the d.a. in georgia's case involving january 6th, you know, as well as other cases. bragg's case, would have to now be held in advance while this case and potentially the other federal case against donald trump proceeds. is that under criminal procedure and civil procedure? is that likely to take place? >> i think this is just a matter of practicality and not specific to district courts in the 11th circuit. i'll be interested on andrew's take. typically when you've got state and federal proceedings, prosecutors and judges work it out. often that means the federal case will go ahead. just as a practical matter, the process is more streamlined. it can be advantageous to let the evidence be compiled first. so this is not unexpected in any

way. what's interesting here is that it puts a little bit of additional pressure on judge canon. if she's at all inclined to slow walk this prosecution, she may find herself in the embarrassing position of having state judges want to move in front of her. >> it is 2:00 p.m. in new york city. also in miami. thank you for staying with us for our special coverage. president trump has just arrived at the miami federal courthouse where he will voluntarily surrender then be arrested on 37 counts on the alleged mishanding of classified documents. mr. trump will be represented at today's proceedings by attorneys and will appear alongside his personal aide and co-defendant, walt nauta. >> a former navy military aide who was his aide in the white house. went with him and became a private citizen.

accused of helping donald trump move boxes of documents. we expect mr. trump to enter a not guilty plea. he's said that before u.s. magistrate judge john goodman. he said he would. still has time to change his mind. then depart for a flight back to new jersey and we should point out that walt nauta is according to kelly o'donnell, with him not only as a co-defendant, but working as his personal aide today. >> the former president turns 77 tomorrow. he's planning to attend a birthday fund-raiser tonight just hours after this arraignment. he is also planning to make remarks at bedminister after attacking jack smith as a thug and trump hater. back with us this hour, former u.s. attorney, joyce vance, andrew weissman, ari melbourne is here. ari, can i ask you as we're

watching this, to give us a big picture here. we haven't really dug deep into a lot of the details of it, but i was thinking about how america didn't go through this with vice president agnew, a deal was made. they didn't go through this with richard nixon. a deal was made. this is truly, if we sit back and take a breath for a minute, something we don't just say it. it is true, unprecedented in every possible way. what do you see when you're looking at a courthouse where now the former president of the united states, the leading contender for the republican nomination for president is going to be arraigned on 37 counts? >> well, as you remind us, chris, it is unprecedent. so what we're watching with the overhead shots, with the way we can get our eyes on the federal court is something this country has never gone through. as you mentioned, agnew and nixon won through a deal with

prosecutors and the other, the famous or infamous pardon. averted what you see today. donald trump recently ran the federal government of the united states. he was the dually elected president and commander in chief. he now stands on the other side of the united states. united states versus donald trump. and so i think what we have today is the physicality of it. for some people, this has been a long time coming. for others, they are worried about whether there will be some governmental overreach. but we have never sat and witnessed as a nation this type of dwom. >> when you mentioned of course, chris, and ari, agnew, last night, ron lieberman one of the three prosecutors in that maryland courtroom against agnew

in the steps leading up to it investigating him. and they were very upset with the decision initially to go with the deal for the sake of history. for the sake of government because everyone knew that richard nixon was already being investigated from watergate and if he stepped down, agnew would be the president of the united states so they wanted to get him out of the office then. it was the attorney general who persuaded the prosecutors. was on with rachel maddow last night telling this whole story. i covered lieberman in this next big case against the governor of maryland when i was the reporter at the time covering the governor of maryland on trial for bribery. so maryland has an interesting history. same team of prosecutors.

did that case as well. >> the decision was made in the best interest f the country and they thought it would be devastating to deal with a president behind bars. to deal with a president who stepped in. so this becomes one of the questions that other people have raised. is this really something we should be doing? >> just to put a note on that. i know this is controversial and a lot of people don't believe it, but i did talk to former president ford about this after caroline kennedy had warned him the profile encourageable for that very decision of the party. i know it is going to always be controversial. he said it was the proudest moment in his life. and the toughest decision but he is the most proud.

