president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events a day. >> donald trump's republican events of the day. >> donald trump's republican accusers get tonight's "last word." "the 11th hour" with stephanie ruhle starts now. understand that donald trump, former president of the united states has now been indict. >> currently the d.c. grand jury investigating his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. described in the indictment it is fueled by lies. >> the justice department engaged in what has become the largest investigation in our history. >> the counts include

obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud the united states. >> he wanted to take away your right to vote, and today we've charged him with it. >> the first ever indictment of a former president of trying to steal an election. >> this is the greatest political crime since the depression. >> this is happening the same day we have donald trump and joe biden are running neck and neck. >> this guy could be in charge again. >> my office will seek a speedy trial so our evidence can be tested in court and judge by a jury of citizens. and mike pence is going to be the star witness. >> i think everyone will need to concede that things are about to get complicated. good evening, once again. i'm stephanie ruhle live from msnbc headquarters here in new

york city, and we've got a special two-hour edition of "the 11th hour" tonight, so let's dig in because it is a huge moment and a turning point for our nation. donald trump is now the first u.s. president charged with trying to overturn an election late today a washington, d.c. grand jury investigating trump's effort to reverse the 2020 election indicted the former president for crimes related to his attempts to stay in power. that 45-page indictment has been filed by special counsel jack smith who has been leading this investigation. trump is now charged with four felony counts -- conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to obstruct official proceedings, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against -- and includes six unnamed conspirators. earlier tonight special counsel

jack smith spoke, which he very rarely does, about this indictment. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6, 2021, was unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. it was fueled by lies. lies targeted at the nation's government, the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election. >> donald j. trump is set to be arraigned in court in washington, d.c. thursday. this is the former president's third indictment in the last four months. he's already facing charges in the classified documents case and the manhattan d.a.'s hush money investigation. he's pleaded not guilty in both those investigations. with that let's get smarter and bring in our lead off panel. peter baker is with us, chief white house correspondent for

"the new york times." katie benner, pulitzer prizewinning justice reporter also with "the new york times." former u.s. attorney joyce vance, she spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. and frank figliuzzi, former fbi assistant director for counter intelligence. i really just want to start by going around the horn and get everyone's reaction to what was in this indictment. peter, what stood out to you? >> well, look, i think this indictment more than the other two gets to the heart of the matter. the last two were important subjects, hush money, classified documents, national secrets, of course. this is the first indictment that goes to the heart of the american democracy. it charges the former president of the united states for actions he took while in office and in order to subvert an election he had lost. according to prosecutors it was fueled by lies and animated by the basis of instinct and a thirst for power.

jack smith went straight at the defense -- president trump has defended he's used that he had supposedly a good faith desire to find out the truth about the election and he was legitimately pursuing his claims. jack smith said, no, that's not true. he was told time and time again the things he was saying were not true. he knew what he was saying was false. >> you've followed work on both trump cases. did anything surprise you tonight? >> i think one of the things that surprised me is unlike in the documents case where you were shocked by things the justice department had uncovered this indictment -- the special counsel's office tells readers this is what we believe happened, this is how trump and his caconspirators did it, how they were able to work together to sow doubt about the election

and intimidate election officials and when that didn't work using the levers of the justice department to get to that end and using a means to get to that end. that's great. what was interesting to me there was very little new information in the indictment. there was very little the public didn't already know based on the january 6th hearing or based on the reporting that happened soon after trump left office. so that was really striking to me. i do wonder if we'll see in subsequent filing the glimmers of who the witnesses were, what was the depth of the information they have we didn't quite get in this document. >> we already knew a lot of it, katie, but isn't that the conclusion for so many people who sat through those january 6th hearings and said, oh, my gosh, this is insane, this is croneal, when will he be charged, and it was today. >> that's one way of looking at it saying january 6th reporters

had already brought these to light and it was jack smith and his office that took the information the public already knew and matched up the statutes and said this is known information, and this is how it violates the united states criminal code. it's a road map of not only what happened but why it is illegal, why the justice department feels donald trump should be tried for these actions and that a jury of his peers should decide whether or not he should be guilty. >> all right, joyce, i kind of want to slow everything down, i want our audience to turn up the volume because i need you to walk us through these charges, because earlier this evening i had the distinct pleasure of watching fox news, and over and over i was reading across the screen they were saying this is an indictment of freedom of speech. it is absolutely not. in the indictment jack smith makeatize clear you can say what you want, you can tell lies. none of this is about what donald trump said.

