boe was going to can do in journals his parents known he was struggling. bought him a handgun despite knowing he was having challenges. discussing what's going to happen to him, also the case of his parents facing charges now. a lot more to come. >> keep us posted. thank you very much. antonia hylton. that does it for us. back tomorrow morning 10:00 a.m. eastern. thanks for joining us. "deadline: white house" starts right now. . hi, there, everyone. it's 4:00 in the east. the truth, today we come on the air with more questions than answers. here's what we do know. receiving a clearer sign yet the twice impeached, twice indicted ex-president is on the verge of being indicted a second time by jack smith, third time total. this time trying to use powers of the presidency to overturn will of the voters. multiple sources telling nbc news today that attorneys for the ex-president, that would be todd blanche and john lauro met

with prosecutors in the special counsel's office and told to expect an indictment. this follow as target letter received last week with the same message. team trump disputes some or all of this. it's not entirely clear. the ex-president posted on his site true social this -- "no indication of notice was given during the meeting." nonetheless, the "new york times" notes there is nothing unusual about a meeting at this juncture between the special counsel and attorneys for a client named a target of an investigation. from that reporting, "similar gatherings are often used by defense lawyers as a last-ditch effort to argue against charges being filed or to convey their version of events in a criminal investigations." cnn reports this on team trump's strategy. "in seeking a meeting with smith's team trump's lawyers hope to at least delay any potential plans for the grand jury to hand out an indictment on thursday. that is according to people

briefed on the plans." "a push for delay no surprise given trump's attitude towards any and all legal problems swirls around him for years now. more from that reporting "trump's political strategy delay any possible trials including until potentially after the 2024 election and put the justice department in an uncomfortable position pursuing a prosecution of president j.b.'s chief 20 thrival. even primary voters begin to have their say." every day can push back handing up of an indictment is a day that pushing back an ultimate trial date. if we know anything about special counsel jack smith it is he is unlikely to follow shiny objects out the window. distractions in versionary truths social tweets for months now has interviewed practically every key witness and accomplice to the trump coup plot and brought many bro this grand jury

already, which, we mentioned yet, still meeting right now at this very moment. just outside that d.c. courthouse where they are meeting members of the u.s. marshals responded meeting with other law enforcement officials outside of the federal courthouse. a looming third indictment of the ex-president for hisettes to overturn the 2020 election is where we begin today. joining us, former justice prosecutor, former senior member of robert mueller's special counsel investigation andrew weissmann and former general for national security mary mccord is here. you have both walked in jack smith's shoes. we can't talk to him. he's busy. but i wonder, andrew weissmann, with your muscle memory what these junctures are like in an investigation into an ex-president and people close to him, what is your best guess what's happening right now? >> the thing we definitely know

and i and i know mary are waiting for was the meeting where defense counsel make as last-ditch effort to explain why their client shouldn't be charged. something we saw in the manhattan criminal case. we saw it in the mar-a-lago documents case, and it's standard practice as you noted for that opportunity to be given to defense counsel, and for it to be taken by defense counsel. so that's a sure thing. we have not heard about any appeal, because that's also something that typically happens. we saw it in the mar-a-lago case, for instance. the one thing i would say, which i think it's great that you noted, is the grand jury is, as we are on-air, is reportedly still sitting. so i don't put a lot of weight right now on this sort of speculation coming out of the

reporting about whether there will or will not be an indictment today and whether it's expected. that's something that prosecutors don't talk about until it's actually happened. you don't signal that you're going into the grand jury to anyone. you don't tell people even in the courthouse that's what's happening. so it could still happen today. usually grand jurors sit up until 5:00 p.m., sometimes longer, if it's needed. so that's the piece we don't know yet. whether, while on-air a vote by the grand jury. >> you just got every sort of hair on the back of my neck to stand up. i wanted to fluff my hair to be ready if that moment of history takes place. i want to ask you another question about that. does jack smith know if he's going to get to the end of whatever else he needed to do today with his grand jury? or is it possible that it's, the timing is based on hour you get in presenting some final piece

of evidence? >> that is a great question. so i'm going to give it a terrible lawyer's answer which is, it depends. >> okay. >> let me just say in my experience, the day that we would intend to present an indictment is one where everything had been teed up for the grand jury. we have made sure that the grand jurors had no more questions, no factual questions, no legal questions, and so what was happening on that day was something that was fully anticipated. now, you never know. grand jury have to deliberate. something happens in secret. neither a court reporter nor the prosecutors are present for that. just the grand juries deliberate. you never for sure know what's going to happen but given this is often a long-term investigation. it is 99.999% of the time what

happens on the last day, teed up everything, something you're pretty sure you know that there will be what's called a true deal. and if that is what jack smith has done he's not really anticipating some problem today. >> so, mary, i wonder if you can take us inside what these days are like? and i just want to -- i think we all think we've heard all this before, and even through mar-a-lago we lived through some of this before. a target letter has been sent. trump acknowledged receipt being a target letter. trump also acknowledged the three crimes mentioned to be under scrutiny. we don't know if that's ultimately what he'll be charged with or more or less. there is also no dispute that a meeting happened today between jack smith's office and the lawyers. again, that was one of the last things that happened before jump was indicted by jack smith and his office for his role in the mishandling of classified

documents, and then the third data point. third thing we know for sure is that this grand jury is still meeting. what is it like to be at that point in any investigation? >> well, to be clear, i've never been in anything quite like this before. and it's unique in so many ways. but i would just pick up where andrew left off. we know from reporting that these grand jurors came into the courthouse before 9:00 a.m. and this has been a long day. 4:00. i'm looking at the time on my laptop. and so this could be the day where the prosecutors have actually summarized all the evidence, just much like a closing argument in a trial, and explained to the grand jurors, each of the offenses, which they seek the grand jurors to vote and what the elements of each offense are and which evidence

that the prosecutors have put before the grand jury supports each of those elements. now it could be that that started on a previous day, and is continuing today. but given that they've been there the whole day, i do feel like something substantive it happening including presenting the matter to the grand jury. could also be on another day presented with this, had questions and today was the day jack smith and his team were answering those questions, following up. all of that could be happening. meanwhile, i think in this case jack smith may be thinking about maybe the reason we saw the meeting with trump's lawyers today, the same day the grand jury is meeting, is because maybe he's trying to close that gap between when the grand jury indicts and when things become public so that trump doesn't necessarily get the jump. because we know with respect to mar-a-lago the grand jury returned an indictment. it wasn't made public right

away. advised mr. trump about it. then he went public about it. thus, then, prompting the government to come in and seek to go ahead and unseal a redacted version of the indictment. giving trump the first word, if you will, about the indictment. kind of like trump last week after the target letter kind of got the first word on it. could be that they're trying to compact this now so that they don't have that gap in time, and i think it's also noteworthy that there's footage of the court security meeting with other local law enforcement, because, again, you're going to want to make sure you have security measures beyond just your marshals in the courthouse and all of that happens on one day i think might indicate this effort to compact this and not have it string out over a period of days. >> that's so interesting. certainly it's something behind you know, off the air we've been talking about. well, last time we learned it from trump. you know, everyone's been -- i don't, i'm not on truth social

and making sure i could see if he truthed it and there is a pattern of how it came out last time, but, mary, what you're suggesting that is less than ideal from the perspective of the u.s. department of justice. >> you know, certainly i would prefer if i'm the department to be the first one speaking about a case and speaking through the indictment. we've talked before about an indictment what we expect in this case just like we saw in mar-a-lago will not just be a bare bones indictment listing offenses a speaking indictment. one that explains the whole story, the facts that lead up to these charges, and particularly since we all expect these to include conspiracy charges, it will tell the story of the conspiracy. it there are other co-conspirators named at defendants they will, of course, named in that because the evidence will have to support the charges against them as well. even if there are additional conspirators not charged they will be named in the indictment

but the story still told. if i'm the prosecutor i want that to be the first thing the public hears and not what the defendant's going to put in terms of their spin on that. >> andrew, you mentioned that this final day, if that's what today turns out to be, from this part of this investigation, can either be a presentation or it can be questions from the last presentation. does the fact that they did not meet on tuesday lean your sort of hypothesis one way or the other? >> not really. it is -- you know, if you thought that there were questions from the, say, the week before, you might have gone ahead and answered those on tuesday instead of waiting to today. having dealt with a lot of long-term grand juries, it's common, you know, just to, for them to meet as is needed, if there are witnesses or not. i tend to agree with mary that

the fact that they didn't meet on tuesday, but now this is such a long day, does suggest there's something significant happening, that it doesn't mean that they're going to be asked at the end of the day to vote, but that certainly could be what is going on, and just to follow-up one thing mary said about sort of compacting the timeline. this is one where one of the things you may see that's different than what happened in the documents case is the government may not seek to initially seal the indictment. meaning, usually an indictment, you seek to have it sealed because you're concerned about the risk of flight of the proposed defendant. so you want to go ahead and arrest them before they know they're being charged. in this case, where you're dealing with defendant trump, who is not, is a defendant, in not just one but two cases. a state and federal case that risk of flight concern is nil.