that's what we hold me shortly before he passed. >> we're getting way ahead of ourselves. he has to be convicted, a judge has to sentence him to jail time. but jail time or not, whether the next president legislated p it's not donald trump. i want to mention kari lake is in that crowd. the woman who ran for governor in arizona and lost to katie hobbs and files multiple suits to try to overturn that loss. she's lost all those suits so far. she's also said in the past few days that prosecutors would have to go through her and other members of the nra. she said this is not a threat. an explanation or something like that. tried to say it was not a

threat. for a lot of members of the republican party, it can lend you a sense of -- that you might not have had. when does that break? how many losses, lose the next election or midterms or whatever, how many losses before the party decides to cleave themselves from the former president. what do you think about the discussion about potential pardon down the line? >> i think there's a lot of discussion but i don't think that's the situation that we really need to worry about. if a republican becomes president, they don't need to deal with a pardon. they can just tell the department of justice to end the case. for instance if donald trump were to win, he can just tell his attorney general, end the case. he's the head of the executive branch that is within his power to do that. so we don't really have to get

into that issue. >> that's why the -- is so important. in the judge's decisions. >> with respect to a plea, it is precedent for senior people who have taken classified documents, even shared them. david -- there is something i think would have to disagree with that, they have to treat trump the same way. >> we are keeping our eyes on what is unfolding in florida. i want to go to you, if i can, joyce vance, and talk about the venue. what we're seeing here is miami-dade county.

this is where mr. trump is going to make his case today but the case was filed in west palm beach. that is where donald trump's mar-a-lago resort is. he's lived there since he left the white house. both of them i think worth noting did not vote for donald trump in the last election although this entire area has become more republican. the decision has not been made has it about where this trial will be held and do you see any significant difference between west palm beach and miami? >> i'm a huge believer in the jury system and i think that the justice department won't be looking for a denari that voted against donald trump when they go to pick jurors. they'll be looking for fair minded, reasonable people. the decision about which courthouse in the southern district of in this case gets tried in will be largely formed

by security concerns. the main courthouse in miami is likely the most secure although there are other courthouses in this district that could arguably be used. one thing we're seeing today, there was a motion by members of the media to give them access to these proceedings but there are limited seats in the courtroom on the 13th floor and so there will be those sorts of practical concerns. at the heart of these sort of decisions about where the case will go, there will be this pragmatic security concern and of course wherever in the district it goes, that jury won't really change. there may be some question of do you want to bust, or you know put jurors on a bus and bring them to miami. that's the sort of thing the courts will have to figure out but these are challenges that are faced in cases that don't involve the former president. where for instance in miami. >> joyce, i'm going to have to

interrupt you because mitch mcconnell is taking questions. >> going on for six months, going to be going on for a year longer and i'm simply not going to comment on the candidate. we've got a bunch of them and i'm just simply going to stay out of it. >> house appropriations chairwoman said she's going to mark up the spending bills of the fiscal year 2022 levels. should house stick with the debt limit deal spending levels and could this lead to an impasse in getting the government funded this year? >> he's saying he's simply not going to respond to any questions about this ongoing case and that's going to be his practice. even though he is the republican minority leader of the senate now being asked about the debt ceiling deal and the appropriations process. back to david jolly now. david is a former republican

congressman, no longer a republican from florida. talk to me about the way you see mitch mcconnell and other republicans not being willing -- or defending the former president. the beginnings of some crack in the republican senate leadership with senator thune today. cornyn and others. beginning to speak out and nikki haley as one of the candidates who in contrast to what she said just the other day was more critical today or yesterday. >> many of us were waiting to hear from mcconnell and i think he proves once again to missay the right thing. he should have provided context to the nation on the cusp of the former president being surrendered. but mitch mcconnell represents the difficulty that republicans are trying to play politically. >> you have much of the party on

capitol hill carrying a message then you have the republican presidential candidates while they're adjacent to house republicans and many leading republicans, they begin to fade away from each other because those republican candidates need a moment and you see them wrestling with what that is. so different degrees of criticism of donald trump. i think the most important thing is the common thread among republicans is this weaponization of government and that is not an argument without a victim. if the stolen election represented the big lie that proceeded january 6th, this weaponization of government is also a bigger lie. it gives republicans to ignore law and order, to demean justice to suggest that what donald trump faces, he should not be facing and at the root of that is a lie and the belief among many republicans that joe biden

