coverage of today's federal indictment of former president donald trump. a grand jury in washington, d.c. hudson doted the former president tonight on four felony criminal counts. conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, to defraud the united states, and conspiracy against rights. this is an allegation that he deprived americans at the right to vote. and the right to have their vote counted. by trying to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and stay in office after the people voted him out. apart from, and away from the nitty-gritty details of this indictment, it really is just a starkest that. according to the charges laid out in this indictment and what we have seen from the january 6th investigation in congress, what we know of these facts, he gave us a choice. between the constitution and

the vote of the people determining who the president of the united states is, or instead, violence and forced determining. as alleged in this indictment, he chose the latter. and he failed at it. and now the country and federal government will attempt to hold him criminally responsible for what he tried to do. for that alleged felony criminal conspiracy. we of course have been expecting this indictment for a long time but it is no less stunning for having been foreshadowed for so long. this is a federal criminal indictment of the former president for trying to overturn an election and keep himself in power. the indictment also describes six unindicted coconspirators. five of the six of them, lawyers, primarily those who crafted the bogus legal arguments that underpinned trump's alleged attempts to undermine the electoral process. i say that because there's been interesting efforts within the legal profession to essentially police itself, and without accountability of various kinds

for a lot of different trump lawyers who took part in this plot. this ratify some of those efforts within the legal profession to say this was a plot that wasn't just touched by trump alone, he did have coconspirators and in many cases, they were lawyers who ought to know better, and if by the political, the professional bars to which they attend, or if by their profession, if not by the criminal justice system, they should be held accountable as well. the indictment alleges that trump tried to get state officials to overturn election results that he tried to get the justice department enlisted, in this effort to overturn the election results, that he organized an effort to have fake electors submitted to overturn the election results in congress, add it all up, and there are four new federal felony charges. joining us now are stephanie ruhle, and chris hayes, and alex wagner, and ari melber, also joy reid, and jim psaki are joining us from washington.

let me start with you because you have not been part of our discussions, at least while i have been here this evening. alex wagner raised a good point earlier on, which is at the timeline is going to line right up with the presidential election process and the campaign. you know, these claims are going to be tested in court but they are also going to be tested in the court of politics. i know that president biden went to a movie, and i have to ask, what do you think this does to the campaign? >> the first thing is, we don't know yet, because this is going to have to play out in the public, whether this is seeing some of the trial, reporting on some of the trial, or all the events that are going to happen between now in november 2024. what we do know is while we've seen in recent polls, including the siena poll, this is startling to me, 22% of

respondents who thought that trump had done something criminally wrong, also supported him. so that is a troubling sign for our democracy and the republican primary. but we also know in 2022, the democracy was on the ballot. people ran on it. candidates ran on it. people who ran against democracy lost in the primaries, lost in the general election, or lost in the general election, i should say. that is a good sign. if you are sitting in the white house right, now you are probably at home because the president is at the movies, as you just said, but you are also thinking about the timeline of next year. as we've all talked about over the last several weeks. including when the trials are. but at what time will the president start making a version of the argument he made so strongly in 2020 and updated. which is that there are choices for the public, for the

american people, about who you want standing up for you in the oval office. will you stand for democracy or against it? he's not going to break that, he's an institutionalist, but i do think that he will hurt in this argument about our values, our morals, the history of our country, that is true to who he is, and that is another way of making the argument. >> i think that is exactly right. i was thinking about that potential argument from president biden, which we've seen him make, and he gives us a big speech about democracy and the rule of law and constitutional order. and all of how we should be talking about gas prices. even when the political class doesn't think that he should, but now, this indictment put something else on that. that is not just about this cause the idea of democracy. it is about violence. it is about how this is going to be decided on industries.

it is about using the military against the american people. so it is not, i guess it is a political question about how far president biden and democrats want to go with this, but this indictment makes it not just about concepts and political science, different forms of government, it is about whether or not you want things in this country to be decided by people fighting it out in the streets. >> when you think about what donald trump is doing right now, and his bid to be the next president, he's not talking about gas prices, health care, the border, he is running because his presidential bid is so that he can raise money for himself and keep himself out of jail. when you look at what he is facing right now and when he's out there talking about running again, he is trying to save himself. that is what this entire thing is about. when i am looking at all of this and i am saying i'm sorry, i watch fox news for the last

