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.

welcome back. the former president arrived to the courthouse a little over an hour ago via underground garage. he has already been booked and digitally fingerprinted. he is expected to plead not guilty to a 37-count indictment. >> mr. trump is accused of mishandling classified documents containing sensitive defense secrets about everything from nuclear programs to potential military vulnerabilities. while he's not expected to stay much many court today, trump has been saying plenty of social media. >> he's posted nearly a dozen

times on the case just in recent hours and that includes multiple attacks on the essential counsel, jack smith, calling him a thug and accusing him of planting evidence all while police are keeping a close eye on the crowds gathered outside the courthouse in miami for the arraignment. but so far, no problems there. seems to be relatively peaceful. let's bring in our panel for how hour. ari is back with us as is andrew weissman, former lead prosecutor in robert mueller's investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. former u.s. attorney, joyce vance, and neil. former u.s. acting solicitor general and tim. he served as former president trump's lawyer on the special counsel investigations until his resignation almost a month ago. let's pick up on the conversation where he left off. i open the floor to you, an drew, because you still have

requests. >> i was trying to make sure people understand what you're saying because my understanding of the grand jury rules because unless you were a witness, you wouldn't be in the grand jury. i thought that was against the law, actually, that you could be outside the grand jury room. were you recounting what you experienced as a witness or is it in some other context? >> it's been well reported that the original subpoena that was to the office of donald j. trump, they wanted a custodian of records to appear. none was available because the organization didn't have a custodian of records and we made the tactical decision this i would go into the grand jury because they wanted to talk about the searches. the subsequent search that is my team undertook at the other trump properties. so i went in to speak to them about that. it was something the prosecutors didn't want me to come in. they fought it and ultimately

they had to bring me in and during that period that i was in the grand jury, they did commit these multiple errors. >> so we have a plea we're told. if i can interrupt for a second. we have a plea from donald trump. as expected. he has pled not guilty to this set of 37 charges. that are outlined in a 49-page indictment. we have ken who has been inside the courtroom. he is literally making his way to the camera. >> tim, i have a follow up question. are you expecting to be a witness when this goes to trial? >> no. not at all. >> so how will you make the argument of prosecutorial miskkt? >> sorry? i couldn't hear. you were interrupting me. >> how will the argument be made if you're not going to be a

witness in trial? >> well, the parts i witnessed were in a transcript. you don't need me to testify. you have a transcript and it will be submitted to the judge. plus, they're legal issues that will go before the judge in a pretrial setting. that's not necessarily something except in rare circumstances that would ever be presented to the jury. >> i expect there will be a pretrial motion or in the alternative to disqualify those prosecutors who engaged. >> and you had other instances. we talked last week in washington about some of the other instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. i might have to interrupt you. the prosecutor is just about to come to the microphone and cameras. this will be our first report from ken dilanian about what

happened inside because there are no cameras. no audio. they were not allowed to bring devices in so ken has rushed down to the camera. he's about to appear and give us the first indication. if you want to start, i just caution i might have to int you. we've all been waiting. >> i understand. plus i think there's a delay in the audio here. >> i'm very sorry about that. if you could tell us what other issues of prosecutorial misconduct you think the defense should and will be presenting in these pretrial motions. >> i think there's going to be discovery conducted first because while you certainly -- >> as i cautioned, we'll bring you back in a moment. ken joins us from outside the courthouse. tell us what happened in there. we've all been waiting. >> andrea, donald trump's lawyer pled not guilty on his behalf.

he said we most certainly enter a plea of not guilty when asked by the magistrate judge how he pleads. it was a very pro forma, very bare bones proceeding in there. lasting around five minutes. i left after mr. trump's plea was entered so i didn't hear walt nauta. the government was represented by david harbach, jay bratt, who's been working on this case, and julie edelstein. mr. trump is represented by one of his lawyers from new york. and he said he'll be doing this permanently. hooegs going to represent donald trump in this case. and also chris keys, a florida lawyer who has been sort of on again off again. the magistrate judge welcomed everyone to the southern district of florida.

