>> it's a pleasure to see you. thank you so much for spending time with us. appreciate it. >> appreciate you. >> thanks. that wraps up the hour for me. thank you for the privilege of your time. i will be back tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern live in d.c. andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," the federal courthouse just blocks from here bracing for tomorrow's arraignment. a former president will stand in court accused of a conspiracy to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. the detailed grand jury indictment charging three conspiraies to defraud the u.s., to obstruct the electoral college certification of the votes, and a 19th century law first targeting the ku klux klan, to deprive citizens of the

right to have their votes counted. all fuelled by what jack smith calls donald trump's widely disseminated and knowingly false claims that the election was stolen, as he counted on violence to help him remain in power. we will bring you new information on the six unindicted co-conspirators, including trump attorney rudy giuliani, who pressured officials to manipulate the vote count in multiple swing states. trump's attempts to get mike pence to stop counting the certified votes. we will have the latest responses from trump and his lawyers as well as his rivals. our reporters and legal experts also. ♪♪ good day, everyone. i'm andrea mitchell in washington. a few blocks from the federal courthouse, here we are.

former president donald trump tomorrow has been called to appear tomorrow afternoon before a magistrate judge to face charges in a new indictment with four counts from special counsel jack smith. the 45-page indictment alleging three separate conspiracies, which built on the mistrust the defendant was creating through pervasive and destabiliing lies about election fraud, targeted a bedrock function of the federal government, collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election. the special counsel in a brief rare public comment after the indictment's release. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. it is described in the indictment, it was fuelled by lies. in this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of

citizens. in the meantime, i must emphasize that the indictment is only an allegation and that the defendant must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. >> that was followed minutes later by comments from attorney general merrick garland. >> i appointed jack smith as special counsel to take on the ongoing investigation. in order to underline the department's commitment to accountability and independence. mr. smith and his team of experienced career agents and prosecutors have followed the facts and the law wherever they lead. >> the former president reacting on social media, claiming the case is being brought now to interfere with his presidential campaign. this morning on "today," savannah sitting down with a combative trump defense lawyer,

trump lauro. >> the prosecutor says, 60 days. you are not ready in 60. >> how about he had 3 1/2 years. why don't we make it equal? the bottom line is they have 60 federal agents working on this, 60 lawyers, all kinds of government personnel. we get this indictment and they want to go to trial in 90 days. does that sound like justice to you? is that justice? >> the prosecutor is not here -- maybe he is investigating so he is ready to go to trial in 70 days. >> force a former president of the united states to trial in 90 days when you have had three years -- >> you know, no one can force that. as you pointed out, there's a defendant's right to a speedy trial. >> why would a prosecutor seeking justice, seeking truth try to force a trial -- >> i don't know. you told me ten seconds ago they wanted to tie him up in court so he can't run. now you are saying they are trying to force a speedy trial. which one? >> they want to go to trial so

that instead of debating issues against joe biden that trump is in a courtroom. how is that justice? >> joining me now, justice and intelligence correspondent ken saturday lane yan, former u.s. un barbara mcquade and andrew weissmann. ken, i want to start with another excerpt from the indictment. he writes, these claims were false and the defendant knew that they were false. in fact, the defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue. often by the people on whom he relies for candid advice on important matters and who were best positioned to know the facts. he disregarded the truth. ken, this indictment gives us a strong sense of how the special counsel is going to approach this prosecution and pushing back against the free speech defense that he heard from john

lauro. >> it does. it says up front that donald trump had the right to say that there was fraud in the election. he even had the right to lie about it. the passage you read goes to the crux of the case, because they have to prove that donald trump knew that the things he was saying and acting on crucially were lies. to do that, they have to show criminal intent. of course, he is going to argue -- you heard his lawyer -- you heard them arguing that he a legitimately believed there was fraud. it would require donald trump to take the stand to articulate that defense to a jury. he knows donald trump's state of mind. what's the best evidence of that better than donald trump? we know that would be legally perilous. in a sense, the special counsel may have set a trap for trump there. stepping back, this is an incredibly detailed, descriptive