himself is corrupt and that's why you hear them talk about the two tiered systems of justice. but the reality is donald trump now twice impeached, indicted, is facing a loss of his liberty for a detailed indictment and donald trump himself on a personal basis will have to defend the actions he's been accused of. >> now, david, we might see more evidence when and if this goes to trial. we've seen quite a bit of information released in the indictment but surely prosecutors have held some of it back and it could include more audio tapes with donald trump. we have a little bit of donald trump on audio according to the indictment talking about classified information. hearing him say this, do you think it might have an effect on the primary or general election next year if this goes to trial march, april, may june in the

heady days in the end of the primary, the beginning of the general. >> we haven't seen evidence of that. you would think so. that would seem to be the case. a wise defendant in this case would probably have sought a plea deal that had this taken care of now and to be done with before the republican primary. i think what we will see and chuck rosenberg and many of the other attorneys who keep us smart here at msnbc -- >> david, i need to interrupt because we're going to hear from elena hobt, a trump lawyer based in new jersey. she, we expect to be coming up to the, here she is. >> of the long standing american principles that have set this country apart for so long. in recent years, we have seen the rise of politically motivated prosecutors who don't

care for impartiality, due process or equal protection of laws. they have been quietly but aggressively cultivating a two tiered system of justice where selective treatment is the norm. from the russia hopes to the attorney generals to the corrupt d.a.s in georgia, new york, and now this. the people in charge of this country do not love america. they hate donald trump. what we are witnessing today is the blatant and unapologetic weaponization of the criminal justice system. the biden appointed special counsel has saw it fit to bring 37 federal charges against president trump, the leading front-runner, less than a year and a half before an election.

countless other individuals. hillary clinton, joe biden himself, retained possession of classified documents yet have not been prosecuted and none of them came into possession of those documents while they were president. none of them were president who as the head and soul member of the executive branch has the power to declassify documents. the decision to pursue charges against president trump while turning a blind eye to others is emblemmatic of the corruption we have here. we are at a turning point in our nation's history. the targeting prosecution of a leading political opponent is the type of thing you see in dictatorships. >> we're going to have our folks

listen to her but she is saying many of the things we have heard from the president. she is someone who seems to be serving as a kind of spokesperson for this team, which as we said at the beginning of these hours, that donald trump is frankly having some trouble filling and she herself doesn't really have any background in criminal law. she's done real estate law, family law, a number of other they thinks and has worked for donald trump, but this is not her area of expertise. but i want to ask you about something she said because she brings up joe biden. hillary clinton. and so maybe that is a hint of what will be the legitimate defense or what they bring into the courtroom. could his lawyers file a selective prosecution motion? >> they could but i think what she is saying is an important public debate. if you're trying to understand what this country is now going through, the issue of whether there's selective prosecution, not in the legal sense, but is

somebody being targeted because one party doesn't like the other is something you don't want to see happen here. so what you want to know is is there really proof and are other people similarly situated being prosecuted. the answer is yes. there are people being prosecuted, democrats and republicans. you just don't prosecute people who retain classified information and obstruct justice. >> i want to mention that it is now recordable from a u.s. marshal spokesperson that donald trump and walt nauta has been booked inside that federal courthouse in miami. two quick corrections for elena. >> several things. >> one of them, she said president biden appointed the special counsel. merrick garland appointed the

special counsel. this investigation was launched before donald trump announced he was running for president. it was only after it was launched that he announced he was running then it became a political issue, you can't do this to a candidate. but he was investigated before he announced. >> just to andrew's point, two cia directors, democratic administration cia directors were prosecuted as well as national security adviser. >> john deutsche, sam berger and then just last week, at low level military former military officer about three years in jail. there are myriad cases of people who have done things that are less than what donald trump did so i do think it's important for the country to think about selective prosecution. it's just that the record is so clear here so if donald trump's attorneys want to make that argument, they need to deal with that. they can't just say it. >> let me set the stage also for those just joining us.