mr. trump sat stone faced. wearing a blue suit and red tie at the table with his lawyers and co-defendant. they waived the formal reading of the indictment so it was a really pro forma, bare bones affair. >> andrew, you've been nodding when at least the description of who the prosecutors were. give us a quick thumbnail on those. >> that's excite an experienced team. julie, the national security person, has a lot of experience with these types of cases is adept at the law. jay bratt, somebody we've heard about for some time. he famously was at mar-a-lago with fbi agents when a lot of the issues in the case with respect to what he could look at and not. >> what are we expecting next? is the judge going schedule

something for soon after this? >> so what would have happened after the plea, i left the courtroom, but they would talk about conditions moving forward of release. he's not expected to be detained so the judge would impose potential conditions then schedule a next appearance and i called it in hours ago that before the hearing, they were, mr. trump and mr. nauta were both processed by the federal marshals and mr. trump was fingerprinted through a digital system but his mug shot was not taken. they used an existing photo. >> can you give us some atmospherics? we'll get some sketches i assume. for example, there were reports that jack smith was in the room. did you see him? what else can you tell us just about the mood in the room, donald trump's reaction to this.

i think you said he was stone faced. but what else can you tell us about being in that room and who was in that room? >> so, chris, i was in the overflow room watching this on a lousy video feed. so i saw some of the i believe looked like jack smith sitting in the front row of the gallery and reporters were consulting if that was him. we think jack smith was in the room. int see mr. trump react at all. he was not writing. he didn't seem to have a pen in his hand. the lawyers did all the talking. the magistrate judge was very friendly and it was kind of a loose atmosphere. honestly, the most drama of the day was which reporters would get admitted into the courtroom. there was a lot of sturm and drang that went into that. a few members of the public,

maybe a dozen, admitted. so other than that, it was much shorter than even i expected it would be. we know these first appearances and arraignments are very bare bones and rudimentary. no reaction that i observed from the former president. >> i know you had to run out quickly but, did you get any information about the date for when the case goes back to canon and when this case is back under her jurisdiction? >> no. as soon as i heard the plea, i headed for the elevators. we have other people in there though who will be coming out and reporting on that information. >> what about the demeanor of walt nauta? who was there today. our white house reporter is reporting that he's there not only as a co-defendant, but personal aide. he's staffing him today. >> such a tragic story with mr.

nauta, who's caught up in all this and had a chance to plead guilty and cooperate with the government and turned it down and is represented by a lawyer that's been paid for by mr. trump's political action committee. he seemed more animated. his body was moving more than mr. trump really sat stone faced and didn't move much. sort of rock solid sitting at the defense table. but look, neither man while i was in the kurt ram uttered a word and all the speaking was done by the lawyers. >> did you hear anything in your conversations about this ongoing effort by team trump to try to hire more lawyers? >> from my reporting, i know they've been interviewing many, many lawyers and i know of one

prominent defense attorney who turned them down. none of the people we believe they've been interviewing were in the courtroom today. it appears in they're attempting to add other florida-based lawyers, so far that hasn't happened. the lawyers we saw in there are ones that have been with him for some time. >> this is ari. we all thank you for trying to make soup of this water because you had limited access. you were also closer to this than most people in america so we appreciate that. from the overflow room you were in as well as before and after you're down there, this is a person in donald trump who has previously post and talked about summoning a type of resistance or revolution we covered earlier. what are you seeing having gone in, come out and being outside now in this area and that wider aspect of this and in any way

did you get a hint that's affecting anyone doing this proceeding or was it all as you've been telling us, running smoothly on the inside? >> inside this courthouse which is a rather modern courthouse and sort of impregnable. it's not a building that you would worry about security when you're inside. so there really wasn't any kind of concern. we were all looking out the window at the growing crowd of trump supporters that were assembled out front and at one point, we saw a group of senior trump aides. his spokesman steven chung and some other people kind of wander out before the crowd. i saw one woman who i believe was one of his top fund-raisers taking pictures of the crowd. that was a sign mr. trump arrived at the white house. it seemed like every federal courthouse security officer in this building was called in to work today and a lot of people from washington.

so there were people in tactical gear. people in regular courthouse garb. there was a lot of security. there was a phone we were using on one of the courtroom, the unoccupied courtroom floors that when i went up to use it to record something later in the day, it was blocked off and i was told to turn around and go back. they really locked this building down and there wasn't much of a concern about security. >> ken, what about bail conditions? any word on those? that's something that would have transpired after i left. it was possible that some bail could be set. obviously no one thinks there's any sense under which he would be detained or mr. nauta. it's possible some conditions will be set. and we'll just have to wait and see. i would assume by now, a lot of that has been worked out so hopefully, we'll find out soon. >> ken dilanian wetting our appetite for us. >> still making soup out of

water. >> any fan of that show? classic. back to our team of lawyers who have been standing by for us. i'm curious to go back to tim. you're talking about prosecutorial misconduct being alleged here. beyond that if the case doesn't get dismissed, what is going to be the argument for donald trump's team? are they going to go hard on the politics of it? the partisan nature of it so claim that this is all a witch hunt as donald trump has been doing publicly or is it going to end up being more of a traditional defense where you focus on the merits of the case and really nail down at least one member of the jury to try and sew some doubt in their mind because you need to entire jury to be unanimous here.