so you may just see if there is an indictment today or whether next week, that it's simply handed up to the magistrate judge and not under seal. just something the government then is able to have a press release or a press conference and make it public, and to mary's point, then the government is both doing what i think the law requires which would be not seeking something under seal when there's no risk of flight or security but also control the narrative. because they're the ones putting out the story. >> it's so interesting that what we see in cover as part of the trump circus also has ramifications in the legal arena where the stakes are even higher. i want to ask you, mary, what other reason the marshals would have been meeting with law enforcement? obviously, whether today ar next week planning goes into it, but

is the expected timing of fani willis' decision to bring charges sort of a backstop? take me inside what the considerations and window might be for jack smith. >> you know, well, anytime you have a high-profile case, even not involving anywhere nearly as significant, any person nearly sort of as significant in the public's mind as a former president, there's also security concerns, because there could be crowds coming to the courthouse and, of course, the d.c.ouse ha high-profile cases over the years and the site of almost every one of the january 6th prosecutions. part of it is just to make sure you've got proper security. not necessarily always planning for violence, but just crowd control. just plain, old crowd control, because there will be a lot of people. particularly with a case like this. they'll be media trying to get their own access as well as members of the public.

i think you layer on top of that the type of rhetoric, suggestions of violence and protests and worse. things that we've talked about on your show even earlier this week. we have people like peter navarro out there and others really trying to agitate people, trying to work them up to maybe engage in some sort of violent protest. now, we know statements like that were made before district attorney alvin bragg brought his case in manhattan and the turnout was, you know, meh. we know that in florida, similarly. kind of calls, protest, protest, protest and, again, there were a lot of people out there but not violent at all. entirely peaceful. i think a lot of people even donald trump supporters even those who may thi think this is not a warranted prosecution are very concerned about what they've seen happen postjanuary 6th. concerned about not doing

something that could -- you know, cause them to incur criminal liability in order to sort of please donald trump. because they've seen what happened. more than 1,000 people who followed donald trump's wishes on january 6th are now facing or have faced or have been convicted already of criminal charges. so notwithstanding i think a lot of people are probably deterred from engaging in violence, as law enforcement you have to prepare for the worst and be happily surprised at the best. in terms of fani willis, we've seen today security barricades looks like up around the courthouse there. so, you know, it wouldn't surprise me if at this point when timing is getting the way it is if there isn't some coordination, if nothing else between courthouses what are you doing, expecting, let's make sure we're in communication with each other. >> because, and i appreciate, mary, you know, raising this

political arena. that's where all of trump's defenses seemed to be designed to really plan to really nail, because the legal analysis of what they're contending seems -- mary's word, pretty meh. i'm not going to play it. he said on fox. accusing president two things. number one some kind of effort to obstruct the january 6th count. just a mob descending on the capitol and the only thin pause in counting so seven contestant states could reaudit or recertify. never heard of anyone getting indicted for asking for an audit. trump was looking for the truth to find out exactly what happened in those seven contested states. that'scriminal. his own people said about known falsity and known illegality of the eastman -- this is pat

cipollone and other lawyers. >> my view was that the vice president had, didn't have legal authority to do anything. >> and -- looked closely at memos, theory and no base that it was not a strategy the president should pursue. >> sounds like consistent with your opinion? >> informed certainly by them. >> either you or speaker chatfield make a point to the president you were not going to do anything that violated michigan law? >> i believe we did. whether or not it was those exact words or not, i think that the words that i would more likely use we were going to follow the law. >> did you tell the president in that second call that you supported him, that you voted for him, but you were not going to do anything illegal for him? >> i did, sir. >> did john eastman ever admit

far as you know in front of the president that his proposal would violate the electoral counting? >> i believe he did on the 4th. >> so andrew weissmann, the defense has already annihilated by trump-supporting republicans explain to us why in the end the coup didn't work. didn't work because too many were unlittling to break the law for donald trump. >> i think that what we are now going to see even more than what we've seen in the manhattan case and in the florida case is a real assault on the courts and the rule of law. in, for instance, the mar-a-lago case, the defense can sort of say, what about hillary? and what about biden? and what about pence?

same at me. we all know that's not true but it gave some cover. what's happening now is the former president saying, yeah. i violated the law. what's it to you? that, i mean, this is, there really is no legal defense that's tethered to the facts in the law. i think that is the reason you are seeing donald trump praise the people who were attacking the capitol. that's why you see marjorie taylor greene going to the prison where people who have been convicted of participating in that insurrection and heralding them, because this is one where there is no factual and legal defense and i think what you're seeing is just a flat out assault on the rule of law and the courts more than any of the other criminal cases. what will be the most important of the criminal cases. >> yeah. you can sort of sense the

agitation on earth, too, in sort of right-wing political media circles already. andrew stick around. mary mccord thank you for starting us off on a day like today. we're really grateful. much more on today's news from washington and what we know about the january 6th investigation. reaction from two former members of congress is next, plus, of all trump's criminal indictment this could be the notice his extremist base. who he ma promised rett trat trat retribution for and to. all this after a quick break. don't go anywhere today. t go a. my active psoriatic arthritis can make me feel like i'm losing my rhythm. with skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, i'm getting into my groove.

♪(uplifting music)♪ along with significantly clearer skin... skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. skyrizi attaches to and reduces a source of excess inflammation that can lead to skin and joint symptoms. with skyrizi 90% clearer skin and less joint pain are possible. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. thanks to skyrizi, there's nothing like clearer skin and better movement... and that means everything. ♪nothing is everything♪ now's the time to ask your doctor about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. there's never a dull moment for the nelsons'. fifth generation montana ranchers.

there's a story in every piece of land. run with us on a john deere gator™ xuv and start telling yours. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. run with us on a john deere gator™ xuv like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 bucks a line per month. that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. save hundreds a year over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. and now, trade in your current phone, and get up to $1000 off the new galazy z flip 5 and z fold 5. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history.

that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters keep your laundry smelling fresh waaaay longer than detergent alone. if you want laundry to smell fresh for weeks, make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters. - the will states that mr. marbles will receive everything he needs in perpetuity. thanks to autoship from chewy. - i always love that old man. - and he gets the summer house. - what? - [narrator] save more on what they love and never run out with autoship from chewy.

i ask you to think of the scene in our capitol rotunda on the night of january 6th. there in a sacred state, against every wall that night encircling the room s.w.a.t. teams. >> warnings from members of the january 6th select committee still land as powerfully and ominously a year later that set the tone about today's news, about the disgraced ex-presidential role and inaction on the day of january 6th. it's important to remember that the clearest sign yet about another imminent indictment this time on charges for his sdheem scheme that led up to violence

that day. bring in lorraine loria former member of the january 6th select committee and joining us former maryland congresswoman and msnbc contributor donna edwards. congresswoman gloria, your thoughts at this news sinks in and we sit here in this hinge point between an indictment that is expected, that has not yet taken place? >> well, it's a very sad day for the country as january 6th was to know that we are facing a former president who took these actions. it certainly is necessary and the work of the committee and our contributions to collecting and presenting the facts to the american people in i think in some part led to where we are today. and i think that justice must be served. i think that the former president must be held accountable for his accesses and the which the was very clear about that and recommendations

and i anticipate the recommendations we understand could be contained in this indictment from the grand jury will contain some overlap of what the committee presented. obviously the grand jury had ability to question more witnesses to compel more witnesses and collect information beyond capacity of the committee. i think the american public deserves answers, and as we wait for potential indictment, i think that the day is coming that the formatter president and those surrounding him and enabled him are held accountable for one of the darkest days in our history. >> you led testimony elaine that got directly to the ex-president's state of mind. a lot of news reporting that some of jack smith's final witnesses including his son-in-law had been asked questions that get right at that. let me play some of your presentation from the public hearings last summer. >> you said you talked to the president the next day. tell us about that conversation,