oats about what he did. can you explain these charges? >> sure. and i think your assessment is dead on the money, steph. jack smith, the startling thing in this indictment katie is right to say much of this information we knew. the startling thing here is the solidity of the strategic choices and the way smith avoids following into any pit falls by not charging any of the president's speech and instead focusing on his conduct in this period of time between november and january where smith clarifies trump was fully aware he had lost the election and nonetheless engaged in three different conspiracy, and that's the heart of this indictment. the conspiracies and how they're framed is critical to the fact an indictment will make it difficult for trump to offer the

kind of defenses he's been rehearsing throughout this period while he's been waiting for this indictment to drop. here are the three conspiracies. there's one that involves in essence a conspiracy to interfere with how votes are collected and counted with the electoral college process. then there's a conspiracy that interferes -- trump's interference with the process on january 6th where congress is certifying that. and finally there's a third conspiracy, the conspiracy that i think in many ways is sort of poignant and emotional for all of us as american citizens because trump, a former president is charged with trying to interfere with our right to vote, with our exercise of a constitutional right. so we have those three conspiracies. there's a substantive charge of obstruction that relates to the january 6th proceedings. it's a very simple, very elegant indictment. the same facts are used to

support each of those four counts, but smith as we've bip discussing has made strong, strategic choices here to let the case move forward efficiently. this decision to charge alone will help stream line the proceeding. >> it's not about what he said, it's about what he did. glen, this indictment goes into detail about things that happened on the date january 6th, but there's no charge that specifically addresses the violence. is that surprising to you? >> you know, it may not be surprising because i understand why jack smith would want to sidestep an insurrection charge, for example. i will say none of the charged offenses carry with them in the event of conviction a ban from future federal office. and an insurrection charge does provide that in the event of

convictions the person shall be prohibited from holding office. so i have to admit i was a little disappointed, but i agree with joyce that what jack smith has setout here is so compelling that it's really hard to envision donald trump mounting any kind of persuasive defense. and the only thing i find curious is i know he wanted to stream line it charging donald trump and hopefully giving donald trump a right to a speedy trial before the 2024 election. you have six other coconspirators named in this indictment but uncharged in this indictment. which raises lots of questions about the status of those six individuals. >> frank, what do you see in the 45 pages? >> i see a chilling tale how close we came all of us as joyce

said to us being literally defrauded of our civil rights, a right to a free and fair election. if you're listening to this, watching this show, and you're an american citizen you were almost defrauded by the president of the united states who was trying to steal an election from us. and i think on this topic of violence, my first quick read of the indictment i'm like where's the january 6th security, the riot, where's the breach of the capitol? but it's in there in a masterful way because the violence according to smith was leveraged and used to the public pressure to do what trump wanted. see how these people i've got outside, see how violent they are? and smith masterfully stayed away from saying, well, trump actually did that violence, trump actually spoke words. that gets into a trap about first amendment and free speech as you said. he did it, it's in there, but

it's not getting charged that way. i think that's beautiful. last thought, this isn't over. as we've said six coconspirators hard to imagine all of them are going to rollover and operate and not get charged. there are terrible things those conspirators are accused of. they need to get charged. i don't think this is over. >> why do you think they're going to flip? allen weisselberg went to rikers for trump. >> as i said i don't think it's logical to imagine that all six of these people are going to flip. i think some of them are going to hunker down, and they're going to get charged. thethat's why it's not over. >> joyce, how come they're not named? it's believed number one appears to be rudy giuliani. but why wouldn't jack smith name them? >> so these are unindicted coconspirators, and doj policy is not to name people unless

they're formally charged. in fact, what we see in this indictment is a little bit unusual. there's this up front effort to identify their conduct in ways that all but names them. it's permissible for prosecutors, and we always use this device of identifying them we all remember as infamous individual number one. prosecutors will say unindicted coconspirator "a" or coconspirator "a," "b," "c," "d," without using the names of a lot of different conduct. the case might not be ready. they might be cooperating, or it might be as frank suggests here that jack smith is sending these folks a real strong signal they can either get on the bus or be underneath it when everything is said and done. these are folks who need to have that come to jesus moment, they need to cooperate with the

government. if they don't they'll ultimately be indicted and looking at charges that carry very serious penalties for people who abuse a position of trust to commit these crimes. >> glenn, i have endless questions about mark meadows and what he's bip up to in the last year and half, but what he's not is named as a coconspirator. could that mean he's cooperating? >> absolute, steph. he's not one of the six unnamed but pretty easily identifiable coconspirators in this indictment, but he does make an appearance, and he makes an appearance in a way that has him providing incriminating evidence against donald trump. he is down in georgia. he's watching them engage in, you know, a vote count or a recount. what does he do? he tells donald trump, hey, boss, they are engaged in a very professional operation down here, and if there's fraud to be found, they will find it.