>> they don't have discovery. theories to be based on that. a lot f it is going to go into jury selection of what type of jurors they get. really, there's a lot of tactical decision making that has to happen between now and then that you know, really to say what the strategy's going to be before any discovery has been issued as to the jury trial. that's not something i would really want to opine on just yet. i do think there's a lot of issues beyond just the prosecutorial misconduct. there are other potential pretrial issues to go through. certainly the issue of evan's notes. sufficiency of the search warrant and other things. there's a lot here they're going to have to go through. >> would you expect a motion to suppress those notes? >> absolutely. >> based on?

>> the litigation over that. based on the fact that it's attorney client privilege and the crime fraud exception should not have been applied to it? >> why not? >> because crime fraud exception is a very narrow exception that really doesn't fit with this case because what we're talking about here is communications between attorney and client about a subpoena and what you are and are not allowed to do in response to a subpoena. those are the kind of conversations that you want to have. and what he's done here is very dangerous. that's totally improper because in you had the full context of the conversation, what donald trump is saying there is i remember when hillary clinton got her subpoena and david kendall deleted 33,000 e-mails. nobody got in trouble there.

are we allowed to do the same thing? those are the type of questions you want the client to ask the attorney so we can advise them, no, you can't do that. as long as the client then says okay, that is not an improper conversation. that's not the kind of conversation that should be disclosed and certainly shouldn't be charged. now i do see potential very narrow crime fraud exception to the issue of -- but the remainder of it, it goes far beyond that very narrow exception. the opportunity in litigation the issue, you're going to get a different result.

>> i was just going to ask -- >> not exactly. because it was litigated but because it was in the context of grand jury proceedings, the grand jury secrecy ruled applied so the prosecution filed their motion with the judge which we respond so, but we weren't allowed to read their motion, see the arguments they were raising. >> i just want to jump in. thanks again for joining us on a big news day. i'm curious what your reaction is just broadening out big picture. you represented donald trump. he's just been booked. first time a former president has been put under the custody of the united states federal government. part of the reason a lot of

evidence that he lied. whether you were in our out time will tell, but big picture, when you look at this, do you think if he had just not lied so much to you and the government he might not even be booked today? any part of you say, gosh, i just wish my client told the truth instead of lied so much? >> well the one thing i can tell you is that donald trump never lied to me. and so -- >> i said legal team. we can lawyer it up today. i said legal team. >> i understand. i'm just talking about what i personally experienced. he certainly never lied to me. if these allegations are true on the other side, you know, that's something that look, when i meet with the client for the first time, i tell them. you may have seen on tv where lawyers they don't want to know the truth.

i need to know everything. tell me where the bodies are buried. i came in to the mar-a-lago side of this later. i was initially on the january 6th case. i can't speak to that portion of it. i think this is the kind of thing that really both sides, had there been more honest communications from the beginning, things could have probably been avoided. i'm not going to just lay the blame on one side. from what i saw, the doj team wasn't really negotiating or communicating the way normal u.s. attorneys would either. i think this entire case is

avoidable. >> we appreciate your time. >> personal tragedy. >> thank you so much, tim. appreciate you spending so much time. to neil because we don't know. we're hoping we'll get an idea of what happens next. what are you going to be looking for? what are the key moments that people should know are coming now that this, these charges have been formally made and the president has been booked and is that courtroom right now. >> i think the headline coming out of today as we knew is donald trump is now officially under arrest. he has now been indicted twice. he's been arrested twice. and he's been impeached twice. and of course in this proceeding in florida, he'll be entitled to the presumption of innocence but if his defense is what we just heard, i don't think he's got much of a defense.