indictment. at the same time, in the scope of this case, it's fairly narrowly crafted. it appears designed to get to trial quickly. in part, because it is charging one defendant and leaving uncharged the six co-conspirators. we are not seeing allegations of, for example, incitement of the january 6 riot or insurrection or seditious conspiracy. they are looking at the conspiracy to defraud the united states and to obstruct an official proceeding. >> andrew, the defense strategy seems clear from the "today" interview, talking about free speech. to put the trial off as long as possible. until after the election, basically. >> absolutely. a couple things. one, it's important to remember that the rule of law includes

due process for any defendant. and mr. lauro, although i wouldn't have articulated it in the same way, is right to say that he does need -- the defendant and his team needs enough time to prepare for trial, to make motions. that is part of what it means to be committed to the rule of law. the judge will set a trial date consistent with that. remember, the judge has a history of being a defense lawyer. as the judge said recently, a respected former federal judge, saying there's nothing about the due process clause that would prevent this trial and the mar-a-lago trial from being scheduled before the general election. finally, it is worth noting that it's not like this indictment took the defense team by surprise.

they have had months and months and months if not years to prepare for this. they have seen the january 6 committee. this is not somebody who just landed in america and suddenly realized they are now under indictment for something that happened three years ago. they are in a very different situation than that kind of defendant. they are entitled it time to prepare. i am confident the judge will give them that sufficient time. i do think that this case can be tried and should be tried before the general election so that the public has the benefit of that information, regardless of what the verdict is, prior to casting their votes. >> barbara, i want to play another exchange between john lauro and savannah guthrie. >> i assume you are confident you can win. >> absolutely. we're going to win. >> would you say you would like to see this resolved before the election? >> i want to get to all the evidence. i want to have a chance to

present our case to a jury. this is the first time that the first amendment has been criminalized. it's the first time that a sitting president is attacking a political opponent on first amendment grounds and making a criminal -- it's criminal to state your position. >> as savannah pointed out, the indictment reads, the defendant had a right, like every american, to speak about the election and to claim falsely that there had been outcome fraud during the election and he won. prosecutors say the defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results. it's not his speech. it's what he did following up on his speech. >> yeah. the first amendment will not provide any valid defense for donald trump. it may sound good to the public. it might sound good to some of trump's supporters. it wasn't that he said, i won the election. it's that he took action to try to change the outcome of the

election. the indictment is replete with references to those allegations, pressuring mike pence, gathering false slates of electors, trying to weaponize the justice department by sending letters to legislatures suggesting they substitute their own slates of electors, pressuring raffensperger in georgia asking him to find 11,780 votes. the justice department, i think showed restraint here, jack smith showed restraint by not charging things like inciting insurrection, which could have brought perhaps a first amendment defense. i think he left that out so the case could be streamlined to avoid any valid first amendment defense here. >> andrew, the key player hanging over a lot of this is mark meadows, the former chief of staff. chris christie told me last week that he thought his response when people tried to question him coming out of the building the other day, he did testify,

he wouldn't comment on anything he said at all. do you think he might be a key player as a witness for the prosecution? >> it's unclear. the best tea leaf we have with respect to mark meadows is that he is pretty clearly not one of the six co-conspirators that -- those six are -- their conduct is set out in a remarkable way in this indictment. i have never seen that much detail about people who are not charged in an indictment. of course, they are not named in this indictment. mark meadows does not seem to be one of them. it's unclear whether he is cooperating or fully cooperating or whether he is going to be in this netherworld. my reading of the indictment

leads me to think -- i can't assure you of this -- that those six people will be facing charges, unless there's been an indictment under seal already. i don't think they would be charged in this current case, because as we have talked about, i think that this will be one defendant so it can go to trial quickly. >> barbara, i want to focus on the violence. it's a central part of this, the allegations, and read this excerpt. the deputy white house counsel reiterated to co-conspirator four that there had not been fraud and if the defendant remained in office, there would be, quote, riots in every major city in the united states. co-conspirator four responded, that's why there's an insurrection act. the insurrection act which authorizes the president to send the military domestically against american citizens.