the reason we're not seeing anything in new york and manhattan, we have artists there, we'll be seeing those sketches later as we see from the supreme court and other federal courthouses. the other thing is that the reporters inside are not allowed to have devices. gabe gutierrez, our colleague, is in the courtroom and there's an overflow room and several other nbc and msnbc correspondents, reporters, but they are not allowed to carry telephone to call in even in the hallway so they have to come outside the courthouse, the high-rise, and leave joyce vance knows better than i. this courtroom, 13, i don't know what floor it's on. it's a relatively small courtroom, joyce, you said. they have to come down stairs. the marshals are telling us that

arraignment has been done so if fingerprinting, which is digital. >> and the booking process. >> they said at least the president, the president said he was going to -- >> not sure he's pleaded yet. >> i don't think we have that. look, we're looking at this footage as andrew reminds us. the moment is happening. not all moments are made for television. jack smith worked very quietly then everyone woke up to his action. and the way the federal government the way the system is organized, whether it's oj or paltrow. we think of the shots, those were not federal cases. they don't give us the camera access. as you remind us, this is physically happening. the booking of a former president. he's now in the custody of the government he once ran. >> are there any exceptions that can be made? this is a former president who's being prosecuted for breaching

national security. if there were to be an exception made to the rules against broadcasting a federal trial, wouldn't this be it? >> i think that is a great issue. the idea that you could have a trial like this and the public wouldn't be able to see it and hear it in realtime, imagine during covid and they made a decision about seeing things you would see. in terms of defeating this idea of conspiracy theories and what's happening in court, the idea of letting people just see what is happening is so important. >> have you ever seen a video camera in a federal trial? >> in this case, you would need to have the chief justice. >> of the supreme court. >> yeah. >> and could you see any circumstances under which that happened? >> this case is different. >> how does that even get

requested? is it filed by the media organization, come from the defense or prosecution? >> what if they agree and have interest? >> absolutely. is department of justice can make an application. the defense can make an application but ultimately, there still is the court that can decide whether it thinks that it has to make its own decision regardless of two parties in individual case thing. the press runs against full disclosure as a journalist, i think we should have the cameras this there. let's see. that's a very journalistic view of the member of the society. >> we want to see what's going on because we're so divided and i think it's important to allow everybody to witness this process. >> not only is there a federal precedent but the supreme court, which fashions itself as neutral

and makes the final rule, has a very well documented antipathy towards cameras in their own courtroom so they're doubly against this. >> they do permit audio and during covid, they permitted real time audio as andrew just alluded to. but even audio will be helpful. we hope this is going to be a fair trial. there could be no better replication of our rules of law and democracy and to give the former president of the united states a fair trial in every direction. >> let's go inside that courtroom if we can, joyce vance, right now. we know that the booking has taken place. we know we've mentioned this before, this is donald trump not getting his picture taken. they got his hand

electronically. he's not going to have any ink on his fingers but inside that courtroom, describe that for us but also this process which we are told is very straightforward and generally very quick. >> it is straightforward. it is fast. typically, the defendant will waive the reading of the indictment. in this case, it's a long indictment. that would take a while if trump insists on having it then the main event is his entry of a plea. at this point, it will be a plea of not guilty. that's how the arraignment proceeding works. very likely an agreement has been reached in advance between trump's lawyers and prosecutors about what the condition of his release will be. he will likely be released on his recon any sense and they will not require posting of the bonds. he does have secret service protection. that means he's not a flight risk and there's little reason for a bond. folks may find that as

unsatisfying in this situation but it's important to note especially in light of the conversation y'all have been having about the importance of this not being a political event that trump should be treated like anyone else. the judge is comfortable he will return for successive appearances in court, that he is not a flight risk in in way, then these minimal procedure necessary to secure his appearance are all that's warranted at this stage. >> glenn, what procedure do you think the prosecution or the defense provide to try to show the public what is going on inside other than we will have our correspondents reporting immediately after the procedure ends and with will see the artwork. is there anything more that can be done by the attorneys? >> i think i join the enter smts of everybody there in saying

some transparency for the american people about what's going on in the courtroom is of vital national interest quite frankly. we want people to have confidence in the fairness of the process and the reliability of the result and in this day and age of propaganda and disinformation, particularly being put out by the defendant himself and many of his supporters. it's important for people to see with their own eyes the evidence as it unfolds or at least hear it if we can get an audio recording or an audio real time audio stream approved. i think that's probably unlikely. can i just build on something joyce said about wanting to treat donald trump the way we would treat anybody else. i agree with her that it's unlikely the judge would impose serious limitations or restrictions on his movement pending trial.