hour, so you didn't have to, you know what they're -- jack smith made it very clear, you want to lie, you want to tell stories, go for it. this is not what this is about. this is about trying to hurt the american people and keep them from the voting. changing the outcome of the election. fox news is going to have a hard time keeping this banner and keeping this argument up for a long. because jack smith is making it really clear, it is what trump did. >> just understand what jen said, a lot of times in politics who are costs pressured between things that are important and right, and things that are politically popular. you have to make these compromises. the worst thing donald trump ever did which was january six, it's also the least popular thing he has ever done. the incentives here are perfectly aligned. substantively and legally it is incredibly important to hold him to account. the lowest moment in his political popularity was in the aftermath of january 6th. it is the most unpopular thing

that he has ever undertaken. and it deserves to be put before the nation as a question, as he heads towards most likely being the nominee and to be talked about in the august debate on the republican primary stage, with him in his absence. to me, what is hardening to jen, the arrows do all point in the same direction on this question. >> except for republicans will not go, there his republican primary rivals for the nomination are not -- >> they are not actually running for office. you are running and i was the front runner, would you not be going for my jugular? instead they are like hey, dude. you are running! >> so they were all pulling at 0%, and they are all taking him on in this regard. but all the rest of them are going to say that the lesson of today, the important thing of today is that the justice department is terrible, the fbi is terrible, and american law enforcement needs to be

dismantled because conservatives cannot get a fair shake and they are coming after trump because they can't come after you, but it is only because they want to come after you, that will be the republican line of the tire political party. >> aren't all the witnesses almost all the people who spoke in the january 6th hearings republican? i mean -- >> mike pence, the guy who it's today saying, i chose the constitution, that is what this reflects, but also, this is a distraction from president biden's failed economics. and you are like -- if i were joe biden i wouldn't say anything about this, but i would go and have a rally at the state in atlanta. and i would go to detroit, and i would go to all the other places where donald trump committed this alleged crime, and by the way, i just want to say, this conspiracy against writes, this is a civil war era statute that basically had, as you say, racial terror as its -- let us not forget the other thing donald trump was trying to do was disenfranchise the votes of urban democratic

centers where there are just proportional numbers, disproportionate numbers of black and brown voters. i'm not saying racism was the explicit goal, but it is certainly across current of what was happening here. call him up in detroit, called him up at the state, all of these centers where they wanted the recounts, where they thought there was fraud, the invocation of sheamus, multiple times on the phone with the georgia secretary of state -- the obsession -- >> giuliani calling them drug dealers. >> the notion that somehow these black and brown democratic votes had to be thrown out, that these were the centers for fraud, there is something there. there is a cross pollination with the legacy of the statute that he's being charged with. >> i was going to say that trump is also on a huge losing streak. if we are just talking about him in politics, he got fewer votes in 16, they lost badly as a reaction to trump in 18. they obviously lost 2020, that is what this coup is about. they've massively underperformed. they have viewers who lived

through the red fizzle. and this stuff hurt. so while, you said such important things that we all take seriously, but he's legally presumed innocent, and nothing about they should be approached inside the doj or the government for partisan lands. thus far we have not seen evidence of that. and if we did we would report it. having said all of that, if we are talking about the trajectory and american, life being convicted is bad. being a defendant with a lot of evidence is bad. being a convicted person who has the right to appeal, and who definitely does, as lawrence reminded everyone of that tonight, it is also bad. it is interesting with the context, which you and others have raced, tonight they wanted, the racists wanted to show martin luther king in the prison guard, and put that photo out there to make the point that he is a convict. and he was arguing, know there is something wrong with the laws. we talk about free speech, you are allowed to criticize the laws in this country. that is a good thing. so the fact that you have been convicted of something somewhere doesn't automatically mean anything for your wider

public life. but, if you are badly convicted or appealing a conviction on something as serious as trying to enter democracy because of your terrible losing streak, which is where the losers stuff, he's a repeat loser of elections, and the alleged evidence of coup stuff combines into a very unpopular sandwich. and donald trump understands, and donald trump -- >> you are not unpopular sandwich, that is not what he meant. >> well, that is where that all comes together, and it is something donald trump knows because he's always calling everyone what? loser? we're accusing them of being a criminal that this person is crooked, or that person is under investigation, or what was his first impeachment about? faking a for an investigation of the bidens. he understands that. again, the case has to go forward without politics, but if we are asking a rely reality

basis i.t., if it is good, no. and it is such an important point, litigating the conspiracy is, in some ways, litigating the election. because the important factual predicate to it being a conspiracy is that he knew he lost, and all the nonsense, the big lie was not true. there is a sort of substrate of the whole thing that going back to remind everyone he lost to joe biden, which in the view of republicans, joe biden such a ludicrous figure. so preposterous that she would lose to joe biden. that is the argument that trump flirted with four they're being fraud. how could me, your favorite president, lose to joe biden? but the litigation to this is reminding everyone that yes, indeed, you lost to joe biden. >> but one of trump's lawyers are saying tonight in response to the indictment that what they are looking for into the trial, because it will disprove all these assertions that these were false claims of voter fraud, they will have to prove once and for all that the election was stolen.