we saw the reference to john eastman's comment that violence is sometimes necessary to protect the republic. they were counting on violence to enable this. >> yeah. i think that shows how sinister all of this is. the idea that insurrection or violence in the street or civil unrest are something we should unleash is incredibly irresponsible, especially for people, one of whom may be jeffrey clark, who was at the justice department, responsible for enforcing the rule of law. it's interesting although this indictment doesn't charge insurrection or seditious conspiracy, it notes that this group of co-conspirators understood the seriousness of these actions and that it was very likely that it would lead to violence. >> in fact, five of the six, who we believe are the co-conspirators, are attorneys. maybe all six. we don't know about the sixth. ken, andrew, barbara, thank you

very much. up next, those unnamed co-conspirators cited as having conspired with donald trump to overturn the election. that's next. we will be right back. we will return in 60 seconds right here on msnbc. n msnbc.

nbc news has identified five out of the six people believed to be the unindicted co-conspirators listed in tuesday's indictment. rudy giuliani appears to be number one. his spokesperson says giuliani has not received a target letter. john eastman's attorney confirms that he is unindicted co-conspirator number two. he is the trump lawyer who spoke at the january 6 rally and helped create the fake elector scheme. unindicted co-conspirators three through five appear to be sidney powell who promoted conspiracy

theories, former assistant attorney general for the environment jeff clark, who tried to take over the justice department and actually tried to become acting attorney general, kenneth chesebro, another attorney accused of pushing the fake electors scheme, number six is described as a political consultant. we're not sure who. joining me now, nbc's garrett haake, who is covering the trump campaign, "washington post" deputy national editor phil rucker, who will take over as national editor for the paper, and tim haffey. tim, you did so much of the footwork. you did a road map listed in this indictment. for the january 6, you spoke to many of the same people. how much of your work is reflected in this indictment? you didn't have the subpoena power. you couldn't get mike pence in to a grand jury. and mark meadows, as we spoke

about, who did testify. aside from that, you laid out exactly what they came up with with one exception. >> you are right. as i read the indictment, it reads very much like our final report. it sounds a lot like vice chair cheney's opening statement in the june 2022 first hearing. there are a few new things. the vice president provided some very specific information about things the president said to him in their various conversations on and in the days before january 6th. it also seems like there are some people that were present in the white house on january 6th that provided information about the president's resistance to issue a forceful statement telling rioters to leave. those are corroborative details.

the core story that's laid out in the indictment was laid out by the select committee. the facts win cases. facts inform reports. the facts here have been fairly obvious for a long time. >> tim, to follow up, why do you think that the special counsel made a deliberate decision to mention them as co-conspirators, not name them, unless there's a sealed indictment, not indict them at this time? >> hard to tell whether or not they have been charged and have resolved those matters with respect to guilty pleas or that they will subsequently be charged. i do think that president trump, because he is a candidate for president, the justice department policy suggests you can't take any enforcement action too close in time to an election or an election season. there's some haste to bring that case first.

i think the special counsel will want it to go fast. it goes faster when it's a single defendant as opposed to a seven-person conspiracy. the last chapter has not been written here in terms of who will be -- we will learn about who is facing charges. >> phil, tim was talking about mike pence, a key player here clearly who would not appear before the committee, but of course did testify here. the indictment highlights a call between trump and vice president pence from january 1 after trump learned pence learned he didn't have the ability to not do that. he told him he is too honest. he reminded his supporters to meet in washington, tweeting the big protest rally in washington, d.c. will take place at 11:00 a.m. on january 6, details to follow. stop the steal! phil, could that line, you are

too honest, be part of what a jury is going to hear and read, is that going to be very, very powerful? presumably, pence will be on the witness stand. >> it certainly could be, because part of what prosecutors are going to have to do in presenting this case at trial is to establish that trump knew in his mind that he had lost the election. so that line where trump is telling pence, you are too honest, could be used by the lawyers to make that case persuasive to jurors. we don't have any further context of that conversation beyond what is laid out in the indictment. presumably, as we get to trial, we will learn more about that conversation and if they brought pence forward on the witness stand, certainly, those questions could be asked directly in the courtroom. i have to tell you, seeing all the references of pence in this indictment was really -- it's