of course, i think it's fair to ask the question you know, when we have thousands of pretrial detainees being jailed pending trial in jurisdictions all across this country because judges have determined each one is a danger to the community and a junl has to reach that conclusion by preponderance of evidence. do all of these people pose a greater threat to the community than donald trump with not only what we saw him do on january 6th, but his inse sent posts and comment that is put in harm's way judges, prosecutors, their families, witnesses, grand jurors, trial jurors. and if anybody else who was similarly situated and had done the things trump did like violate our nation's espionage laws then obstruct justice to

keep those documents, that classified information and national defense information to himself unlawfully. if anybody else had done that, would they enjoy pretrial release or be a risk to the community or would there be a conversation about what the judge should do with that person pending trial? i don't expect we'll see it but i don't think it can be staid that we're treating trump the way we're treating others who are similarly situated. >> we have new video when trump was getting ready to leave. there's the picture at doral and the former president of the united states getting in there. i wonder if and i don't know what the procedure would be if they wanted to make a motion and it went before roberts whether or not to open up this trial. what donald trump would make of

that. would donald trump who has built a career off of being in front of the camera, of garnering attention, and would he say to his lawyers, let's try to make the argument for it? >> so i would, you know, this is prediction but i think he would say no because he, if you notice what his attorney said, what he's going to do tonight, he's in control of that situation. what's going to happen in trial is he is not in control of that situation and there will be a slew of witnesses who are his employees, his attorney, his voice. text messages. that will be quite damming. but that's not a reason not to have an open trial. i do think that if you're trying to deal with a problem of conspiracy theories and people who are not fact based, having a

trial where people can see and hear it is indispensable which is what this country is about to go through. are we going to go through a rule of law. >> he didn't want anyone to go through his boxes. even his lawyers. this would be people going through his boxes publicly and on camera if they did allow cameras in the courtroom. so that might not be something -- >> according to the indictment, i don't want you going. >> unless he's plucking out the documents that were problematic according to the indictment. joining us now to talk about news coming out of capitol hill is nbc news congressional correspondent, ali vitali. what is the freshman senator from ohio doing, ali? >> you know jd vance, the freshman senator from ohio is an early trump endorser. someone who has talked about sticking close to the former president. now we're watching him put that support into some kind of action here on capitol hill saying he's going to be blocking department of justice nominees going

forward with the exclusion of u.s. marshals. that basically would mean that this process is now bogged down and one of the things that vance said in a statement is this. if garland, the attorney general, wants to use these officials to harass joe biden's political opponents, vance says we will grind his department to a halt. now what this means in the senate basically is you know if all 100 senators agree to something called a time agreement, they can move through these kinds of nominations quickly. typically, that's what they do. without that, they need a cloture vote. an extra procedure vote that just bogs this process down. vance is now saying he's going to bog this down in retaliation for the department of justice going for an indictment against the former president. it's the way republicans are trying to play defense for the

former president. that's happening on the senate side. on the house side, we've watched top trump allies like jim jordan asking the department of justice for more and more information about the special counsel's probe. at this point, jordan is just asking but we did watch the ways that -- tried to leverage the gavel with speaker mccarthy. but others who jordan could use to just try to muddy the waters here on that first indictment probe. it remains to be seen if he's going to subpoenaing. the fact that one senator can gum up the process on the house

republican side we have seen them saying this is a two tiered system of justice although they have refused repeatedly to engage with this indictment. >> david jolly as a former congressman, you know how the senate can do this and frankly there's been so much focus on that committee and the process and whether or not they have formed because dine dianne feinstein and now clearly one senator, vance from ohio, is going to stop. we already see that the military had had no promotions approved because of senator tuberville having stopped all of those promotions on an issue he doesn't like about the reproductive rights policy of the defense secretary, lloyd

