welcome back to our special coverage of the donald trump historic indictment. right now the former president expected to begin his journey from new jersey to washington, a trip he's made dozens of times before but of course never like this. and instead of heading to the white house of course, he will be heading to the federal courthouse two blocks from capitol hill where he will be surrendering to u.s. marshals. he will be fingerprinted and booked on criminal charges and be arraigned before a magistrate judge this afternoon. he will be represented by john morrow. the defense still taking shape but we've heard more from one of his former attorneys parlatore who insists that the case is weak. >> it comes down to the being a

achilles' heel of knowledge. jack smith must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that on the night of january 5 and into january 6, that donald trump knew that he had lost the election. and reading through the indictment, i didn't see anything new which would actually be able to establish that. and just within the last hour, trump posted about today's events writing i'm now going to washington, d.c. to be arrested for having challenged the corrupt, rigged and stolen election. it is a great honor because i'm being arrested for you. he also wrote, i need one more indictment to ensure my election. joining us now, sasha burns live in bedminster, new jersey. tom winter is also covering the arraignment. and also peter baker is here with us. as well as chuck rosenberg, former u.s. attorney, senior fbi official and an msnbc contributor. so we've been looking at these live pictures from the sky over

bedminster. we know that he needs to be here in d.c. by 4:00 this afternoon which is three hours from thousand. what can you tell us about the schedule and anything you know about the moves behind closed doors there? >> reporter: we're expecting him to depart at any moment here. and while we here are anticipating this moment with real serious gravity here, these charges really saying so much about the state of our nation right now, what we've learned, what our colleagues are reporting from sources behind closed doors here at bedminster, the mood is south of shrugging off the charges, that trump has largely been resigned but defiant. and that this is not an indictment that has come with any sort of shock, that he was expecting this. this is an indictment that was very predictable and that the flavor of this has felt different for the inner circle

because it is now indictment number three with a fourth one coming. some allies even saying that three indictments, four indictments are better than one for the former president because with one indictment, you can focus more on the details whereas with three or four, the details really get muddled and the framing of a justice system that is out to get the former president that is out to get his allies and supporters, it is easier to have folks rally around sort of this weaponized system as they have been framing it rather than really dig into the substance of what this indictment and others actually have, you know -- the meat of the matter here. and so while we anticipate this historic moment, him traveling down to d.c. as you said in a way that he has never traveled there before, the president himself has been golfing, he has been chatting with folks.

even the night after the indictment, he had dinner with fox news executives. this is not something that is shocking to him anymore, it has become sort of a new reality for the former president that he is now using to build momentum for his campaign. >> former prosecutor as much as they try to shrug it off in terms of their affect and politics of it all, the witnesses and the issues that were mentioned in this indictment, including mike pence who gets to the heart of what parlatore was saying, just that there is plenty of evidence about his knowledge and knowing that he was, you know -- he had lost the election from his own vice president and this is not just focused on the events of january 6 or 5. >> that's right. so first principal, prosecutors don't put a word or sentence into an indictment unless they believe that they can prove it

in a court of law. that being true, the words, sentences and paragraphs in this indictment are significant. they make for a compelling case. i also don't think that the case turns on any one witness. i've heard a lot of talk about former vice president pence being a star witness. yes and no. he is an important witness. but there are many important witnesses i've seen very few cases that rise or fall on the testimony of a single person. and as alleged in the indictment, there is a whole bunch of people that had candid conversations with mr. trump, told him that he had lost and told him that he had no basis in law or fact to submit fake electors to try to steal the election. so the evidence to me seems compelling. the case of course is compelling. now, i will also tell you that good prosecutors don't talk about slam dunks and don't

guarantee wins. juries can do anything. and we understand that. and so when you walk into court, you walk in -- two things that you hope. a strong case and a dose of humility. >> but if you want to talk about, peter, mike pence because he is somebody who has been in the public eye for a long time as we've talked about on in program and many other, he was very loyal to donald trump for a very long time. and yet he has been very clear recently about the pressure campaign that donald trump brought to bear. let me play just a little clip from him as a reminder. >> i'm a student of american history. and first time i heard in early december somebody suggest that as vice president i might be able to decide which votes to reject and which to accept, i knew that it was false. our founders had just won a war against a kinged a last thing they would have done was