on the 7th. >> yes. i don't think it was very long. just a terrible day working on a long statement, it's crazy. >> what did he say? >> um -- no. very upset. >> in the days following the attack, president trump also expressed a desire to pardon those involved in the attack. since then he's suggested that he will do so if he returns to the oval office. in summary, president trump lit the flame, he poured gasoline on the fire and sat by in the white house dining room for hours watching the fire burn. and today he still continues to fan those flames. that was his ex-team dereliction of duty. >> seems that he's gone even further's now his position is to pardon all the insurrectionists on the day he told them he loved them. that is the path he seems to pursue as a candidate for

presidency in 2024. that seems like the clearest window of all, into his state of lying about the insurrection and his own role in inciting it. >> i agree, and it's interesting you played that back. because could have been said today as well as it could have back when we held that specific hearing. he continues to do that and go further. he's lionizing these people. the campaign rally started off with the prison crier singing an anthem. celebrating what people did on january 6th. so it's, only intensified, and i think that kind of is even more why, the importance of this investigation coming to its culmination and holding him accountable. ultimately i don't think that someone who attempted to overthrow an election stops proceeding of our government deserves to be in the white house again. and i think that the more this

is shared through the investigation as it becomes public, that the american people would be convinced of that again in 2024 as they were in 2020. >> donna it has always been clear that the justice system is a distant second to political party purging a corrupt member. but because the republican party is incapable and unwilling to purge a corrupt member, we are left with watching this process. but with the congressional probe made clear, it's that, you know, ivanka and her assistant testifying that trump called mike pence the p word because he wouldn't overturn the electoral count for joe biden. screaming at people inside the west -- i mean, his state of mind was pro-insurrection, pro-obstructing an official proceeding. pro-getting in the car going down there himself and

anti-peaceful transfer of power. there is no evidence to the contrary. >> well, i think what the january 6th committee highlighted and what is even more clear today in looking back is that everything leading up both to the election and postelection to january 6th was almost entirely predictable based on the president's behavior. we know before the election he was already giving hints that if it didn't go his way, that something untorrid happened and that people should take action, and then, of course, after the election all of the things that he did to try to stop the proceeding of the county electoral votes and then, of course, his behavior sets trump, a sense that suggesting that he would pardon those insurrectionists that he thought they were justified and that he didn't do anything wrong.

so, you know, i really credit the january 6th committee with illustrating all of this for us, but we needed the department -- we need the department of justice in order to preserve the constitution and the rule of law to really, to indict this president, because i think that that's the victory for the american people seeing that at the end of the day, no matter what donald trump did, that the rule of law has to be preserved. >> you know, donna, as we sort of prepare ourselves from what appears to be, if not today at some point next week and an imminent second indictment by jack smith. third indictment in total for those counting at home, the ex-president, we also, i think, reflexably prepared for the republicans to fall in line and defend him. it's important to remember that a lot of your former republican colleagues were saying the same things about trump's role

inciting the insurrection as any of us were on this network or any other, just saying it off camera. recordings of kevin mccarthy made public through, to "new york times" political reporters, made clear that mth karnlgy thought he had to get out. didn't think the 25th amendment was fast enough for impeachment. thought he had to resign and afraid he wouldn't. what do you make of the disinformation tsunami we can expect from republicans when this indictment comes down? >> well, you know, as i was saying, wait for it. we they it's coming. the reality is that the american people, majority of the american people, are actually so much smarter than that. we all watcheds with our own eyes and heard with our own ear what's some of these same republicans were saying in the immediate aftermath on-camera about january 6th and the president's role in it. not just what they said off camera. and so i think the american people will really be able to

die just what is inevitable and that is that this president, former president, will finally be held accountable for his lawlessness. >> former congresswoman elaine luria and former congresswoman donna edwards, thank you for joining us on such a historic day. andrew sticks around longer with us. and donald trump this time trying to overturn the 2020 election he lost could lead to a dangerous new chapter in the ex-president's relationship with the insurrectionists themselves. that story is next. i'll always take care of you. ♪ i'm gonna hold you forever... ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ be by your side... ♪ ♪ i'll be there... ♪

for too long, big pharmaceutical companies have bought off politicians so they can get away with ripping us off. that's changing now. joe biden just capped the price of insulin for seniors at $35 a month. gave medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices. and prices are already starting to go down. the out-of-pocket cost is dropping for 27 drugs. [narrator] learn how the inflation reduction act will save you money.

moo. a bit of news to report. share with you out of the federal courthouse in washington, d.c. that grand jury investigating the 2020 election has just started to leave the building. as we wait for indictment we are left to wonder how criminal charges could impact and possibly further agitate donald trump's political supporters. that same extremist base fostered for years now and to whom promised he will lead a 2024 campaign of "retribution", the 2016 i declared i am your voice. today i add, i am your warrior. i am your justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, i am your retribution. i am your retribution. >> joining our coverage former

adirector for counter intelligence frank delucie back with us and former homeland security chief of staff myles taylor. andrew weissmann still with us. start with you. checking your phone, news it's grand jury is now leaving the courthouse? >> so they've obviously had a very long day. that's somewhat unusual. they appear to have started before 9:00 a.m. so i try not to do any math in public, but in my count that is over seven and a half hours. that's a long day. so there are three possibilities. they weren't asked to vote on anything. they voted a public indictment and they vote add sealed indictment. the one option that seems unlikely unless we hear it, a variation for short order that they voted a public indictments. would have to be file and everyone would see it.

we just don't know they weren't asked to vote at all or votd a sealed indictment something they did in the mar-a-lago documents case. it's clear no matter what for those people wondering if there's movement, clearly there is based on the long day, and the fact that the defense camp made its last-ditch appeal to the office. it's still a wait and see to know when the former president will be charged for the third time in history. >> andrew weissmann, if they went with option one and did not vote today what would happen next? >> based on the fact that the defense lawyers spoke to jack smith's office assuming that didn't lead to any headway, they may have to speak to main justice, the lawyers at main justice have a limited role

under special counsel rules to determine wenger what jack smith is doing is often an abuse of discretion they will say, no. you cannot go forward with all of it or some part of it. as we know from last time, that also did not avail the defense team, but i would expect them to try to meet with marshall miller the most senior career person at the department, who reports with the person they met with last time. i think that's the next thing we might see that will be in very short order that is not a long delay. i imagine a very short leash on amount of time that the defense is given to make that final appeal and then the grand jury sits on tuesdays and thursdays. so they could return on tuesday. it is also possible, we used to do this. that you asked grand jury to come in on a day that they are not normally scheduled.

it there's some very good reason for it. you see if the grand jurors are willing to meet an a day they don't normally come in. from time to time that does happen. >> so if they, i think number two, if they took curtain number two today and they voted to indict and it's under seal, would we learn about it the same way we did last time, from trump tweeting about it? >> that could be, because what would happen in that situation is that the government does tell the defense camp that there's been an indictment. the government would not be allowed to give that indictment to the defense until the court gave them permission to do that. presumably they would, the government would ask for permission to give it not just to donald trump but to make it publicly available. but that's the reason why i

think there's probably a lot of reasons for it not to be under seal at all. the only real justification i can understand would be security and those may be very real concerns, concerns for instance, just safety of the courthouse, personnel at the courthouse. eastern the grand jurors. something we used to worry about in terms of them not being identified, making sure they felt comfortable and were protected going in and out of the courthouse. >> such an extraordinary thing to even be talking about. i am not good at math either, frank, but a seven-plus-hour-long day for today's grand jurors. what are your thoughts? >> first, impressive andrew may have done this without the aid of a calculator or pen and paper. you need to know that. >> thank you, frank. >> there's no -- >> of course. there's no question that they

put in a day that is not the norm for this grand jury or most grand juries. therefore, this protracted period of time means something was different about today. whether we can engage in conjecture for an hour whether they did actually return something today or whether came close to it or not or fixing to get ready, we don't know. we know this. we're very close. i want to continue the thread andrew brought up about the grand jurors departing today and it's relationship to security planning, because this is paramount. we keep kind of focussing naturally on the courthouse security. courthouse security, but, that's very important, of course, but, this applies both to d.c. and what looks like, perhaps, imminent indictments in fulton county, georgia as well nap is the security of people. people like jurors. that are going to have to come in and out, or a decision made about sequestration, rare in the

federal system, really, and then witness security as people come in and out, and that's all going to largely hinge whether trump and his cohorts publicly start implying or more directly directing some kind of response against jurors or witnesses. but that lone actor is what worries law enforcement. somebody following a juror home. a witness home, is a problem. i'm sure the marshals now are at least for the federal system in d.c. figures how they do that. how they offer some form of safe exit and egress, whether blocking pedestrian traffic allow for a van to take jurors for another location for when they get their cars what's going to happen? paramount planning for a secured unfettered trial, and, you know, the other thing is, whether or

not this impacts the security factor, it impacts selection of a jury. in other words, how hard of citizens going to try to get off this jury, because they hear nonsense going on in the background. on truth social from a former president. that concerns them for their safety and safety of their family nap could be an issue as well. >> it's just remark than we're having a conversation about the potential trial of an ex-president, and we have to draw examples of how you might protect a jury and witnesses and a mob prosecution. a terrorist trial. i don't know there are any other parallels for the kind of structural security you're talk about for the entire process. the jurors, the witnesses, the evidence. it's just remarkable. i just, sneak in a quick break and turn to our resident expert on trump's role storing up political violence, miles taylor on the other side. please, don't go anywhere today.