austin. >> he is throwing a visit procedurally. it will have zero impact on jack smith and the department of justice to pursue the indictment. but i think what it reflects is something we've heard over and over. the message will be on weapon saiks. and you'll see a public questioning of jack smith's credentials. they will try to try down his credentials. they're already giving a talk about cases like virginia governor mcdonald where he was, that conviction was tossed out by unanimous supreme court. jack smith has a lot of successes under his belt. republicans will choose the ones that make their case. >> donald trump's strategy is to win the white house. not this case in the southern district of florida and i think what you will see him do and the lawyers, the esteemed lawyers

and others with us today on this, but procedurally, if donald trump can delay the trial itself until march or later, he serbly has the opportunity to win the gop primary. the gop primary will be done by the middle of march. the early states in february, donald trump wants to secure the republican nomination before the trial then put it all on the line in the november general election. >> i want to bring in nbc news presidential historian, michael beschloss. and as we're looking at these pictures, it's been described by people there as a circus like atmosphere. if we go back to doral, we have some other new video of the former president getting into the motorcade. the motorcade that has been described as very much like a presidential motorcade. they shut down that side of the highway. and obviously couldn't be more different from what's happening outside the courthouse. what's happening inside the

courthouse. the seriousness of this moment. the first former president charged with federal crimes. give us your thoughts on what we're watching today. >> you're right, chris. with his sense of showmanship, he's that i canning this look at as though it's triumphant. someone who's charged with federal crimes who could send him to prison. it used to be in our society that when someone was asked of someone, not necessarily a sense of shame. because he is innocent until proven guilty but some sense that it is not a day of celebration. this is one reason i agree with what andrew and katy and others in our group said.

there's almost no transparency about this court appearance today. we're in a situation that's going to be a problem for american life and that is that that many people expected this trial to take place in washington, d.c. the judge looks as if it looks like it's going to be judge canon, who made a number of rulings for which she was rep remanded. people need to see and hear what's going on. >> ari and i were talking about this earlier. that during nixon and watergate and the vice president, they never went to trial. so we didn't have this question raised. having said that, i vividly remember as a high school teenager staying, literally running home from high school to watch this watergate hearings. to listen to what john dean had to say. looking at moe dean. it was, in fact, a seminal

moment in my decision to become a journalist and probably tens of thousands of young people like me and just to be able to see that, to hear the questions, to understand the severity of when he resigned was so important. certainly to the united states as a whole. everybody didn't agree with it. they didn't agree with ford's pardon, but it meant something incredibly important to the country, michael. >> totally. this is one of the problems we're talking about. one of the things to which the judge was criticized, she said that the ex-president deserves deference that other americans do not get. that is totally against the idea of the constitution and everything the founding fathers stood for and all i'm saying is

to have that judge again if she's going to be presiding over this trial, the only thing we can do is watch everything that goes on because to take a donald trump quote, remember he's talked about a trump hating judge in new york. well this is a trump loving judge. this is someone with a history of being very politically active for donald trump and the member of the federalist society, all of which is absolutely great, but a history of favoritism and incompetence. this is one of the most important criminal trials in history. we've got to watch the judge. >> to that point, assuming we're not going to get to see or hear this trial and the chief justice of the supreme court isn't going to open this up for cameras or audio, but how important is it for this trial to be credible to the american people for us, it's

our responsibility. yours and it's as a historian, lawyers on both sides should take this responsibility as well. how prnt is it for the american people to have faith in the outcome of this given the fact the aftermath of what a pard p did last for decades and decades. even though i was saying earlier that ford felt very importantly that we did the right thing and was honored for that. by the profile of courage award from caroline kennedy. that said, there's unfinished business. agnew took cash in his white house office.