i expect the first set of proceedings to be a challenge to the indictment. motion to quash the indictment, to throw it out because of this alleged prosecutorial misconduct. what was notable to me the only thing he could come up with is an abuse of the attorney client privilege. as you just pointed out, that was his 45 examples. give me a break. that was litigated to the chief judge in d.c., an extremely respected judge who threw it out then it went up to the d.c. circuit, which also threw it out. if that's the best he's got, he doesn't have very much. now i do think sorry. >> sorry. keep going. >> i think there will be a motion to also try and suppress this attorney client stuff. even if it's not misconduct, they're going try and say it's wrong for the evidence to be admitted in donald trump's criminal trial if judge canon is

presiding over that. i think that's even more reason why she's going to be making these big important decisions, the american public need to see that as opposed to reporters telling us by giving us their own recollection. but in any event, it's a long timeline. jack smith has said he could present this in a matter of three weeks in a trial but i think we're talking many months before that trial. also classified information. questions under the procedures act but i see no reason why this trial shouldn't take place in the fall of this year. i think it would be a mistake to delay it any longer. trump is going to try in hopes that a republican will win in the november '24 election. >> and neil, i know you're

someone who has won more appeals before the united states supreme court than almost anyone i know so you've got an extraordinary record. >> go ahead. >> that's an extraordinary record. let me ask you because i didn't quite understand his point. is he saying that it was purist in a limited way in the grand jury testimony to be able to testify but that testimony should not be allowed in evidence at the trial? >> the first prosecutorial abuse. i think that will go nowhere because this was stuff that many judges in washington, d.c. signed up for. but they'll then say okay, if it's not prosecutorial abuse before the grand jury, at least when donald trump is tried criminally, you can't use his own attorneys warrants against him. if that attorney were giving pure legal advice you know that

would be a good argument but what judge howell did here in this case is say yeah, there is some stuff that is truly legal advice like here's what the law is, mr. trump. but there's other stuff in which trump is trying to get his attorney to commit the crime if the american public reads anything -- that's what it's all about. saying things like you know, do we really have to turn this information over and you know be better if it wasn't turned over. things like that. so that's why the judge made the rare decision. it should go nowhere. >> i had referenced this earlier. i don't want anybody looking through my boxes. i really don't. i don't like you looking through

my boxes. then he says well what if he, what happens if we just don't respond or don't play ball with them. would it be better if we told them we don't have anything here. isn't it better if there are no documents? >> that is paragraph 54. exactly what neil was referring to when we were talking about why attorney client privilege was pierced. joining us now, john sail, assistant special prosecutor on the watergate team. he turned down the opportunity to join trump's defense team last year. thank you for being with us. from paragraph 54 talking about donald trump referring to his boxes and talking to his lawyer. i don't want anybody seeing this them. what happens if we just don't respond at all or play ball.

is that sort of behavior one of the reasons you said no? >> i don't want to talk about the confidential privileged conversations, but i can talk to you about the issue. i think if donald trump and his team has responded to the subpoena and turned over everything they have, we wouldn't be here today. or if they felt there was a legal reason not to turn something over, they could have provided privilege law. saying we think some privilege and we're not turning it over. those are options. there is not an option to say let's tell them we don't have it. that's why we're here. that's why this case is indicted. zpl what do you make of there's been all sorts of prosecutorial misconduct and that donald trump's team is going to try to get this thrown out? >> i don't think it will be thrown out but they have to put a shot up. they talk about this in their

political rhetoric. they are going to make a motion that the case should be dismissed and the notes of the testimony should be suppressed but they're foipg to demonstrate what the misconduct was. did they threaten witnesses? tell them you're going to go to jail for ten years unless you tell us about mr. trump. we're just beginning. today, one of the things ha happens at an arraignment from this district in miami, at the request of the defendant, the court enters a standing discovery order. everything's going to be handled by judge canon. there's another issue that i don't think anybody talked about. it takes time to work out the

classified documents. the hard part about this case is part of the evidence the government has to convict donald trump are the top secret documents themt to keep secret. under the statute, the court will appoint a -- review to get clearer and those aren't delaying tactics and we'll see what kind of a schedule the judge accepts. people ask me when do i think the trial date is. three weeks, the fall. the answer, whenever the judge sets it. >> doesn't that really raise the whole issue of judge canon and obviously and how she proceeds here. isn't that the main drawback for the prosecution where judge doesn't have a great eck

