she got overturned pretty fiercely by the 11th circuit. she tried to appoint a special master. none of that worked out. remains to be seen whether she will stay on this case. the justice department could try to get her off. that might not go over so well. the initial matter, we should mention, it would go to a magistrate judge. the judge who hears it on tuesday when he comes in for his arraignment, his first appearance, he will enter a plea, that's in front of a different judge. judge cannon would oversee the larger issues, which are far more substantive in terms of pre-trial motions, what does the protective order look like in

terms of what discovery is exchanges? >> pre-trial motions will include motion to dismiss. >> correct. that's why if she does stay on the case, seeing how she treats those could be important. >> let me just clarify. we know here that the prosecution lost months after the mar-a-lago search just waiting for the appeal finally to decisively overturn all of her rulings. they were all really pro-trump rulings. what is the procedure for removing a judge for the prosecutors removing a judge if there's such a procedure? i know joyce vance posted something earlier from her experience in alabama. is there some way that the prosecution could remove her? >> i think the first step is that there needs to be transparency about how the same combination of district judge

and magistrate judge was selected for this case. to me, it's just impossible that it's random. somebody had to have said, this case relates to what happened before. normally, a criminal case does not relate to a civil case. aileen cannon's case was civil. it will be interesting to see whether the relation rule was correct and followed. that's one avenue of potential attack. to answer your question, the government can't -- doesn't have the power to remove a judge or not remove a judge. they could make an application first to aileen cannon. she could decide on her own that she should recuse herself. they would make an application to her. the chief judge at the district court. ultimately, to the chief judge in the 11th circuit. laura i think is totally right but was extremely polite, because aileen cannon was

reversed not once but twice by a very conservative circuit. the appellate court is not known as a liberal bastion. >> how did she get appointed here? >> we don't know whether it was random or whether the chief judge of the district court said, i'm going to apply a relation rule. all of that is something the government has the ability to question. you can imagine them doing it, because for those people who think that judge cannon may have learned her lesson, that she will change, that's what i thought might have happened between the first 11th circuit reversal and the second. well, that's really embarrassing after the first one. it was scathing, to your point. it didn't. she continued. there was then a second reversal of that. on kept on saying, i wouldn't want to get out of bed that

morning. it was so -- it was just so embarrassing, because the court just said, you got this wrong in every way, and you endangered national security in the course of doing this. >> ken dilanian is outside the courthouse. i wonder if you have any insight into how all of this unfolded. >> reporter: i have been speaking to lawyers who practice in this district. one former federal prosecutor now defense lawyer, who is very familiar with how things work around here, said that there are three divisions within the southern district of miami. prosecutors had to check a box about where this conduct in this case originated. they checked the northern district, which includes -- because it includes mar-a-lago, which includes the area where judge aileen cannon is based, in fort pierce. this person told me, there are only four or five judges in that northern district. this person believes it was assigned randomly, but the chances of aileen cannon popping up were pretty high in that smaller pool.

it was a series of decisions, according to this person, that resulted in this -- for what many people is an unpleasant result. this person wondered whether the first order of business will be whether judge cannon considers recusing herself, given the appeals court rulings that you guys were just talking about. we will have to wait and see what happens. >> ken, let me ask you about walt nauta. he has been indicted. the former president, donald trump, has gone on to his social media account and talked about walt nauta, calling him an incredible man and how this is unfair. i can get that statement. here it is. i have learned the thugs from the department of injustice will be indicting a wonderful man, walt nauta, who served proudly 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. they are trying to destroy his lives, like so many others, hoping he will say bad things about trump. he is strong, brave and a great patriot. the fbi and doj are corrupt.

i know andrew weissmann has thoughts about what that is trying to accomplish from donald trump. ken, give us what you can about walt nauta. >> reporter: we have not confirmed, nbc news, that walt nauta has indicted. we haven't gotten a response. assuming this is accurate, walt nauta was trump's butler and body man. i know that he gave a couple of different stories to investigators about whether he moved certain boxes of documents at trump's behest, such that the fbi and the justice department thought he lied to them. we know because we're reporting on a claim of misconduct that one of his lawyers is making against one of the prosecutors in the case that there was a meeting in october at the justice department where a group of prosecutors in the case essentially approached nauta as lawyer, called him in and said, we think your guy lied. we want him to cooperate. nauta's lawyers have said, look, if you want to charge us, charge us. we're not cooperating.