surprising. he is a main character in that document. it's also clear that he was quite cooperative i think with prosecutors in sharing his truth, what he remembered in his contemporaneous notes and all of these conversations he had with trump in the run-up to january 6 where the president was trying to pressure him to act in ways that were not constitutional. >> they have his notes, as you say, he shared them. garrett, that's pretty extraordinary. we both covered mike pence quite a bit. i traveled with him around the world. this is the mike pence that we knew from his days in congress, from his governorship before the final two years of the trump presidency when he was under so much pressure. you saw him conforming to so many things. we also, of course, heard from john lauro, the defense lawyer with savannah guthrie. quite an interview. what is the former president

saying today? >> he is saying less than you might have expected, given how long they have anticipated this moment. i was interested in his truth social post that he posted a little while ago, thanking his supporters and almost trying to declare victory, moving on saying we're going to make america great again. almost dismissing this and moving past it. it's not hard to see why he feels this way. the campaign has been buoyed by this national poll that came out showing the lead over the rest of the republican primary field and showing him tied with president biden in a 2020 rematch. this is what this is all about. they have and intend to make the case that this is political, that the timing is political. you heard some of that from lauro, which is an interesting argument for an attorney to make. they will try to take this on the political battlefield as proof they are ready to take on joe biden. >> garrett, phil and tim, thanks to all of you. we will go to breaking news from pittsburgh in the trial of

the man convicted of carrying out the worst anti-semitic attacks in american history. he was found guilty of 63 federal charges, including murder and hate crimes. a jury has decided in a second phase of the trial, the sentencing phase, that he will be sentenced to death. 11 people were killed inside the tree of life synagogue in 2018. four police officers and two others were injured. kathy park is in pittsburgh and joins us now. this was a trauma for the nation, certainly for the jewish community, for other minorities. it's a hate crime. now the death penalty. >> reporter: andrea, good afternoon. that's right. a lot of family members actually attended this trial from the very beginning. it especially was emotional for them. we should be hearing their remarks a few hours from now close to the tree of life synagogue. as you mentioned, it's bringing

our viewers up to speed, the jury voted unanimously for the death penalty. this trial was broken up into different phases. there was the guilty portion. that was part one. he was eligible for the death penalty, and they decided that in july. then here we are moving forward with the death penalty. we are told the sentencing -- the formality will be tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m., but they had to be unanimous on this decision. it's likely looking ahead that his defense attorney, the legal team will file an appeal. on monday, we heard closing arguments. his legal team argued that he had a troubled past. they were leaning on his schizophrenia and delusional beliefs that led him to carry out the attack in october of 2018. prosecutors disputed that saying that he had hate in his heart

and he intentionally attacked and had no remorse. >> kathy park, this is very unusual for pennsylvania. this is an extraordinary decision by those jurors. thank you very much. up next, defending the barricades. one of the police officers injured in the attack on the capitol responding to the indictment of donald trump. you are watching "andrea mitchell reports." stay with us. you are watching msnbc. that's why the new titan turkey is proferred by this football pro. and proferred by this football pro who actually uses her feet. and if we profer it, we know you'll prefer it too. i use my feet. have you seen me scramble? this is your summer to smile. to raise your glass and reconnect. to reel in the fun and savor every bite. to help you get ready your aspen dental team is celebrating 25 years of affordable care with an epic summer of smiles event. don't miss enjoying a moment, with our onsite labs to help you, fast,

and 20% off your denture care. so, whether you need a new look or a quick fix, you can celebrate with a smile all season— always at aspen dental. book today. bridgett is here. always at aspen dental. 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, and once-in-a-lifetime.

the men and women of law enforcement who defended the u.s. capitol on january 6th are heroes. they are patriots, and they are the very best of us. they did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it. they put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. they defended the very institutions and principals that define the united states. >> jack smith paying appropriate tribute to the law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line, defending the capitol, and members of the house and senate on january 6. one of those injured that day is police officer daniel hodges seen here being crushed with his own shield inside the capitol, screaming in pain. officer hodges is here with me now. it's very good to see you. we discussed this and whether we

could show it again. you said it's okay with you. >> yeah. >> we know there's been so much -- the indictment detailing how much mr. trump and his alleged co-conspirators were counting on violence, talking about it. they are not accused of inciting it. that would have made it a more complicated case and harder to prove. so there was a tactical decision there. they counted on violence. even at one point talked about, we have the insurrection act to deal with what happens if people object to you keeping -- staying in office. which means using the u.s. military on the streets of america. >> yep. >> against everything except the insurrection act. >> it's crazy to suggest something so casually, to have the u.s. military just deployed in the streets when you grab power illegitimately like that.