appearance? most judges there, she doesn't have much experience. she's proved there after the search. >> actually the case is going to be. >> arguably she doesn't even understand the different levels of security because she didn't seem to understand that in several of her rulings. >> the case is going to be in west palm beach. if you look at the indictment, every count says as it says what happened in palm beach county, florida. if a case takes place in west palm beach, it goes there. there, there are only four judges so her chances were one in four or one in three. there are a lot of things that judges get everywhere that's the first time they get it. they're expected to learn. i've seen federal judges for the first time get a complicated patent case and the first time they look at it say i don't

understand this. they study it, learn it. >> do you think she demonstrated the capacity to study and learn the law and how to handle these documents. >> i can't get into her mind and i don't criticize her the way some did. i think it's appropriate and fair to disagree with her opinion. but i think it was not appropriate for some very good lawyers to be saying she's a disgrace and should be impeached. i think she and her staff will learn what they have to do. whether or not she keechs the case is up to her. she could recuse herself because of the appearance of unfairness or the government could move to recuse her. absolutely sent those thing, she's the judge. i think world is watching her.

our criminal justice system is on trial. >> i understand what you're saying about there has to be a first time for everybody. as a young lawyer and i think she's only been there for just a few years. this is the first time that she's going to be handling case like this but there is no case like this. no case where a former president of the united states who is running for president of the united states is facing a, an indictment and could potentially go to prison if you at least go back from 30,000 feet would you say that this may not be the best case for a judge to be learning on the job for whoever studious you may be. >> every judge in the district of columbia is not an expert on national security matters. and this case would have been assigned randomly. we don't pick our judges based upon their experience in a certain area. we pick them at random.

there was a judge in texas because lawyers were filing cases because the judge had a track record of ruling a certain way. >> she hasn't had a case like this. i'm not defending her. but she was in the u.s. attorney's office. she worked in a major law firm. she clerked for a good appellate judge. she is qualified. i disagree with her opinion. here we are. >> from your reading of indictment, how strong do you believe this case is? >> it's strong if they can prove it. i have one question. that's not in the indictment. like in a murder case, you do not have to prove motive but a jury wants to know why did he kill that guy? there's nothing in the

indictment that says why former president trump took these documents. if i was on the jury, i would want to know why. if all the defense has to do is get one juror so regarding the defense team and my decision to respectfully decline to join it, but only advice and they're not asking me, they need to work together. they need to stop the infighting. three of his lawyers quit within the last two weeks. if they stop the turf battles, they sit down, analyze the case, assign tasks, work as a team and maybe stop the political attacks. i walked over there this morning and they talked about maybe 50,000 people. what i am worried about is because of some of the dangerous rhetoric like congressman biden

administration bigs talks about this is eye for an eye. 75 million nra card members. i worry some loner, some white supremacist or neo nazi somewhere will do something like the guy did in cincinnati where he shot up the building. i think president trump will have to say whatever he wants. he's got first amendment rights but i hope he will not continue with the incendiary comments that could inspire people to commit violence. understood. thank you so very much because it is the former president who has been making some of those comments from the very moment. >> thank you very much. >> sure. >> and with us still, ken dilanian. ari sitting comfortably on the

set. what she was suggesting is something you heard from tim. that resigned and pointed to boris epstein. there's been a lot of infighting. >> and perhaps explains why mr. trump is having such trouble hiring lawyers in sflz. he's in a difficult position. his main criminal defense lawyers have left the case. people who have been with him all along and he's facing a determined onslaugt by a really potent special counsel team full of experienced prosecutors and national security experts. they only have one case. two cases if you count six.

this is their whole ball game. it's a daunting situation for the former president and we're only at the beginning here. i'll be interested to find out what kind of schedule we're setting here. often it takes about a year for a federal case to get to trial but some judges move things faster than others. it's also possible this case could still be pending during the 2024 presidential election. if it is and he's elected president, this prosecution would be suspended because current doj doctrine is that a sitting president can't be prosecuted. we're at the beginning of a series of interesting historic developments here unprecedented territory. that's an overused word, but you know, lots of places this country has not been before. >> we're getting some

information from "the new york times" is reporting from inside the courtroom about whether or not donald trump can speak to witnesses, mr. nauta. we're going to wait and see if our reporter, garrett haake, is waiting for that to finish up. in the meantime, what typically are the kinds of parameters they would be looking at? oh. ari. >> in the booking like this, we would just expect the normal instructions you'd get. like we discussed with ken. you waive the reading of the actual indictment. you get instructions about the court case. you would get a schedule. i don't believe we've gotten that yet. that's standard. i don't think based on what we understand there would this moment extra provisions we'd expect. >> it would be interesting if