nauta's lawyers have been paid for by a donald trump political organization. nauta has been sticking with trump the entire time. now he finds himself under indictment. we will see exactly what the charges are. since we have learned that this indictment includes a conspiracy charge, it stands to reason if they are the only two defendants, it may be those two. that's the story with walt nauta. >> i want to follow up. i didn't mean to interrupt. i want to bring in garrett haake. speaking to walt nauta, first of all, garrett, walt nauta was more than a valet. those of us who covered white house know. he was the body man. he was the navy -- the military aid who worked so closely, laid out his clothes, packed his clothes, helped dress him if necessary, brought him his food, his documents and one of only

two people from the white house who went with him to mar-a-lago and stayed with him. this is a very close, confidential aid. if there were things said, things moved potentially, that's why it's not surprising, let's just say, that walt nauta, garrett, was involved in this alleged conspiracy, right? >> reporter: i think that's right. donald trump has a long history of this. he brings somebody up as a body man, a personal aide, an assistant and fixer, and they move with him from stage to stage, whether it's like michael cohen, then in the transition to politics, or the team who worked on his security detail and management of his company. this is not unusual for donald trump. you have aides who came with him from the white house. they are lower level aides, then elevated into more of a senior

status in the sense that their proximity to donald trump gave them authority within the maga universe. these are not people you would be surprised to be caught up in this. they would be always at his side or a phone call away, particularly in the post-presidency era where in the first eight or nine months, he was with a much smaller circle of aides or fixers or anyone on the payroll than he was at any time previously to that in his public career. >> andrew, when you read the statement, you said it smacks of something. what is that? >> sure. when we were chatting, to me this is so reminiscent of the kinds of adjectives used with respect to paul manafort. same thing with respect to mr. weisselberg. this is what donald trump does when he is concerned about somebody flipping. there's a slew of adjectives,

there's a ddirth of facts. >> you know what's not in here? what did he do or not do? this is a classic donald trump where adjectives and adverbs replace discussion of facts. he is likely to be the co-conspirator and the person who made false statements. >> this is where legal analysis melds with literary analysis. thanks to all. coming up, what we know about the reported charges of espionage and how national security may have been impacted. that's next on special coverage of the indictment of donald trump is back in just 60 seconds on msnbc. stay with us.

in the nutritional drink you choose. try boost glucose control®. it's clinically shown to help manage blood sugar levels and contains high quality protein to help manage hunger and support muscle health. try boost® today. (vo) consumer reports evaluates vehicles for car shoppers in... reliability, safety, owner satisfaction, and road-test evaluations... and the results are in. subaru is the twenty twenty-three best mainstream automotive brand, according to consumer reports. and subaru has seven consumer reports recommended models. solterra, forester, outback, crosstrek, ascent, impreza, and legacy. it's easy to love a brand you can trust. it's easy to love a subaru. one prilosec otc each morning blocks heartburn all day and all night. prilosec otc reduces excess acid for 24 hours, blocking heartburn before it starts. one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

welcome back. the charges against former president donald trump remain under seal for now. sources tell nbc news that they include a violation of the espionage act, which has to do with retaining sensitive national defense information. let's bring in former deputy national security advisor ben rhodes and former cia director john brennan. director brennan, important to note here, you can violate the espionage act regardless of whether the information is classified, as long as it is national defense information according to the statute. can you clarify the importance of that? ? >> the government has taken great precautions as far as making sure our national security secrets, all material related to it needs to be kept under a special arrangement. in terms of a scif.