what does donald trump turn around and tweet right after receiving that information? that the officials down in georgia are, you know, covering up election fraud and they are, quote, terrible people. it's almost laughable how easy it will be at trial to put the lie to donald trump's public statement. and it proves his determination to sow distrust and to put everybody in a position where they're going to be whipped up because their votes were being stolen and he then exploited it. and who's a star witness against him in that regard? it's mark meadows. >> peter, i keep getting tangled up in logic. for those arguing this is all politically motivated, they want to keep donald trump out of office, it's a main ingredient, if a road map for these charges were provided by the january 6th committee, almost all of the witnesses were republicans.

>> yeah, absolutely. and you see that in this document as well. jack smith points out repeatedly how donald trump was told his election claims were false. who was the one telling him? all of them were his own appointees, allies, administration officials and all republicans. these are not democrats. who are they? the vice president, the attorney general, the next attorney general, the deputy attorney general, the election chief, the governors of georgia and arizona and secretaries of state and so on. these are all republicans telling donald trump what you're saying is not true. so the witnesses against donald trump are republicans in many cases his own appointees. >> you said earlier the majority of this content we knew about, but not everything. talk to us about this conversation mike pence and

former president trump had on christmas day 2020. >> it's so interesting. the pence-trump conversation where you have mike pence basically saying these are things i didn't do and donald trump trying to bully him. there are moments throughout this document whether or not you knew the information where you see donald trump being told by people who he trusts or has trusted in the past, people he had confided in or confided in him in the past what he's doing is wrong. he's convinced he'll be able to bully and control his way into the results he wants, which is to remain in power. >> yen, i want to play for you what donald trump's current lawyer said about this indictment just can couple hour ago. >> he's being indicted for free

speech. he's being indicted for objecting to the way the 2020 election was carried out. everything mr. trump request today be done was done with the advice of counsel, was done with lawyers giving him advice. those lawyers are going to come in and testify. nothing was done in a way that wasn't constitutionally permissible. >> given the seriousness of what donald trump is accused of, does it make any sense whatsoever for his current lawyer just two hours after the charges to pop on cable tv to bat it around? >> it doesn't make any sense, but it is what defense attorneys do. that's not a criticism of a defense attorney, but they step out there, they try to zealously defense their client even when the conduct is indefensible. the problem is none of that is going to play in a court of law. you know, none of these sound bites by donald trump's attorneys or importantly, steph,

anything that donald trump said in his interview on those phone news networks or he posts on social media, those statements are never going to see inside a courtroom. statement a defendant makes or his lawyer makes outside a courtroom are hearsay. they can't be introduced by the defense at trial. compare and contrast that to the rule of evidence that permits a prosecutor to introduce incriminating statements of a defendant. at the end of the day if donald trump wants to try to prove that he really believed there was fraud, he will have to take the stand and testify to it. and we all know how that's going to turn out for trump. >> then why do they do this? do they go on tv to impact the court of public opinion, glenn? >> either that or to appease a

very difficult client. >> frank, i want you to hear what attorney general merrick garland said earlier tonight, again, someone we do not hear from often but today certainly mattered. >> for smith and his team of experienced, principled, career agents and prosecutors have followed the facts and the law wherever they lead. any questions about this matter will have to be answered by the filings made in the courtroom. >> what do you think about his comments? and are you worried how some trump supporters might react to this news? >> so garland unsurprisingly focused on facts and law. that's exactly where we should be, and we heard this and that's exactly what the attorney general of the united states should be telling us, facts and law. it's not what the trump base is going to be swreered in on. they're going to be zeroed in on his postings on social media, what his legal team is saying an

far-right outlets. and, yes, i am concerned where this goes on security risk and threat. right now as we speak there are law enforcement agencies drawing up a threat and risk matrix for washington, d.c. and for fulton county, georgia. what are they looking at? they're looking at what trump and others are going to say. is he going to try to incite violence again. how big a crowd will show up or not? where do we put protesters or not? and most of all, stephanie, how do we protect the jury and the prosecutors and the judge? how do we do that for a protracted period of time? they're going to be looking at that. and there's an irony to this security picture, which, yes, the closer trump gets to serious charges and maybe facing conviction, the threat gets higher. but yet we know from polling and surveys politically that his base seems to think this is no big deal, we'll vote for the guy, you know, on bail or in

prison. so it's an interesting security dilemma. is there a rising threat as we get closer to trial and conviction or his base going we'll vote for the guy in prison? it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. >> interesting is as an understatement. thank you for getting us started. thank you all so much. when we come back, congressman eric swalwell of california is here on the new indictment for the former president. we'll hear about the road map from the january 6th committee to today's charges and what he's hearing from his colleagues in the house. "the 11th hour" just getting started on a special two-hour show on this historic tuesday night. night.

back to the breaking news here on the special edition of "the 11th hour." former president donald john trump has been indicted on charges he conspired to defraud the united states and prevent the peaceful transfer of power with president joe biden. with us tonight to discuss, democratic congressman of california, eric swalwell, he was also an impeachment manager in donald trump's second impeachment trial which centered on his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. congressman, given all the work you put in, given all you know through that impeachment process, what's your reaction tonight? >> well, stephanie, every single

american should read the indictment in the case of united states of america vs. donald trump. read the indictment. it lays out the facts. as someone in the chamber that day, who was trying to count every one of your viewers votes to make sure that their voice was heard, my goal is that donald trump receives equal justice under the constitution's law and treated no better or worse than any criminal defendant in america. >> funny you should say that because earlier tonight republican lisa murkowski like you urged people read the indictment. ron desantis, florida governor who's running against donald trump for the republican nomination says he didn't read it. what does that tell you about the party? >> it tells me the republican party particularly speaker mccarthy and republicans in congress have formed the largest

law firm in washington, d.c., and they represent just one client, donald trump. they're not working on bringing down the cost of health care. they're not bringing any sort of ethics are reforms to insider training in congress, something i know you have talked about and care a lot about. they're not bring down the cost of college. they're just working every day to present that client, donald trump. it really, really undermines the rule of law when all you do is attack independent prosecutors and fbi agents who just want to make sure that no one is above the law, and certainly no one is beneath. >> donald trump also doesn't talk about the cost of health care, immigration, our education system. many could wonder what exactly is he running for in terms of this presidential campaign, but there's another republican i want to ask you about. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, i want to share what he said about donald trump immediately after he was acquitted in that second impeachment.

please watch this. >> there's no question, none, that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day no question about it. president trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. as an ordinary citizen unless the statute of limitations is run, still liable for everything he did while he was in office. didn't get away with anything yet. yet. we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. and former presidents are not immune from being accountable by either one. >> what's your reaction to that? >> well, talk is cheap.

we had a case where we had republicans onboard, so talk is cheap. what mitch mcconnell did as a juror was enable donald trump to continue to run today. i can't imagine if i was a prosecutor if i had proved my case beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury acquitted a defendant and one of the jurors was telling the tv cameras outside the courtroom the defendant was responsible for everything they did. well, you had a chance to do that. that speech is cold comfort for every american who wants to see accountability. >> to that point do these charges validate the work of the january 6th committee? >> you know, it validates the work of the second impeachment trial where we tried this case within a couple weeks of the attack. we didn't have much evidence, and from that the members -- the bipartisan members of the january 6th committee went to work for 18 more months and

showed that donald trump incited, lied to at the capitol because he lost an election and wanted that man to overturn it. and this man who's been a stranger to accountable his whole life -- >> they did not overturn that election, that angry mob did not get what they won't, and many of them are sitting in prison as we speak. grsdsman, thank you for joining us tonight. i congress it, congressman eric swalwell. when we come back a department of justice veteran tells us what he thinks of trump's indictment. neil katyal knows the judge who will be hearing the case. l know will be hearing the case ieves s, helps restore gum health, and rehardens enamel. i'm a big advocate of recommending things that i know work.

that's some bad luck brian.

and i think i'm late on my car insurance. good thing the general gives you a break when you need it. yeah, with flexible payment options to keep you covered. so today is your lucky...day [crash] so today is your lucky...day for a great low rate, go with the general. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. [crash] so today is your lucky...day 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.

it goes without saying what we are up to tonight, following the breaking news former president donald trump indicted for the third time this year, this time charged by a washington, d.c. grand jury with four counts for his efforts to overturn the 2020 elections. back with me this evening, neil katyal, department of justice veteran. neil, i am so glad you're here. now you've had some time to read the indictment and process it. >> i'm struck by three things, steph. i'm struck by the indetail in the indictment, by the balance

in the indictment, and by the person who signed it, which we already knew, but it is jack smith who's operating as a nonpartisan career prosecutor. so we hear lots of exaggeration on cable tv news about how significant something is. there's no way to exaggerate the meaning of this indictment today. it is one of a handful of the most significant cases ever in our court system. it will be remembered forever along with cases like, you know, dred scott, brown v. board of education, and it's because it alleges a very compelling story that president of united states as president -- not after he lost his job, you know, in florida, but as president he used the powers of his office to stymie the american people in

their most sacred duty, which is to vote for someone in an election. to throw out that vote and to replace with fake electors and all these machinations to try and prevent the vote from being counted. and so tonight i'm not celebrating in the sense this is a sad day and it's come to this, but i am celebrating the rule of law in jack smith operating under these special counsel regulations that's given the independence to do what looks very much like the right thing. >> what it is an extraordinary day. this indictment alleges that the former president of the united states tried to subvert the justice department. can you explain to our audience just how serious that is? >> yeah, i mean for someone who's worked there for many years, and anyone who's been involved in the justice department, the sacred thing you've got is the rule of law and apply it even handedly.

the idea of weaponizing the justice department and people like jeff clark to try and subvert an election it is so unthinkable, it's like the equivalent of the fbi's counter espionage leader himself being a spy. i saw first-hand, i had all sorts of republicans who worked with me at the department. i never saw politics in anything there, and that's the lifeblood of the justice department. and what trump did in rewarding his cronies at the department and political allies who tried to do his bidding was so unforgivable. and we saw the consequences, and the indictment really spells it out. people like jeff clark who you know, gave aid and comfort and cemented what happened on january 6th. >> but even some of his closest cronies said this was a bridge

too far, former attorney general bill barr. talk to us about the judge in this case. >> the judge isermented, i think one of the most well-respected judges in washington, d.c. and that's true whether you're republican or democrat, whether you're a prosecutor or defense attorney. she's someone who just uniformly gets really, really high marks. notably here she was a public defender for many years. so a criminal defense attorney, and she's schooled in the language of criminal dfrs and maybe the most important fact for everyone to keep in mind as you start to hear the republican attack machine on her, she was confirmed by the united states senate to this job that she has now, the federal jumship. her confirmation vote was 95-0.

that is who she is. i have no idea how she'll vote in this case or how she'll rule on many of the myriad issues in this case, but i think we're going to get an incredibly fair judge who's going to work very hard to do the right thing whatever that right thing is on any particular issue that comes before her in this trial. one thing i am concerned about, steph, we talked a moment ago about the historic nature of this trial particularly because trump and his cronies they use a spin machine to sow information about what he did and what the trial system is like. i think it's important for everyone to understand right now there's no provision for this trial to be uncovered live or otherwise. and so we're only going to get news reports of what happened, and that to me un conscionable. and i think everyone needs to

figure out how can this trial get televised, this historic trial, one of the most important in our nation's history so that everyone can see it for themselves, find out what's happening, watch the judge, watch donald trump in the courtroom, et cetera. >> but can't the judge change that? >> she can't i think on or own. i think it's going to require approval perhaps all the way up to the chief justice of the united states. >> do you think chuckin in this trial puts any pressure on the judge overseeing the mar-a-lago case and there's concerns she'll have favoritism towards donald trump. given these new charges, will this put pressure on cannon to play it straight. >> i don't think the charges themselves do. i think judge cannon like any judge has a lot of pressure to play it straight. certainly she wrote a couple of rulings last year in mar-a-lago that i don't think anyone can

defend and rebuked really harshly by the conservative court of appeals by a trump appointee. i think whatever pressure was there is already there, so i don't view the indictments themselves as changing that calculus. thank you. we certainly needed your big smarts tonight. >> when we come back, republicans rushing to trump's defense. we're going to get into the politic of all of it. i want to get it into the schedule of his year ahead. how do you run for president when you've got three indictments and trials coming your way? we're going to get into that when "the 11th hour" continues. t when "the 11th hour" continues e. good thing the general gives you a break when you need it. yeah, with flexible payment options to keep you covered. just tag us in. ouaaaahhhh! [bell dings] for a great low rate, go with the general.