it's classic fascism. >> did this indictment deal with the issues of the alleged conspiracy as you had hoped it would? i know you and your colleagues were in the front row watching every minute of the january 6 hearings, as we carried them live. >> i trust jack smith and his team. i'm great for them getting us to this point and getting the indictment out there. it's been a long time coming, but in so many ways it's just the beginning. i just -- i think they know what they're doing. i trust them to get us to where we need to be. >> the indictment details also that at least five d.c. and capitol police officers, five officers have died in connection with the rioting, with trying to save the capitol that day. many more have taken early retirement since, who are injured, still bearing the brunt

of it. the mental health issues, trauma. you have spoken about that in the past. do these trials, talking to your colleagues and even perhaps with you yourself, the appearances by the former president, this trial to come, the arraignment, do these trigger anything? do these create problems all over again, the ptsd? >> i mean, it never really goes away. there hasn't been a day that's gone by where i haven't thought about it. i pay attention to the news and how it's continuing to impact the current events. and partially just how burned in my memory it is. the trial will bring some of that up for people. it's necessary. it's part of the process that we need to have happen in order for accountability to take place. >> does it upset you and your colleagues when you hear people talking about it as some of the republicans, frankly, talking

about what happened that day as tourists coming through, a normal day? not normal but trying to downplay the violence. >> yeah, yeah, it does. they know that they are lying when they say it. they say it because they're afraid of their own voting block. they need their support. so they say what they want to hear. the politicians say what the people want to hear, even if there's -- it's verifiably false. it's incredibly frustrating to hear that from our would-be leadership. i hope that as time goes on those lies become more and more apparent for what they are and people stop parroting them. >> you testified against one of the rioters who assaulted you. he was convicted and sentenced to 7 1/2 years. he apologized for what he did to

you. he said that he was being less a citizen and more like an animal that day. do you forgive him? >> it's hard to do. forgiveness takes time. it's not always there immediately when it would be best for certain parties. i'm always open to the idea. we have to try. i believe that people can change. i hope that in his sentencing he changes and becomes someone that will be a good civic citizen rather than someone who attacks the capitol of the united states with no evidence of fraud. i just have to hope that people change. if there's evidence of that, then i will do my part to try to forgive them. >> thank you for your service.

thanks for talking to us today. >> of course. thank you. >> wishing you continued success and healing. >> thanks. up next, how the january 6 committee investigation created the road map for the special counsel. jamie raskin joins us next, a member of the committee, here on "andrea mitchell reports." you are watching msnbc. tching mc astepro allergy, steroid free allergy relief that starts working in 30 minutes, while other allergy sprays take hours. with astepro's unbeatably fast allergy relief you can astepro and go! (fan #1) there ya go! that's what i'm talkin' about! fast allergy relief (josh allen) is this your plan to watch the game today? (hero fan) uh, yea. i have to watch my neighbors' nfl sunday ticket. (josh allen) it's not your best plan. but you know what is? myplan from verizon. switch now and they'll give you nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv, on them. (hero fan) this plan is amazing! (josh allen) another amazing plan, backing away from here very slowly. (fan #1) that was josh allen. (fan #2) mmhm. (vo) for a limited time get nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv on us. a $449 value.

plus, get a free samsung galaxy s23. only on verizon. have fun, sis! ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ ) can't stop adding stuff to your cart? get the bank of america customized cash rewards card, choose the online shopping category and earn 3% cash back.

as january 6 approached in 2021 and the constitutionally

required counting of the electoral college votes was about to take place, the special counsel's indictment says many who were conspireing to overturn the election were aware violence could be a factor. on january 4, when co-conspirator two acknowledged to the senior advisor that no court would support the proposal, the senior advisor said, you are going to cause riots in the streets. co-conspirator two responded there had been points where violence was necessary to protect the republic. maryland democratic congressman jamie raskin is the top democrat on the house oversight committee, served on the january 6 select committee, is a constitutional law professor and joins me now. what is your reaction to the indictment? the three referrals mirror yours. are you disappointed that they didn't include the fourth referral, which was incitement for the riot?