- the company goes to the firstborn, audrey.

the model train set is entrusted to todd. mr. marbles will receive recurring deliveries for all of his needs in perpetuity, thanks to autoship from chewy. - i always loved that old man. - what's it say about the summer house? - yeah, the beach house- - the summer residence goes to mr. marbles. (mr. marbles chuckles) - plot twist! - i'm sorry, what? - doesn't make logistical sense. - unbelievable. - pets aren't just pets. they're more. - you got a train set, todd. - [announcer] save more on what they love and never run out with autoship from chewy. we are back with frank, miles and andrew. so miles, this is from the atlantic. it is written by juliette kayyem. she writes this, trump's real enduring legacy is his introduction of violence, the threat of violence, and targeted harassment into the dynamics of our political system, as if they were all just a natural extension of democratic disagreement. you've been saying something similar for a long time.

your thoughts on how we prepare for that normalization in the coming days and weeks. >> well, this is an extraordinary moment we're in today, nicole, with news of the indictment. and i think it all does tie back to what juliette said in that article is what trump brought into our politics and the danger and the vitriol. but what's even more astounding than that, nicolle, is how for seeable all of it was. i think when we look back in history far from this moment, when we clear those cobwebs of cacophony, as they say, we will conclude this was very foreseeable before and then during and after the trump administration. before the trump administration, you had people like ted cruz and lindsey graham and jim jordan and mick mulvaney and rick perry saying that donald trump was a cancer on conservatism, that he was unfit for office, and that he was actually dangerous. now a lot of these people ended

up supporting him when he became president. i want to read you a quote, not in a self-congratulatory way, but more than a year before the insurrection, i wrote that my biggest worry is what would happen if trump was removed from office and he refused to go? and i said trump relishes the cocoon he has built. he will not exit quietly or easily. it's why at many turns he suggests coups are at foot. he is seeding a narrative for his followers, a narrative that could end tragically. and nicolle, i'll add even after january 6th, after the administration, you had so many republicans trying to downplay it. you i think have been actually the loudest voice in the american media about how significant that day was, the biggest political crisis in modern american history. and i think that's about to be validated with a third indictment and the first time an american president has ever tried to upend the republic.

>> miles, i'll take it as a compliment, and i appreciate the compliment. i think liz cheney, though, the one that sort of smashed, broke glass in case of emergency, right? i think it's liz cheney that turned to her own party and said basically, we were willing to take democracy to iraq and afghanistan and shed american treasure and life, and those are very polarizing decisions, but that was to liz cheney's mind about democracy and about stability. and to see republicans represent a threat to our democracy and our stability and her role in sort of turning against her party and using some of the same messages and some of the same tactics that liz cheney advocated using in a war against a foreign threat is to me the turning point in the aftermath of january 6th. >> well, and the consequences for congresswoman cheney are very indicative of this political climate we are in that

the ex-president has created, one of volatility and violence and crowd-sourced intimidation, because she not only lost her job for merely speaking the truth and pointing how horrendous it was that a president tried to prevent the transfer of power to a democratic successor, but she also lost her family's safety. i remember the last time i had a conversation with liz cheney about this, she had her security guards just over her shoulder, and noted how earlier in her career in washington, it was almost a mark of privilege when people walked around with a security detail. when her father was president, it showed that he was powerful that he had a security detail. but in that moment, it showed that liz cheney was actually under threat, that she was facing death threats for merely speaking the truth and for standing up against the president of the united states. an extraordinary moment that i think americans in the future are going to look back and view very unfavorably, and they will have no comparison. because whether it's iran

continue ra or the lewinsky scandal or the watergate, nothing compares to this in the history of the republic. >> frank figliuzzi, you get the last word. >> boy, miles mentioned history not looking favorably upon this. i agree. i just can't help but mention as we speak, people are trying to control the writing of history and curriculum in schools. so we don't know what this looks like. as former a.g. barr said, history is written by the winner. let's hope that justice prevails now and moving forward into the, if and that we are looking at a secure environment for justice to take place and that more reasonable people come out when indictments come down and say let's let this run its course. let's see the evidence. that's what i'm wishing for as we plan for security. >> such a good reminder that the people condemning jack smith's cases haven't even seen them yet. frank figliuzzi, miles teller,

thank you so much. andrew weissman, we're going ask you to stick around for the next hour. there is much more news to come on this closely watched potentially historic day in washington, d.c. where a federal grand jury met today -- where the special counsel's office met with donald trump's legal team and a federal grand jury sat for over seven hours. we'll have all the latest in the next hour. don't go anywhere. ading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. e*trade from morgan stanley. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities, while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market. e*trade from morgan stanley.

♪ limu emu & doug ♪ what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you make us proud, huh? ♪ bye, uncle limu. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

we understand the gravity of each and every referral we are making today, just as we understand the magnitude of the crime against democracy that we describe in our report. but we have gone where the facts and the law lead us, and inescapably, they lead us here. >> hi again, everyone. it's now 5:00 in the east. the pure and simple facts of the case led and presented by the january 6th select committee to

draw what it felt was an undeniable conclusion. the ex-president of the united states of america had conspired against the united states of america, the country he once led and incited a deadly insurrection in his attempts to stay in power did not work. the committee sent criminal referrals, four of them to the department of justice more than seven months ago. today comes a significant marker in that criminal indictment against the ex-president is very near. trump's lawyers todd blanche and john lauro met with prosecutors and special counsel jack smith's office today. they were told to, quote, expect an indictment. a trump spokesperson disputes this, and the ex-president posted on his social media account this, quote, no indication of notice was given during a meeting, end quote. today is one week, though, after donald trump received his very own target letter from jack smith's office. the letter outlined the three criminal statutes, which could form the basis of charges

against the ex-president, conspiracy to defraud the united states, deprivation of rights under color of law, and tampering with victims, witnesses or informants. a federal indictment of a former president for trying to overturn the will of the people he led will be a remarkable and unprecedented test for the rule of law in america and for our nation's very democracy. that is where we start the hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends, former u.s. attorney and former deputy assistant attorney general harry litman is here. from "the new york times," luke broadwater. former senator claire mccaskill is back with us, and andrew weissmann is still was. harry, let me start with you. your thoughts today on some of what folks like yourself and andrew see in the tea leaves or the subtle movements that a normal civilian may not. >> they're not so subtle anymore. we've really been expecting it to happen, but now it's quite real. i think everything that needed

to happen before the indictment issues now has happened. and it is one day? is it two days? is it three days? by tuesday, we'll know the nature of the charges. and as you say, it's just a seismic event. we look so carefully in such a granular way week in and week out. but then you take a step back and understand that the federal government is charging a former president with the most treacherous act in opposition of democracy rule of law and the sacrosanct principle of peaceful transfer of power in our history. it's a monumental event in and of itself. and then of course given that it will come in the middle of an election and a roiled elect rat, and we could potentially go either way in the election makes it all the way dramatic and in some ways any way, uncertain. >> luke broadwater, it was not

preordained. it was not imminent, it was not necessarily in motion after the smoke cleared at the u.s. capital on january 6th. and as nancy pelosi testified, the pooh-pooh was cleaned up. but the work of the congressional committee i think history will have to judge exactly what role it played in putting some of the eyewitnesss to trump's role in inciing the violence and cheering the coup and pressuring mike pence exactly what role that congressional investigation played. but this thing that feels imminent, that feels unavoidable even to trump and his legal team was very much an open question in the hours and days after january 6th. >> yeah, you know, speaking with members of the january 6th committee, which i've been doing over the past week, you know, they've been very careful not to look like they're putting a political thumb on the scale in any way doing this. but they do feel like their investigation laid out a road map for the justice department

to follow. you know, if you'll recall, if justice department was doing a really aggressive job of rounding up all of the rioters, the people who were committing the violence on january 6th. they charged over a thousand people in that. but the investigation under the political actors was moving along much, much more slowly. and it was the january 6th committee exposing a lot of the things to do with the fake electors, the fresh on state officials, with what was happening in the political realm that really got the justice department moving. and you saw that afterwards with the requests for the transcripts of the january 6th committee had conducted, and of course bringing in many of the same witnesses that had already testified before congress. and the justice department was able to have several major breakthroughs that the january 6th committee did not have and could not get. and so it remains to be seen what will be in this indictment which we all expect to happen at some point. but i do expect it to have new

evidence that the public has not seen yet from the january -- from the january 6th committee hearing. >> so claire, one of those breakthroughs is access to mark mel meadows, more than just the trove of select text messages he turned over to the committee. but talking to him and we understand from news reports he testified before the grand jury. here is. >> have you testified before the grand jury? >> i don't talk anything january 6th related. >> do you feel it's appropriate to the investigation? >> so that was one of the most significant messages and then he cut it off after a book revealed something related to january 6th that just drove trump nuts. it was about how sick he was

when he had covid and he was at walter reed. that was the public rupture, at least between meadows and trump. but as we await news that in the coming hours or days or weeks trump will be indicted, it could very well turn on what that man shared with jack smith. >> i think mark meadows and mike pence and some of the others in the inside circle that we didn't hear from directly in j-6 investigation by congress could end up being key. you know, nicolle, i'd like to just pause for a minute here because i want to make sure that i emphasize how different the charges that are about to be laid against a former president of the united states are from other things that he has done. we're numb. let's be honest. we're numb about donald trump. beginning with the "access hollywood" tape which should have disqualified him from being president of the united states and didn't, from all of the lies

he told during the campaign, from the stormy daniels, i mean who gets elected president after they paid hush money to a porn star? and then all of the things he did in office, and the indictments he already has from paying stormy daniels and obviously taking those documents that imperiled national security and then treating them like they were his personal tokens of his power that he could wield in any he wanted to regardless of the consequences, all of that comes before this. but this is different. this is really, really important because this is all about whether or not somebody in the united states of america can get away with trying to change the outcome of a free and fair election. it is so fundamental to what we are as a country, it is so important. and i just hope that everyone out there that is right now well, let's quit talking about

trump so much. now is the time to shake off your fatigue. now is the time to find your passion and your anger and your righteous indignation that anybody should get away with this. and on top of that, that he's probably going to have a judge to recess the trial so he can go debate to be president of the united states again. it is a remarkable historical moment. >> well, claire, i would argue that is because of all those things. i mean, it is because he got away with paying hush money to a porn star and writing the cover-up checks, as he sat in the oval office, viewed as a sacred place for anyone who has ever been blessed enough to get to work in that office. i worked for someone who had to go in on a saturday, i had to go home and change because you had to wear a suit inside the oval office. i think that other presidents have held it in the same regard. he is someone who after he got away with was in his view fully exonerated by mueller which of course he wasn't. the next day, the day after

mueller testifies before congress, he calls zelenskyy and extorts him, trying to withhold congressionally approved military aid for dirt on joe biden, so deep was his obsession with joe biden. and after getting away with that, after the republicans in congress who didn't denied he'd abused his power, wouldn't hold him accountable, then he goes on to try to steal a u.s. election. they're all related. the brazenness is you can either liken it to a child that keeps touching things they're not supposed to touch and they get away with it, or a mobster. but the conduct is all related. >> it is a matter of his character, and his character is so flawed. this is not somebody who understands the concept of integrity. this is not someone who understands anything about selflessness or putting the country ahead of your own personal wins. and he deserves to be held accountable. and this is something that didn't ever think i would see in

the united states of america, what is going on right now today. but it's about time. it's about time. >> andrew weissman, you've been with us. you've been with our network, basically chained to a set for many weeks now, and i know all day long. but as we've sort of called it a hinge point, as we sit in this gap between the target letter, the meeting with the attorneys, things that us nonlawyers, nonprosecutors have now learn ready events that precede an indictment, where are your thoughts about all the investigations, including the ones you were part of that came before? >> sure. well, i can sort of relate this to claire's speech, which i totally agree with, which is the way in which i and prosecutors would look at these upcoming charges against donald trump, and you have donald trump to this day playing the victim and

saying that he is being persecuted, not prosecuted for the fact is successful politically and that he is a political rival of joe biden, and he could say that in a manhattan case and point to the unusual nature of those charges. he can try and undermine the mar-a-lago case by saying they didn't go after pence or biden or hillary. he cannot say that with respect to these charges that are coming up. as luke pointed out, hundreds, hundreds of people who participated at a much lower level than he have been charged. and if you're jack smith, the reason that you feel like this has to be charged is because of the rule of law, that he is not being singled out. it would actually be selective

nonprosecution if he got a pass on this. you don't let the leader of a seditious conspiracy go free when you've prosecuted hundreds of people who, to use the language of the j-6 committee, foot soldiers. so the way in which the department thinks of the rule of law i think fits in very much with what claire's point is about why this is so important and so different because of the demonstrated documented prosecutions of so many people, and that you are treating donald trump no better and no worse than all of those other people when he is the most culpable of the people who participated in that effort to overturn the election. >> andrew weissman, i wonder what role his ongoing embrace of the insurrection and the

insurrectionists. someone mentioned last hour that he actually made a song with and for the jailed insurrectionists. he plays video of the song at the beginning of his rallies. his first campaign event was in waco, obviously the seat of other anti-government extremism. what role does his -- i don't know if recidivism is the right word, but he continues to be pro-insurrection, and pro-inside insurrectionist. >> he is clearly playing to a jury. that is not a defense, that is an i am guilty. to sit there and say i actually support what they were doing on january 6th is not what you would if you were a defense lawyer, that is not what you want to see. and so his -- to borrow a line from claire, he is not running right now for the presidency.

he is running to not have to go to jail. he wants to win or have a republican ally win. and that is his only legal out is through that political lens, because, you know, a normal defendant would say something like i had no idea that this is what they were going to do on january 6th. i was not supporting it. i took steps afterwards to stop it or prevent it. but instead, as donald trump's wont, he is just embracing the wrong and the unthinkable and the illegal. and so he's really now running on a very different track than the one that harry and i used to work in, which is the system where facts and law and a court are the things that prevail. >> well, and there is a through-line. he has been trying to do it i think since day 16 of his presidency when he wanted

jimcombe to see to it to let mike flynn go. the only through-line. trump doesn't have new moves. le just finds new victims. his desire, andrew, since the beginning was to use doj to reward in the case of mike flynn his allies and to punish in the case of wanting to prosecute all of the mueller investigators, including yourself, jimcombe, jim mccabe was to use to it punish his political adversaries. >> absolutely. to your point, he at his advanced age has had no accountability. so he has been able to get away with that in the civil context. and so far in the criminal context. and you know, he is facing really serious charges currently. 71 felonies. that is going to be a number that increases dramatically in the next few days at the federal and state level.