the duty imposed conditions as we saw the judge do in the manhattan case. this is the arraignment but usually the duty magistrate says the judge on the case wants to see you in court this date. and that will at least be some tea leaf with respect to judge canon and now soon she wants the parties to appear in front of her. >> let's think about politics. joining us in new jersey is nbc's vaughn hillyard. ali vitali from capitol hill and "new york times" reporter, jeremy peters. jeremy, i know you september a of time covering republican party. do you see any signs of that not

untangling it? >> what's remarkable about today among the many history making moments here is it's been almost eight years since donald trump came down the escalator and declared to run for the president of the united states in june of 2015. back then, we all in the media, in the political class. the republican party leadership laughed at him. thought it was a joke that he would never be able to command loyalty because he wasn't a real republican or conservative. well, now sitting here today as the republican party almost in unanimous lock step is saying these are trumped up charges. it's represents a weaponization of the justice system. this is a witch hunt. that shows you just how far we

have come from agts years ago today when donald trump was considered a joke. today, his vice grip on the republican party is as strong as ever. i think i wouldn't be surprised if his popularity goes up among republicans just like it did after he was indicted in new york. i think what you're looking at here is a republican party that will always choose the past of least resistance when it comes to donald trump and today, you saw who of his rivals, marco rubio and ted cruise, both defending trump and attacking the justice department for bringing these charges against him. these are two men who once said they wouldn't trust trump with nuclear secrets. today, they are in complete sub ser vens to him. >> you've been covering trump so long and his campaign. are you beginning to see any signs coming from senate republicans some crack in the

wall of support for donald trump from republicans? or is that irrelevant? >> our colleague on capitol hill and some of our colleagues have been chasing some senators done. calling the nature of the indictment serious but that is a far cry from standing in front of a camera or going back to your home states and telling the republican electorate we have to move on. for all the losses that donald trump's candidates faced in last year's general elections. also had a lot of successes in those republican primaries when he purged the republican party of the loudest trump critics within it. the likes of liz cheney and adam kensinger. even the likes of ron desantis. nikki haley, the actual

candidate, running against him. tonight's event, he will be delivering prime time remarks is emblemmatic of his republican -- he will be here tonight as trump addresses this crowd and millions of americans who will be tuning in. jeff gunter, former ambassador in the trump administration, he's considering a senate run in nevada. he will also be here to be the because the figures in the republican party today understand he still has such a grip on the electorate. when you look at the new cbs poll that came out yesterday, 76% of republican voters said this prosecution is a political one. as political intentions by the biden administration and so for donald trump and republicans up and down the ballot looking for 2024, they're not naive to the importance of remaining at least somewhat of allies to him.

>> to ali on capitol hill. you heard vaughn mentioning nikki haley. she was somebody who said if this is true, she expressed her concerns. certainly moving further than she had before. i understand we've also heard from her within recent hours. tell me what we're hearing. >> on conservative radio, yesterday's comments that if these allegations against trump were true and the indictment that this is him being reckless with national security, he only made those comments as someone who has a spouse overseas. this because her husband is deploying to africa for the next year this weekend. so she was saying those comments as a military spouse. also someone who has been in these rooms as a former ambassador to the u.n. but she went so far as to say if

she were elected president and if trump were guilty, she would pardon him. she said she would do that because having a former president be charged with these things wouldn't be good for the country. it's another moment where it's an about face for her as she's condemning what she calls a two tiered system of justice. that's what i've heard from most republicans who are coming to the president's defense. also that if they're true, this is reckless. she's threading a pretty nuanced needle there and this is going to come to a head come august when all these folks have to stand on a debate stage and have these conversations in realtime. people like vaughn and i who will be there watching the ways they're trying to be nuanced while not alienating the trump base but also trying to show this is baggage for the former president that none of the other candidates will have to deal with. the fact he's been indicted not

once but twice should be something that carrying political ramifications although as vaughan points out, the polling would show that to the contrary. i think you only see it further evidenced in the halls of congress when you see people like mitch mcconnell not saying anything. >> we'll see what chris christie does on this debate stage and whether he directs his fire entirely on trump and how much of this indictment comes out. >> if trump is on the debate stage. >> really good point. i want to point out something else. why did we have no more information out of the court? what's taking so long in there? it was so quick. what else is happening inside that courtroom right now that is held things up. >> we are trying to obviously we can't surmise what is happening inside, but we're obviously waiting for our cor corresponde

to be let out. >> and no devices inside. >> and neil and harry are still with us. joyce. harry, let's hear from you. former top justice department official. talk to us about what kind of conditions they might be considering imposing. we'll find out shortly. on the defendants and their ability to communicate with each other on whether they can you know talk publicly about this case. >> right. so the conditions of confinement for trump will be none. there's no amount of money that could secure his return and in any event, he's running for president with secret security protection. in broad strokes, here's what's going to happen. they are going this in a few days set conditions of confinement. then the prosecution will give many thousands of pages of discovery and then pretrial motions will ensue.