>> the indictment overall is a very powerful vindication of the rule of law in american democracy. the one charge that the special counsel has that we didn't have strikes me as extremely compelling, which is conspiracy to violate the civil rights of the people, specifically the right to vote. it rang a bell in my mind immediately from what abraham lincoln said about insurrection, which he said was an assault on the first principle of government, the right of the people to choose their own elected officials. i was pleased with it. i can understand why they shied away from the count that we recommended about aiding and abetting insurrection and giving aid and comfort to insurrectionists. this statute has not been tried

very much. of course, no president certainly has ever put the people of the united states through what donald trump put us through. i think that the special counsel avoided a whole conversation about the first amendment and how far you can go in inciting insurrection and giving aid and comfort. we felt that it was clear that trump had done so when he called them great patriots in his tweet and told them to remember this day forever and he inflamed them by saying that mike pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done. i think that he avoided a legitimate first amendment controversy there. of course, trump supporters are going to claim that everything that trump was doing was just free speech, which is silly because he is being charged with a series of actions of conduct that ended up amounting to a

conspiracy to obstruct a federal proceeding, that amounted to a conspiracy to defraud the american people of the real election, supersuperimposing counterfeit electors over those chosen by federal and state law. >> from your familiarity with this case and with everything that happened, do you have a sense of who the sixth currently unnamed co-conspiracy might be? he is referred to as a political consultant in the indictment. >> some different names went through my head when i read that. i suppose i shouldn't speculate at this point about who that might be. there were clearly people who were egging the president on. the key point to my mind is the president was the initiating and motivating actor in all of these events. the right wing groups who wanted

to protest biden's victory got permits to protest on january 20th, when biden would -- was going to be sworn in. it was donald trump who got them to move the permits from the 20th to january 6th, saying, this isn't over, and trying to bring all of the attention to washington at the point of the peaceful transfer of power, saying, be there, we will be wild. no president had ever done anything remotely like that in the history of the united states, trying to interfere with the handover of the reins of power. of course, biden defeated trump by more than 7 million votes. it was a margin that trump had declared a landslide when he happened to have beaten hillary clinton by the same numbers.

>> the indictment says that trump deliberately disregarded the truth, because he could have a defense saying, i thought i did win. it says he deliberately disregarded the truth. it lists so many people, top cabinet officials and others, who told him so. we heard testimony to your committee, of course, supporting that. let's play some of that. >> there was a discussion going on. the president says, yeah, we lost. we need to let that issue go to the next guy, meaning president biden. >> i remember maybe a week after the election was called, i popped into the oval just to give the president the headlines and see how he was doing. he was looking at the tv and he said, can you believe i lost to this f-in' guy? >> a lot of times he tells me he lost but he thinks there might be enough to overturn the election. he acknowledged that he lost.

he said something to the effect of, i don't want people to know we lost. this is embarrassing. figure it out. we need to figure it out. i don't want people to know we lost. >> it wasn't just them. the white house counsel repeatedly told trump that he had lost. the attorney general of the united states, william barr, who was his loyal sick fant, so he was surrounded by people telling him he lost, in addition to him saying things like, can you believe i lost to this guy. if he believed that -- there's no way he did -- you don't have a right to overthrow the election and interfere with the federal proceeding and to stage

counterfeit votes. somebody might believe he or she has the right to vote in they are 15 or if they are not a citizen in the country or whatever. but if they go to vote and to try to alter the outcome of the election by one vote, they will go to jail if they are covicted after due process. how much more guilty are you if you try to steal the entire election? whether or not you knew that you had lost it. of course, 60 federal and state courts rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption that donald trump had brought. it's clear that he understood it. in any event, the way we settle these things is by going to court. it's not by staging insurrections and political coups against the normal electoral process. >> congressman jamie raskin, thanks very much for being with us. it's great to see you so well and so engaged.