so he sees his salvation through a very different means than the rule of law. and to your point, that he is actually used those tools, for instance, in the mueller investigation, he proceeded to essentially pardon everyone but the people who cooperated with us. so, you know, michael cohen, rick gates, they didn't get pardons because they were cooperators. so he basically used the power of the presidency the way a mob boss would. >> and to claire's point, that's what we have to make sure we are not numb to. let me bring in our coverage tim haffey, the lead investigator for the january 6th select committee. tim, we've had so many chances to talk to you lately. but the very first time i talked to you, and i mentioned this last week, i asked you if jack smith is able to pierce through some of the few places where the committee wasn't able to go, would they find more evidence

consistent with what you found? and it was your belief that they would. that behind the closed door of the eastmans and the meadows was not exculpatory evidence. it appears that the justice department has reached that very conclusion. trump has received a target letter. today jack smith's office told trump's lawyers they should expect an indictment. your reaction to that news? >> not surprising. reinforces everything that we found over the 16 months of our investigation, nicolle. we've been marching inexorably towards this moment. i'm not surprised that the special counsel has reached this conclusion or seems poised to. my guess is jack smith is holding a full house where we had two pair. i'm not a poker player. but it's only gotten stronger is my point as he has been able to push through some of the privilege assertions and get act to people and information that we didn't have. we were already there at the end

of our work on january 3rd. and when we issued the report. we seem to be further along the road toward both understanding and accountability now. >> you know, when you brace for what happens next, i mean, andrew has spent a lot of the last hour and 15 minutes sort of taking us through the process piece. but my brain goes to the political piece and what my ex-party is likely to do and what seemed to fuel liz cheney's drive and 24/7 work on the committee and ire at her old party. they are likely to defy the rule of law and their own reactions to 1-6 as it happened. what your thoughts what will be a political reaction that totally contradicts what the republicans did on the day of january 6th? they didn't stay in their office. they didn't walk out and shake hands with the insurrectionists. they ran. there is the famous video of josh hawley running. they hid. they're in all the shots with nancy pelosi standing there as

she basically runs the government. but they are not likely to react as people who saw january 6th the way it really went down when this indictment comes down. >> so we subpoenaed several of them, and they refused to cooperate with us. so there were republican members of congress who were material witnesses to events who were themselves in direct communication with the president and others and they did not pro us with that information. but i don't think we can paint the entire party with that same broad brush, nicolle. the vast majority of our witnesses were republicans, were trump appointees, were people, men and women who stood up and did what was right and put principle over party. so i'm not the political person here. i let others make that decision. i'll just say it was important to us, and i think enhances the credibility of the select committee's findings that the people who provided us that really important information sketching out the multipart plan to disrupt the joint session

were conservative republicans, were trump appointees, were people on whom he relied on various policy issues and other things over the course of his administration. they were not partisans that were looking contrary to what you might hear from current members of congress. these were not partisans out the sink the president. they were really hoping that he would win. but they weren't willing to compromise their principles when he didn't. there are republicans out there and thankfully were the witnesses for us. and they're still out there, hopefully more and more of them and their voices are heard as we go forward. >> yeah, it's a really important point. we covered mr. donahue's interview on newsnation where he is talking about the integrity of jack smith. and he describes him as center right in his personal politics. andrew weissman points out they know each other from their days as prosecutors in the eastern district of new york. but he was a 25.5 mile man. heavy was with donald trump until the last, you know, mile

of the marathon and sort of gets off the route before the coup. not even before the election goes down, which trump has all seeded will be fraudulent if he doesn't win. what do you make of this, frank, the witnesses like him, tim, if this trial proceeds, this indictment against trump as we're told to expect any day or week? >> i think it makes a huge difference. look, cross-examination 101 is to look for bias. to either look for inconsistency, lack of opportunity to observe, or bias. so to the extent rich donahue is a witness in the potential criminal trial in washington, d.c., where is the bias? where is the bias against president trump? when he was right there with him on the immigration policy, on changing the priorities of the department of justice from the previous administration. he was right there lockstep with the president and his policies, was an appointee of the

president. he was the u.s. district attorney in eastern new york and then deputy attorney general. he was a very senior trump official. every director of the fbi in history has been a republican. to accuse the organization of bias despite that. but to be honest, nicolle, it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter what rich donahue's politics are. it doesn't matter with a chris wray's politics are. these are officials who do the right thing. the department of justice is full of people like that. and that doesn't matter who wins the election. they are pros. and they do the right thing whether they're republicans or democrats that has been my experience. i think that historically has been borne out by the actions of the department. and i think that's what we're facing here. whether they're witnesses or whether they're on the other side of the podium asking questions, they're going to do the right thing. in fact, finally are going to be developed and accountability may ensue. >> may being the operative word there. i need all of you to stick around a little longer with us.

we have much more to get to on the big developments of the day in the january 6th investigation being run by jack smith special counsel. don't go anywhere. we'll be right back. nywhere. we'll be right back. - you like that bone? i got a great price on it. - did you see my tail when that chewy box showed up? - oh, i saw it. - my tail goes bonkers for treats at great prices. sorry about the vase. - [announcer] save more on what they love with everyday great prices at chewy.

after switching to the farmer's dog we noticed so many improvements in remi's health. his allergies were going away and he just had amazing energy. it looks like nutritious food, and it is. i'm investing in my dog's health and happiness. get started at longlivedogs.com first, there's an idea and you do something about it for the first time with godaddy. then before you know it, (it is a life changer...) you make your first sale. small business first. never stopped coming. (we did it!) and you have a partner that always puts you first way. (no way!) start today at godaddy.com. fundamental freedoms are under attack in our country today and there is a national agenda at play by these extremist so-called leaders. it will be a national ban on abortion. it is the tradition of our country to fight for freedom, to fight for rights... to fight for the ability of all people

to be who they are and make decisions about their own lives and their bodies. and we will fight for the ideals of our country. wanna lose weight and be healthier? it's time for aerotrainer. and their bodies. a more effective total body fitness solution. (announcer) aerotrainer's ergodynamic design and four patented air chambers create maximum muscle activation for better results in less time. it allows for over 20 exercises. do the aerotrainer super crunch, push ups, aero squat. it inflates in 30 seconds.

aerotrainer is tested to support over 500 pounds. lose weight, look great, and be healthy. go to aerotrainer.com. that's a-e-r-o trainer.com. just stick with us. don't believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. >> everyone is back with us. tim heaphy, luke broadwater, andrew weissman and our good friend claire mccaskill is still

here, right? claire, this is in 2018. i remember when he said it feeling like i stuck my finger in a socket, because i was oh, this is it. this is when he was really brutally attacking the press all the time. i think some editors of news organizations went and explained to him that they endangered reporters all around the world where they didn't have a first amendment to protect them. but this was ball game for him, because if he could convince his base, as he ultimately guess on to do, if he hadn't by 2018, then it didn't matter what the facts were. we loosely call this earth 2. those of us who still believe up is up and down is down live over here on earth 1. but it feels like this indictment for his alleged crimes and criminality around january 6th is what it was all about so that people don't believe their eyes, they don't believe their ears, they only believe him. >> yeah, i mean, my moment was

some of his enablers, kellyanne conway saying was what was alternative facts. >> yes. >> there were so many times that not only did he do it, but a cadre of people who i thought had more character and integrity and would be willing to stand up and say hey, he is lying to you. he is lying to you. and that's really the other sad chapter here is trump didn't act alone in basically taking advantage of a group of americans who had a lot of grievance. he figured that grievance part out and he main lined it, and they became just absolutely slavish to him. they became he is the guy. whatever he says is true. and then there were all the people around him in washington that knew better, and they didn't do anything. to this day, the vast majority of them have not done what they

need to do. look at what's going on in that primary. i mean, even the people running against him are afraid to call him out and say this is really, really bad what happened. i mean, liz cheney and just a handful of others are the exception to the rule in the republican party. and i hope the voters pay enough attention that they get what they deserve at the ballot box, because that's where they should be turned out of office for allowing this man to hijack this democracy in the way that he has. >> and luke, the evidence is in the time that the attacks are launched, right? republicans are at war with jack smith over this case. he hasn't even been indicted yet. they haven't even seen the case. they haven't seen the indictment. republicans were attacking jack smith in the documents case after the court approved mar-a-lago search. they didn't even know what he had there. the idea that there is any truth that governs the reactions of taxpayer-funded lawmakers in the

republican party is ridiculous. >> yeah, when i was down in miami for the documents case arraignment, i was talking with one gentleman in the crowd who said that it's fine that he is indicted on this case. but what about what he did to our democracy. what about the attack on democracy? so i think there is a lot of people waiting for this indictment in particular. they see it as the most serious one. and what he -- what that gentleman in the crowd was saying was very similar to what a lot of the republicans were saying on january 6th and on the days just after january 6th. if you good back and listen to the tape from that day, i mean, it's a completely different tune for so many different people. ted cruz calls it a terrorist attack. kevin mccarthy says we have to have a fact-finding mission. he says he calls donald trump on the phone, and that trump admits to him that he was responsible, or that he bore some responsibility.