there's sensitive information that could be collected. the espionage act is the mechanism that can hold someone accountable for unlawfully and intentionally retaining those documents. the concern is, if they are left in an unsecured manner or facility, they can be accessed by individuals who have not only no right to them but also could do damage with them. i think one of the things we are curious about is whether or not jack smith has uncovered evidence that donald trump actually shared that information with others. again, irrespective whether it was shared, the unlawful retention of those in an unsecured manner is sufficient to bring somebody under an indictment for a violation of the espionage act. >> ben, there's been a lot of talk by lawyers, but also by members of congress and others who support donald trump that this isn't a big deal.

they give a shrug to what was found. these are papers, things he had. i'm wondering, what is the danger to national security? why does this espionage act exist? >> a number of things. first of all, we will see what was in the documents. all those people are saying this isn't a big deal. once we learn more about this information, it's going to be pretty telling. some of the reports are that it could have been quite sensitive information. it might not have just been letters he kept from foreign leaders. in terms of the dangers, and to build on what john said, first of all, it wasn't a big deal when he was asked to return the documents, he would have returned them. he kept these things. it seems like he obstructed efforts to get them based on the indictments here. it's a big deal for a number of reasons. the entire integrity of the system of the united states having a national security apparatus, having an intelligence community depends

on people not doing what donald trump just did. if you send a message that you can take the most sensitive information that the u.s. government has out of secure facilities, that you can have it in private residences, fail to comply with the request to return it back, what message does that send up and down the chain of all the many people that are working with this information? it suggests that there's really nothing to this regime. donald trump is making a mockery of it as he has with so many other things. the second thing is there's real risks. mar-a-lago is not a secure facility. it's a place where all manner of people are wandering through there. it has likely been the number one intelligence target for america's adversaries since donald trump was elected president of the united states. we don't know if he shared this with people. we don't know how these documents were secured. we don't know how they might have been compromised. there were a lot of countries

that would like to know what was in the information. the worst case is that u.s. sources and methods, u.s. partners, they are put at risk by this. that information that we want to remain secret. plans the united states have that are of interest to our adversaries, those could have been compromised. john can speak to this as well as any person that's out there. we need allies to trust us. we need sources to trust us. the entire national security apparatus depends on other countries thinking the united states is a reliable partner. if you have got the most sensitive information hanging out at mar-a-lago, that sends a message to other countries, to human sources, a message to anybody that might want to work with us that we can't be counted on. that's a real risk. that's not something to make fun of. it's nothing to play politics with. all these people rushing to defend trump, are diminishing the importance of u.s. national security. >> it's a lot of people making a

very big deal of hillary clinton's emails in the 2016 campaign. we want to get the legal a natural -- analysis on this. donald trump was on tape saying about the document he knew was classified. this has been reported by a number of outlets, talking about a document that pertained to iran and pushing back on general milley saying that milley prepared this information for me in order to attack iran. i have a document in my hand. i'm paraphrasing. it's highly classified. what about -- he admits he can't declassify it, according to cnn. what about the substance of it? he is talking about iran, milley's plans to attack iran. that seems like it might be an issue. >> it's clear that his comments show that he knows that he

didn't have the authority post presidency to share this very sensitive information. he was emphasizing the sensitivity of it. it shows the intentionality, which i think is one of the reasons why charges are being brought against him. something as so important and so sensitive as possible work plans against a foreign country. picking up on ben's point, we rely on our partners and allies to carry out any military operations. exposure of that really undermines the confidence of others in our ability to actually do these things. more over, i find it totally outrageous that republican members of congress today are continuing to embrace trump and trash the department of justice. i find that just outrageous. how they could do that, in light of the things that have come out. trump's public acknowledgement about his intentional and unlawful retention of documents. they are sending a message throughout this country and around the world that really

calls into question our system of justice here in this country. they are denigraing the national security aspects of the case. they are trashing the department of justice and fbi and others. it shows the poisonous influence of donald trump over the last number of years and how it has affected others such as a foreign member of the navy, walt nauta. for whatever reason, decide to continue to apologize, make excuses and endorse and support his unlawful, dishonest behavior. >> a note on that. the department of justice did not bring the indictments. the special counsel law precludes merrick garland, any of those appointed officials from getting involved in any way, unless the recommendation from jack smith was so outside the parameters of the special counsel law and of the justice

department law that then he would step in, merrick garland. just to ratify that point. ben rhodes, i want to ask you about something that donald trump told sean hannity on fox, that he can declassify materials by thinking about it. let's listen. >> it doesn't have to be a process. there's different people that say different things. if you are the president of the united states, you can declassify just about saying, it's declassified, even by thinking about it. you are sending it to mar-a-lago or wherever you are sending it. it doesn't have to be a process. there can be a process, but there doesn't have to be. you are the president. you make that decision. when you send it, it's declassified. i declassified everything. >> according to this indictment and the law, the espionage action, the documents don't have to be classified. we established that.

you dealt with classified documents all the time as the deputy national security advisor. describe the process by which the president of the united states declassifies, that you dealt with barack obama, the process involved rather than just mental telepathy. >> we absolutely went through a process. we would meet about it, discuss the parameters, what he could say. do a check to make sure that what he said wouldn't point to the sources and methods by which certain intelligence might have been collected. an exhaustive process to declassify something. what is so telling in the report that was cited in the question to john, the iran war plan, is that's not subtle at all. those documents often, something like that, hypothetically, or the kind of documents you would not take out of the situation

room. you would not take that home. you would not walk around with that. we are talking about potentially serious and sensitive stuff that trump himself may have acknowledged he didn't declassify before leaving office. i just want to make the point, if he was sharing it in the incident reported, that he was sharing this with biographers or something, who else was he sharing it with? there had been no process to mitigate the harm of that information being unsecured. the reason you have declassification processes is to mitigate harm. none of that was done in this case. that put u.s. national security at risk. >> great having you both on the program. thank you. after the break, we will hit the trail with the latest on how donald trump's 2024 rivals are reacting. you are watching special coverage of the indictment of donald trump on msnbc.

subway's still upping their game. show us how stephen. italian style capicola brings sweet heat to subs like supreme meats.

is it hot in here or is it just me? it's definitely not you. no, it's me. try the subway series menu. their tastiest refresh yet. power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv ♪ now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. this rental car is so boring to drive. let's be honest. the rent-a-car industry is the definition of boring.

and the reason can be found in the name itself. rent - a - car. you don't want a friend. you want the friend. you don't want a job. you want the job. the is always over a. that's why we don't offer a car. we offer the car. ♪ sixt. rent the car. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only 30 bucks a line per month. that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. no wonder xfinity mobile is one of the fastest growing mobile services. you really shouldn't walk out the front door without it. switch today at xfinitymobile.com. when people come, they say they've tried lots of diets, nothing's worked or they've lost the same 10, 20, 50 pounds over and over again.

they need a real solution. i've always fought with 5-10 pounds all the time. eating all these different things and nothing's ever working. i've done the diets, all the diets. before golo, i was barely eating but the weight wasn't going anywhere. the secret to losing weight and keeping it off is managing insulin and glucose. golo takes a systematic approach to eating that focuses on optimizing insulin levels. we tackle the cause of weight gain, not just the symptom. when you have good metabolic health, weight loss is easy. i always thought it would be so difficult to lose weight, but with golo, it wasn't. the weight just fell off. i have people come up to me all the time and ask me, "does it really work?" and all i have to say is, "here i am. it works." my advice for everyone is to go with golo. it will release your fat and it will release you.

former president donald trump's rivals for the republican nomination are now weighing in on his indictment. ron desantis defending his competitor in a tweet and asking, what about hillary and hunter? nikki haley blasting the indictment, calling it overreach and a double standard. chris christie saying, let's see where the facts are. asa hutchinson alone in calling on mr. trump to drop out of the race, arguing the criminal proceedings will be a major distraction.

joining me now, dasha burns in new hampshire, former rnc chairman michael steele and peter baker, "new york times" chief white house correspondent. dasha, also hearing i understand from the former vice president. what's he saying? you are where he is. what are the voters telling you? >> reporter: we with waiting for the former vice president to talk to voters at this diner. at his first event where we were, he did address this indictment directly. he still is walking this fine, very difficult line. on the one hand, he is saying, no one is above the law. he is saying, we don't know the facts of this indictment. he is telling his own story of finding classified documents, notifying the doj and working with the agency through the process, admitting it was a mistake and that we should be very careful in handling classified documents for the sake of national security. at the same time, he is saying

this. listen. >> after years of politicalization at the department of justice, we will restore public confidence in american justice. [ applause ] we gather today in new hampshire on a sad day in america. the day after a former president of the united states faces an unprecedented indictment by a justice department run by the current president of the united states and a political rival. >> reporter: he is calling for that indictment to be unsealed immediately and also calling on merrick garland to address the american people before, quote, the sun sets today. the question that i have for the former vice president is he

talked about that he hoped the doj -- should they go forward with the indictment -- would meet the high standard it would take to go forward with such an unprecedented step. i want to know from him what would meet that high standard, and if it does, once we know the facts of what is in fact in this indictment, does the tone change? does the response shift? we will have to see. >> a quick fact check. the justice department is not run by the president. >> nothing to do with it. he keeps repeating that. that's not the case. >> let me ask you, peter baker, about one of the allegations that some of the republican rivals who are supporting donald trump are making. what about hunter biden? there's a whistle-blower who has come forward from the irs who said that the irs has slow walked this investigation. this will be a line of argument from republicans about how this justice department is not treating the president fairly, is treating hunter biden with

preference. what can you tell us on that? >> that will be the argument, no question about it. as andrea pointed out, the hunter biden case is not under jack smith, who is independent of the justice department. not entirely. merrick garland could step in if he felt compelled to. but this is jack smith. he is not investigating hunter biden. it is apples and oranges. how come the son of the president is getting a slower treatment? they are different cases. donald trump has been under investigation for so many years for so many different things. people would make the argument he has gotten special treatment. why is it the hush money case brought in new york was brought five or six years after the events? that seems slow. it depends on the circumstances of each case. it's hard to compare one with the other. we don't know where the hunter

biden case is going to go. >> dasha, let's talk about -- sorry, i think dasha has gone on to her next assignment. michael steele, let's talk about what happened at the white house when peter alexander asked the president about the accusations coming from pence and others that the doj is being politicized. let's watch. >> mr. president, what do you say to americans to convince them they should trust the independence and fairness of the justice department when donald trump repeatedly attacks it? >> you notice, i have never once -- not one single time suggested the justice department what they should do or not do relative to bringing a charge or not bringing a charge. i'm honest. >> michael, we are hearing that the white house is going to just -- and the president is in north carolina, an important swing state today.

where republicans are having their national convention today, state convention, the president is not going to engage on this. right? >> nor should he. there's no political up side. there's no political benefit. for him to say anything more than what he just said. those people who believe that this justice department as opposed to the last justice department has its fingers on the scales are going to believe that. they just are. you are not going to convince them otherwise. i think the president's strength is going to be saying nothing or as little as possible. sticking with the mantra, andrea, that you and i heard for many years in situations like this, the president of the united states will not comment in an ongoing investigation. period. no matter how intrepid reporters press and push, that is the answer. otherwise, you are now then

giving credence to the lie that's being pushed out there that this justice department is somehow doing something and engaging in a way that undermines the rule of law. every republican in congress, senate and running for president knows that is not the case. but the politics dictates that they say and do otherwise. that's the disservice to the american people, in my view, when you can't be honest enough to say, donald trump did this to himself. no one told donald trump to take those documents. no one told donald trump to keep those documents, except donald trump. so you can't compare it to biden. you can't compare it to pence. you can only compare it to the guy who is at the center of all of this. if you can't call that out, this is what we're going to hear from now on over the course of the

campaign, this complete anti-doj rhetoric, to try to confuse people to believe that donald trump is the victim here. >> if you look at the list of people who are running against donald trump right now, it is one person, asa hutchinson. the rest, mostly all supporting him. i want to play a little of what tim scott said last night, going after the justice department yet again on fox news. here it is. >> we look at every single case based on the evidence. in america, every single person is presumed innocent, not guilty. what we have seen over the last several years is the weaponization of the department of justice against a former president. >> that's a mantra that has stuck, as you well know, michael, with supporters of donald trump. they are buying merchandise. there's a new t-shirt he has

out. he started fund-raising the minute word of the indictment came out. ted cruz was fund-raising on word of the indictment after it came out. you touched on this. is there anything now cumulative that could come out that would move the electorate who love donald trump? is there a part of that electorate that is at all persuadable, depending on what comes out in court in this case and other cases going forward, michael? >> i don't believe there is at this point, chris. i think -- it's like if you go to a doctor because you have an illness, and your doctor keeps telling you, you are not ill, you are not ill, at some point you will believe you are not ill and that terrible feeling you have is something other than sickness. maybe it's nerves. maybe it's people -- it's a

sense -- when you have candidates who are running for the highest office in the land going after the department of justice -- going after the very institutions they want to run, i can assure you, they are not going to do anything more than what's being done now. how are you going to change what's happening inside the justice department? who people will you put in there -- you will turn your blind eye to cases you should pay attention to because of the politics? that's not how it works. my suggestion is, everybody get out of the race except asa hitch -- hutchinson. you have one guy perpetuating the lie about the justice department and rule of law. you have people in between supporting that. you have asa hutchinson saying, you are not qualified to be

president. you should step out. let's have that discussion inside my party. that's what this boils down to. we don't need pretenders in between who can't muster one moment to look in the camera and say, donald trump, this is not your campaign. you need to step aside so we can move forward. if you cannot do that in this moment, after what happened with e. jean carroll and now seven indictments coming down from jack smith, when will you do it? they won't. donald trump is the nominee of the republican party. the rest of y'all need to stop pretending and get behind him like you are going to do anyway, save us the bs, angst of watching this play out. let's set up the 2024 election now. the rest of it is a joke as far as i'm concerned. >> michael, one quick point. chris christie has held his fire because he says as a former prosecutor he wants to see the

indictment. but he has been all over the legal issues up until this point. he just hasn't responded yet on this. i think -- he may not have a lane. i think you will hear from chris christie, too. >> will they call for him to get out of the race? we will see. you took the words out of my mouth. we will see what chris christie has to say. thank you guys very much. coming up, we will talk to a member of donald trump's legal team from his first impeachment. what it's like defending him. you are watching special coverage of the indictment of donald trump right here on msnbc. shelves that know what taste buds want. shelves smart enough to see, sense, react, restock. ♪ so caramel swirl is always there for the taking.

donald trump is overhauling his legal team amid growing calls to unseal the federal indictment against him before tuesday's arraignment in miami. joining us now is former federal prosecutor and a member of donald trump's legal team during his first impeachment, attorney robert ray. i want to ask you, since you know what it's like to defend donald trump in a legal sense, what do you think of jim trusty and john rowley resigning or being fired? what's your sense? >> >> i think the news seems to be that would be somewhat unprecedented. it's not unusual. andrew spoke to this. a lawyer gets hired to do a job. that job was prevent me from being indicted. once that happens, separate and apart from the mr. green problem, once that happens, it

is not unusual to switch legal teams to go with a trial team that will defend him in a proceeding that is post indictment. so it is a natural breaking off point. i don't consider that to be unprecedented at all. it might be a little unusual but it's a fairly common occurrence that the team that gets you to the preindictment stage, if they are unsuccessful, a new group of lawyers come in. >> this is a really big charge. >> by the way, i know todd blanch very well. he's first rate. he is a trial lawyer. he's also a friend. it would be expected and the former president has signaled this that he is bringing in other lawyers. i would expect to have talent, which is to say, trial lawyers who are experienced in practicing before the southern district of florida. and that will happen. i can almost guarantee that will happen. it will be todd and other

people, criminal defense lawyers who have experience in the southern district of florida. >> when it comes to the audio that cnn has and the "washington post" and "the new york times" that has donald trump saying on tape that he has a document in front of him. it is classified. i could have classified it while i was in the white house. i can't classify it now. "the new york times" is reporting that somebody else that, now we have a problem. do you see any wiggle room? >> the other piece you played, the thought occurred to me about wiggle room. i understand that everybody seems to think as an axiom that in a post watergate environment, these laws supposedly apply to the president are binding on him with regard to how to handle presidential records and whether materials are classified and whether the president has unilateral authority to declassify. a lot of the law we're talking about post watergate developments, none of that stuff has been tested vis-a-vis a

former president of the united states who was the president of the united states when he had the authority to do things. so i would not be surprised. i don't know the answer to the question is the short answer but there will be, i can guarantee, pretrial motions that get to the question about whether or not the president had the authority. and more importantly, the justice department has to prove and take the position that he doesn't have the authority. which is a very awkward position for the justice department to be in. they are typically the guardians of presidential prerogative and power. >> let me bring andrew in here. there are procedures for declassification in and out. >> the question is whether they can be imposed on the president of the united states. i'm not so sure about that. >> do these things need to be settled now? >> i think it is fair to say there will be an effort to say they're legal issues because you're dealing with someone who is the former president. there may be a time period when

they are fixing on when he was the president. i don't see how that deals with the obstruction count. one of the things that may be very strong here is that you make all sorts of arguments that are arcane and maybe they'll pass muster. there was a grand jury subpoena that requires documents to be returned that clearly was served on the former president. and i just don't know, my question to you, and it is reading from the outside so it is hard. what is the defense to that? >> i don't know until we see the indictment. maybe we'll see it today. i'm guessing -- >> what is your expectation? how high is the hill? based on what we know just now, the defense has to climb? >> it bumps up against, a lot of these things are relatively speaking, undecided and we can all usually live with ambiguity. the problem is the justice department has to prove essentially the negative. and that's not easy to do. the justice department will have to prove the president doesn't

have that authority and it will have to be clear that that was the case, and that the president knew that that he didn't have that authority. i listened to the clip that you just played. the president is on tape saying in addition to the part that you referenced me to, he's on tape saying, i'm the president and i get to decide. there is a procedure. it's not clear that i necessarily have to follow it. >> -- it goes back the i believe 2017, or rather, 1917, the espionage act. it has to be defense information. not classification. so classification may not even be relevant. >> maybe. but all this information is running around donald trump's head. you're talking about documents. you're not going to be able to lift the stuff out of his head. what can he and can't he talk about? i think there are some real problems about trying to say you're going to prosecute someone under the espionage act with regard to the disclosure of

information. now, having said all that, i do agree with those who have said a little bit of the wait and see thing. if there is really harm to the united states, i don't know what the prosecution has and i don't know what the trial will look like and i don't know what the classified information is. if there's truly harm to the united states, that is another case. and that is a serious matter. it is already serious. why is it more serious than the new york district attorney's case? if he's convicted, he could go to jail. that's why it is serious. this is a case where jail time is in play. >> robert ray, you'll be back with us. we'll have to take a quick break. stay with us. the latest on what we know. the indictment of a former u.s. president. indictment of a former u president. how. so, we switched to verizon business internet. they have business grade internet, nationwide. (vo) make the switch. it's your business. it's your verizon.

it's not too late to show summer's who's boss.

and wayfair's got just what you need. they have all the top grills and gear. with smoking fast shipping. and wayfair deals so epic... you'll feel like a big deal. yes! so get outdoorsy for way less at wayfair. ♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ my name is shannon knight, and i own little knights daycare.

carolina sports incorporated. a paradise for parents. lomita feed, current caretaker and owner. we did not know anything about the employee retention credit. that is a legitimate tax credit. so innovation refunds has really helped guide me through the process. just had to get a few of my records together, submit that, and they made it as painless as possible. i can't thank innovation refunds enough for what they did. (vo) this is sadie. she's on verizon, and she has the new myplan where she gets exactly what she wants and only pays for what she needs. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one! all with an incredible new iphone. act now and get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon.

welcome back to msnbc special coverage of donald trump's indictment. we are following multiple new