and trump today in conversations with you has telegraphed what they are going to be. that one by the way really is a loser even if his allegations were accurate, the supreme court's made clear that's not a basis for throwing out an indictment. what kind of conditions to keep him from talking too much? my best guess is there are be few or none in contrast say to what's happening in manhattan and he's come out of the box now in the last 24 hours and called biden the most history, called vicious fascist or whatever. i think more of that is in store and for a year or more if judge cannon continues to preside. it's very much in the discretion of a district court judge. >> yeah, harry, because even if, as you say, prosecutorial misconduct is a loser, how long

could these various motions and challenges drag things out? change the timeline? >> easily past the election -- >> i'm sorry, hold that answer because garrett haake has made his way out of the courthouse and is finally gotten in front of -- and well done, my friend, well done. we know he pled not guilty. what else do we know? >> reporter: well, not a lot. the former president and walt nauta have been released on their own recognizance, no bond, no other reconditions, there will be no restrictions on their travel either internationally or domestically. the one condition and it's something that's going to have to be worked out here is a limited no contact order that the judge ordered put in place here. this was not something the prosecution asked for, but rather than order directly from the judge that there be a list put together of witnesses and victims that mr. trump not be allowed to contact except through counsel for the duration of this case. there was some back and forth between the attorneys and the

judge about this. the defense attorneys pointing out that most of the witnesses they believe exist in this case are people who work for donald trump or who are part of his protective detail like in the secret service. so where they landed on here is that the government is going to put together a list of witnesses just with that limit that mr. trump not contact them about the specifics of the case and that that list would include walt nauta, his co-defendant. the former president unlike in the previous arraignment, the new york city arraignment was already in the room by the time reporters were brought into the room, he sat between his two co-counsel arms tightly folded across his chest for the duration of the hearing. i was sitting about two rows behind jack smith, the special counsel who was watching the entire proceedings quite intently. i don't believe he and mr. trump ever made eye contact of any kind but not quite an hour -- excuse me, a little more than -- yeah, not quite an hour since we got under way in this hearing and now mr. trump released on his own recognizance again with

just that one element that limited no contact order for witnesses or victims in this case. >> very briefly as we wrap up, garrett, how does that happen? walt nauta's job is to be the personal aide doing all sorts of very personal things for donald trump. >> reporter: that's right. yeah, that's right. and that's why -- that's right, andrea. so the contact will be limited to no discussion about the facts of the case. look, it's going to be very difficult to police this, i think going forward here, but the prosecutors were pretty open-minded about the idea that, again, this was not even a condition that they asked for. this was something that the judge put in place. they said the list beyond nauta would be very limited the number of people who mr. trump, again, could only not talk about the specifics of this case. they acknowledge that he's going to have to talk every day with employees at his various residences, with his protective detail, all of whom are thought to be witnesses in this case. >> when is the next court appearance set? >> reporter: that was not decided today. the next court appearance for

walt nauta is the only piece of this that we know because he did not have co-counsel -- or counsel that could speak before the florida bar basically. we did not have his full arraignment today. i do not have a next court appearance set for donald trump. remember, this is going to get handed off. the judge who oversaw this, the magistrate judge, his involvement in this case ended the minute this hearing was over. so no next court appearance set for now. >> we are seeing what appears to be donald trump's motorcade leaving the courthouse right now. we know things have finished up because we were able to get garrett haake in front of a camera, which means that court was no longer in session. so we don't have a date for donald trump. we do have a date for walt nauta. do we have a date for when they're going to discuss a next date? do we have a next step that has so far been set? >> reporter: no motions, nothing of the sort that i can point to you right now, katie. that's one big difference from here and the new york case. it's not going to be the same judge who is overseeing this. remember aileen cannon takes over this case for the next