you look at chuck grassley condemns trump. shelly moore capita. you go down the line, on and on and on, republican after republican. and then by and large, they've now gone over to either defending trump, remaining silent, or in some cases, you know, taking actions to try to defend him and help him every step of the way. >> i mean, luke, mccarthy goes farther than calling for fact-finding mission. he arms john katko, republican, to negotiate the structure of the bipartisan commission. katko succeeds. he is successful on getting bipartisan signoff on subpoena power. so if mccarthy had allowed republicans to participate in the fact-finding mission that mccarthy was for after 1/6, they would have had joint signoff on subpoenas. it was a bipartisan investigation. that was because kinzinger and cheney bucked their party. they bucked mccarthy.

and a lot of people, it cost them in part the size of the red wave in the midterms. they're careening for an even more egregious conduct when it comes to 1/6, but it didn't seem like anyone knows where the brakes are. >> yeah, it's good to remember that 35 republicans voted in the house to create that committee, but that the leadership whipped against it, that they told people not to vote for it, the very idea that leadership had proposed on the floor of the house. and of course kevin mccarthy's famous words were that donald trump bore responsibility for the attack on the capitol for mob rioters. so, you know, look, things change very quickly. the republicans spoke exactly what they saw happen in front of them that day. and then many of them went home to their districts, saw that that didn't sit well with their voter, and quickly ran back to donald trump.

but, you know, tim raise as great point. i expect many of the witnesses if there is an indictment coming soon, many of the witnesses that will have testified, whose evidence will have been used in this indictment will be republicans, and probably the republicans who are closest to donald trump who knew him best, who knew exactly what he did and said. >> yeah. i mean, tim, the people who will be able to testify to donald trump's role and planning inciting, wanting to join, cheering and now being for pargd and lifting up the insurrection and the insurrectionists were the dead-enders out of lack of a better word. they're the people who stayed after he lost. they're the people who were still there on january 6th and the days leading up to it. >> yeah. just exactly right. look, the test at the very end became loyalty over competence, right? people like bill barr, who was a champion, who argued vociferously against the russia investigation, right, who was right there on family separation

could not have been a more loyal implementer of conservative trump policies. he turned away, because, again, it was principle over him staying in power. and that is going to matter if there is a trial. again, the bias arguments that you will hear from the president himself, his attorneys are going to be very hard to sustain when you look at the loyalty with which those witnesses, his white house council, his own family, his campaign staff, these were people that worked very hard for him, yet they will be the star witnesses in a criminal trial. that is unusual. most of the time there is some arguable bias. there is some fodder for defense lawyers to work with when they're cross-examining witnesses. i don't really see that here, and that really is what strengthens jack smith's hand here.

>> andrew weissman, we've heard from you of a point that was just made about how this one is the really important case for our democracy. i always feel like that's a little bit like lining up the gang members in trying to decide which one was worse than the others. i mean, they're all crimes. and because it's trump, we try to rank them because we already sort of function in this scarcity climate, right? if we can only have one, if we can only have accountability for one of the crimes he committed, we'll take this one. how does that manifest itself inside doj? >> so i do think that claire, her point on this is hitting the nail on the head, that it is true that for each of these crimes, the government's going to think about two things. they're going think about do i have the proof? is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that's their sort of can i bring the charge? and then there is an important

issue of should you bring the charge. and especially with respect to a former president, but it's true with anyone, you're going to be thinking is this somebody who we typically would charge. in other words, is there some -- are we singling this person out for some bad reason, or is this something we do all the time? but you don't say gee, i'm not going to charge this person because they committed a bank robbery and a murder. so those are both bad. they both can be charged. i think in this situation, they're going to think about all of the different crimes, and they're going to be thinking about is it appropriate for those crimes to be charged. and as i mentioned, in this case, there is no question because of the hundreds and hundreds of people who have been charged for doing something far less, that's with respect to donald trump. and then to again pick up on claire's point, i think it is really important to remember the

enablers, because donald trump was able to do this because of so many people who knew better and didn't do their job. and i remember thinking that years ago when which worked on the enron investigation, there will always be, for instance, people like ken lay and jeff skilling and di fastow, the leaders who do something corrupt. but there were scores of people who knew what they were doing who did not do their job. they did not blow the whistle. they did not take any of the steps you're supposed to take. and that is the reason that we're in the position we're in. to luke's point, there are all these people who on the day of january 6th were saying one thing and didn't have the backbone and integrity to do the right thing. and to finally as tim has pointed out, there is finally there was a small cadre of people who said no to the

president at the very end, because their line was that they were not going to engage in insurrection for president of the united states and overturn the will of the people. it's really hard to imagine that we're having that discussion in america at this time. but unfortunately, that's where we are. >> yeah, and i mean, if we're at the point where an indictment is imminent, and we're talking about a trial and what a jury can understand, anyone with school-aged kids knows it's not just the child who violates the school code of conduct. it's any child who is present for that. any child who doesn't go to an adult, any child who doesn't intervene and step in. this idea of enablers or potential co-conspirators is one that i think is very easy to understand. i'm going to do something that i don't know that you all planned for when you said yes. i'm going to ask you to stick around a little longer with us. i have to sneak in a very quick break. don't go anywhere. don't go anyw. u !

- i don't have any anxiety about money anymore. - great people. different people, that's for sure, and all of them had different reasons for getting a reverse mortgage, but you know what, they all felt the same about two things: they all loved their home, and they all wanted to stay in that home. - [announcer] if you're 62 or older and own your home, you could access your equity to improve your lifestyle. a reverse mortgage loan eliminates your monthly mortgage payments and puts tax-free cash in your pocket. call the number on your screen. - why don't you call aag... and find out what a reverse mortgage can mean for you? - [announcer] call right now to receive your free no-obligation info kit. call the number on your screen.

right out of the box on election night, the president claimed that there was major fraud under way. i mean, this happened as far as i could tell before there was actually the potential of looking at evidence. >> i did think what was happening was necessarily honest or professional at that point in time. that led to me stepping away. >> generally discussed on that topic was whether the fraud

administration abuse or irregularities if aggregated and read most favorably to the campaign, would that be outcome determinative. and i think everyone's assessment in the room, at least amongst the staff, marc short, myself and greg jacob was that it was not sufficient to be outcome determinative. >> i told him that i did believe yes, that once the legal processes were run, if fraud had not been established that affected the outcome of the election, that unfortunately i believe what had to be done was concede the outcome. >> tim, harry, luke, claire and andrew are all back. i worked on campaigns for a really, really long time. i never knew anyone that talked about things that were outcome determinative. i think that meant could it make us win, could it swing the election. and tim heaphy nobody, nobody from the day he louisiana to the day he plotted the insurrection

until last week when we touted the insurrectionists ever thought there was fraud to begin with. but even before they had gone to court 60 times and lost, no one ever thought there was enough fraud to change the outcome of the election. so all of it happens with bad intent. >> exactly, nicolle, precisely. all of this reduces to that. it's every candidate's right to go to court and file challenges. and if there is actually some evidence of fraud, then it ought to be brought forth. they looked hard. everybody did. the justice department, the fbi, the campaign, journalists. there has been a lot of attention paid to whether or not there is actual evidence of election fraud in the 2020 election. and to this day we haven't seen it. bernie kerik's lawyer actually wrote us a letter confirming that they never found it. now he blamed that he was

blocked procedurally by courts that dismissed cases without discovery. but he conceded to us that they never found it. i think the documents that kerik and giuliani turn over will essentially confirm that they had random leads, but they were never able to establish to this day, right. and therefore -- and that was conveyed to the president and his enablers repeatedly, yet they continued to assert the debunked claims. they continue to this day to assert it and raise money on it. and that, as you just said forms intent. at a certain point, it becomes clear evidence of specific intent to defraud, specific intent to obstruct the official proceeding. i think, again, jack smith is holding a very strong hand because of that strong intent evidence. >> well, and andrew weissmann, you have bill stepien there. he was chris christie's former campaign manager, saying because of that, i, quote, stepped away. it wasn't honest or professional at that point in time. before he left, though, i

believe he produced a memo analyzing all of rudy giuliani's false claims of fraud and proved it out. so the campaign does its own research. and if that isn't enough, they hire not one but two firms. one is the berkeley group. "washington post" has done extraordinary reporting on this. the two firms go out looking and they don't find it. we focus on that at our peril, because something extraordinary happens before they do all that donald trump had bill barr's justice department looking for election fraud ahead of an election. that is unprecedented, and if not illegal, highly unethical, highly unusual. if there was fraud, bill barr's justice department or the two firms or the trump campaign would have found it. they all knew there wasn't any seems to color all of the conversations about intent. >> add to that that the senior leadership of the justice department met with the former

president and were so confident in their views, they said we're going to resign rather than take a contrary position and call you out for essentially manufacturing claims of fraud to try and stay in office. and you think with all of that, this conversation would end just with they went to court 60 times and lost. as tim points out, that's the forum in which you can prove or not prove that there was fraud in the election and have a legal procedure as to whether there is a remedy. by the way, under the criminal charges that i think will be brought, this issue is if you lose in court, you don't get to engage in self-help. it is not necessary. this whole discussion, yes, there is clear evidence of bad intent, that will be relevant to

the jury. it will show why he was doing this in the lengths to which he went. but for many of these charges, it is not legally required. you can think you won the election. you know what that doesn't entitle you to do? it doesn't entitle you to threaten criminal prosecution of the secretary of state of georgia to get him to change the outcome of the georgia vote. what you can do is go to court. well, they went to court and they lost. so this is when we're to tim's point, this is an incredibly strong hand. what we're really dealing with here, though, is the former president is -- has -- it's not going to be a question of facts and law, because that is just overwhelming. as you've pointed out, nicolle, over and over again, there is no articulated defense here. the defense that you're hearing from the president is i embrace what happened. it is a good thing what these people did.

these are patriots who committed the crime, and you should still vote for me, and i should be able to pardon myself or just end this case. this is really not playing out in terms of the facts and the law in earth 1. . >> harry litman, where does that leave all of the enablers that leave all the enablers that claire mentioned at the beginning of this conversation? >> sooner or later, we hope it's sooner but at some point, yeah, all the president's men really have to be accountable. remember, that is what happened in watergate. and it's a big part of the sort of social judgment. and i'll just add to everything andrew and everyone is saying. look, when andrew prosecutes enron, it lies in ruins and stealing is finished. here we have everything that's happened is raised to a higher level of menace because you have a president saying, i'm going to do this again and worse. so everything you just diverted

to in the doj, he's trumpeting. i'm running on this campaign, and i will tear down all the walls. and there will be -- at the end of the day, his enablers were just any port in the storm people who came in, a kind of a clown car of lawyer who is came in specifically because they would say what he would say. those people will always be around. but it's really important that they face accountability. we're starting to see that in the electors, which some of them have been taken by surprise in the various states. i don't think mark meadows, rudy giuliani, jeff clark, ken cheeseborough will be surprised to be charged in the indictment. it needs to be before the whole operation is closed down, and i think it will be and it might mean things will go on quite some time. again, assuming, always assuming we don't have to disaster wild card of trump winning the election in 2024.

>> and anyone on the political pundit side knows that we make no predictions on this broadcast, at least in that space. i want to come back to you, luke. bill steppian steps away, but after that, 19 republicans go to the roosevelt room, sit down, and try to figure out how to help trump steal the election. the two firms they hire to try to find fraud have come up with goose eggs. and the lawsuits, i don't know if they lost all 60 by the 1942 when they convened in the roosevelt room, but they hadn't won any yet. they'd go on to win none except one on a procedural point. >> right, and one thing i'm watching of course here is how the people who have involved on higher levels planned to overturn the election. lower level false electors,

right, these are people who, you know, signed these false certificates, claimed trump had won their states. but if you read our reporting, they were directed to do this from people higher up, people in the trump campaign, in the political world encouraged the organization of the state of electors, encouraged people to sign these forms and send them to the archives, send them to mike pence, try to get the election overturned. so it does seem like, if you're going to charge these lower level people, well, where's the investigation towards people higher up the chain? >> all right, so we have some breaking news on jack smith's other investigation. this is breaking news in the criminal case involving donald trump's handing of classified documents. the special counsel's office has charged a third defendant alongside the ex president and his valet walt nauta. that defendant is someone we've talked about on this program a little bit. his name is carlos deoliveira.

he was described as one of the workers who drained the pool at mar-a-lago in october. as you may recall, that resulted in a flood of the room where surveillance footage was kept. let's bring nbc news and justice correspondent ken dilanian. i know it's been a long day of folks on the beat waiting to see what happened after that meeting with trump as lawyers. an indictment to be expected in jack smith's other case. this, though, is an additional defendant in the mar-a-lago case. tell us what we understand to be happening there. >> that's right, nicolle, and our information at this point is limited. all we know is that man's name has been added to the docket. we don't know if he's been charged. we can't say the nature of the charges. in fact -- we are awaiting the formal news release that the justice department typically sends out when something like this happens, and we have not seen it yet.

we don't know what his official status is, but as you said, he's been the subject of reporting with things done to the pool at mar-a-lago and questions about whether there was any intentional effort to destroy evidence, including boxes of documents at mar-a-lago. and we'll just have to wait and see what exactly is his status with regard to the case. right now we're just saying his name has been added to the mar-a-lago docket. >> ken, on that other news we have been watching all day, the abnormally lengthy time the jury sat in the january 6th investigation -- i think andrew did the math in the last hour, over seven hours, as well as that meeting that took place with trump's attorneys, i think in the mar-a-lago case, that meeting with trump as attorneys took place three days before he was charged. is there anything else, any other tea leaves to be read at this hour on that prong of jack

smith's work? >> reporter: well, the latest on that is our colleague john dean spoke to a source familiar with that meeting who said it was a cordial meeting. described as a typical last appeal from a defense team before an indictment. which is interesting because that's the first time anyone said that at least coming from someone familiar with the meeting. so that does suggest, as you said, that that's where we are in this case. trump's gotten the target letter. that means he's in all likelihood going to be indicted. the one last piece the come and place was his attorneys getting a chance to make their final appeal. in retrospect, we knew some news was coming together. as i've talked to defense attorneys all day, many said it would have been bad form for the justice department to have that meeting at the special counsel's office and then indict trump or announce an indictment of trump on the same day. obviously that didn't happen, hasn't happened, but it doesn't mean it's not going to happen tomorrow or in three days. it appears we are on that track

headed towards a historic and deeply significant second federal indictment of the former president, nicolle. >> ken dilanian i have a little window into the demands of your time reporting today. thanks for keeping us on the straight and narrow today. appreciate you. >> thanks. >> andrew weissman, we have been tracking this all day long. tell me your reaction to one of the pieces of news coming out of doj today about an additional defendant in the docs case. >> important to remember that if somebody is actually named on the docket sheet, that would only happen by the department of justice if they are facing charges of some sort, because the policy of the department of justice is otherwise to not name people and to use things like, as we've seen, employee one and employee two, attorney one, attorney two.

so what this means is the person is facing charges of some sort. could they be an additional defendant awaiting now trial? or could they be a cooperating witness who has pleaded guilty or is going to be pleading guilty to charges? that is something that per ken's reporting we don't know yet. you know, the one reason you might not think that they would be added to the current indictment is that the department wouldn't be looking to slow that case down. so i'm not sure there would really be a third defendant in the existing case, because that has a trial date. you can be pretty sure the government's going to want to make sure that trial date sticks. so adding a defendant in is not something i would think would happen. it is possible this person is a cooperator. generally low-level people are who you seek to have as a cooperating witness, and that's not something we have so far

seen in this investigation, and it is usually quite typical to see lower level people being charged and the government flipping them, so that's a distinct possibility. >> tim, the other piece of news ken dilanian bringing us from jonathan dean, quote, no minds were changed in this sort of last-ditch meeting between trump's lawyers and doj. no surprise there, i would guess, on your side. >> absolutely not, nicolle. no surprise there. jack smith is going to give the procedural fairness times ten to the former president, a meeting at which he hears whatever they want to present makes sense. there's a tactical decision for the defense in that situation. right, they have to decide, do we sort of front our defense and show our cards and make our argument that we will ultimately make to the jury to jack smith and his team? the risk of that is that jack smith and his team are aware of it. they can do things before an

indictment to rebut that defense. they may have decided, this is a foregone conclusion. we can go in there but not show our cards or show our defense because we don't trust it's a fair hearing and -- i don't know what the strategy was with todd blanch and the other lawyer, but it will be interesting the hear how much he was willing the share about on the merits what the defense would be. >> i think it raises a threshold question as to whether or not the defense was designed for doj or fox news. that's something we'll all keep watching together. it was a bizarre and wild and historic day of news. thank you all for watching and waiting with us and spending the hour with us. and thank you at home for letting all of us into your homes during this day of breaking news. "the beat" with katie phang in for ari