(woman) oh. oh! hi there. you're jonathan, right? the 995 plan! ouaaaahhhh! [bell dings] yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome. i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85,

$9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪

we're back with our breaking news coverage of former president donald trump's historic third indictment. with me now to discuss charlie sykes, editor at large of the bulwark, and jason johnson, professor of politics. gentleman, what is your reaction? you heard from jack smith. >> well, it's a very impressive indictment. it's impressive for its clarity and for its breadth. it tells a very compelling story. i was thinking about before we came on just in terms of the politics and i guess the default

is to assume nothing matters, but it's hard to imagine something this graphic and detailed lays out the lies, the fraud, the conspiracies, the obstruction, the attempts to overthrow the democratic process that donald trump ingamed in. it's going to be a political asset for donald trump in 2024. republicans are desperate to talk about inflation, the border, crime, hunter biden, but the reality is if this goes to trial, this is going to suck up all the oxygen, and we're going to be talking about january 6th. we're going to be talking about the insurrection. we're going to be talking about sedition. and the american people are going to see the pictures of that attack on the capitol over and over and over again. and if republicans think that's an advantage, i think they are deluding themselves because, yes, that means the hard core republican base is going to rally around donald trump, but that's not the only audience. you have soft republicans, independents, and democrats who need to be motivated. it's hard for me to imagine

anything that would be more motivating. plus i agree with neil katyal, this is going to be the trial of the century. and i think that will have an impact. it's hard to imagine it doesn't have an impact being a defendant is very time consuming and it's going to be an interesting exercise for donald trump to run for president of the united states while he is a criminal defendant in multiple venues. >> and that's actually what i don't get, jason, the logistics of this. if you're republicans and you're worried this could suck up all the oxygen of the campaign, it will also suck up the calender. how do you run for president when it's like, oh, can't do a rally or head to the debate stage because i'll be on trial three different times? >> stephanie, the jean carroll case is the same day as the iowa caucuses. we're going to have a split screen throughout that night

whether we're in iowa or not. then you have march which is the stormy daniels case, and then you have may which is the documents case. both cases is when trump has to be in attendance. i keep saying to my more cynical and pessimistic democratic friends you don't recognize how much of an albatrose and anvil this is going to be against donald trump next year. this is going to be the o.j. trial. it's every single terrible disstickable thing the man has been involved with during his precedency and four years subsequent of his presidency, and that's what people are going to be seeing. that can't be overcome by twitter and nox news or something like that. this a very bad moment in time campaign wise for trump. it's a good moment in time for this country, but i don't think anyone and i don't think anyone smart thinks this is a benefit next year and it's definitely

going to be something that eats up a lot of time. >> charlie, can you explain this to me? how is ron desantis claiming to be trump's opponent if his number one opponent has been charged with serious crimes, and desantis said today i didn't read the inkiemt. that's the only guy you need to chase. it's not joe biden, it's not kamala harris. it's trump, trump, and trump. >> ron desantis is very bad at this, isn't he? it's interesting mike pence if you're ron desantis you're running against the guy and go to jason's point when you think about that schedule. so you have one trial donald trump as a rapist, donald trump paying hush money to a porn star, donald trump who violated the espionage act, donald trump

who try charged with conspiracy to overthrow an election, and desantis cannot figure out a way to beat this guy. i mean, this is an interesting question. it may be left up to joe biden, but i agree with jason. i generally think of a pessimistic view. this is day we get the polls where donald trump despite all this baggage is still running 43-43 with joe biden, but there's going to be over the next few months it's going to be very, very hard to overcome. >> it's going to be like a big old marching band marching through this whole thing. great to see you both. i appreciate you joining us. and on that note i wish you a good night from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news. thanks for staying up late. i'll see again tomorrow. or staye i'll see again tomorrow. (regular voice) let's fix this. (alternate voice) poligrip power hold + seal gives our strongest hold and 5x food seal. if your mouth could talk, it would ask for... poligrip.

he snores like an angry rhino. you've never heard an angry rhino. baby i hear one every night. every night. okay. i'll work on that. save up to $500 on the new sleep number® smart bed. plus, free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. shop now only at sleep number®.

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.

today an indictment was unsealed charging donald j. trump with conspiring to defraud the united states, conspiring to disenfranchise voters and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding. the indictment was issued by a grand jury of citizens here in the district of columbia, and it sets forth the crime charged in detail. i encourage everyone to read it in full. the moment we all suspected was coming has finally