thanks. >> thank you. >> we appreciate it. former president trump has been indicted for an unprecedented third time. so far, he has only gained political support from his base as his legal troubles increase. this is arguably the most important case. these charges, the most important. will that continue as he heads to more arraignments and trials that will come amidst the primary season? joining me now is nbc's national political correspondent steve kornacki, from the big board. steve, is there something different about this indictment? do you think the results might change since he has been gaining money and support in the polls with every legal vote? >> it is an interesting question if anything is going to be different in terms of the political fallout from this latest indictment of the donald trump. we have seen a pattern all year with the indictments and the

investigations. it has been clear so far. we have seen polling -- not related exactly to this indictment, but polling around these issues. this is from "the new york times," just before this indictment, asked republican voters, has donald trump committed serious federal crimes? republican voters say, no, he hasn't. more than 70%. in sharp contrast with where the entire electorate is among all voters, a small majority, but a majority, 51% say the former president has committed serious federal crimes. that huge gap between where republicans are and the general electorate, we have seen it all year. we see on the question, did donald trump's actions after the 2020 election represent a threat to democracy? he went that far. not even 20% of republicans will say that. the vast majority say he was exercising his right to contest the election. totally different story when you look at all voters. a majority saying trump's

actions represented a threat to democracy. a majority saying serious federal crimes and a threat to democracy. they believe the former president's actions amounted to. this question is interesting in terms of looking at the republican electorate and how it tends to react in these situations. a lot of words on the screen. we have been asking this. we are asking here two options for republicans for 2024. this first one is asking if all of the investigations and indictments are too distracting and it would be better to nominate someone new, or if the investigations and indictments are motivated and it means republicans should rally around trump? two-thirds of republican voters saying, they should rally around donald trump. all that has added up to this lead that trump has in the polls on the republican side. as the indictments have come out, that lead has grown. even though a majority of voters say, threat to democracy and serious federal crimes on

trump's part, when you ask trump versus biden, it's a tie right now. >> doesn't get any closer than that. steve kornacki, thank you very much. republican reaction to donald trump's third indictment has been mixed. trump's former vice president mike pence writing, today's indictment serves as an important reminder, anyone who puts themself over the constitution should never be president of the united states. ron desantis tweeted, one of the reasons our country is in decline is the politicalization of the rule of law. no more excuses. i will end the weaponization of the federal government. senator tim scott weighing in writing, what we see today are two different tracks of justice, one for political opponents and another for the son of the current president. we are watching biden's doj continue to hunt republicans, while protecting democrats. joining me now is brendan buck, former advisor for republican house speakers paul ryan and john boehner.

clearly, with the exception of the vice president, who is a key witness in this entire pending trial now, with that exception and what we have seen with asa hutchinson, candidates are seeing the polling. they are just denying the reality of what's going on here. >> once again, it's not surprising because they did it on the first couple of indictments as well. i continue to be completely confused by what ron desantis and tim scott are doing. they sound more like donald trump's surrogates than someone who is trying to defeat him in an election. i get it. i understand the polling as well. i worked in the house of representatives for a long time. i understand what the base is looking for, but at some point you have to recognize your job as running against donald trump is to defeat donald trump. if you want to have some

self-preservation with the party faithful, that's great. you're not going to end up winning this race. i wonder what some of these people are actually doing. of course, you're going to see congress rushing to his defense because a lot of the people, frankly, who were cheering this on are members of congress themselves. if they see this as potentially criminal, they don't want to implicate themselves in that type of thing. a lot of people have political alignment, incentives to muddy the waters. that's what they're trying to do is make it confusing. >> mark short, the former chief of staff to former vice president mike pence, he appeared on fox last night right after trump attorney we saw with savannah. listen to what he had to say about trump? >> he does a great job presenting himself as a victim. while the russia hoerks investigation i think was clearly unfair, i don't think

he's a victim in this case and i don't think it's right to say he's through protecting the first amendment rights of all americans. i think john distorts some of the facts here. the reality is that donald trump asked mike pence to overturn the results of the election. >> it's clear the pence campaign and mike pence himself certainly as a witness, is pointing out that it was mike pence who stopped the strategy from working. >> obviously for mike pence it was very personal. he was he who had to be rushed out of the building. he's been very consistent and deserves a lot of credit for that. i don't understand why some people who were also in the building don't feel the same type of anger. this was an attack on our place of work, our system of government. it should make you blood boil. they're playing politics with the base and it's really disappointing. >> brendan buck, thanks to you.

a test of democracy. that's next with presidential historian michael beschloss on how these revelations on the trump indictment makes this such an important moment for the country. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. y. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. by this champ. and this future champ. and if we proffer it, we know you'll proffer it too. he's cocky for a nineteen year old. (♪♪) rsv can be a dangerous virus... [sneeze] ...for those 60 and older. it's not just a cold. and if you're 60 or older... ...you may be at increased risk of hospitalization... [coughing] ...from this highly...

