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 ever

to him but to the government. his body man and alleged co-conspirator walt nauta appeared alongside him and also pleaded not guilty. all of it taking place in a city that has been bracing for this unprecedented day, this unprecedented event and as always is the case with donald trump bracing for the potential of violence. officials in atlanta are reportedly keeping a close eye on the security steps taken in miami given the possibility that fulton county district attorney may become the third prosecutor to bring charges against the ex-president. as for the ex-president himself, he has not spoken today, but on his social media site truth social he's been lashing out at the justice department, airing his usual grievances about the justice department and about what he calls a witch-hunt. his heated rhetoric against special counsel jack smith and attorney general merrick garland and the justice department will have no bearing on the legal process, however, judge jonathan goodman ruled that donald trump is not allowed to have any

contact with walt nauta regarding the case. they are only from now on allowed to communicate through counsel. that's where we start today with a large group of our favorite reporters ands friends, with me in studio msnbc host of "the beat" chief legal analyst ari melber, former justice department prosecutor and senior member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation, the man living on a cot in this very studio andrew weiss and anthony collie is here, he was most recently the top spokesman at the department of justice under attorney general merrick garland. also joining us "politico" national correspondent and msnbc political contributor betsy woodruff swan. first in miami bringing us all of the latest if you've been watching our breaking news coverage you've just seen i think his first report of the afternoon nbc's garrett haake. he was one of the few reporters inside the courtroom. i don't want to interrupt your train of thought or your momentum in your reporting, but i am going to did you to just

back up a little bit and reset the scene for us inside that courtroom on this historic day, garrett haake. >> reporter: nicolle, it was a weighty mood in that courtroom. you could feel that this was a historic day, just walking in. unlike in new york, by the time reporters were brought into the room form trump was already seated at the defense table with his counsel on one side, on the other side two seats, two rows in front of me was special counsel jack smith. i did not see the two men make eye contact, in fact, mr. trump sat with his arms tightly crossed in front of his chest, only really leaning over to speak to his attorneys from time to time. he did not personally speak a word in public in the courtroom, it was his -- i guess now lead counsel in this case, todd blanch who entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. beyond that the bulk of what was nearly an hour long hearing today spent discussing the conditions of mr. trump's bond and release which was basically referred to as a personal recognizance bond.

no cash, no restrictions on travel either international or domestically. the only restriction placed on him not actually something requested by prosecutors but rather requested by the judge, a no contact about the case specifically order with walt nauta his body man. the judge making clear that no contact at all would be impossible given the nature of the job that nauta performs for donald trump. then again a lengthy discussion about how a no contact order or a no contact about the case order might be put in place with mr. trump and all the other people thought to be either witnesses or victims in this case. mr. trump's attorneys wbt back and forth with the judge about the relative feasibility of that, where they landed was that the government is going to produce a list of witnesses with whom they'd like to make sure that mr. trump has no contact just about the case and then present that to mr. trump's attorneys, they will sort that out and then there will be no contact between mr. trump and those particular witnesses. but only about the case. there were widespread agreement that it would not be possible to

have a blanket no contact order given that most of the people thought to be witnesses in this case either work for mr. trump or work for the secret service protecting mr. trump. in fact, one of the witnesses is an attorney still employed by donald trump. so that took up the bulk of this hearing. to get ahead of questions i know are coming, no next hearing scheduled, no future date for when mr. trump has to appear in court again. remember, this was a magistrate judge kind of handling the blocking and tackling, the basics of an arraignment, a bond hearing, a first appearance. it will be as best we know now still judge aileen cannon who is going to take up the bulk of the trial at a date to be set later. >> garrett haake, talking like a multitasker fielding all the questions i have one that i don't know if you know the answer to, but 24 hours ago donald -- all of this was up in the air because donald trump didn't have local counsel. how was that problem solved and was the individual a surprise to you or anybody there?

it's someone who has worked with him in the past. >> reporter: yeah, that's right. so the solution to that appears to be bringing back chris kise who is a former solicitor general in the state of florida who is part of the broader trump legal orbit for some time but was never directly attached to this particular case. he's been kind of in the floating pantheon of trump lawyers. he was back on this case and, you know, i won't bore anyone with the latin terms for any of this, in part because i'm not sure i can pronounce him correctly but he basically vouches for blanch who was also brought in late in the game, a former federal prosecutor himself, brought in late in the game in the new york case to be one of mr. trump's defense attorneys on this case, now brought in late in the game on this case. it was blanche who did most of the talking, both attesting that they are permanent attorneys on the case, intend to be attorneys on the case through trial and appeal if necessary. it does appear that blanche will be taking the lead role.

he will have his hands full because it looks like he's also been taking the lead role in the new york city case as well. >> what is the -- i can see what's going on behind you, but there's nothing like being on the ground, garrett. tell me what it's like walking around the area behind your live shot and around the broader miami area today. >> reporter: well, nicolle, i got here late saturday night and between saturday night and this morning i don't think i saw a single person who i could describe even remotely as a protests. i think i saw two people in trump hats yesterday walking around the courthouse. i had to go into the courthouse at 8:30 this morning and surrender my phones, no electronics basically sitting inside the courthouse with a paper newspaper and a window to kind of pass the time until this hearing ended. when i came back outside there are hundreds of people in my view even now surrounding the courthouse, they've been blocking the streets behind me, i ran over here from the courthouse's back door kind of

cutting through these folks and was able to see out of the corner of my eye people in the street blocking traffic as donald trump's motorcade was leaving out the back entrance here. so kind of a wild scene. nothing that i would describe as an organized protest and nothing that i've seen that's looked violent or out of control, but just a lot of folks down here in a relatively small space. i was at a press conference with the miami pd yesterday and they kind of made it clear there was no organized first amendment area, no organized area for pro-trump demonstrators or anti--trump demonstrators. they were going to kind of let folks work in this space and that's largely what's happened. they've used bicycle officers and things of that nature, sort of standard big city crowd control to clear things when they've gotten out of hand but it's been thick with people outside the courthouse in at least two out of the three sides that i've seen coming outside after being in the courthouse for most of the day. >> garrett haake, you described trump's physicality, the arms crossed position, i think we've

seen that before when he hasn't had the talking stick. what can you tell us about jack smith's physicality or the presence that he had in that courtroom? >> reporter: that was interesting. i've spent a lot of time around donald trump, this was my first time in a room with jack smith. he is wiry, he was sort of loose, he was talking with a younger attorney next to him who i frankly didn't recognize off and on throughout the course of it. he got a significant security presence around him by the way. i would say it's very clear that the u.s. marshals, federal authorities are taking his security quite seriously. at the end of the hearing after donald trump and his attorneys left smith came up to the prosecutors table, was sitting out in the audience with us for the duration of the hearing but at the end came up to the prosecutors table, put his arm around david harbach who is the lead prosecutor for the special counsel's office in this case and patted him congenially on the shoulder and the two walked out together like buds kind of at the end. much more loose and comfortable.

it was, you know, i think functionally his room after all for the duration of that hearing today. >> that is interesting. i imagine that -- i want to explain the picture on our screen. trump has gone to really a famous place all republican candidates actually probably democratic candidates go as well. it's versailles, it's in little havana in the miami area. he's still a candidate for president. that's the picture over your brilliant words, we don't need to see that anymore, we know where he is. garrett, what is the -- if at all -- any discussion about the severity of what he's charged with from anyone that you ran into outside of the courthouse or is it this sort of two worlds, sliding doors, you go inside and it's all about the substance of this very serious important case and the sliding doors moment is when you step outside and the political circus-like environment is what you witness?

>> reporter: that's such a great metaphor, nicolle and i'm absolutely going to steal that. >> all yours: i have a much shorter shift than yours. it's all yours. >> reporter: that has been my experience in discussing this case with people. i mean, there are the folks who kind of look at it from a serious legal way or frankly the folks who have read the indictment and the folks who haven't. i have yet to run into a trump supporter who has read the indictment and then sort of taken the next step in processing what the charges actually mean. it's baked into this. in a trump camp this is a witch-hunt that started in 2015. there's nothing new about this in the mind of a lot of the trump supporters that i've spoken to. can i just speak to the appearance that the form is making at the cuban restaurant. >> sure. >> i think it's interesting having watched two of these arraignments now and covered donald trump for a long time. there's not a situation in which -- in donald trump's life in which he's not in control. he's a former president, he was

a billionaire before that. he doesn't sit in rooms and wait on lawyers or wait on judges or wait on press to file in, which is what he had to wait for today. the change in tone from a person who is -- whether he is under arrest or not, however you want to look at it, under the authority of the federal government while he is inside a building like this or while he was in the new york courthouse, you can almost feel the difference when you are in a room with him. this is not somewhere in which he is comfortable. to then have him immediately go out on to the campaign trail where he can go back to being president trump, the president in the world he operates in, has got to be sort of like a mental panacea to him, too, it wouldn't shock me this is part of the reason this is scheduled, to get the guy back from that environment -- from this environment into that environment as quickly as possible because donald trump the defendant is so wildly different of a mental state from donald trump the human being that exists in any other context that he's basically ever been in in his adult life but certainly

in his public career bag back to 2015, 2016. >> as you're talking i keep thinking of bill barr's description of him. he describes him as the quote is toast. you know, bill barr is no, you know, sort of honest broker when it comes to the rule of law or the pre press but his description of trump's legal predicament has nothing to do with losing control, it has everything to do with affirmatively deciding to commit crimes, when you're caught with the crime of mishandling documents refusing to make your exposure better by refusing to give it back. it seems like the sliding doors metaphor can extend, garrett haake, to his own inability to understand the only reason he was in that courtroom not under control of his circumstances or personal location is because he committed crimes. >> reporter: yeah, i think that's -- i think that's probably right, nicolle. i will just add, again, the bar criticism here appears to have stung donald trump more personally than that of others might. i think at whatever level he

understands that bill barr has some authority on this issue as a former attorney general twice over. the volunteer if i remember rouseness, the anger, the personal bitterness in donald trump's attacks against bill barr, going after his physical appearance and his personal character and the way he's brought it up unprompted in interview after interview, doesn't appear to be an accident for me. it's not the pro forma attacks that donald trump makes against his broad perceived political enemies. he is very interested in undercutting the correct of bill barr that he himself helped establish by making bill barr the attorney general and elevating him in so many ways when barr was saying things that were more favorable to him. it is clear to me as a professional observer of donald trump's comments and attacks on other people that he sees the way that bill barr has described this on fox news as very worrisome. >> garrett, i mean, it is exactly the same toolbox he's rolled out against chris christie, right?

the insults are personal, they are appearance-based and he's not exactly sitting in something that is not a glass house. it's a bizarre, childish, petty tell that bill barr and chris christie -- chris christie also a former prosecutor -- are getting under his skin by telling the truth about the strength of the government's case against trump. >> reporter: yeah. oh, a tell is i think the right way to say it. this is somebody who understands there are some people who are going to have more credibility on this issue than others. again, barr, attorney general twice, not just in trump's administration, but under the first george bush. again, chris christie a former federal prosecutor. it is interesting christie and asa hutchinson have been the most consistent critics in the republican field about this, both have that federal prosecutorial background. these are people who know how to read an indictment as a charging document not a political document. they are translating it in a way that i think donald trump understands is problematic. christie who had been such a key validator for donald trump in 2016 when he was the first kind

of major then very mainstream republican figure to endorse him, all the more so. >> yeah, it's so interesting. all these full circle moments. i could talk about sliding doors with you, garrett haake, the whole time. i want to do one thing, if you can stick around, please do. if you need to go, if you need to go do more reporting, don't think twice about, you know, waving us good-bye and heading out, but i want to bring andrew weissmann in on this. garrett's description and the reporting on the professional camaraderie of jack smith and his team, just gives me a little bit of a stirring feeling of go america. tell me what was going on, you know, as the closest we can get to jack smith at the table, what was going on for the prosecutors today? >> yes, so i thought that was really interesting as well. i was thinking back to the mueller investigation. so i think there are two things that i was -- i think it's worth noting about. one is when alvin bragg was being attacked and people are -- asked me what effect that might

have on fani willis or jack smith and i that that was only going to light a fire under jack smith. i don't know fani willis personally, but with jack i thought he would want to stand with him. that he would be running to the fire not away from it. the other thing to look at, and i thought garrett's reporting was interesting was the description of looseness. i remember during the mueller investigation some of the defense lawyers said what's really not a good sign is that our team was very collegial and didn't seem sort of completely innervated and uptight. i think if you have a really strong case that's what happens. jack smith, yes, he may be worried about the judge, but looking at the indictment, i mean, he knows that the reason bill barr said what he said in terms of characterizing this, this is an incredibly strong case and so i think that kind of looseness is a leader who is very comfortable with the case that they've put together and is

doing what a leader does, which is going to the team and putting the arm around them after an important court appearance. >> i don't want to skip over the big headline, though, and dive right into the reporting. we are here and you have been -- i only sort of jokingly say on a cot because you were marking this history and sort of helping us cover this moment in its historical weight. what is this like for everybody involved? there has to be a surreal element to it. >> there is in the sense that this -- if you step back there are now 71 felony counts against the former president of the united states, the leader of the free world is how we think about a president and former president. this is 71 felony counts. do you know how many there have been in the history of this country prior to this? zero. and so i actually think that if you are on the team you feel an

incredible burden of history, but there's a reason these are career prosecutors and if you notice a number of them have national security experience and knowing that they have to do justice, they have to respect the rule of law, they have to respect due process of the defendant, but there's an enormous satisfaction in representing the united states and accountability. there's been a lot of debate about whether this is a sad day or not a sad day, i think jen psaki said it on sunday and i agreed with her that it's not a sad day when you see the rule of law being vindicated and i am confident that is how the trial team here is looking at this. >> yeah, i mean, i don't think they -- they don't appear to be people that evaluate their feelings, you know, on the sad to happy scale, they seem to go after the facts and pursue anyone who breaks the law, which is donald trump and donald trump and donald trump and donald trump 71 times and counting. what do we know about jack smith this week that we didn't know

last week when it comes to how vigorously he is going to pursue trump's criminality around january 6th. >> i've been famously predicting things as you've been noting and what i would say is if you look at the fact that jack smith is hard charging, if you look at the fact that the january 6th case to my mind and i think to his mind is the most serious of the cases, and that's -- and that's even after this documents case, which is incredibly serious because it's jeopardizing our national security, but the january 6th case goes to the heart of our democracy. if you look at the fact that numerous people who were much more junior, foot soldiers, have been prosecuted and donald trump was leading that, and the fact that this current indictment is so meticulous and was prepared in relatively short order. i have a good sense of like how

much it takes to put this together. i think there is no question that there will be a federal january 6th case that would be brought in d.c. -- >> against trump? >> against trump, yeah, for all the same reasons that this case is in florida, which is that's sort of the location -- >> where the crimes took place. >> exactly. and for the same reason not all the -- everything in the january 6th case took place in washington, but the heart of it took place in washington. so i just think it's very hard for me to look at what happened the past few days and say that jack smith is somehow going to take a pass on the january 6th case. i also think that if aileen cannon is going to slow this down, that is going to lead jack smith to go as fast as he can on the january 6th case on the theory that consistent with due process for donald trump, that's the beginning -- you have to have that first, but it's so important if you can do that for the american public to see a

trial and to be -- to be able to evaluate that evidence prior to making a decision in the next election. >> i've seen some of this sad day stuff. i think the sadder part of the day, if there is one, i think it's a great day for the rule of law. i think it's been an open question in foreign capitals whether or not the rule of law applies to everyone in this country. i mean, if any of you have conversations with anyone who works in government outside of america that's their big question for us and i think jack smith has answered it for us in a way that makes us less sad than we were 72 hours ago. my question for both of you, garrett talked about the security around jack smith. the security around jack smith i imagine is much more than it would have been if he wasn't prosecuting donald trump. >> right. which is a rhetorical indictment of donald trump who has now been legally indicted. nicolle, you're doing what you do which is go to the fundamentals of this. these dates matter. this is june 13th. yes, if you follow the news it was unsealed and we covered it,

but the date that donald trump was taken into custody of the government he used to run was today, june 13th. the date of his arrest, of his surrender, not his call, not his choice. yes, he wants to beam images of his in a café out to the world. that's what he wants. that's not what june 13th is. just like january 6 and other days are remembered, without prejudging the trial where he is presumed innocent, the date he went into custody is the date for the rule of law. so i think, number one, that. number two, why are we here? it's not just because of crime. many crimes go unsolved, prosecutors -- investigators can tell you that. prosecution is not only about a crime, it is always about evidence. we are here on this case people say why this one not that one? because i think we can see today more than other cases how donald trump repeatedly brazenly and flagrantly left the evidence of his now indicted crimes, his

alleged criminality. so he left fingerprints quite literally on the documents, he left fingerprints on the lawyer meetings which are now evidence against him. he left fingerprints in public while proclaiming that he could break laws and take powers he didn't actually have. and so i look at today, nicolle, and i see you leave that many fingerprints, you might end up being the one fingerprinted as he was today. >> that's amazing. i have to say we still -- your framing for the first words that we utter when we came on the air, you think you are the first person who utter the airs that he's now been charged by the government he once led. >> i know what you are talking about because we were talking about that on air. we always remix with each other. >> the remix. >> shout out to picasso who said immature artists borrow mature artists steal. so i'm happy to be stolen from by such a great artist and colleague, but that's what it comes down to and that's why new

york, georgia, those cases matter in many ways, but the frauk can you say over what happens if a state prosecutor goes after the president, sitting or returning to office, those are, i think, andrew, complicated. this is simple. there is a higher bar, we all know it, just like when you go to a judge and say we've got to go to a former president's residence, property. you better have it right. well, this he did because, again, i go back to june 13th today, when we first saw that we had the espionage act in that warrant and people said what did the judge see? what is the evidence? not all the other things you're accused of, misconduct, regrettable behavior, malfeasance is a word that falls short of crime. the evidence of criminality, they had to have that type and they did and the judge said you can go in and what did they find? all the contraband, all the allegedly illegally obtained material, which he was warned, return it you will probably be okay. he had multiple off-ramps, he built the case against himself. >> his own words and in his

lawyers' words. i wonder -- i remember in 2016 at the convention doing the nightly set and saying to lester holt the republican party died in this room tonight listening to mike flynn at the podium and listening to the trump supporters chanting lock her up. i had the opposite feeling today. i feet like the rule of law came roaring back today. >> that's right. and it felt good, right? this sends a message to the world that we are a nation of laws. that's what we saw on the screen today. everything that we witnessed today, nicolle, was self-inflicted by donald trump. he was the one who took these documents, he was the one who department them, he was the one who lied about it. he was the one who evan gauged in a conspiracy to conceal all of those things. doj didn't have a choice but to bring this case. if they had not, we would not be

a nation of laws. they had to bring this case. and the evidence here, the facts here, is so overwhelming. i mean, we've talked about that. the thing that i want to adhere is where the facts came from. we're not talking about -- we're not talking about somebody's first cousin who overheard something. >> or michael cohen. >> right. we are not talking about -- we are talking about people who were on his payroll who were texting each other. >> who are still on his payroll. >> exactly. exactly. so doj didn't have a choice but no bring this case and i'm glad the world got to see what the first steps of accountability in the united states looks like. >> reporting over the weekend in the "new york times" about the unprecedented language being used against doj. i am not -- i am not on the trump beat so i am not as up to speed as garrett is with the vicious nature and personal nature of the attacks, but apparently everyone who sees the facts as you do, which at this

point includes chris christie and bill par has come under attack but no one more viciously as jack smith. >> right. >> what does -- i know enough about the individuals to know that they charge into, you know, the crisis and they pursue the facts with vigor, but what does the institution do to protect itself and protect its own. >> they put in place people and they put in place processes to make sure that whatever prosecutorial decision needs to happen in a case that it is indisputably guided by the facts and the law. that's what we saw the attorney general do here last november. he got some criticism from people for that, but i think it was the right thing forgiven the facts here, right? you have donald trump who was running for office against joe biden, announced he was doing so, in whose cabinet merrick garland served. so it made sense to use this part of the special counsel regulation to put distance

between whatever decision would be appropriate in this case. andrew knows this, you all have talked about this on this program, it's important to reemphasize here that jack smith is not subject to the day to day supervision of anybody at the justice department, not garland, not monaco, not the head of the national security division. this was his decision and that should give people confidence that the rule of law is centered in this case. >> betsy woodruff swan is along with us as well. i think we have a mountain of confidence and we understand that distinction and we understand we have an opportunity to talk to kneel cot -- neil cot y'all who crafted the regulations. betsy, they've taken trump's call for war and retribution literally and j.:vance called for war and retribution on the doj today saying he will as a

u.s. senator block all appointments to the justice department. mitch mcconnell didn't say anything in defense of the rule of law, he didn't come down on its side even though he oddly referred donald trump criminally for this process for his crimes on january 6th. on the documents he took a pass. i wonder if you can describe the absolute goat rodeo that is the republican positions when it comes to the rule of law in america today. >> it's pretty simple, it's just a circling of the wagons, almost a knee-jerk reaction from the substantial majority of republicans, particularly the house republican conference which is just so overwhelmingly devoted to donald trump and trying to meet whatever needs they believe he has. the fact of the indictment frankly we're never going to meaningfully effect the way a significant percentage of these house republicans view trump. and, in fact, over the last years going back to the mueller probe there has been a concerted

project on the part of a growing portion if not the overwhelming portion of the republican party to persuade the republican base that anything that comes out of the justice department deserves immediate knee jerk suspicion if not hostility. there's been this drum beat of doj lied, they lied about this, that and the other. they're just trying to take down trump. they don't care about legality, they don't care about process. it's one big rolling witch-hunt that's been going on for years and years. that essentially has had the result of persuading a substantial portion if not the vast majority of the republican party's base that this indictment is nonsensical, that it's not even worth the paper that it's printed on. so the challenge of course for the justice department and something that i think senior doj officials have to accept with a level of resignation is that there is a percentage, a sizable percentage, of the republican party base that is lost to them.

there is a big chunk of the house republican conference that just isn't going to believe anything that these senior doj officials tell them. that's automatically going to say the justice department is a great big witch-hunting cabal, nothing they say will change the way that we view anything. of course process is important. of course people are important and of course institutions like doj deserve significant scrutiny because of the extraordinary power that they wield, but you can have the most perfect prosecution possible, you can do everything right and still not be able to persuade a meaningful percentage of the house republican conference. that's what we're seeing now and that's what i would expect us to be seeing for the foreseeable future as these prosecutions of trump continue. >> what's so amazing, though, betsy, is that their own positions on pardons presumes that trump will be found guilty by a jury of his peers with

judge aileen cannon presiding. even the ones you described, the ones running for president who as you reported circling the wagons they presume today as we gather that trump will be found guilty by a jury of his peers selected in america and presided by judge aileen cannon. their position is that he will be pardoned. are we so post-fact, post-reality that they will shrug that off, too. >> the goalposts are on roller skates at this point, the view is basically there's no institution that can hand down bad news for donald trump that is not itself necessarily corrupt and engaged in a witch-hunt. you name the institution, whether it's the justice department, whether it's jurors. wait and see. if aileen cannon starts handing down rulings that are unhelpful to trump, regardless of where she came down last summer on issues related to the mar-a-lago search, she will be next. there's no one who can show

enough -- to trump that a significant portion of congressional republicans and the republican base won't believe that they are just lying and that they are just in on a witch-hunt. >> it is an amazing, amazing reality. i'm sure you are correct in your assessment. i know you are always right in your reporting. let me bring into the conversation brandon van grabbing, he was a senior national security official at the department of justice. brandon, jump in on this, sort of the strength of the evidence, the -- not sad day, but very serious day inside the courthouse with what i described as a sliding doors moment when you step outside and see the political circus that surrounds and welcomes and greets and seems to follow donald trump everywhere. >> well, happy to weigh in on that, but i'd actually like to spend a moment talking about what you were just talking about in terms of the attacks on the department because i think there's another element to that as well which is the perceived

legitimacy of the department of justice is directly corrected to the perceived legitimacy of our democracy. there is no department that wields more power over individuals than the department of justice. it has the ability to take away one's liberty. so when we talk about attacks on the department, it's not just the individuals that we have to worry about, but i think there's sort of greater concern there. and i think it goes to sort of another point that's directly connected to that which is if there are people who are concerned that there's i will legitimacy behind these charges it's all the more reason why we should want this trial to occur as quickly as possible. the department of justice is capable of bringing this case by the end of the year and so we absolutely all, whether you support or have, you know, concerns on these charges, these are allegations and so we should all want these allegations to

see the light of day and for a jury of the former president and walt nauta's peers to weigh in on whether they're responsible for it. >> brandon, we could stay here for the rest of our two hours on the air. theres no institution that threatened trump more in his view than his own department of justice. he didn't respect the military, that's abundantly clear by what he and his supporters have to say about chairman mark milley, but his obsession with the department of justice, his obsessive desire to fire everybody who let in, his obsessive desire to have don mcgahn fire the special counsel and his obsessive conduct that amounted to volume two of the mueller report to obstruct the inquiry into whether russia attacked the 2016 election in the united states of america was the -- i don't know if you would call it the first act or the opening act or chapter one, but it is a war that has been ongoing since his first day in office. i wonder how you see the conduct charged by jack smith in the

documents investigation as related to or consistent with the conduct uncovered by robert mueller's team. >> i actually want to separate those two because the reality is i don't think any of those prior investigations involving the former president, whether it's the mueller investigation, whether it's impeachments were tied at all to the decision of special counsel smith to bring these charges. and so even though the narrative you described, you know, i think there are lines you can draw. i think it's best to actually separate them. let's look at these charges, let's look at the four corners of the document for what they are and, you know, regardless of your politics, regardless of your view even on arguments that are being made by the former president's supporters, these are troubling allegations. these are disturbing allegations. even if -- even if there is an argument somewhere in here that taking these documents were

legal or not violations, and i don't know what those arguments are, these are still highly sensitive documents that were taken without any notification of the intelligence community, were stored in bathrooms, were stored in halls, in hallways. i mean, that has a direct, you know, damage or, you know, harm to national security. they're troubling, but i really think -- and it's tied to what we're seeing today, which is what we should be expecting, the when is incredibly important. when are we going to have these pretrial hearings? when is there going to be a trial? because it's critical that people who have concerns and have doubts actually see what the evidence is so that it can inform their decisions. >> i am told by a reliable source that you're familiar with some of the human beings that make up the team working on behalf of jack smith. if that is untrue, feel free to say so. but what can you tell us about

the men and women who were inside that courtroom today and how they will deal with this rather unprecedented police cal environment around a very serious -- as you said, around the four corners of the legal case they are brought? there is an undeniable circus-like environment outside. >> well, it appears that special counsel smith has brought together exactly the team that you would want in addition to, i believe, david was based on reporting was considered the lead prosecutor at the hearing, there are at least two attorneys from -- from my old section the counterintelligence and expert control section who appear to be at the hearing and i will tell you those two attorneys as a pair are more experienced with the espionage act and the special procedures for handling classified information than any pair of attorneys in the country. they've litigated these issues, they understand the nuances of them. what i'm curious to see and i haven't seen the reporting on

this is what local attorneys does special counsel smith bring with him? there are a number of attorneys down there who i have worked with and who has extensive experience on national security cases and handling classified information, so i'm curious to see who ultimately is part of the team. >> nicolle, i would also add quickly that these are career prosecutors. >> right. >> these are not political appointees. i think that's important for the public to understand. >> there are no political appoint ease under the special counsel umbrella. >> right. exactly. >> brandon, what do you mean when you talk about the importance of speed? do you sense that there's some concern that one of the ways judge aileen cannon may use her influence in her second time touching this case to slow down the process or deny a speedy trial, something that jack smith who chose to say very few things did choose to say when the indictment was unsealed? >> well, you know, it's a reference to the reality of the

fact that the person -- one of the people who were charged in this case is running for political office and that election begins next year and so to the extent that these allegations can actually see the light of day in a courtroom before the election and minimize the impact, that is in everyone's interest. i do think it is important to note even though -- and this has been written about and discussed, you know, there could be complications here when you talk about cases involving classified information that that can be a challenge. the department of justice can bring this case by the end of the year. i think you're going to see they're fully capable of doing that. >> andrew? >> so, brandon, i know you are an expert on cipa, the procedure -- >> translate, please. >> i have learned from you speak english. so cipa is the classified statute that both parties will

have to deal in because we're dealing with secret and top secret information. and i know you've dealt with that statute a lot. i was wondering in your experience is there any reason that should really prolong this unduly? in other words, can you deal with the cipa process, dealing with how the parties can access classified information, make motions, have a court rule on it and is that a timeline that still allows the court to say, yes, this can go to trial before the republican nomination or before a general election or is your experience that that is such a complicated process that we should expect in the normal course that this would delay things for quite some time? >> so it doesn't have to be. we can talk just for a moment on what the process entails and i don't think andrew said the entire acronym the classified information procedures act. >> that's because i've learned,

brandon from nicolle to keep the nerdy quotient down. >> i will carry it in d.c. >> i will be overruled by all of. >> you it doesn't have to. i've filed many cipa motions and been part of proceedings. it doesn't have to delay the proceeding, but it could only in the sense that you are talking about procedures that likely the judge isn't familiar with and potentially defense counsel is unfamiliar with. it could but it doesn't need to. in terms of andrew's direct question it certainly could fit within a six or seven-month timeline. it could. i think you will see the department of justice one of the first things it will do in the month of june is request a pretrial conference under the procedures, it's under section 2 and in fact there's only nine sections of cipa, any of you can read it in five minutes. they will file a motion for a pretrial conference with the judge to explain this is the classified information at issue here and to you can at that

about how they're going to handle it. one of that will be protective order over classified information, ensuring that when they provide classified information to defense counsel it's handled appropriately. after that it's going to be about discovery. there are special procedures in terms of discovery. the way these cases work, the department of justice has already identified what information needs to be turned over in discovery that's classified. that was done before these charges happened to andrew's point. the discovery aspect doesn't need to delay it, however, they need to get the judge's approval in terms of the lines they've drawn for discovery, what they are and what they're not going to turn over. we don't know that and we won't know what those motions are, it involves classified information but some information may go to defense counsel and at that point defense counsel often does and can make arguments as to why they need more information or why they want to use that classified information and there's additional litigation beyond that. so, again, it doesn't need to,

but yet it is sort of another step in the process. >> brandon, ari here. you mentioned defense counsel and that's another part of this case that's not normal. nicolle has valiantly urged everyone to keep in mind what are the facts on earth one or here in reality. along with that what is not normal is having federal defendants busted, caught, running through so many lawyers, some of whom they allegedly in the case of donald trump tried to get to help them with ongoing criminal plots. this is not normal. even if you are around courtrooms where there are people accused of crimes and misconduct. i'm curious what you think today -- i mean, for viewers who have been glued to their tvs and i think some people probably have. on msnbc today we had john sail a florida lawyer who designed to take the case for donald trump. we had tim parlatore who was on the team until two weeks ago. mr. trusty -- mr. corcoran, described as trump lawyer 1 in

the indictment that was furnished today as part of the arraignment and the list goes on. i'm curious what you think about what jack smith and his team that you know so well have to do here both to pull on those threads, to navigate that, and also to defend the evidence which nicolle and i were discussing, evidence that in part relies on exceptions precisely because of their theory of the case, that trump knowingly and repeatedly tried to get lawyers to not only cover up his crimes but commit but ones. >> with respect to cipa, there will at least need to be one attorney for each defendant that obtains a security clearance, likely it will be an interim security clearance but obtains access to the classified information and more likely than not you will see that each defendant has more than one attorney. that process which would normally take you and me an extensive period of time to obtain, that will be expedited. and so -- >> just to be clear, well beyond cipa, how does jack smith show

the judge, hey, we need this stuff to show that there was a lawyer plot? >> well, so -- you're right. so let's separate the two, which andrew got me down the road of cipa and i've stayed down there. >> we will just -- we will just put a fork in the road for a second. i want to add on a second part to this question, too. how as the public should we process -- parlatore was saying outrageous things about the federal government and people you are lauding as people of inn degree frit, i imagine they are like the two of you, they believe they've proved their cases and preserve their reputations in their filings and in court, but that's an asymmetrical undertaking in the court of public opinion. so i would just add that as part two to ari's question about how to deal with the lawyer question. >> i appreciate the two-parter. >> i saw you take notes on friday. >> that's right.

that was the three-parter. >> only rachel gets those. >> i mean, i think, though -- and this is going to be so difficult for us whether this is a six-month, 12-month or 18-month period that we are talking about this which is to separate the noise. i feel like what we're talking about now is the noise in terms of individuals that may have been associated -- and, you know, we're seeing individuals who are not actively engaged in the defense of the former president. they are not part of those meetings. that doesn't mean -- i suppose you have to ignore it, but for the next six, 12, 18 months we're actually going to see what the government's case is. we're going to hear what the types of discovery, what types of information the government is relying on. we're going to see that and get a sense of how many witnesses the government early on is intending to rely on. we're going to see the motions about selective prosecution. so let's focus on the arguments that are going to, in fact, weigh in and sort of decide this

case as opposed to, i think, some of the noise and that unfortunately is going to surround this for a time to come. >> let me bring into our conversation and we will keep both forks of this road open and active for the purposes of this conversation, live for us this miami "new york times" congressional reporter luke broadwater covering the day's events for "the new york times" down there. tell me where you are, what you've seen and what you've covered today in your swath of reporting for the "times." >> sure. yeah. i'm outside the federal courthouse here in miami where donald trump became the first former president in american history to be arraigned on federal charges. i've been basically going through the crowd all day, interviewing trump supporters and trump critics and just taking stock of this historic moment. the crowd started pretty light in the morning, there were many more reporters than trump supporters, but it did grow to hundreds, maybe even thousands

throughout the day. the miami police force said they were ready for up to 50,000 people. didn't get anywhere close to that. maybe a few thousand sand were here. there were a few close skirm shs, i saw people guess nose to nose and temp evers flare but we didn't see anything close to january 6th. there was some concern earlier in the day when the proud boys said that they would be amassing at 10:00 a.m. and so, you know, there were some heightened tensions then but they did not end up showing up. i didn't see any proud boys here. maybe that was a lot of talk and no action. i do think that perhaps perhaps thousand arrests that occurred after january 6th has put some fear into some on the far right who would be more inclined to violence, and those people did not attend today. >> luke, in your conversations with people, was there general awareness that donald trump was charged with 31 counts of

willful retention of defense information under the espionage act, making false statements and representations? was there any sense of what even -- if you leave sort of those on earth want out of it, was there any sense his one-time attorney general bill barr said he is, quote, toast? or that his one-time top cheerleader and first establishment republican endorsed him in 2016, chris christie thinks the government has an incredibly strong case against him? >> so of the trump critics i talked to, they brought up those points you're mentioning. many had read the indictment and knew it very well. the trump supporters i spoke with, for the most part, had not read the indictment. they said they weren't going to trust anything that came out of the justice department. they believe trump was a victim of a deep state attack on him. and they had seen the picture of

the boxes in the bathroom. so that had broken through. maybe not the words of the indictment, but they were aware of that photograph. but they wrote that off saying, well, yes, that wasn't great. but joe biden also had classified documents, or mike pence had classified documents. they used an argument that other people also perhaps were irresponsible with classified documents. when i would then bring up, well, but those people after learning about it would then quickly reported it and cooperated with the government. what's alleged here is donald trump didn't cooperate for many, many months, and in fact worked to obstruct the government, at least that's what is alleged in the indictment, they would say they didn't believe that, that donald trump would have given them back. and they didn't believe the indictment, if that's indeed what it said. >> luke, your colleague annie karni has a tweet for the ages. she writes some of the defenses.

and the headline is the grand old potty. you have republicans i know you cover in your day beat who are making ludicrous excuses for trump leaving boxes, including classified boxes in a bathroom saying kevin mccarthy i think says something about how it has a lock, as most bathrooms do. what is your sense? it sounds like from talking to trump supporters is they hadn't read the dull indictment. they're not turning to facts to understand how they feel about it. they're on that side with the house republicans and the grand old potty that annie karni writes about. >> yeah. that would come up with any argument to defend donald trump no matter what. in fact, if you confronted them with the indictment, which we did, we actually had a copy of the indictment and photographs in case people wanted to see them, you know, but a couple of people explained it to me like this. to them, this is a team sport.

and they're going root for their guy, no matter what. one guy likened it to like a college football game, and that the federal government is on the other side. that's the other team, jack smith, the justice department, they're the opponents. and trump and his supporters are all together. and so they're going to root for their team, no matter what. they're going to cheer for their guy, no matter, what and they're not going to listen to what the facts are and try to distinguish truth from fiction. they're just going root for their side. >> ari, that is the pattern. i take brandon's point of going to look at this case and this indictment in today's case, the four corners specific to it. for those of us who have to coffer trump for our jobs, the pattern and what he counts on is that team will be behind him. and the way he used them last time, what he deployed them to do on december 19th was to come to washington, it will, quote, be wild, and he unleashed them on his vice president. in this instance, what are you

sort of tracking to see how and if he deploys them in this time, in this instance? >> it's a great question. we're certainly tracking the diminished power and impact that he has. we saw that with how he has now tried to seize announce both of his indictments, he tries to get ahead of it. in the new york one, he even more explicitly was saying rhetoric, but more explicitly calling people to come. they didn't come. today it was a good thing. we had people protest, people had every right to criticize, but that is a big difference from jan 6 because of the prosecutions, jack smith is dealing offsite. as for the grand old potty, that's not on "the washington post" or the news. that's on donald trump, because he left the stuff in the bathroom. i'll close with this. think about the contrast that we've discussed, all the serious, studious people on both sides of this case who will get intelligence training, get the passes to then go into the basically what they call the

sensitive compartmentalized information facility, right, to do everything that we know on record and with photos donald trump didn't do. so it's his bathroom and the months and longer that those materials were at risk to everyone, including his own lawyers now having to follow the rules that he allegedly broke. >> and having to follow them to make this determination under the rule of law and in a court of law about his criminal accountability. thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> thanks for sticking around with us. betsy, luke broadwater, brandon and ari has been here next to me. thank you all so much. andrew weissman is never allowed to leave and anthony becomes his -- shall i call it cellmate? no, it's fun here. it's not prison. but we will never let you check out. we are going to sneak in a very short break, catch our breath. we have much more news to come. joy reid will be here.

tim haffey joins the conversation. don't go anywhere. we'll be right back.

progressive makes it easy to save with a quick commercial auto quote online. so you can get back to your monster to-do list. really? get a quote at progressivecommercial.com. i brought in ensure max protein with 30g of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. uh... here i'll take that. -everyone: woo hoo! ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar. enter the nourishing moments giveaway for a chance to win $10,000. i love it when he strips for me. we strip as a pack. i don't care who sees me strip. josh, you strip? breathe right opens your nose for nasal congestion relief you can feel right away.

helping you breathe better day or night, here or there. breathe right. strip on.

hi again, everyone. it's 5:00 in new york as we continue our breaking news coverage of donald trump's arraignment in miami on a 37-count federal criminal indictment. donald trump was placed under arrest after voluntarily surrendering this afternoon to authorities, pleading not guilty to all counts in the case of his retention of classified documents and obstructing the government's efforts to get them back.

trump is now on his way back to his bedminster property in new jersey where tonight he will host a fundraiser after making a quick stop at a cuban bakery and restaurant where he repeated his claim that the case against him is, quote, corrupt and rigged, end quote. today's hearing nearly an hour-long marked the second time in three months that donald trump has been arraigned in a criminal case. our reporters in the courtroom have described him as stone-faced. he did not speak publicly during the entirety of his hearing. notably, special counsel jack smith was in the courtroom today. the only restriction placed on trump was a request by the judge, a limited no contact order with witnesses in the case along with his co-defendant, his personal aide walt nauta. nauta requested an extension on his arraignment which is now scheduled for june 27th. about the judge's request, "the new york times" reports this, quote, it is common for judges to restrict defendants from discussing the facts of a criminal case with witnesses and co-defendants. but that is easier said than

done in this case. trump and nauta work side by side, and trump is not known for biting his tongue about subjects that enrage him. today a surreal moment in our country's history as we witness this battle between a twice impeached, twice indicted ex-president and the federal government he was once in charge of just 2 1/2 years ago. as we said in the last hour, donald trump has now been criminally indicted more time than he was ever elected. that is where we start the hour joining us here at the table. joy reid, host of the reed out, former senior member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation, andrew weissman is back with us. anthony colley, msnbc justice and legal affairs analyst and former top spokesman at the department of justice under merrick garland is here. joining us from miami, msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin. she was inside the courtroom during trump's arraignment today. lisa, we start with you. take us inside that courtroom with you. >> nicolle, it was dead silent

in the courtroom as we waited for the hearing to begin. you could hear every creek, every rustling of paper. one of the things i was struck by immediately is how many law enforcement officers were present in that courtroom. there were two full rows of secret service agents right behind the defense table. that's not counting all of the service agents and u.s. marshals posted at various points all around the courtroom. it was a packed house. and yet at the defense table, the other thing that was really striking was that chris kise sat at one end followed by donald trump, todd blanche, and next to todd blanche, rather than another lawyer was walt nauta. in fact, todd blanche and walt nauta's lawyer continued to talk to one another in a whisper, occasionally i even caught blanche and nauta talking to each other. andrew and others can tell you that's a little bit odd to see one defendant's lawyer speaking to a co-defendant in the case, particularly whereas here

they've been accused of conspiracy together. nike cole, as you noted, the biggest development today was that the judge is going to allow the department of justice to prepare a list of witnesses with whom trump and nauta may not have communications about the facts of the case. and the problem here is with respect to nauta, the judge did not want to impair his livelihood, as he noted. walt nauta continues to work for former president trump. on the other hand, as one of our own said to me a few moments ago, what's going to stop them? how are they going to enforce that, vis-a-vis trump and nauta? if the two of them take a walk together on a golf course alone and they happen to discuss what's going to happen here and how to coordinate their stories, is anyone going to find out about it? and is anyone going to stop it? so i think the judge was very concerned about imposing certain conditions, enforcing those conditions, however, is also easier said than done. nicolle? >> let me bring tim haffey into our conversation. we've had so many conversations

about your investigation. we don't have tim yet. neal is already with us. neal, let me ask you to jump in on what is now before all of us and before the country, but before a defendant. trump's just sitting at a table that any defendant in any trial like this would sit at. and lisa is describing conduct that is outside the norm. but other than doing that, there wasn't a lot of optionality for trump or his legal team. they had to sit there for the duration of today's proceedings. what do you make of everything that brought us to this moment, where donald trump, once an american president, twice impeached, now twice indicted not in charge of the room, didn't have the talking stick, as he likes to have, and very much at the -- i won't say mercy, but very much a cog in the wheels of the criminal justice system at this point. >> yeah, trump today faced what

we call an arraignment. and that goes all the way back, nicole, to the 14th century in england. and at that point, the charges would be read against a criminal defendant. and if the king had pardoned the person, there would be a defense. but otherwise a trial would commence. you see it in blackstone's commentaries in the 1700s and the like. so in that sense, what happened today is of really old vintage. of course what is different is it's a former president of the united states for the first time in the federal system, a former president being criminally indicted with a possibility of jail time, that he is facing. and, you know, i think many people have said donald trump did this to himself. it's one thing to make mistakes about mishandling classified information. it's another thing to lie and obstruct them afterwards. and trump has managed to obfuscate that a bit with his supporters by saying, well, you

know, maybe i was reckless with classified documents, but, you know, i was able to declassify them in my mind, which is not a thing. you can't declassify the documents in your mind. he's also, you know, kind of hinted at other kinds of defenses like the prosecutorial misconduct we just heard in the last hour. tim parlatore, one of trump's former lawyers saying that. and when pressed by andrew, the only examples he could give, mr. parlatore, were 45 instances in which in the grand jury proceedings, prosecutors asked evidence that went to attorney/client privilege and infringed trump's attorney-client privilege. what mr. parlatore didn't take knowledge of at the time is that very issue had been litigated to the chief judge in d.c., barrel howe who rejected it along with the second highest court, the d.c. circuit.

so if these are the kinds of defenses donald trump has, of course he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. but if it's these kinds of defenses, he doesn't got much of a defense, see going to be convicted. >> and that is the view, joy, on even chris christie can no longer refuse to be the reality. that's why bill barr, i've said this now for months, the most dangerous place to be is between bill barr and a camera when he is asked about trump's exposure in mar-a-lago documents case. he is not get on tv fast enough and say he is, quote, toast. >> the reality is we have to recall that bill barr is the person who so cooked the books on the mueller report that even normal sounding republicans like governor sununu will say with a straight face there was nothing to the mueller report, that mueller found nothing. they forget about the 33 some odd people who were prosecuted as a result. and he is convinced a large swath of even normie republican

voters and politicians that there was no collusion at all between trump and russia. so bill barr is trump's guy. if he is saying he is toast, that is actually pretty definitive. but i do want to sort of come become just a moment to where you started just for a moment that, you know, i think it's kind of hard because we're doing this every day and we're so steeped in it. it is real unusual to be indicted. like most americans go through their whole lives and they're never indicted, much less getting indicted twice. donald trump is not just among presidents, but just among americans period in a very small class of people. and i was struck today just by the scenes as described inside of that courtroom of the fact that he's indicted alongside a very ordinary person, who has no power, who has no big lawyers. trump can barely get lawyers. if this guy gives up the lawyers trump is paying for, is he going to need a public defender? and yet he sits equal to the former president of the united states charged with the same things, and he is the one on

tape doing it. so he seems to have absolutely -- if trump doesn't have a defense and chris christie, i was really stunned at how definitive he was in that recent interview saying he has no defense here, what defense does walt nauta have? he is on tape. he is the one taking the calls from trump and moving 11 boxes and 50 boxes and then 30 boxes, and then five box. >> and taking pictures when they all spill out. >> and then he lied to the fbi. it's a recorded interview. he has no defense. >> so one of the things that's worth noting with respect to the former president, and that is not a defense of walt nauta, he made his own choice. but when you're thinking about the former culpability and sort of what kind of person he is, walt nauta is sitting in that courtroom because of donald trump. >> of course. >> it is what he asked don mcgahn, a former white house council to do. it's what he asked pat cipollone to go along with. it's what michael cohen went along with and actually paid a price. so walt nauta is there, is

sitting there because donald trump solicited another person and who actually agreed. he's enlisted attorneys to go along. >> tried to get corcoran. yeah. >> in terms of aswhaegs he did, it's not like he just did it on his own and said you know what? i'll bear the consequences for what i did. it reminds me very much of what's in the indictment where he says to corcoran, why can't you just get rid of these documents and then i won't have a problem. so that's why walt nauta is there. it's just so deplorable when you think about the sort of power relationship. >> absolutely. >> and what he is doing with it. >> it's gross. and i actually wanted to ask you this question. i think the fact that their lawyers are talking to each other, they're sitting there together. i don't know if nauta did his plea today, but he was booked. he got a mug shot. donald trump was a former president, is now just a citizen like you and me. if you and i dud it, we'd get a mug shot. the fact that donald trump gets to escape the indignity of a mug

shot while walt nauta does not. can i read you my favorite line from this lawyer, this attestation from the lawyers who are going to represent donald trump. the best line in it is fee disputes between counsel and client shall not be a basis for withdrawal for this presentation, because he probably gave them the three million like he had to do last time for mr. keys and had to pay him up front. walt nauta doesn't have $3 million. it is this we're power dynamic. and i was actually going to ask you, if you don't mind, can walt nauta be a witness in the case against trump? because he is also a defendant. doesn't he have fifth amendment -- >> if for some reason donald trump could show the judge that he needs to call walt nauta as a witness -- i don't think that's going to happen. but there is a provision. if you can show that your co-defendant needs to be a witness and that the co-defendant is willing to testify. in other words, that he is going to actually take the stand and not assert the fifth amendment,

then the judge could sever the case so you have two trials and to give the defendant the opportunity to call the other defendant. it's very, very rare, because usually if you're a defendant and your co-defendant is thinking they want to call you, you're thinking thank you so much. i'll just sit here and take the fifth and i'm not going to be a witness for you. i don't think that walt nauta, it's going to be for his defense council, it's going to be in his interest to take the stand for another person. >> why would he have not been arraigned today? >> so i thought -- >> he moved his to the 27th. >> ah, interesting. that is diagnostic okay. that might go to something lisa report where the unusual aspects, which is true, which is usually if i am your lawyer, nicolle, i'm not spending my time talking to you, joy, because guess what? this usually is not attorney-client privilege. and i don't represent you. and you would be talking to your lawyer.

that to me suggests that the trump team wants to keep walt nauta as close as possible. if he was not -- if he's been arraigned in a different time, they have to be concerned about what he's going to do. in other words, walt nauta going to finally flip. because then if he does flip, he is so unlikely to go jail. >> let me bring in lisa and neal on this. i think walt nauta is still functioning in his role as trump's body man, is that right? >> yes. and nicolle, one of the things i didn't get to say before that is so bizarre is as they were leaving the courtroom when the hearing was over, trump stood up. all the secret service agents in his protective detail also stood up and flanked him, and they sort of made a formation as they headed to the exit of the courtroom where criminal defendants who are in detention usually enter and exit. and at that point in time, walt nauta, he didn't leave the courtroom with his lawyer, stanley woodward. he left the courtroom in that

same single file formation with donald trump, just fell in line, sort of in a heart beat, went from being co-defendant toer is vial valet, being held close and he is not showing any signs of wanting to cooperate at this juncture. >> i want to read something to you that just came across the whatever we call the wire now. this is from cbs. this is our friend robert costa, per graham kates, special counsel jack smith closely watched trump as trump exited slowly at the end. he watched trump glance at reporters sitting in the back. smith never broke his stare at trump, per kates, the reporter in the room. >> can i add something to that for a second? >> go ahead, lisa. >> what i was going to say, i didn't see jack smith. i was sitting on the other side of the courtroom where the defense table was. i can tell you why i couldn't see jack smith looking at trump, i definitely saw trump.

he could have made a beeline for the exit and not looked at all at anybody in the gallery. an instead what he did was turn around and stare down all of the reporters on my side of the courtroom, as if to scan for a familiar face and member some comfort there. but turned toward us with a scowl and very slowly walked along that line of the benches in the courtroom before finally at the end turning around, walt nauta right behind him, and heading for that defense exit. it was really chilling, you know, from my point of view, never having been in a room with donald trump before, to have him sort of stare us all down. not withstanding the fact that he no longer has the trappings of the president, he was almost behaving as if he still does, nicolle. >> neal, jump in on all of this behavior. we look at it in a political frame, some of us but this is a court of law. and jack smith is looking for something very different, isn't he? >> yeah.

i see the behavior by donald trump as part of his kind of lawless behavior, whether it's what happened to lisa and the other journalists, or really, if you think about walt nauta. how did walt get to the courtroom today? because he went in donald trump's motorcade. i mean, trump is terrified about this guy flipping. he knows that the prosecutors have tried to flip nauta time and again. so far nauta appears to have remained loyal. but people do crack for the best of reasons. and here nauta seems complicit in according to the indictment, very serious set of felony charges. so that's one thing. the other is at least some of the reporting i've seen has said that nauta's lawyer wasn't barred in the southern district of southern florida. so he couldn't enter into the plea in the arraignment hearings because he didn't have local counsel available to him. i don't know if that's necessarily true or not, but i've certainly seen that reporting.

that may account for why one defendant was arraigned and the other was not. >> lisa, this time yesterday, donald trump didn't have local counsel. do you have any insight into how that problem was solved in 24 hours? >> i mean, i don't have any insight into the process of how chris kise came back into the fold. it's based on my reporting that donald trump may still be casting a wide net to find supplemental south florida counsel. but one thing, nicolle, that the judge asked, both chris kise and todd blanche, are you entering apearls ones today temporarily or are you permanently in the case. and both of them very affirmatively said we're permanentfully the case. they then are you in this for trial and appeal? and again, chris kise answering for both of them, yes. i don't think we can expect chris kise to go anywhere. there was some speculation that chris kise was coming in only as a seat filler and to make good on the $3 million investment that donald trump made in him last august following that mar-a-lago raid. but it looks like chris kise is

going to be part of this case for some time to come. and certainly the judge seemed familiar with mr. kise as a former solicitor general in florida and is licensed to practice in the southern district of florida. to answer neal's question, though, with respect to nauta, it is one of the local rules here that only an attorney who is not only licensed to practice in this broader jurisdiction of florida but a member of the southern florida district bar can enter a plea. others for temporary permission to participate in a case on a case specific basis, and stanwood ward didn't even have anyone to sponsor his application for that status because he is not affiliated with local counsel here. >> it's amazing that the country's last president wasn't able to help out with any of that. let me bring in someone who is reporting covers just what we're talking about. our friend "washington post" congressional investigations reporter jackie alemany. you have the definitive piece of reporting on this local lawyer hunt. take us inside what you've

reported today. >> yeah, nicolle. we're still tracking down the process that is behind walt's search for legal counsel, but lisa is exactly right. nauta is due back for an arraignment on june 27th because he still does not have local counsel. and stanwood ward, who is currently representing him, was not able to get that sort of fast track temporary admission to be able to represent walt in court today. but it was certainly swraring to see his co-conspirator, trump's co-conspirator nauta act kpaeng him today, playing body man, opening the door for trump as he was leaving cafe versailles, along with being alongside with him in all of the courtroom sketches that are now being distributed, really serving as his body man and not someone who is also facing serious criminal exposure. but the hunt for lawyers in florida to represent trump and nauta is still ongoing.

we reported yesterday that right as soon as trump landed in miami, he did several interviews with a handful of perspective lawyers who might be willing to represent him. he still don't have a status update on when -- weather any of those lawyers have materialized. but we did just speak with someone just a few hours ago who said that they had touched base with a bunch of their lawyer friends who run in republican circles in the state who had simply been ignoring calls from trump's team that had been reaching out to gauge whether or not there would be any interest. this is a familiar problem to the former president who has gone through lawyers at an exceedingly rapid pace, along with jeopardizing them in that process as well. some of them have become witnesses against him. others have had their own issues with criminal exposure. and now walt nauta is joins the

club of former bodymen and confidantes who are also faced with legal problems due to the requirements, the unique requirements of serving former president donald trump. >> it's a stunning split screen. i want to show all of you, and i want to come back to a point that brendan van grack made in the last hour about the government's plea or a wish for a speedy trial. this is donald trump getting specifically at the conundrum, if you will, of running for president while under criminal prosecution. >> hillary's likely to be under investigation for many years, probably concluding in a criminal trial. >> she'll be under investigation for years. she'll be with trials. our country, we have to get back to work. >> if she were to win this

election, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. in that situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment, and ultimately a criminal trial. >> there is always a day, neal katyal, there is always a day. and i have spent seven years with a very high bar of the trump sound that i will play. and i can't get enough of donald trump's intimate knowledge of just how much the criminal justice system punishes in this family of classified documents. what do you make of the complete dissonance of trump's own words and the fact that a lot of those are quoted in jack smith's indictment? >> on days like this, nicolle, i am so glad i'm a hindu, because i believe in karma. >> sign me up! [ laughter ] >> really, this guy campaigns on

one issue in 2015 and '16. >> one thing. >> and it is the mishandling of classified information and lock her up and all of that nonsense. and now that is the very thing he's accused of here in a formal criminal indictment, which is so much stronger and so much graver than anything hillary clinton was even alleged to do by the most zealous of the right-wingers. and i thought jack smith in the indictment that was released last week actually made much of this. he started much of the indictment with all of the stuff trump said back in 2015 and '16, not just gratuitously, but to prove that trump knew what the rules were for handling classified information. and sure, trump was reckless in all sorts of ways when he was president with classified information, like he disclosed sensitive intelligence information to the russians in

the oval office. he was cavalierly tweeting things. all of that was inexcusable. but that wasn't criminal, because he was the president. he had the power to do that. he is not president anymore. he doesn't get to, you know, when you leaf the presidency, take home documents as a souvenir or to take home documents because you're worried books might be written against you, or perhaps take home documents because you want to impress an investor or sell those documents. none of that is allowed for anyone, whether you're the president or anyone else who handles this information. this is the people's information. that's why we have such a robust set of criminal rules to protect against the mishandling of it. trump just spit on all of that, according to this indictment. we'll have a chance to argue that isn't right. but so far nothing i've heard tells me that he has a viable defense. >> and nothing trump has said suggests that trump thinks trump has a viable defense. the conduct written and described in the indictment's

pages is not conduct denied by donald trump. >> he literally treated our national secrets as swag. he said when i leave this office, i take this as swag. and i would actually love every reporter that's camped out on capitol hill on the senate side in particular after what j.d. vance threatened to do today to just every republican who walks out in front of a microphone, do you believe that a former president is allowed to keep and have national security information? or a former senator. right. do you believe that? do you think a president could have information about the placement of all of our nukes, the placement of all of our troops around the world after they're president? because that's the only defense that is possible for trump, that a former president is entitled to have that. does that mean that obama can have the nuclear codes? because that would not be a very secure place to live if every former president is allowed to pick and choose and take

anything they want after they leave office, no matter how much it could jeopardize sources, method, people's lives, our operatives around the world, people who are helping us in foreign country, and also our nuclear secrets. >> reportedly the indictment deals with this. say you're right and the president did want the take those things, they would have to seek a waiver from doj and build a scif. what trump did is take the stuff in the boxes next to his air force one gear, all thrown into a basket, and left it in a bathroom and didn't seek a waiver to take any classified. >> that's exactly right. let me step back for a second and talk about what i think is going to happen next with donald trump. so he doesn't have very strong evidence in a court of law. so he is focused on the court of public opinion, right. so it is absolutely imperative

for my former colleagues at doj right now to continue to keep the facts first and front and center. i was delighted last week when they within 24 hours, andrew weissman, moved the court to unseal this document. can you imagine what the last 72 hours would have been like if we didn't have these facts? the next step, and andrew and i talked about this a little in the last program, when media outlets petition a court to at least allow an audio recording. >> yes. >> of the courtroom proceedings in realtime, doj should absolutely not oppose that. there is so much, nicolle, so much misinformation out there. and the only way to continue to reassure people in the even-handed administration of justice is to shine some spotlight on this process. >> neal katyal, you called for cameras in the courtroom.

i believe there was a setback in that effort. but just tell me what you understand the prospect for an audio recording or revisiting the cameras to be? >> i think both are possible. they will have to get permission from the chief justice of the united states, john roberts. but i do think it's possible here. so, you know, there is a general prohibition on federal criminal trials being televised, but the chief can relax that. and that's exactly what happened when i was special prosecutor in the george floyd murder. minnesota had a very strict rule. never once had there been a criminal trial that was televised. but folks asked for the trial of derek chauvin to be televised, and all of us could then see it. i think that builds public confidence for the ultimate decision here. and i think the benefits of public access cut for both trump and for the prosecution because trump can be assured that the public will watch for any perceived inequities, and a life

stream can be used to combat any misinformation that trump may try and spread. and so i think, you know, this is the people's court. this is our american taxpayer that pay for this. and for the court system, and all americans should be able to see it. if for whatever reason television isn't allowed, at a very minimum, and i do mean this as a bare bones minimum, i think live audio stream shotgun be permitted. that's what several of us asked the chief justice back when it came to supreme court arguments a few years ago, and he granted that request. i think it would make a lot of sense to do so in a really extraordinary trial like this. >> andrew? >> anthony? >> yeah, to follow up on transparency, so a lot of what we're hearing and a lot of concern that people have in the public is donald trump being treated comparably. we hear comparisons to biden, to pence, to hillary clinton. isn't that an opportunity for the justice department or jack smith to not talk about the

guilt of donald trump, but to be more public about how many people have been prosecuted for doing the same or less than donald trump? that's public information. but shouldn't they -- and this is sort of unique to your role. if you were still at the department, would you say that's something they can do that would help educate the public as to why this is complying with the rule of law? >> it absolutely is something that they should do and do more of. the reality is that there is a long and extensive history going back decades of doj charging individuals sitting and former government officials a the time with mishandling government documents. most recently, we've all talked about this. lieutenant colonel was it florida just last week who was sentenced to three years in prison for mishandling 300 classified documents. there is absolutely an opportunity here. and this again is where the facts matter.

people don't always understand, you know, what's going on at doj. doj doesn't tweet out or send press releases. so the more that special counsel smith can communicate that what he is doing here is absolutely consistent with the rule of law and how similar cases have been treated, the better off the country will be. >> i think about david petraeus. i haven't brought this up to my poor team 476 times. david petraeus came this close to being prosecuted under the exact same statute that donald trump is being prosecuted under. the espionage act. the exact same violation, because he took classified material, tucked into it a notebook and handed it to miswoodward with whom he was having an affair so she could write a book. his motivation was not to harm national security. it was personal. but he still almost was prosecuted. he was able to work out a plea agreement and avoid prosecution. but had he nod been done so, he would have been prosecuted the

same way for the same things. >> be clear, he was prosecuted. he avoided jail. at the time, he was under a democratic administration. so this is an example of you can be under a democrat, you can be under a republican, it has nothing to do with politics. >> to be fair, a lot of people think he was treated very leniently. if you hold that out as one end of the spectrum and sort of the fact what you put out there, the most reenient. >> he admitted to it. he was prosecuted. and correct me if i'm wrong, if you admit to it and you plead out, people generally get probation. >> and give it back. >> and give it back, right. >> not the lieutenant colonel. if you're a low level person, he got three years. but you're right, with senior people, unfortunately, it's sort of topsy-turvy if you're season and you plead out, they have been lenient sentences. but the main issues many, many people have been prosecuted for

this, and i feel like doj should be more public with that. so that it with dispel this idea of oh, isn't he being singled out. and if he was a democrat, it also wouldn't happen. >> i agree. >> i want to ask you about the decision to unseal the indictment. it seems to be a nod to the appetite for fax. >> right. >> do you think that is in reaction to the sort of proliferation of disinformation over the last seven years, or do you think that was more a nod to the importance of this case? >> i think they understand at doj the importance of winning this case in a court of law. but what we saw with them asking the judge to unseal this indictment is a realization and a recognition of the court of public opinion. but i was so pleased to see on saturday morning when you open "the new york times" and the post and all these other national publications, you didn't see jack smith standing at a podium.

you saw excerpts of about the weaponization of these classified maps. you saw photographs of the boxes spilled over on the bathroom floor. that's what i'm talking about. >> right. >> you put facts first. and that's the importance of transparency. >> right. it puts the republicans on their heels, having to defend the bathroom. lisa rubin, thank you for being our correspondent on the ground out there in miami. we're really grate to feel have you. and joy reid, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for being here. i know you have your own show. >> i'll see you shortly. >> pretty much here all night. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> everyone else sticks around. when we come back, there was also some action today on jack smith's other investigation, you know, the one into january 6th and the disgraced ex-president's efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election. andrew weissman has a prediction about that case that we'll get to that the whole table will weigh in. we'll also bring into that conversation the former lead for

the january 6th congressional committee after a quick break. "deadline: white house" continues in two minutes. don't go anywhere. ouse" continues in two minutes don't go anywhere. the game chant lets her pick exactly what she wants and save on every perk. sadie's getting her plan ready for a big trip. travel pass, on. nice iphone 14 pro! cute couple. trips don't last forever. neither does summer love. so, sadie's moving on. apple music? check. introducing myplan. the first and only unlimited plan to give you exactly what you want, so you only pay for what you need. act now and get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon. if we want a more viable future for our kids, we need to find more sustainable ways of doing things. america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars in new technologies and creating plastic products that are more recyclable. durable. and dependable. our goal is a cleaner, healthier planet for generations to come. for a better tomorrow, we're focused on making plastics better today.

so, i got this app from experian. it's got everything i need to help my finances. got my fico® score, raised it instantly, i even found new ways to save. all right here. free. and fast. see all you can do with the free experian app. download it now. i love it when he strips for me. we strip as a pack. i don't care who sees me strip. josh, you strip? breathe right opens your nose for nasal congestion relief you can feel right away. helping you breathe better day or night, here or there. breathe right. strip on.

as you all know, the last legal prediction about the disgraced ex-president made by our friend and fbi former counsel andrew weissman was correct, spot-on. he's got another one. we've talked about it a little bit. he tweeted this, next up for donald trump, the documents indictment makes it 100% that trump will also be charged by smith in the january 6th case. that case will be brought in washington, d.c. for the same reason the docs case was brought in florida, the center of gravity of the crime. so keep that in mind as we learn

that today special counsel jack smith's other criminal investigation into the ex-president is also zooming ahead. nbc news reports that nevada gop chair michael mcdonald, a close trump political ally as well as that state's party's vice chair spotted entering the room where the january 6th jury is meeting at the washington federal courthouse. those men served as the so-called fake electors in the illegal scheme cooked up by trump's attorney john eastman. donald trump testified where he invoked his fifth amendment right more than 200 times. joining us former investigator for the january 6th committee tim haffey. tim, i know you and your fellow investigators and the members themselves were on the receiving end of what became shorthand. we saw it in some of the depositions you played, fifth, fifth, fifth, fifth. these were two people who did assert their fifth amendment rights, as was their right to do. today they were before a grand jury. what do you hope jack smith learned?

>> he is hoping to call to get information about who created the impetus to submit these fake collector certificates. we developed information that this was not organic activity in each state where people people in georgia or people in nevada sort of on their own independently met and cast their votes for president trump and submit that to washington. this was a washington-led trump campaign engineered plan. that's why it's so important. jack smith's focus is on a conspiracy, intensal conduct and the submission of these fake electors purporting to be official, but actually not being official, potentially criminal. so he is looking to people that will provide information as to how they came about. >> well, tim, a federal judge already described donald trump and john eastman's role in this plot as one that included likely committing felony crimes. it seems that judges who have

examined the people who put the fake electors plot into motion has already said likely felonies were committed. do you have confidence based on the evidence you developed and what you know about places you couldn't pierce through privileges and obstruction that jack smith will find the same thing? >> yeah, nicolle, absolutely. as you said, judge carter in litigation in which the select committee was involved to try to get documents from john eastman from the university where he had been teaching ruled that there is a crime fraud exception that allowed us to get the documents about the generation of this theory, that these alternate -- he called them alternate, we called them fake elector certificates could be submitted. and again, the special counsel has the ability to quickly adjudicate privilege assertions and provide immunity to criminal prosecution. those are levers we didn't have. we found that this whole fake elector scheme was likely

criminal conspiracy, and we recommended in a criminal referral charges accordingly. jack smith can go beyond that, can get direct evidence that the select committee did not get. it will only reinforce the evidentiary showing, make it more likely that a criminal conspiracy case is brought. >> tim, we didn't learn that jack smith had gone before judge beryl howell to pierce attorney-client privilege what you just articulated, this crime fraud exception. nonlawyers understand it to be if a lawyer is helping you commit a crime, that an investigator can get into that lawyer-client privilege. do you think it's possible that jack smith has already argued to pierce attorney-client privilege in the january 6th investigation based on judge carter's ruling and other evidence that crimes were likely committed between lawyers like eastman and their clients? >> yeah, yes, it's absolutely possible.

again, he has made this argument successfully with respect to ed corcoran in the documents case. my guess is they're making that argument with respect to these fake electors. it is not okay to rely on counsel if counsel is part and part and parse ol' telephone criminal scheme. a and the other option that jack smith has, nicolle, as we talked about, he can go immediately and get that adjudicated. because this is a grand jury investigation, because there is criminal exposure at stake, he has the ability procedurally to get those things resolved right away, very different from a civil litigant or congressional committee or other investigators that don't have that ability. he is using that -- those powerful levers effectively and getting quick rulings, turning around information overcoming those privileges in ways we could not. >> go ahead. >> nicolle, one of the things that these last several days has proven is that the public doesn't know.

>> right. >> what the special counsel is doing. i mean, we just now learned about the grand jury in florida. >> right. >> so pivoting back to what tim was saying about january 6th, we don't know. and stillwaters run deep. i'm from the south. i hope you don't mind. >> i love it. i'm going to be hindu after today. i'm going to start. >> we don't always know what's happening behind the scenes. and we should not always assume because we don't see something that activity isn't occurring. >> neal, it's a stunning, stunning thing that maybe it is possible that this privilege has already been pierced on this crime fraud exception. i have to say the department of justice found that michael cohen was a co-conspirator with donald trump in carrying out campaign finance violations. this is what the federal government asserted in cohen's sentencing. they ultimately didn't charge trump, but they found that they were co-conspirators in a criminal conspiracy to carry out

campaign finance violations. rudy giuliani carried out this fraudulent off-book foreign policy. that was adjudicated in the impeachment for which donald trump was impeached the first time, fyering ivanvich, firing other government officials and diplomats. in this incidence, kinzinger describes john eastman's memo, a coup in writing as, quote, a blueprint for a coup. where do you assess the january 6th case based on what is outward facing a and the kinds of people that are going in and out of the grand jury? >> yeah, it's looking really bad for trump. i don't know that i want to go as far as andrew did and say it's 100% certain that donald trump will be indicted there have certainly been hundreds of indictments already that the justice department has brought about january 6th. but prosecuting january 6th is another level because the president is going to say -- former president is going to say i was acting as president.

you don't want to criminalize government action. all sorts of stuff, which wasn't available to him when it comes to the classified stolen documents at mar-a-lago. there is no claim that trump was acting as president, you know, when he obstructed the investigation or retained, willfully retained these documents. he had already been voted out of the office, at least for those of us in the reality-based community. we knew he wasn't president anymore. so, you know, the case does seem strong. it's always concerned me that it took two years before merrick garland even appointed jack smith to look into it. but, you know, it does seem like the pace is increasing with people going before the grand jury even today. so, you know, i'm hopeful that that happens soon. but it's got to happen soon, because as we know, trump is going to try -- if he is indicted here, will try every tactic in the book to delay that criminal trial, hoping that if he wins or some other republican

wins, he will terminate the prosecution because the president does control ultimately the justice department and can order the prosecution to end. >> tim, i have a question for you, which is based on the incredible work that you and your colleagues did in the january 6th committee. if you're now jack smith and part of his team, who would you immunize, particularly with respect to the fake electors, but in general, there any person or people that you think would be useful to immunize? >> yeah, andrew, it's a good question. i think there are some low-level people within the trump campaign who facilitated the generation of these fake certificates, but didn't make the decisions, right. i don't want to name names or write a script for them, but there are certainly functionaries who execut strategy that was hatched by others, kind of like walt nauta,

to make a parallel. there are low level people who get involved in conspiracies who are essentially following directions, and they sometimes are the most important witnesses in a conspiracy case. so there f there is a republican national committee or trump campaign official who will say i was told to go generate a bunch of people in nevada to sit in a room on december 14th and vote for president trump and send that to congress for the joint session, that -- that person would have exposure because he or she participated in the conspiracy. but if he wasn't or she wasn't the shot-caller, but was rather the executer, that might be a good candidate. so i think if there are a lot of people like that, low levels of culpability, high levels of knowledge and involvement that could be really significant, immunized or cooperating witnesses. >> tim, do you think it's possible or likely? i'll let you describe it however you think is accurate, that what we know to be under scrutiny in georgia because that investigation is more mature,

may be mirrored in multiple states if jack smith is pursuing a criminal investigation into the fake electors plot? >> yes, nicolle, no question. first of all, georgia isn't limited to georgia. what happened in georgia was instigated by washington, and there are lots of people from washington and other places, donald trump, john eastman, rudy giuliani and others who could be implicated in georgia. and that was not a unique pattern, right. the nevada guys are in the grand jury today because the same thing that happened in georgia happened in nevada. it happened in michigan. it happened in pennsylvania. there were electors that stayed overnight on december 13th in courthouses in courthouses because they had to be present in the courthouse on december 14th to cast these electoral ballots. there was an orchestrated plan around the country to generate these fake elector certificates, submit them to washington as if they were official when they were not. they were not issued by the secretary of state, didn't reflect their returns in that

state so. there are a lot of people involved in this. it was a central area of our inquiry. we did run into fifth amendment assertions that they're pushing through. so i think there's a lot more to that story to go back to what's unknown, there are a lot more direct parts of that story that a potential indictment could flush in. >> jackie, you had some of the most dramatic reporting on the work of the january 6th committee, and some of the most dramatic public testimony came from these state officials. people like rusty bauers wanted this fake slate pursued in arizona who said they didn't even pretend to have evidence. there was no evidence. we never got to that phase. how many brad raffenspergers, who happened to record his call with trump, how many rusty bauers, all of them trump backers, trump voters, trump surrogates in the states, but they may also now be witnesses against him if this is now moving forward.

yeah, nicolle, and in the same vein, has jack smith found another brad raffensperger potentially, but just in another state, someone who was similarly pressured the way that trump pressured him and may or may not have caught that in some audio recording or memorialized it in some way. obviously jack smith demonstrated he is capable of rolling out a lot of surprises, and as everyone has stated, just because things have been quiet doesn't mean they haven't been busy, although i will say we have had heard from lawyers on the trump side of things that the requests and pacing of requests and the communications from prosecutors working on the jan 6th side of the special counsel has been a bit slower compared to the mar-a-lago documents case. but i did predict, incorrectly, that the -- that mar-a-lago documents indictment was not coming last week, so that being said, you know, jack smith is

again capable of throwing us all some curveballs. >> perfect place to hit pause for the day. neal katyal, jackie, tim hafey, andrew weissman with me here on set, thank you so much for being part of our coverage. quick break for us. we'll be right back. back. the chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that...

...i need a breakthrough card... like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas... ...a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. - booked our trip to vegas! c- in this economy? what, are we rich?! ♪ ♪ are we rich? we could get a personal chef! i heard about this guy on the news that, that serves a very rare species of fish. highly illegal. he's wanted by interpol. we could have his scary fish whenever we want! - we're not rich... i used kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites to get a great deal on our flight, car, and hotel. - oh. - kayak. search one and done. as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here...

even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com

finally for us today we want to remind all of you what's coming up tonight on msnbc at 8:00 p.m. eastern. join rachel maddow, joy reid along with me and the rest of our primetime colleagues for full coverage and analysis as we break down what happened in court today in the case against the twice-impeached, twice-indicted ex president goes from here. that's two hours from now. another break for us. we'll be right back. her break fs we'll be right back. ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that... ...i need a breakthrough card... like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas... ...a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours.

hey. what are you doing right now? you up for something impetuous? i'm a palm springs hotel.

i got the desert air, sun-kissed pools, and shady hideaways. i'm looking for someone who can decide on a friday that a one night commitment on a saturday is a fine idea. maybe you heard of the rat pack? they hung out here all the time. so, pack a bag. or don't. you could be here in a few hours. meet me at hotels.com and this is ready to go online. yany questions?re -yeah, i got one. how about the best network imaginable? let's invent that. that's what we do here. quick survey. who wants the internet to work, pretty much everywhere. and it needs to smooth, like super, super, super, super smooth. hey, should you be drinking that? -it's decaf. because we're busy women. we don't have time for lag or buffering. who doesn't want internet that helps a.i. do your homework even faster. come again. -sorry, what was that? introducing the next generation 10g network only from xfinity. the future starts now. hi, i'm katie, i've lost 110 pounds on golo in just over a year. i was a diet soda addict, and i needed to have a diet soda every morning

as my eye-opener. with the release, the cravings are gone. golo worked for me when i thought nothing would work for me. the first few weeks were really astonishing how quickly and how easily it came off, how much better i felt, what a change it made so fast. i feel like anything is possible after accomplishing what i've done with golo. thank you so much for letting us into your homes during these truly extraordinary and historic times. we're so grateful. "the beat" with ari melber