so -- >> think about what pence wants to do. he saying to the american people let's focus on bidenomics. you know who else wants to do that? joe biden. joe biden would love for us to be doing a primetime special talking about the successes of joe biden, and he would love to go down there and talk about the infrastructure project. so it's like, have at it mike pence, joe biden is desperate to talk about the successes because he has a threat, and this needle, and it is working. >> when you look at this in terms of this parallel track that we are about to have happened over the course of this next year, we all know exactly what we will be covering this time when years from now in terms of what is happening in the campaign. what do you think the democrats of joe biden should do with this? i think we all expect joe biden will never talk about it directly. but do you think this means that the referendum issue of donald trump, and the rule of force, versus joe biden, and the rule of law, becomes the only frame of the election?

>> you might have made the point earlier that the panel made that the idea of saving democracy actually turned out to be a powerful factor in the midterms, as did abortion. but i am with alex. if i am the biden campaign, to go back to my old world of being in a campaign world i would go to each of these states, because one of the things that the democrats are a bit concerned about is, they are always concerned low-key about black male turnout. the turnout of black voters. i hope that it will be as robust as they needed to be to win. and obviously they are always concerned about the drift of some latino voters toward the republicans. well, if i am them, i am going to wisconsin, i am going to arizona, you know, i am going to detroit, to michigan, i am going to each of these states, to new mexico, to all of these states where the robbery was attempted, and make the case that this man attempted to steal your votes, doesn't

respect your right to vote, and that the klan act had to be used against him because of his attempt of theft, and cool, because it was not just a coup against the constitution, it was a coup against you. it was essentially saying that your vote is criminal. i would go to georgia and say remember ruby freeman and shaye moss were called drug dealers for attempting to help you vote. there were people who were trying to help their community vote, filipino voters in arizona had an attempted robbery committed against them, right? that voters in wisconsin, and all of these places had an attempted theft committed against them and that is the case for reelecting biden if you are a democrat. but i have to redo one thing, rachel, you love to do that, can i just do one quick dramatic reading for you? because i just pulled it up. ron desantis, today, he put out a statement. and he says as president, i

will end the weaponization of government, replacing fbi director and injuries single standard of justice for all americans while i have seen reports, this is the most important line, i have not read the indictment. i do, the, believe we need to enact reforms on what americans have a right to remove cases from washington d.c. to their home districts. it is unfair to have to stand trial before a jury that is reflective of these swamp mentalities. what is he saying about d.c.? one of the reasons that our country is in decline as the politicization of the rule of law. no more excuses. i will end the weaponization of the federal government and he says all of that, multiple paragraphs, and he hasn't read the indictment. he couldn't get, i am a slow reader, but he couldn't read 45 pages? he couldn't read, the governor of the state of florida, could not read 45 pages in five hours? >> i will end the weaponization

of the federal government. one of the criminal counts that has been brought in this indictment, which was about to be tested in the highest profile criminal trial to ever happen in the united states, including the lindberg baby, everything, back to the very beginning is that donald trump sought to use the u.s. justice department to tell states to throw other election results so that he can stay as president. and actually bring investigations and to advise them that there was so much, rob don't wear, you could throughout your results. talk about using the federal government for politically weaponized purpose. he is literally being charged for that. so the idea is that republicans are against that, maybe you should read the indictment because guess what is in it? >> this is a guy who literally ran 2016, he is now running promising to indict joe biden, and his son who has nothing to do with government. he's literally running on i'm going to lock up all the bidens. he is the guy who had his justice department lock-up

michael cohen for writing a book. after he did the crime for him. he did the crime for him and then he said you are too dangerous, you are writing a book, lock him of. they put him in prison. it is so insane that you have republicans claiming weaponization a federal government that is all donald trump really did with his justice department. >> that is a great political tactic. whatever you've done, make sure that you accuse other people of doing it. and nobody can then do the accusations against you. that is literally where we got the fake news idea, from the 2016 campaign where we had actual fake news being used to artificially boost trump. we had fake news being generated from eastern europe and russian controlled territories that was flooded into the united states purporting to be real news but it was actually propaganda to help trump. there was such thing as fake news. then he decided to turn it around and call all news fake news. so therefore, the allegation