...contagious virus. not all dangers come with warning labels. talk to your pharmacist or doctor... ...about getting vaccinated against rsv today. sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. talk to your pharmacist 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.

never before in the history of our count been indicted on the federal charges donald trump is facing. special counsel jack smith underlining the attack on the nation's capitol on january 6th was an unprecedented assault on the seat of democracy, unlike anything we've seen before. joining us now, nbc presidential historian michael beschloss. michael, i've been wanting to talk to you since this happened. how do these latest charges impact our history, our history of democracy? >> i think the way to look at it, andrea, and i'll begin with a positive statement, our american democracy is an

amazingly resilient system. here we are how many years later, over two centuries, we're still a democracy, we're still vibrant. a vast majority of americans love democracy and understand democracy, but we've gone through crises, the british tried to take it away in 1812, so did jefferson davis in 1861. so did the nazis and imperial japanese in 1941, osama bin laden in 2001. these are different episodes, obviously, but the general story here is that americans are slow to anger and we're slow to rise up against a threat to democracy. but once we roll into action, we make sure that the democracy survives. it happened in all of those cases. so what i would say is this indictment is late. i think i would have felt better if it had happened two years ago because coming so late means there's some chance that donald

trump and his lawyers can run down the clock and put this in jeopardy of happening after the election, at which time, if he's elected president, he can shut this down. this is what's at stake here. he said he wants to be essentially a presidential dictator if he comes back. he and his people have said that. so if this is not in some way sanctioned, the things he did on january 6th that are in this indictment, that would be all of us as americans saying, it's okay, what he did on january 6th was fine, he can do it again and so could a later president. >> donald trump's attorney, john lara was on the "today" show with savannah guthrie. >> i saw it. >> he brought up president john kennedy supposedly doing the same thing with fake electors. here is the exchange. >> there is something wrong with sending fake electors, trying to go beyond and around the laws.

>> these weren't fake electors, these were alternate electors that john kennedy did in 1960. >> different situation. >> explain the difference. >> that is so ridiculous and so wrong, i'll try to make this extremely brief. 1960, after the election kennedy got 300 pre electoral votes which was a large number given it was a close popular vote. he won over nixon only by 100,000 votes. southern electors and southern politicians were terrified that kennedy would be for civil rights and integration. they waged a plan to try to blackmail kennedy and say to him and his people, unless you promise there will be no integration, we will have a campaign among southern electors to vote instead nor the white supremacist senator harry byrd, of virginia and you, senator kennedy, will not be elected.

at the time it was called a hijacking, it was called corrupt and elicit. fortunately the electors who were approached about this hair-brained corrupt scheme, they said no. for this trump lawyer to cite that episode as sanctioned for what he tried to do on the 6th of january, it's like to say jesse james tried to do something, so it's okay if i do it. >> comparing a blatantly illegal act with what his own client did. >> right. >> michael beschloss, we'll talk again tomorrow i hope. we'll be an from four hours today from 12:00 to 4:00. that does it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports." be sure to tune in our special coverage of donald trump's arraignment from 12:00 to 4:00 right here tomorrow. i'll be joined by chris jansing and ana cabrera. "chris jansing reports" starts right now.

good day. i'm chris jansing live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. it's a trial that will test our legal and political systems in ways never seen before. tomorrow, when we expect former president donald trump to walk into a d.c. courthouse, it will set off a challenge to america's very identity, the constitution, and the public's faith in the rule of law. special counsel jack smith sven touring into that uncharted territory by charging a former president with crimes against the nation that he once led. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. as described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies, lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s. government, a nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying