always a pleasure to have you on, sir. thank you very much. that is all in on this monday night. that rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening, rachel. sir. thank you very much. that is all in on this monday night. the rachel maddow show starts right now. good evening rachel. >> good evening. chris i don't usually get to see you on mondays anymore. how come you're here? >> you know, there is stuff going on. thought it would be good to be in the chair today. can i say i listened to your debut deja news today which i loved. >> thank you very much. >> fantastic stuff.

i had actually read something a little while ago. very brief about that episode. and loved it. anyway people should check it out. >> thank you very much first of all. very kind of you to say. i should credit you actually because it was an interview with a journalist and historian on your podcast which in part got isaac and i really interested in that topic. it is what put it on the table for us to consider as one of our episodes. >> i love that. >> so you were part of the inspiration for doing that whole story. >> great. thank you, rachel. >> thanks, chris. much appreciate it. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. very happy to have you here. as chris mentioned, we do have a new podcast that just launched the first episode today called "rachel maddow presents deja news." the whole idea of the podcast is deja vu like something is going on in the news today. doesn't this remind me of something else?

yes, it does. something that might seem unprecedented like we've never faced something like this before in the news, turns out more often than not does have an antecedent in history. it is about something that is very much like january 6th that happened before. i will have more to say later on this hour. if first dropped today and we are super excited about it. all still to come. "rachel maddow presents deja news." all right. so here is what it said when they finally showed what they had to the public. this was from the u.s. justice department at the time. quote, the following statement is respectfully submitted to the court by the government at the arraignment of the defendant. it constitutes a detailed recitation of the facts and evidence developed by the investigation to date. the presentation of this statement in court today was a

material condition requested by the department of justice to the agreement reached between the government and the defendant. and then this statement came out 50 years ago. it goes on and on and on for page after page after page in tiny print just like it says it is a detailed recitation of the facts and the evidence. the justice department had amassed all of this evidence that the defendant had committed dozens of felonies. they described in this statement all the evidence they had. all the things they believed they had proof that the defendant had done. it was not a short recitation. it was thousands of words. it described years of allegations of extortion and bribery, just rank corruption. this guy taking envelopes stuffed with cash in exchange for official acts as a public official. they had it all documented. they had records. they had receipts. they had notes. they had witnesses who had been involved in the corruption scheme who were set to testify

at trial. they had this guy. they had him. and he knew they had him. and he had just gone ballistic against this justice department investigation that had targeted him. he said the only reason they were coming after him was that he was a political target. that the people behind this investigation only wanted him out as a political official. they were corrupt and unprofessional and malicious and outrageous. he said he was going to go after these terrible people in the justice department who were witch hunting him. he was going to destroy them. he was going to tear the whole system down. he singled out individual officials in the u.s. justice department and went after them one by one. >> i say this to you. that conduct of high individuals in the department of justice, particularly the conduct of the chief of the criminal investigation division of that

department is unprofessional and malicious and outrageous. it is my intention to use the courts of this country in an attempt to gain permission to examine under oath these people who are trying to destroy me politically through the abuse of the criminal justice system of the united states. [ applause ] they are trying to recoup their reputation at my expense. i am a big trophy. let me say further that one of those individuals has made some very severe mistakes, serious mistakes in the handling of his job. he considers himself a career professional. in a class by himself. but a recent examination of his record will show that he also

through ineptness and blunder prevented the successful prosecution of high crime figures because of wiretapping errors. he needs me to reinstate his reputation as a tough and courageous and hard nosed prosecutor. i'm not going to fall down and be his victim. i assure you. [ applause ] >> these corrupt and incompetent justice department officials using me for political purposes, using me because they need me for their own purposes. that was 1973. people say now, wow. we've never had a president trying to tear down the justice system and attack federal law enforcement officials like trump is now. yes we have. we definitely have except he was vice president not president when he did it. his name was spiro agnew facing a 40-count criminal felony indictment in 1973.