at the same time as you have a president being investigated. >> right. someone who takes something from a drugstore and goes to jail, what is wrong here if you have a president of the united states, nixon in '73 and '74. serious crimes for which he would have been impeached if he had stayed in office and not resigned for which he would have certainly, i believe, been accused, indicted, an probably gone to prison if gerald ford had not given him a pardon. what does it say about equal justice? whatever it says about this particular trial of trump among a number of trump, both people who love trump and hate trump will have to feel the system worked. >> thank you so much for joining us. let's bring in neil, former acting solicitor general and

anthony, former director of the justice department's office of public affairs and senior adviser to merrick garland. anthony, i have a question about justice department protocol. garland appointed the special counsel. jack smith. and jack smith by all accounts so far had free reign over this investigation. garland could only get involved and thought it was wildly inappropriate. republicans are attacking the justice department saying this is garland's decision. they're attacking president biden saying this is his special counsel. i'm sure there are discussions in doj about how best to handle this. how not to light the fire any brighter than it is. >> yeah. is there a good way to navigate the attacks from republicans and to say this is the protocol and this is the way it's tone? >> the attorney general once told me it's not enough to do

justice. we have to appear and do justice. and that at its core is what this appointment of smith was all about. doing the right thing then looking like you're doing the right thing. that's the process he set in place last november. he took himself out of day-to-day oversight of this investigation and he put it in the hands of a career prosecutor. someone who was not a part of the political appointee. so to your point, the process matters. the people matter. and sunshine, transparency matters at this moment in american mystery. i agree with what andrew and others have said. we have absolutely at the very least the court should have audio recordings made. just like the supreme court does. right now if you go to your website -- >> do you think doj will

petition for that? >> i don't think they'll petition but what my hope is that when media outlets demand it, they don't oppose it. that's my hope. that when media outlets petition the court for that that doj. >> that same thing happened at enron when i was head of the enron task force and we weren't allowed to make the motion but we did get permission when the media made the motion, that we would say we were not opposing it. >> who approved it? the presiding judge? why does the chief of the support -- >> there, the district judge had simply closed the courtroom to the public. the public wasn't even allowed

which we thought violated the constitution. we said that should not be allowed. >> neil, what part of the argument being what is going on in the country. i'm looking at new things handed to me by republicans members of congress saying we have not reached a war phase and the doj, fbi, doesn't expect to imprison trump. they expect to imprison you. i'm getting a visceral reaction from anthony. >> i defer to know let me just quickly, these types of attacks, they're just not tethered in the facts at all. we're talking about people who were in donald trump's employment. we're talking ant his own

employees. texting with each other. we're talking about footage from surveillance video from mar-a-lago. the attacks that started interference, these started before the indictment. >> so does that become part of the argument, neil, for why the american people need to see exactly what really is going on and judge for themselves? >> that's right. there are three consolation of facts. one is that the evidence against trump looks really strong as anthony says, is occurring from trump's own mouth. two, you've got republicans who are making up all sorts of kpoouss for this and trying to burn the system down and day tack the justice department. and three, you have some people making decisions on the judge.

all of those things to me make it imperative to the chief justice not just audio, but cameras in the courtroom. i have a fair amount of experience with this. the special prosecutor in the george floyd murder, the state law said no cameras in the courtroom and there had be no criminal trialed televised in minnesota but the judge authorized an exception because of the public interest at stake, all the different narratives swirling around in the public and conspiracy theories. and sure, there was potential for violence, but that judge presided over it carefully and the american people got to see every day of that trial and see it for themselves. i don't think that we could have anything less here and you know, andrew's right. the supreme court has authorized audio streaming this so every time i argue a case there, it's live transmitted on audio for the public to see.

that's something but not like the visuals. we live today in a visual society. instagram age. people want to see the video. it's the only way for them to fully process what happened so audio is a nice half step but i don't think it's nearly enough. right now, we've got none of this. it is kind of boggling to me. this is the american people's courtroom in miami right now. and weren't in it. we can't see what's going on. we can't listen to what's going on. maybe afterwards we'll get what the reporters reaction was sit ng the courtroom, but that's a skim milk version of what the american people deserve. >> stick around for a second. i want to bring in tony who served as former president trump's lawyer on the special counsel investigations until his resignation almost one month ago. i'd love to get your thoughts on whether you think this trial should be public, there should be cameras or audio recordings

inside the courtroom, but i want to ask you why is donald trump having such a hard time finding legal representation in florida? >> i did leave about a month ago so as to what the current discussions are with other potential lawyer, i'm unaware. that's outside -- >> from your experience working with him why might that be the case? >> you know, it's a situation where as a criminal defense attorney, anytime that a client comes to you and their prior lawyer has left or they're looking to replace one, you have to ask the questions of why. for me, i have to be satisfied with that answer so it's something he's undoubtedly. >> thank you for joining us. what procedures you would expect a good defense lawyer and we presume he's going to assemble mr. blanches and others a strong team. at some point.