loses all meaning. so that is why hypocrisy is an empty charge. like, what do you say? >> but rachael, not treating the indictment is further evidence that he is not running for president. the only, it is irrelevant to say what you are going to do to the justice department, what you are going to do to the fbi, if you cannot pass, go and go is donald j trump, and nothing else matters. so to not read the indictment, he should be reading every word, and coming up with slogans, and bumper stickers to go after trump. and the fact that he is not, he is not running. >> can i just say, tom winter in the atlantic makes a very important point and i think everyone who's watching this program should listen to what he's saying. because i think that there is this tendency to dismiss, well, republicans are not going to read this, to sort of accept that republican candidates are going to say i didn't read the indictment, or republican congress people are going to say i have, and to move past that. and he makes a point that you've gotta get your uncle, who is a trump supporter to read this. you have to get your neighbor

who is an avowed, you know, big lies supporter to read this. this is democracy. tear, pointers are people ready to invoke the insurrection act to overthrow democracy. it is incumbent upon all of us as members of the society, as part of the project of american democracy, to familiarize ourselves with a playbook that was going to be employed to overthrow our system of government. >> they tried to employ. >> exactly. and to not let this one go by as do i have to talk about it at family dinner? do i have to bring it up with my aunt who is down the facebook rabbit hole of whatever conspiracy theory she follows? this is a time to have the tough conversation. >> sometimes, when you are online, i use the internet a lot, so -- >> tom nichols, not tom winter. >> tom winter is also great. >> that is a succession reference. sometimes, when you are on the

internet -- >> she knows pop culture. you are not the only one who has had -- i am going to back up alex. >> do you have anything you want to say? >> feel free to try all of that on me. >> sometimes with politics on the internet, it feels like a book club where no one has read the book. so it is a lot of ideological projection on, here is what i already think, or i know about that, and yes, we believe msnbc has put the link on it, it is up right now, if you want to go get it right now when you are watching. annotated. we all said, it i will read one short part, i don't think we have to do it yet, correct me if i'm wrong, but late in the story, page 41, we learn something about donald trump's view of the violence, which rachel and others have emphasized. at 4:17 game he sent out the tweet, that the defendant, remember, he is not a president as far as this thing is

concerned, he's a criminal defendant, he says quote, the defendant joins others in the outer oval office to watch the attack. the defendant said, this is in quotes, this is very meaningful legally, the defendant said quote, see? this is what happens when they try to steal an election. these people are angry. these people are really angry about it. this is what happens, and quote. he is invoking the violence even at that late hour in complete contradiction to what they got him to tweet out about state peaceful. and jack smith has someone or something in the room. he either has direct testimony of someone who heard this and wrote it down in a way that they think they could prove in court, or the alternative, i'm not reporting this, i'm just saying either he has a witness or this was somehow otherwise recorded at the time. that is the only way that those go in quotes, so yes, when you start reading this and you start going through the details you are getting a version of what happened from the inside.

including from people who spent their careers helping donald trump because they have agreed with other parts of his vision. and now they are staying under oath and penalty under a lot of trouble or going to jail. that is what happens. >> we are going to have with us tonight, someone who served as the lead manager in the second impeachment trial of donald trump, which was about january 6th. and the house investigation into january 6th, here is one of the most effective and consequential members of congress from either party, either house, congressman jamie raskin is going to join us right after this. he'll want to see this. >> the attack on our nation's capital on january 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the american democracy. it is described in the indictment as fueled by lies. lives by the defendant, targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s. government, and the nations process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election. ential election.

the chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam, who make- everyday products, designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder, that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that- i need a breakthrough card. like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more. plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases. and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas- a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours. when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex.

serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. just between us, you know what's better than mopping? anything! ugh. well, i switched to swiffer wetjet, and it's awesome. it's an all-in-one, that absorbs dirt and grime deep inside. and it helps prevent streaks and haze. wetjet is so worth it. love it, or your money back.

are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try knix. makers of the world's comfiest wireless bras. for revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a g-cup, find your new favorite bra today at knix.com ♪♪ open talenti and raise the jar to gelato made from scratch. raise the jar to flavors from the world's finest ingredients. and now, from jars to bars. new talenti gelato and sorbetto mini bars. ♪♪

♪ ♪ ♪ new double chicken chopped salads. bridgett is here. only a she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, >> the career men and women of and once-in-a-lifetime. ♪ the new summer family meal. starting at $24. only at el pollo loco.

the justice department engaged and what has become the largest investigation in our history. mr. smith and his team have experienced, principal, career agents and prosecutors have followed the facts and laws wherever they fall. >> attorney general merrick

garland speaking earlier today after special counsel jack smith announced four felony counts against former president donald j trump that pertained to his efforts to stay in power, even after he's been voted out by the american people. joining us now is maryland democratic congressman jimmy raskin. he served as a lead impeach or during trump's second impeachment. as related to january six. -- in the investigation, the public came to learn the basics of the story where we first heard from some many at the witnesses to the scheme, discovered so many incidents that we now know forms the basis for this indictment. congressman raskin, thank you so much for joining us this evening, it's really an important day in u.s. history. >> thank you for having me, rachel. >> if you were ever doubted the effectiveness of what you and your colleagues did as part of the general six investigation in congress, i think it seems clear that you can put that to rest tonight, having seen the indictment. at least all of a sudden here

tonight at msnbc headquarters reading the indictment today, we feel that this is very much if not an outgrowth but a reflection of the work that you did and the evidence that he turned up. how does it seem from your perspective? >> that is right. i think the indictment truthfully tracks a lot of what is in the report, some passages that jumped out at me where trump said, this is what happens when you steal an election. actually, this indictment is what happens when you try to steal an election. what we saw happen on january six is what we saw happens when donald trump loses an election. that's when you get violence, a riot and insurrection. but the proper response is precisely what we saw happen today, so i think it's a tremendous vindication of the rule of law and american democracy. i am especially impressed by jack smith and the prosecutors bring forth the charge about

conspiracy to deprive americans of their rights, specifically the right to vote, and this resonated so much with me because i love the passage where abraham lincoln says that insurrection is a fundamental assault on the first right of democratic government, which is the right at the people to choose their own leaders. what january six was really about and everything that led up to, it was an attempt to usurp from the people, our right to choose our own leaders and president through the electoral college system such as it is. >> you sir, in addition to being a member of congress in parts of the key investigations and impeachment process are also a constitutional law professor, a reminder on its like this for all the right reasons. i had to ask from that perspective, what do you make a decision to charge this the way that prosecutors did? how serious are these charges aside from the residents and

pitch arctic input that you just referenced -- versus how serious the penalty charges and long term charge given the evidence, but they may not -- >> correct, they have been serious charges. >> extremely -- [inaudible] >> -- for example, i think that the meeting at the house and senate in joint session to count electoral college votes is a fraud or is taking away donald trump's presidency. you can say whatever you want. the minute you actually try to obstruct the meeting of congress, you crossed over from speech to conduct. it's like you can say, well, i

think the currency is phony and everyone should be allowed to make up their own money. you can say that, but the minute that you start printing your own money, now you run about the counterfeit loss, and it's the exact same thing with the electoral college. they can say, well, we don't think that joe biden really wanted these things even though every federal state court rejected all of their claims of electoral fraud and corruption. the minute that they start manufacturing counter bid electors and trying to have them substitute for the real electors that came through the federal and state legal process, at that point, they've crossed over from speech to conduct. i think that the indictment is really tight in terms of folks just on the conduct and, in fact, they left out one charge that the january six committee had put in their, which was about aiding and abetting and giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists. i suppose they did that because it's a statute that has not

been prosecuted much before. donald trump, everything in his world is a case of first impression, pretty much, but they tried to stay away from that, because i think they did not want that to be about freedom of speech, even though i think it's clear that donald trump did aid and comfort insurrectionists, calling them great patriots and to never forget the day and egging them on in the middle of an insurrection saying that mike pence did not have the urge to do what was needed to be done. anyway, they've stuck with actual conduct, and they have overwhelming documentation of his intent, his guilt the mind, because he repeatedly said, and those around him repeatedly said, of course you lost the election, and there were nothing to the claims, which was on the attorney general a complete sycophant for the rest of the administration. william barr called bs. >> congressman, it's alex wagner. i wonder if you have thoughts on mark meadows.

there has been a lot of suggestions and assessments about whether he might be a cooperating witness in all this. he's mentioned in the indictment. i know he played footsie for a lack of a better term with the january six committee terms of handing over material but not all. he is mentioned specifically on page 14 of the indictment and and a coronation that he's had with donald trump and mark meadows about how state election officials in georgia were conducting themselves, and this is in quotes, conducting themselves in an exemplary fashion. this isn't the amount, this isn't a text message, this is a conversation. does that suggest to you that mark meadows is cooperating with this investigation, especially because he is not a named coconspirator in this? >> you, it's far hard for me to venture into what role he is playing precisely, because there are so many faces to mark meadows. what we learned over the course of the investigation, that he

tended to agree with and validate anyone that he happened to be speaking to, especially donald trump, but also people who are questioning donald trump, so i think that is a big question mark where he ends up over the course of the investigation and prosecution. >> to that and, i wonder whether you -- rachel i think made the point very aptly is that a lot of the coconspirators in this that we have identified thus far are lawyers. as someone who is an expert in constitutional law, i wonder if you can elaborate to the degree to which is a legal breach of ethics and what they did? -- suggested that he was just doing creative lawyering and giving the advice to the president. i wonder where you think that stands up in the court of law? >> if this is not a violation of professional legal ethics to participate in an attempt to

overthrow a presidential election, which was won by more than 7 million votes, three of six to 3:32 in the electoral college, then there is no such thing as professional in legal ethics. it's similar to what we experienced a week or two ago in the oversight committee when marjorie taylor greene projected pornographic photography in our hearing. of course, if it was in a book, she wanted to ban. but she put it in the committee, and i said to the chairman, if this is not violate the rules of congressional decorum, then there are no rules of congressional decorum. but we are getting to that place where the republicans are actually in an epistemological sense questioning whether there is a difference between truth and falsehood. a temple to say, who is the government to tell us what is true and what is not true. of course, the whole judicial system is based on the idea

that you got the proof facts beyond reasonable doubt. the jury can sort it out. there are these burdens of proof, and the courts will determine what actually happened, and what is a lie? but now, the people who claimed somehow of ethical absolutism when it comes to matters of the-ology or reality, when it comes to law, they say there is no way of knowing and three of their hands. of whether that violates the rules and ethics, or whether or not joe biden really won the election. this will be a vindication at the constitutional democracy and also a fact based government. >> to that point, congressman. this is about protecting, defending, holding up a democracy. on what grounds are your republican colleagues in the house beginning to make this comparison that they are today with hunter biden? >> it's difficult, almost a

torture out some explanation for it. it is obviously a frantic and desperate effort to distract everybody from this unprecedented phenomenal crime against american democracy under biden, was not and has not been an elected public official, has not been a member of the biden administration or the government official. he apparently committed some crimes and donald trump's own -appointed u.s. attorney, david weiss, has been prosecuting those crimes, and we will allow the justice system to work it out. you just can't equate these two things. you are talking about an encyclopedia of outreaches and scandals against constitutional government versus what is at best a comma or footnote in the

annals of american political history, because you're talking about the son of a president. -- they have not been able to link him in any way to any of their alleged corruption scandals. in fact, rudy giuliani's right-hand man gala banded all over the world with giuliani looking to hook up some corruption scandal with joe biden, wrote a letter to chairman comer and to me, saying that there is nothing there. there is no evidence of a crime. we tried to find, there is no evidence of corruption. he literally called on jeremy comer to call off the wild goose chase against president biden. >> congressman jamie raskin of maryland, again, every big day, and we appreciate you making the time to spend some of it with us tonight. thank you so much, sir. >> you bet. >> we're continuing to watch the reaction to this indictment tonight for new felony charges brought against former president donald trump trying to stay in power, effectively

by force and violence. what the voters decided that he should believe when he lost the election. his four felony charges are on top of the dozens of other felony charges he is also facing in his other federal felony criminal trial and the felony trial that he is facing in new york state. we are awaiting, potentially, additional charges against him in the state of georgia. it's a lot. much more with the special coverage of donald trump's arraignment expected later this week. stay with us. week stay w>> you are not focused one future at the country, you're right about not dying in person and sadly, if anyone at these counts he's found guilty, he is going to be in person for the rest of his life. f his life

i've never been healthier. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach.

ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today. no, no, no, no, no, no, no. there's a problem with my paycheck. it's short. someone messed it up? i'm in the middle of nowhere. ♪ unnecessary action hero ♪ was that necessary? nope. neither are paycheck problems. with paycom, employees do their own payroll. no problems, no surprises. [narrator] schedule a demo at paycom.com and make the unnecessary, unnecessary.

remember the things you loved... ...before asthma got in the way? fasenra is an add-on treatment for asthma driven by eosinophils. it's designed to target and remove them and helps prevent asthma attacks. fasenra is not for sudden breathing problems or other eosinophilic conditions. allergic reactions may occur. don't stop your asthma treatments without talking with your doctor. tell your doctor if your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. get back to better breathing. ask your doctor about fasenra.

are you tired of clean clothes that just don't smell clean? downy unstopables get in-wash scent boostersng. 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. >> in the other federal,

criminal indictment against donald trump, the trump document indictment, that's in a federal court in florida, you may have noticed in the news that there has been some controversy, not quite the right word. some consternation about the federal judge overseeing the case. she is a trump appointed judge, very early on in her career. she's had a few hours on the bench actually overseeing any cause of any kind, and in terms of trump specifically, she was very bluntly smackdown by an appeals court when she went way

out of her way to side with trump in a way that the appeals court said was very inappropriate in an earlier case. that is the federal documents criminal chase against trump and florida. there is no such controversy that the judge overseeing the new indictment against trump and washington d.c.. the judge assigned to the case is named judge tanya check-in, see h uk t iain. she was nominated to the district court in 2014 by president obama, and not to be too productive about it, but i don't think anybody would give you a good faith fight if you described the judge as a normal judge, a very normal uncontroversial, well tested, good, mainstream smart federal judge. i think that is universally her reputation. should also tell you that this is not our first january six related case. she against its in federal

court in washington d.c., and that is where so many other charges have been brought against hundreds of january 6th defendants. judge chutkan has presided on about over 2000 of the cases. for what it's worth, she has consistently handed down tough sentences in this case is one, people have been found guilty. she's the only judge in any of the january six cases who have handed out longer sentences that doj prosecutors even asked for. you should also know that this is not judge chutkan's first-time presiding over a legal matter that involves former president donald trump. in 2021, during the congressional investigation into january six, trump suit to try to block investigators from accessing some of his records from his time in the white house, and in that lawsuit, judge ruled against. she allowed the january six investigators to access the criminal records. she did in memorable terms. she wrote in her ruling, but you might remember, quote,

presidents are not kings. that was a judge chutkan. let's bring in andrew weissmann again. of course, he was one of the senior prosecutors on the mueller case. he also served on the fbi general counsel. andrew, on the issue on what will happen here next, to have any impressions that you can share for us of judge chutkan and how she runs a courtroom? and also what we should expect on thursday when trump will be arraigned before her? >> everything you said about judge chutkan is exactly right in terms of her rotation. in general, the d.c. district court has a lot of select judges, and she is one of them. it's worth noting that she part of being on the bench was a defense lawyer. she is not viewed as somebody who is sort of, oh, you want to be with her crush your anti government. she is one of those judges who goes to details of ducks in a row, no matter what side or on, does not suffer fools and is no nonsense. it's exactly what you want from a judge, regardless of what

side or on, if you want a good result. so, i think with the arraignment on thursday, those are usually pretty boring affairs and a normal case, someone enters a plea, there is an issue of bail, conditions. she made because of local rules be interested in making sure that the defendant complies with some free press fair trial rules, which is not to make statements that could prejudice a prospective jury. that is something that we saw when i was a special counsel on mueller's team, and he famously violated that as did paul manafort. i think the big issue for her is that there are now through each trials, so you had donald trump, he's been indicted for crimes before, during and after his presidency, and she is going to figure out when she will be able to slot in her

trial. i don't know if that will come up and an arraignment. she will be interested in moving the case along. she'll be very interested in whether the discovery as been turned over. i expect that we will hear prior to thursday from the government, a report about what they have done with respect to discovery. you saw that at the mar-a-lago case, and into the way that the government can try and prompted the judge to try and be focused on a day prior to the general election. >> and you, it's chris hayes, we're in the same room, if you did not know that the. the tv, the magic of, i'm looking into the camera. so, i guess my question is, there is no precedent here for preferred -- i mean, take away precedence, i can't think of a defendant, just a defendant, they have seen this many trials and different venues all at the same time. i think it's probably hard to come up with the, so i guess

the question is like, is their jurisdiction has -- gets to trump everything else? how are they going to manage it? how important is it, would what smith's office is preferences are in terms of how it one? >> so, i don't think there is any precedent for being indicted in three separate jurisdictions that i am aware of. i have seen two, and usually the judges speak to each other, and they obviously hear from the parties, so they will want to hear from the government and the defendant, and then the judges speak to each other. there are all sorts of ways to slice and dice that. remember, we may be very soon having for big cases. there will need to be some discussion, usually judges behind the scenes are having this conversations, and it will be interesting to see exactly what happens. remember, the federal cases are

ones where there really is quite a timeline, because depending on what happens in the election, those cases could go away. that is not true with respect to the current case and manhattan, and if there is a case in georgia, everyone's centipede also, will not go away. you can imagine the two federal judges thinking that there might be some reason for those cases. you could imagine the state judges thinking that is right. >> yeah, just to underscore the point there, i think a lot of us think about federal courts getting deference, and the federal cases go first. laetitia james, the attorney general of new york, has talked about that, which raised some eyebrows. well, in this case, as you have been talking about, alex, as these things proceed both in court and in politics, there is something that happens at the next election, which is that if trump is the republican nominee, and he is elected, he will eliminate the justice

department for all intensive purposes, at least as it pertains to these cases, and they will disappear, he can't pardon himself or do anything to effect as president something that happens at a state court. so there is a strategic case for the state cases to go ahead, even potentially before the federal, cases even though that what you should be the other way around. >> by the way, the states are picking up speed in terms of their prosecution of people involved in january six. today, to fix electors in michigan were indicted. the states have set very plainly that that is not the end of the road as far as the -- eye mean, michigan has said that it's not the end of the road clearly when regards to january six. bonnie fantasize been clear that she's ready to go. there is a lot of common ground in terms of her investigation with the fake electors and jack smith's investigation here, and we don't know what will happen in other states that trump targeted to disenfranchise voters there, but i think the state attorney general are fired up, ready to take up the mantle. >> just in michigan alone, as

he said, we got 16 fake electors who are indicted two weeks ago. now, we got additional republican activists and the former republican candidate for attorney general indicted for messing with election machines, for messing with voting machines. there is yet new stuff in the michigan section at this indictment that was brought today and shown to the public. there are pages and pages of stuff that we did not know before in terms of what happened in georgia, in terms of brand-new information of what happened when mark meadows went down to insert self into the recount in georgia. while funny walls is considering whether or not to bring charges, not only against trump against fake electors, this stuff is all going all at once. to me, it did not really seem clear until today the case for or the states michael first, but maybe they will. >> they think, is the trials have to happen serially and not in peril. the investigations can happen in peril, but as the defendant,

you are what within your right to say, look, judge, to all the judges, we can provide an adequate defense or crime -- >> already defendants have to be important. you don't try in a potential. they have to be. there >> you've got a real problem there. there is a zero sum, zero processing at the many indictments of donald trump, that very assistance will have to work out, but it will be enormously consequential for possibly defeat at the country and the world because at the deadline. >> the founders meant it this way. they defined it this way. we hear words like federalism and separation of powers, and they can seem very vague, the fact that the states have the independent powers to try as a jurisdictional matter serious crimes in their state, which could happen in georgia, that's part of the system. he is just a citizen. that's why they just confirm him as a defendant. i don't think all of these questions are resolved about the fact that both, before or even during any future

government service, he can't dismiss everything as a federal power is part of our system. >> how do you run for president during this? they are trying to lock in these trials, per se, then how do you schedule a presidential debate? how would the grand poobahs of the republican party, what is ronald romney mcdaniels looking -- she goes, oh, this is how -- had the run for president while you are still trying to schedule all this? i don't know how the math works. >> remember in 2016, where trump sent a letter to build trump tower in moscow -- apparently, these guys can multitask. >> he would also be fundraising because after every indictment, there is a spike in trump fundraising to pay the legal bills of all the people -- >> the largest industry for trump at this point. >> let them, if people want to get their own private money, and he's making a clear to pay the legal bills, have at it. go for it, dude. >> give me your money, and then elect the president said that i can dissent to the american constitutional system of

government so as the same ice offended up with it, i'll be old. >> i don't need anything because i am so super rich, can you pay my bill? >> the other thing that will have to be watching for unfortunately is that with his two previous indictments, you saw the president both threatened and effectively tried to organize people to turn out in the streets in response to the indictment. he has promised that if he was indicted by some of the prosecutors who has called terrible names, that the american people would rise up, and there be protests accuracy before in the country that has not really borne out there either in the new york indictment or the case before the federal indictment. that would be one of the things that people have ground to see if you tries to do that again, tries to organize a sort of physical response by his followers even after having been humiliated and called for that in new york and miami, don't forget any other person any significant amount. obviously, a lot so to work out, a lot of those to understand in terms of how it would go, but

in terms of what happens next, we do believe that there will be a four pm eastern time thursday arraignment in federal court in washington on the new indictment. we do believe that our special coverage of donald trump's indictment will continue right now here on msnbc with the last word with lawrence o'donnell, good evening, lawrence. h lawrence o>> good evening, ras is the hour where you will hear with harvard professor laurence tribe who thinks that this day. we will discover if andrew weissmann as any other unexplored does that he's not shared on tv already, and a bit if he does, as i am sure that new does who will join us. we have many more details of this to explore. it is a rich indictment. >> indeed, thanks my friend. >> thank you, rachel, thank you. your two on us. those words appear in quotation marks and the special prosecutor jack smith's newest indictment, the united states of america versus donald j trump. the witness who spoke