>> because of these tactics which have been employed against me, because small and fearful men have been frightened into furnishing evidence against me, they have perjured themselves in many cases it's my understanding, i will not resign if indicted. i will not resign if indicted. >> the crowd goes wild. "the washington post" and "new york times" headlines page a-1 in both papers the next day. "agnew declares he will not quit. agnew declares he will not resign even if indicted." 11 days later he resigned. under circumstances that all of a sudden seem very urgent today, very relevant to what we are doing today. as presidential candidate, former president donald trump goes in for his federal felony criminal arraignment on dozens of federal felony criminal

charges tomorrow, there is a precedent that is at play here. the last time we contended with something like this as a country the justice department prosecutors working that case back in 1973, they kept their heads down and kept working while he was out there in public rallying republicans to his defense, calling it a witch hunt, saying he was going to turn the tables on them and destroy the justice department. he was going to go after them one by one attacking them individually. he was going to expose them all as being corrupt and committing all sorts of misconduct. justice department officials working on that case, nevertheless, persevered. they kept their heads down. subpoenaing witnesses, subpoenaing records. they put together the evidence. they put together enough evidence for dozens of federal criminal counts against him. now, this is the crucial point i think.

at least today. i think it is crucial to know that the justice department at that time when they were putting together all of this voluminous, hard evidence against agnew, they believed that in this vice president agnew they were looking at a man who had committed dozens of felonies and they believed they were looking at a man who had a very good shot at being the next president of the united states. not only because vice presidents tend to run for the top job themselves after serving as vice president -- sometimes that works out. sometimes it doesn't. but in agnew's case there was an even more immediate expectation he was going to become president. the justice department had very good reason to expect in 1973 nixon was going down. the watergate scandal was getting worse and worse and worse. nixon was pretty unhealthy by then in lots of ways.

his behavior was erratic and strange, which is something that top officials of the justice department saw personally in their interactions with nixon including the attorney general himself. i mean, it just seemed like very good odds that if nixon didn't keel over there was a very good prospect that he was going to be out. he was going to resign or be forced out of office by impeachment, which would of course make his vice president president. and his vice president, the justice department believed, had committed dozens of felonies and they had the evidence to back it up. so just think about that moment in time for a second. think of that moment in time in relation to where we are today with trump about to be arraigned on 37 felony counts tomorrow. i mean, we've got trump saying right now, i will not suspend my campaign because of this indictment. i will never drop out of this campaign. he said this weekend i will

continue to run for president not only after i'm indicted. i will continue to run for president even if i'm convicted. that is what trump is saying now. in agnew's case? you just heard him say it. i will not resign if indicted. very same kind of pledge. but think about how that would work in practical terms. i mean, think about that with the agnew case. especially given that, you know, with benefit of hindsight we now know that nixon was out. nixon didn't get to the end of his term. he was forced out by the watergate scandal. think about what that would have meant with agnew not resigning if indicted. all right? they've got all the evidence against him. justice department indicts him. he says he won't resign if indicted so okay. let's say they pressed on. they went to trial. he would very likely be convicted on dozens of felony counts. they had very hard evidence against him.

so he would be convicted. he'd get sentenced to jail quite possibly. it was dozens of felonies. not like espionage act felonies but still it was bad. if he doesn't resign he goes on trial. he gets convicted. and then sentenced to jail. then he is the vice president of the united states in jail. and from jail what the justice department is expecting about nixon comes true. nixon goes poof from the presidency. so now post nixon we've got the new president governing from jail. from federal prison. or maybe now that agnew is president he tries to pardon himself from prison? but nobody really knows how that would work. can you do that? would people obey the order that he proclaimed himself pardoned? it would be chaos. so what do you do in that circumstance if you are the u.s. department of justice? what do you do as the justice department when you believe

you've got someone who you believe has committed dozens of felonies? felonies in this case that he was only able to commit because he held public office. it was only because he was a high ranking public official that he was allowed access to these things that allowed him to commit these crimes. what do you do? do you just prosecute this guy like anyone else? i mean, at a base level, yes. nobody is above the law. we only have one system of law for everyone. nothing about being an elected official gives you a license to commit crimes or get away with it if you do. the last time we had to contend with something very much like this as a country the three young idealistic prosecutors who had run this case, who had documented all of the bribery and extortion claims against agnew who had amassed all the evidence for trial, they not only wanted to put him on trial. they wanted to convict him and put him in jail like he was just like any other slime ball found guilty of these kinds of crimes. with the hard evidence they had

lined up for dozens of felony counts a jail sentence was not going to be a stretch. they wanted jail. the evidence of these crimes spelled jail. but what the justice department offered the guy was, no jail. it is a decision that is controversial to this day and for good reason but that's what they did. the justice department insisted that the evidence of all his alleged crimes be made public and put in writing. that's what i showed at the very top of the hour. they put that in writing. they introduced it in open court. it was released to the public and printed in all the papers. but in addition to printing all that evidence they had of his crimes, they didn't do much else. they let him plead to just one count of tax evasion and they agreed he would serve zero jail time. in exchange for that what he had to agree to was to leave elective office. to resign.

now, the justice department had internal fights about this. there was gnashing of teeth and rending of garments but in the end they decided the interests of justice would be best served if they told the world what they believed he had done and got him out of office thus preventing a nationwide crisis and potential collapse of our constitutional system of government with the president trying to run the country from prison. i mean, here was the front page of the "new york times." "spiro agnew resigned as vice president of the united states today under an agreement with the agreement of the department of justice to admit evasion of federal income taxes and avoid imprisonment. the stunning development ending a federal grand jury investigation of mr. agnew and probably terminating his political career shocked his closest associates and precipitated an immediate search by president nixon for a

successor." it is interesting. they didn't as part of the plea deal require him to swear that he would never run for public office again. that's why "the times" said this deal had probably terminated his political career. but they did make him resign from the office he was then holding. they figured the shame of that would be enough to you know keep him from ever getting him elected to anything again. his supporters were so mad in the wake of that deal. you might have thought for a minute they would vote for him again if they could. >> i thought he was one of the greatest men that this country has ever had. >> what is your reaction to the resignation? >> i think it's a sad thing. >> i'm just sick about t i think he is a man of his word and i think they've all been doing the same thing ever since i started voting and i think it's just too bad. i think he's a great man. >> i think it was very

unnecessary. i'm just, oh, just sick. i am very unhappy. i don't think it was necessary. i think it is a lot of political hog wash and i'm -- oh. >> in the immediate aftermath of agnew's plea deal. he is not going to prison but he does have to resign office immediately and the immediate aftermath of that deal his supporters were so strongly in support of him, they were so upset at the charges against him you might have thought the country was on the precipice of something terrible. you know what? it passed. took a little while. he stayed in the news for a few weeks, a few months. he was very mad about what had happened to him. but then he just faded out. he disappeared. his name all but disappeared from history. but it hasn't entirely disappeared. we do have his example. we have had experience with something like this before as a country. and whether you like how that worked out with him or not,

whether you think that was justice or not, that is the real history of how the u.s. department of justice contended with these issues the last time they were confronted with something like this. i mean, here was a man who they -- here was a man who fully expected himself to be the next president of the united states. the u.s. justice department also expected that he might be about to become the next president of the united states. but the justice department also had evidence he had committed dozens of felonies. he went nuts about the fact they were investigating him. he threatened them nine ways to sunday. he tried to shut down that investigation. he tried to bully them. he said he was going to come after them and turn the tables on them. but they did not back down. they confronted him with the evidence in court. and what happened? he pled. he pled to avoid jail. and they let him because he also agreed to leave public office. we have only ever done something like this once before as a country.

and that's how we did it the last time. now does this mean that the justice department today is going to approach this second time around with trump the same way they did with agnew? we don't know. but the idea that trump might plead, that he might negotiate to plead to something in exchange for lenience, that is something that's generally being dismissed out of hand right now when perhaps it shouldn't be. i mean, particularly if it looks like there is a chance of jail time that attends to these charges for him. particularly if pleading guilty to something might be his only way to avoid jail time. the question of whether or not trump's future eligibility for public office might be part of any such plea is something that everybody is afraid to touch with a 10-foot pole. i know. but we really have only ever done this once before.

and that's the way we did it. we made his public office, his holding public office part of the plea deal. that's the solution. the still controversial to this day solution that the justice department and lawyers of the defendant came up with 50 years ago, the last time we were plagued with a problem this disgusting. and it's no use pretending that that isn't the relevant history here. it is. and i think we should not look that gift horse in the mouth. i think history is here to help. i mentioned at the top i have a new podcast that just dropped its first episode today called "deja news." i will tell you what that's all about in a few minutes later on this hour, but the first podcast i ever did was about this agnew story, about the justice department's investigation of that particular criminal in the white house and the agonizing decision to let him escape jail in exchange for leaving public office. after they had all the evidence in the world to nail him for his crimes. that podcast was called "bag man" and the three real life

stars of that podcast are the three federal prosecutors from baltimore who ran the agnew investigation, who amassed all the evidence against him, enough to put him in jail for a long time before the plea deal let him escape jail in exchange for leaving public service. those three prosecutors are barney skolnik, tim baker, and ron liebman. if anyone in the country has been here before it is these guys. joining us now live is one of those men from the center of the story ron liebman, former assistant u.s. attorney in baltimore. thanks for being here tonight. >> great pleasure. thank you. >> first let me ask you if i got anything wrong there. i know i didn't tell the whole story but the parts i told did i get anything wrong or the wrong way around? >> no. you got it right. >> it is a bed rock principle that no one is above the law. there's only one system of law for everybody. how did you guys square that

with the fact that agnew had this very valuable thing to trade effectively? he had this public office to trade to keep himself from going to jail. that is something nobody else would have. >> my teammates and i argued vociferously for days with the attorney general and his staff about this very point. we felt strongly, very strongly that agnew wasn't above the law. he committed crimes. he should go to trial. he gets convicted. he gets acquitted. he gets his day in court. and the attorney general elliott richardson to his credit gave us as much time as we wanted. we argued with him for days. we finally, the three of us finally came to the conclusion that he was right. that he had the maturity of judgment at the time given what was going on to approve this deal. agnew had a get out of jail card. he was in elective office.

anyone could see that richard nixon was not long for that office and so there would be the specter of the vice president under indictment, perhaps at trial, perhaps convicted, becoming the president of the united states and then because of justice department policy, not law, he would be immune from prosecution while he was in office. this is in the middle of watergate. the country was in a constitutional crisis. we, the three of us, barney, timmy, and i finally came around to understanding and agreeing that at the time for what was going on there, that was the right call. donald trump is a contender. he is not in elective office. he may become the republican

nominee. betting is that he will. he may or may not get elected. at the time of the election if he is the republican nominee, even if he is elected, he could have been tried for this espionage case. he could well have other indictments pending against him. it could even be possible he would be convicted and sentenced to jail and you'd have the specter. here is where there is a similarity, rachel. you have the specter of president trump running the white house while doing time in the big house. that would be terrible. however, it is not watergate. we're not in a constitutional crisis. the fact that trump would become president if there is a fair election and he is elected, i know for mr. trump it is only a fair election if he wins, but if there is a fair election and he becomes president, that's democracy.

he becomes president. doesn't mean he stays president. it depends on what he does. he is likely to be wrathful and vindictive. he will certainly try to kick the wheels off of the lady liberty's wagon. he doesn't necessarily remain president. he could be impeached depending upon what congress is in session. there's the 25th amendment that could be used. there are similarities. but i think there are fundamental differences as well. trump is not in office now. he is a contender. there are a lot of moving parts to this and we'll have to see what happens. i do think and i know that my colleagues think that we made the right decision at the right time for what for what was going on. these times are a bit different. there's a lot to play out yet. >> ron, in terms of the, when you say you and your colleagues believed that was the right

decision at the right time, in terms of the, your understanding of the legacy of the agnew decision within the justice department, is that viewed as having been the wise decision? i ask only because we have to think now about whether the justice department might be considering something along those same lines and any potential plea negotiation with former president trump. obviously, anything can be part of a plea negotiation. an agreement to not stand for public office would be somewhat parallel to the sort of agreement that came with agnew in terms of him resigning the office he then held. >> i think the justice department to answer the first part of your question felt that the plea agreement with agnew was the right thing. in terms of a plea agreement with donald trump, first of all, keep in mind that he is the roy cohn school of behavior so he fights everything no matter what, no matter where to the very end. anyone who crosses him or he thinks crosses him he goes after.

it is very likely he will go to trial thinking that only enhances his chances of getting elected because of how his base will react. but if he were to, for the same kind of reasons i think that agnew had, not want to go to jail, i mean, nobody wants to go to jail. white collar defendants really don't want to go to jail. they don't want to do time. if he were to authorize his lawyers to offer an agnew like plea deal wherein trump would agree with a global settlement, which with all the cases pending i don't know how that would work but say he would tell his lawyers i will agree not to run for office if you drop these charges against me or i can plead nolo contendere to some jaywalking defense, i'm not sure the justice department in this context would go along with that. i hope they wouldn't because it feeds into the rhetoric that the prosecution, the department of

justice is bringing is a weaponization. it is an illegitimate prosecution just so that donald trump won't run for office again. that is a different situation than agnew, i believe. and i don't think the justice department i hope they wouldn't agree to do that. >> ron liebman former assistant district attorney for maryland, a member of the team that prosecuted spiro agnew, a man with a place in history. ron, it's really good to have you here tonight. thank you so much for talking to us about this. >> thanks rachel. pleasure to be here. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. actively shields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works.

there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system gamechanger for my patients- eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable

that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm, you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do.

(david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. (bright music) how can you sleep on such a firm setting? gab, mine is almost the same as yours. almost... just another word for not as good as mine. the queen sleep number c2 smart bed is now only $899 save $200. plus, 48-month financing on all beds. shop now only at sleep number.

so the u.s. senate is back in session as of tonight. and as the senators were coming back to washington for tonight, some of them started giving their first reaction to the news about the indictment of former president donald trump. >> well, mean this is a -- you know, these are serious -- you're talking about national security secrets, classified information and a very detailed indictment. but they're serious allegations. they are. they're serious allegations. >> are you concerned about the seriousness of the charges. >> yeah, i think president trump should be concerned. anytime you're indicted, it's

concerning. yeah, but -- so, yeah. i think -- i think it's serious. >> the accusations are very serious, and now we find out whether or not they have a case. so everybody is innocent unless they are convicted, and so in this particular case like everybody else, he's got a right to maintain his innocence unless he is convicted where those have very serious charges. it suggests we don't know how to handle classified information, and that is something that can be very dangerous for people. >> how bad do you think this indictment is? >> it's not good. no, you shouldn't be walking out with classified information. yes, i think everybody can agree with that. >> yes, it is concerning, but we'll find out more tomorrow. >> i've read everything i could find about it.

i'm not a legal analyst, so i'm not going to comment. i'm going to leave that to the professional people. >> i'm not a legal analyst, so i'm not going to comment. i'll leave that to the professional people says that last senator there was chuck grassly, a man head of the senate judiciary committee until not that long ago. saying he's read everything he could find out about it, but, oh, i don't understand these things. he told another outlet he hadn't read the indictment itself, because how could he possibly? the chairman of the senate judiciary. that's the reaction of elected republicans, elected republican senators on capitol hill tonight. online the reaction of trump supporters is following its own set of contours. that's next. stay with us. that's next. stay with us

ah, these bills are crazy. she has no idea she's sitting on a goldmine. well she doesn't know that if she owns a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com.

so it is a picture of what former president trump looks like i think from a military academy graduation maybe during his time as president, and the caption says this. it says, quote, this is not a game. this is war. this is literally evil knocking. will you answer? will you fight? will you defend? we will. we are. you elected us to take back our country. our world. enough is enough. that was a meme reposted by the former president himself on his social media site over the weekend. along with that call to war, this is not a game, this is war, trump also posted this message to his followers.

he said see you in miami on tuesday. by now we all know what the worst case scenario looks like when this particular former president tells his supporters that they ought to be riled up and they ought to all be in the same place at the same time on the same day because it's the end times final battle for the soul of america. ahead of tomorrow's initial court appearance for the former president, federal court in miami, we haven't seen anything that looks like the mobilization before pro trump mobs stormed the u.s. congress on january 6th. there have been a smattering of pro trump protesters outside his golf course in miami. we saw a similar scene outside his house elsewhere in florida yesterday. people at mar-a-lago. "the washington post" reports that the miami dade police homeland security bureau has issued an advisory about a rally apparently being organized by the miami chapter of the proud boys, which is one of the pro trump paramilitary groups that played a key role in the attack on congress on january 6th.

that rally is apparently set to take place tomorrow in miami ahead of trump's first court appearance at that courthouse in downtown miami. the organizers of that rally posted digital flyers for it on pro trump message boards. we don't yet know whether or not it is going to come together but it is obviously something to keep an eye on. in some pro trump forums online people have been making specific threats, threats against attorney general merrick garland and his family, special counsel jack smith, and his family. one of the websites that was used to organize the january 6th attack was called the donald.win. that site still exists under a new name patriots.win. for much of yesterday interestingly that site was down. but the site is back up now and ever since trump posted that call to his supporters that i'll see you in miami on tuesday, users on that pro trump message board have been replying over and over again with the phrase

or some variation of, will be wild. which of course is an explicit reference to trump's rallying cry to his supporters ahead of what became the attack on january 6th. joining us now is ben collins nbc senior reporter. he covers online disinformation and extremism. ben, thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> did i get any of that wrong? >> that was exactly right. really good. >> all right. what do you think about the sort of scale and tenor of what you're seeing online? >> scale smaller than before january 6th, the tenor basically the same. they are having a hard time organizing. as you said that website where they planned most of january 6th i would say was down almost all of yesterday. >> do you know why it was down? >> anonymous claimed credit for it but who knows, right? they are anonymous. >> right. >> kind of part of the deal. but they are having a hard time in part because these really siloed factions of the trump world since january 6th have become even more siloed. there are several chapters of the miami proud boys.

one of them says they're going down there. the vice city proud boys are going to go down there and help out. laura loomer, an og trump world fringe figure, once handcuffed herself to twitter headquarters because she got banned from twitter. that is many years ago now. she is going to be there as well. she is posting her flyers as well. people, you know, in the replies on telegram and on patriots.win, lots of violence. lots of saying they're going to be armed when they go there. that this is enough. but the issue is there's no plan. you know, january 6th there were militias coordinating, bringing walkie talkies, having whole battle plans, maps of the capitol and things like that. people are just saying show up to this place. maybe go to the bar next door first. that is not the same thing. >> is it possible the planning just isn't public facing, that people moved everything into encrypted chats that don't have a public facing component? >> absolutely. there is definitely a chance of that. the proud boys have done this

for years. in fact they moved over to walkie-talkie apps, smaller apps that are inherently not public facing. but usually those sorts of things start to dribble out before big events like this. the big worry is always somebody who hears all this rhetoric and really does think enough is enough. i can't deal with this anymore. it is too much for me and they go and do something. we have lots of evidence for this. we have the paul pelosi attacker. we have last year after the raid at mar-a-lago the guy went and shot up the closest field office of the fbi he could find. so there is a string of this stuff that does happen when people get that sort of lone wolf idea in their head based on all the tenor on the internet. >> when politicians like congressman clay higgins or like trump himself or other high profile figures particularly people who have the sort of credibility that comes from elective office, when they post, this is war type messages or messages about how this is the end times or this is things that are meant to sort of i think pique people's fears and make people feel like this is the time to act, are you seeing any evidence that those things are

more influential than your average man on the street trump supporter saying the same kind of extremist stuff? >> yeah. there's two worlds here. not everybody that shows up tomorrow is going to be in that world of, you know, qanon and all this stuff. some people just support donald trump. that's just the way it is. >> sure. >> but there are people who think over time that there is effectively a kabol taking over the world and if somebody is going to talk it, when you read the posts, that's what happens. they say i couldn't take it anymore. i couldn't read this stuff all day long and do nothing. it only takes one guy. and predicting that rachel is inherently impossible and one of those things that should keep you up at night. if we could predict it we would love to, but trust me when i say right now no one is just going to say it before they do it. >> ben collins, nbc senior reporter who covers online disinformation and extremism. good to see you. >> thanks rachel. >> we'll be right back. stay with us. us

as special counsel jack smith has brought this federal indictment against donald trump in the classified documents case, jack smith is apparently still investigating the other side of what he was assigned to do. remember there were two parts to his remit as assigned by the justice department. he has got the classified documents case in court now but he is examining trump's actions around the january 6th attack on congress and his efforts to overturn the election and stay in power after he was voted out.

that part of the investigation is apparently still live. nbc was first to report that among the people recently subpoenaed to appear before that grand jury in washington, d.c. is trump adviser steve bannon. so the classified documents thing has produced an indictment. the other side of the investigation, the january 6th part of it remains on jack smith's plate. now we have just had a stack of convictions and some really stiff sentences handed down for people who were involved in the january 6th attack. stewart rhodes is the leader of the pro-trump paramilitary group the oathkeepers recently sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy for his role in january 6th. if you think trump world is going crazy about the prospect of trump being tried on the espionage charges related to his handling of classified material the prospect of him coming up for sedition charges for helping an attack on the government would be something else. stewart rhodes just this weekend has done an interview from prison.

they are allowed to do interviews from prison? a phone interview from prison in which he says he believes from his perspective as a january 6th defendant just prosecuted on sedition charges he believes trump, too, will be brought up on sedition charges indeed on four different felony charges related to january 6th. so, you know, believe stewart rhodes or not he is the highest profile january 6th defendant that there is. he himself is a yale trained lawyer. he says that trump is due for january 6th charges as well. we shall see. there is a word that gets used a lot these days in the news. we use the word unprecedented all the time because it often feels we are in a moment where all kinds of stuff is happening that has never happened before and is brand new. that can feel overwhelming. how do you understand what we're living through and what is going on if you have no frame of reference for processing it?

as i mentioned at the top of the show we've got a new podcast that just launched today for addressing just this problem. it's called "deja news." this is a podcast i'm doing with my long time friend and producer isaac-davy aronson. the basic idea is this feeling we have so often lately we're going through stuff we've never gone through before. maybe the feeling isn't justified. maybe that feeling isn't quite right. maybe people have gone through something similar in some other time or some other place. knowing those historical antecedents, exploring their parallels to what is happening today, i think that can sometimes help. it can help us grapple with what we're going through now. maybe even give us a sense of what to expect next. i don't want to give too much away. you should definitely go listen to it. if you use the camera on your phone to scan that code that's right there on the lower right-hand side of your screen right now, if you open up your phone, open it to use the camera, hold the camera up to

that little code, it will take you right there to the podcast and you can listen for free. for the first episode, it dropped today. it is about january 6th the attack on the capitol. it is about an uncannily similar event that happened just like that in history. even though as you can tell from the imagery it was a long time ago where that event took place, it still reverberates in their politics even decades later which is sobering when you think about what is potentially the long-term impact of our experience with that same sort of thing. again, new podcast called "deja news." i am very excited about it and excited for you to meet long time rachel maddow producer and friend isaac-davy aronson. scan that code on your screen or search for deja news wherever you get your podcasts or go online to msnbc.com/dejanews. lots more to get to tonight. stay with us.

need relief for tired, achy feet? or the energy to keep working? there's a dr. scholl's for that. dr. scholl's massaging gel insoles have patented gel waves that absorb shock to hard-working muscles and joints, for all-day energy. you don't have to mow the lawn this weekend. with the performance of craftsman battery power by your side, you get to.

you also get to trim this, edge that, and blow everything away. isn't the outdoors great? it is great. because you made it that way. get the job done right with craftsman. we build pride.

so we've never had a federally indicted former president before. we're in new territory now. that means we have no idea exactly what to expect tomorrow when donald trump is scheduled to make his first court appearance in miami. we're going to have special coverage tomorrow on msnbc starting at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow evening i'll be back with you for our prime time special coverage from 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. eastern. i'll see you then. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. if this indictment is true, if what it says is actually the case, president trump was incredibly reckless with our national security. >> this case is a serious case with serious allegations,