what can they use to slow down the process because the political timetable is very much to his advantage. he's going to nail this down unless some strange things happen. by this time, you know, couple of months from now, he may be the republican nominee. he's such a strong favorite. at that point, that creates other problems for the prosecution and runs right into a general election. while certainly all the atz atmospherics are there, i would be surprised if their primary tactic here is delay. i think that's something that if

it becomes clear that's what they're trying to do that the judge will stop them from doing that. and you know, refocus them on the legal issues. >> what about judge canon? has she shown any indication she would prevent those delaying tactics? she delayed by putting in a special master and the prosecution for quite some time in pursuing this case after the search of mar-a-lago. >> when you phrase it that way about it being delay, i look it a t it in a different way. i think what the did at that time was not just about delaying it. it was about slowing it down to make sure it's done right. >> the 11th circuit, a very conservative circuit, anonymous decided twice it was inappropriate that she would be on her mandate.

>> ordinarily doj when they have a situation where it does deal with privilege issues, their not so resistant as they were. consider for example when they did the seizures of rudy giuliani's phone. there was litigation over it. but the issue is not about delay. it's about making sure things are done right. i think in particular in light of those 11th sir circuit decisions, i think she's going to bend over backwards to make sure she's extraordinarily fair in these proceedings. sometimes you have judges that hey come into the bench with their own personal prejudices oftentimes from a career at doj.

some carry it with them but some really bend over backwards to be fair and i think that's what you're going to see out of judge canon. >> so one of the guests we had on earlier, ambassador bolton, made the suggestion that if in fact donald trump, if any person felt they were being unfairly prosecuted and they were undoubtedly innocent, they would want a trial to move quickly. that in fact what they'd want to do is to clear their name as fast as they could. >> i think he's right but that has to be tempered with one of the legal tactics in the case. certainly i've had cases where

you try and move quickly and try and get it to a trial before the prosecution is ready. when i look at this case, rushing this to a trial doesn't make sense because there are significant pretrial issues that could avoid this case ever getting to a jury. so i think that a rush to the jury trial would not necessarily be in his best interest. >> tim, i was wondering if you could expand on that. what are the issues that you think would lead to this case never going to trial? >> the biggest issue is prosecutorial misconduct. this is a case where you have prosecutors who have consistently demonstrated lack of ethics and willingness to lie to federal judges and

proceedings. willingness to in the grand jury openly suggest to the jurors they may take the constitutional rights as evidence of guilt. willingness to meet with an attorney for a witness and suggest that his application for a judgeship is something that should be considered and is a reason to convince his client to change his mind. >> tim, can i interrupt you? with respect to the grand jury, how do you know what happened since that's usually secret? >> because i was in the room. it happened right in front of me and i do not believe for one second these prosecutors acted ethically and properly throughout all of these other witnesses then the moment i walked in the room, they started acting unethically in my presence. if anything, they would have

acted on their best behavior when i was in the room. >> tim, what exactly -- did you see and what? >> 45 separate times. i know it sounds like i made that number up. 45 separate times they tried to get into attorney client privileged information and frequently when the question was asked about conversations between attorney and client, they would turn to the grand jury and say so you're refusing to provide that information to a grand jury. at a certain point, a further exchange ensued where the prosecutor says isn't it possible to waive the privilege. if president trump is being so cooperate, why won't he allow the jury to tell about his conversations. that happened during a jury trial, it would be a mistrial. right there. >> tim, i'd love to keep talking about this with you and you're

staying around for our next hour. thank you so much for your time so far. our special coverage of the arraignment of former president trump continues after a very, very, very quick break. you're watching msnbc. , very, very quick break you're watching msnbc.