steps. i mean, we literally just had that arraignment, initial appearance and what amounted to a bond hearing today for the majority of the time we were in the courtroom. but judge cannon is going to take this over and i think the next steps will come from there. >> give us a little bit more color about how donald trump was behaving during this process. >> reporter: well, i can do that best comparatively. i was in the courtroom for his arraignment in new york, too, and in that case the reporters were seated before mr. trump came in and we got to kind of watch him come in and take it in. in this case he was already in the courtroom by the time we came in. he was seated with his two attorneys, in this case chris kise and todd blanche who had come with him from new york. from the moment we came in the room he looked irritated to be there, arms across his chest, he would talk to his lawyers. never looked over his shoulder at who else was in the room. two arraignments now nobody from mr. trump's personal life has

been in the room, not a family member, not an aide, not anybody but the attorneys representing him in the cases. you saw him look back and forth to the two lawyers he was talking to but never turned his head to see jack smith the man he has been trashing on the campaign trail for the last several days sitting a couple rows back. i will say, you know, the security presence was also at least a little bit less noticeable in this hearing than it was in the new york hearing, but i made a point of noting that smith now has a pretty sizable security detail with him as well, the kind of threat environment around this clearly high enough that it's not just donald trump who has to take his security very seriously when he deals with this case. >> thank you for confirming that jack smith was there. ken dilanian believed he recognized jack smith but couldn't quite tell from the small monitor that he could see in the overflow room. police are trying to physically clear people off the road right now. there are literally no barriers

between the sidewalks and the suvs. they literally were physically trying to clear people from the streets as you saw. i imagine this is going to get discussed later on about whether this was truly a secure scenario for the former president of the united states when we were in new york watching his state arraignment a lot of the roads were physically blocked off by -- by tracks in order to ensure that the streets were not occupied by people as donald trump's motorcade came through. we're going to keep on watching this, see if anything else develops, we will also watch to see if donald trump makes an unscheduled stop somewhere to give remarks, you never know. i do want to go to you, joyce vance to talk about what we didn't get from the arraignment and that's the next court date. can you explain what's going on? >> sure. it's not surprising that nothing further has been scheduled. the judge may issue a scheduling order on her own, she may simply wait for the parties to begin

filing motions and then schedule anything that needs to be assessed pretrial, but likely one of the early steps that gets taken here is the government will want to sit down and have a conversation about cipa and how classified materials will be handled. we are a little bit less formalistic down here than they are in new york so it's no surprise that magistrate judge jonathan goodman, he is the duty judge, that means he is the judge who is handling in essence everything that comes up right now in the courthouse and he wouldn't have been in charge of scheduling for judge cannon. that likely falls to the magistrate judge that she's normally paired with, bruce reinhart. so it's likely that in the next days or weeks they will come up with some sort of schedule for what happens next and how they'd like the lawyers to proceed. >> explain what garrett was talking about in terms of a limited no contact order between donald trump and the witnesses. that he will have to communicate with these witnesses between --

by using counsel, by using attorneys. a lot of the people that are witnesses work for donald trump, there's lawyers, there's secret service, there's aides at mar-a-lago, walt nauta who is a, you know, co-conspirator here is donald trump's personal valet. how does that work? >> yeah, i think garrett's assessment that this is a little bit tough to enforce is spot on. i don't know if this is a routine order that's entered in the southern district in all criminal cases. it's not something that i would use barring a situation where there were articulateable concerns about a defendant trying to obstruct or influence other witnesses or victims. here we're told the government did not ask for this order, that it was simply implemented by the court. likely this will be something that trump's lawyers will want to challenge going forward. i think we will have to wait and see how this one plays out. >> joyce vance, thank you very

much. to everybody who joined us over this past four hours, all of our very accomplished and intelligence guests who helped us understand what was going on, thank you very much. also thank you to my colleagues, chris jansing and andrea mitchell. that will wrap up our special coverage of the indictment of donald trump. "deadline: white house" picks up that breaking news coverage right now. hi there, everyone, it's 4:00 in new york for the first time in our country's 247-year history a former president was placed under arrest on charges brought by the government he once led. donald trump you can see him here leaving the courthouse in miami has now been indicted more times than he has been elected. this afternoon he voluntarily surrendered to authorities and pleaded not guilty to a whopping 37 criminal counts stemming from his mishandling of some of our nation's most sensitive national security secrets and documents, including showing them off to visitors as well as his efforts to stop federal investigators from retrieving those sensitive documents. documents that belonged not