unilateral authority in any one person to decide who would be the next president. >> and trump posted about that, he said i feel badly for mike pence who is attracting no crowd, enthusiasm or loyalty from people who as a member of the trump administration should be loving him. he didn't fight against election fraud. that is again in the court of public opinion. if it gets to it, what kind of witness do you think mike pence will be? >> well, i think a strong witness. he may not be the sole important witness, but he has a credibility because his story has been consistent and he is not known as a trump hater, right? he can't be characterized as somebody with a political ax to grind against his former running mate and the person who made him vice president in the first place. and he was loyal to him. >> and there is donald trump -- he came out of his home at bedminster, he is getting in the car as we said, he has a little less than three hours before he

is scheduled to be in court here. just really a few blocks from the capitol. there are so many things that he will see, he will experience, he is used to making this trip as we said, but the trip would be usually to the white house as president. he visited bedminster often, peter, and now he may even go near or on some of the streets where he walked in the inaugural parade. but this moment is so different. >> well, it is. and it does have gravity as we were just saying. he has already been indicted twice. he's gone through this before, but it was in new york and south florida. this is the nation's capital. and in this courthouse as you say a couple blocks from the united states capitol where the mob attacked on january 6, 2021, just a few blocks from the white house where he lived for four years, there is a sense of moment in history in watching him make this journey and watching him face a magistrate judge to enter a plea presumably

of not guilty. >> and peter, we talk about this denial of knowing that he had lost the election, just to recapitulate, the in-time mentions all the other officials. head of national intelligence, former attorney general bill barr certainly before he quit, as well as people around him. you mentioned his family and his white house chief of staff, his white house counsel and others. >> yeah, and i think what jack smith has done is make the case that he knew and if not he certainly had reason to know because he was told time and time again not by democrats, not by liberals, not by his opponents, but by the people who worked to reelect him, who he had chosen himself to put in position of high power and authority and ignored it. they told him specific allegations were wrong. when you say this thing about is

just not true and then he goes out and repeats this public any way, so jack smith is taking all of this information and saying he knew it was not true. >> and it is without a doubt that what is true, what is not true is the key part of this because it is mentioned, the lies are mentioned on the very first page of this indictment. but it is also again what he knew. it was interesting to hear bill barr, his former attorney general, saying yesterday in an interview on cnn that he wasn't sure, but now he feels pretty confident that donald trump knew that he indeed had lost the election. do they have to prove that? >> they do. they have to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. >> so what goes to beyond a reasonable doubt? >> and i could do it in a couple

ways. i could do it based on what you say or write, or to peter's point, i could do it based on what you are told. and if you are told the same thing over and over and over by a lot of different people, that is some evidence of what you know. there is a really interesting phrase in the indictment, on page seven, the allegations that mr. trump deliberately disregarded what he was told had an alternative way of proving intent. that is something called willful blindness. right? if there is something that you should know and you overt knowing it, the metaphor would be sticking your head in the sand so you don't hear it, right, that is willful blindness and yet another way for the government to prove intent. we could prove it by what you say, we could also prove it by what you ignore. >> and one of the other things that i was thinking about when you and peter were talking about

the vice president and they can say that you are runs against donald trump now, but he would be the vice president of the united states if the election had been won. so it was in his interests to believe what, you know, what donald trump was believing but he was going by the facts. >> and in fact there were others who told him the same thing, who stood to gain because they are people who work with donald trump and had he won the election, but beyond the vice president may have been able to continue to work as well. >> it was that break with donald trump that has caused this current campaign for mike pence to be so flailing because he has lost any support among the trump maga base because they see him as a betrayer. >> tom winter is at the court and looking into the evidence, witnesses who could be called into trial potentially including pence of course. what more can you tell us about some of the other witnesses? >> reporter: i think it was

interesting that the former vice president took contemporaneous notes in meetings leading up to january 6 and seems to have a pretty good recollection of exactly what happened this there. so that stuck out. and a lot of other evidence that we've either heard directly before, we've seen directly before, or has been talked about as the final report or hearings associated with it. and so what additional evidence has been gathered across this law enforcement investigation. of course they have tools that congress would not. and i thought it was interesting to echo the comments made earlier that last night the former attorney general of the united states bill barr seemed to indicate that there was evidence that the president, then president trump knew what had occurred and he had in fact lost the election. and paragraph 83 if memory serves correct, where there is a discussion about military action, unrelated national security matter, where the

former president seems to indicate that that is something that will have to be dealt with after we left office. so perhaps that is the tip of the iceberg as far as that evidence goes. we've seen obviously no hesitation by the special counsel's office to drop superseding indictments as we've seen in the mar-a-lago case. so of course it is always possible that we could see that here. and it doesn't even begin to address the idea of six co-conspiratorses who could eventually face charges. but that is also something that could potentially be waiting in the wings. >> and so the former president of the united states leaving bedminster on the way to get on his plane and come here to washington, d.c. from what the website says is a family oriented club located in the heart of new jersey. he is as we said going to be appearing in a courtroom not far from here. i want to go to yasmin vossoughian who is in washington, d.c. for us. give us a sense of the scene where you are.

>> reporter: we're watching the footage of the former president making his way to washington. of course security is ti the ar. we're looking at a 45 minute or so drive to liberty international airport where he will take off and then arrive at reagan national airport, about a ten minute drive to make his way this way. and i know we have a map to give you a lay of the land when we look at security measures in place awaiting the arrival of the former president. behind me we have barricades that were erected overnight. and i was here last week, they were not in place then. they are now. they surrounds the entire courthouse. and i'm looking at constitution avenue, the very street that i marched up along side many of the proerts january 6, certainly

proerts a seminole moment. and now the former president will be arraigned. west side of the building is closed off. and there is an underground garage where likely the former president will be entering with his motorcade. he will have to take an elevator up to the second floor. and c street is closed off to foot and car traffic. and then we make our way to 3rd street which is also cordoned off. there is still an entry to the building on 3rd street. and there is a full court docket today, so they have other trials in session and they are ongoing. and we've been told throughout the day that that will continue. i'm hearing? melee behind me, i'm not sure what is going on. just to tell you this is kind of similar to what we were seeing in miami which is a gaggle of

protestors here and there, but really nothing significant. though i am seeing some raised voices behind me and we'll drill down on what is dg on there. if i hear anything more, i'll bring it to you. >> and let's talk about the free speech argument being made by the defense. because there are definite limits to free speech when it comes to an underlying conspiracy. >> a lot of limits to free speech. so the argument may resonate in political circles, there is a technical legal word for that argument in court. think about it, let's say peter baker and i wanted to run an investment fraud scheme and we made represent fashions to you and we took your money based on those false representations. and we gambled it away at a casino. that is not protected speech, but not protected speech, there is no first amendment protected speech designed to commit a

crime. >> and so we want to thank chuck and peter and yasmin. still ahead, donald trump saying he can't get a fair trial in d.c. our special coverage of the indictment of donald trump continues right here on msnbc. np continues right here on msnbc. (fan #1) there ya go! that's what i'm talkin' about! (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. so i didn't think i needed swiffer, until,

i saw how easily it picked up my hair every time i dried it! only takes a minute. look at that! the heavy duty cloths are extra thick, for amazing trap & lock. even for his hair. wow. and for dust, i love my heavy duty duster. the fluffy fibers trap dust on contact, up high and all around without having to lift a thing. i'm so hooked. you'll love swiffer. or your money back! and there was a ruling against blocking some of the documents in the january 6 committee saying that presidents are not kings and the plaintiff is not president. should the case go to trial, trump's fate will be decided by a jury in washington, d.c.

although if the former president has his way, venue will be moved. andrew weissmann is joining us, paul butler, and both are msnbc legal analysts. we also have christy greenberg a former prosecutor and former deputy chief of the southern district of new york criminal division and chuck rosenberg is still with us. so let's ask first about the art for a -- the argument for a change of venue. >> and let me tell you the procedure that is followed in any case where you have a sort of widely publicized crime and very notorious defendant. the judge will typically -- and i'm confident this is what will happen because it is what we did in enron and in the paul manafort case, send out hundreds

of jury questionnaires that are incredibly detailed. both parties get to have input into what those questions are. everyone then renews those and you weed out people who obviously cannot be there simply based on the answers to those questions. and then the remaining pool of jurors are brought in and the federal judge goes over individually specific questions that are problematic to assure herself that each of those jurors can put aside whatever they have heard, whatever preconceived views they have and just base their verdict on what happens in the courtroom and that they can follow the law. it is a very detailed process and what is the foundation of our rule of law. it is inconceivable to me that this is going to be a case that

won't be kept in d.c. there is no other venue where you won't have the same issue. this is widely known throughout the country. and as i mentioned, the supreme court of the united states in united states versus gilling has rule od united states versus gilling has rule on this exact issue and they said that you don't need to change the venue, but it is all about having a detailed careful jury selection. >> and so the judge has a record of delivering tough sentences for january 6 rioters, but also a former public defender. absolutely no doubt she will be under intense scrutiny from conservatives. how many of you expect her to run this case knowing her and in particular perhaps to handle jury selection? >> it is funny, donald trump may not appreciate this, but the fact that she is a former public defender actually advances his

case. she will be emphatic about the necessity of due process and fairness to the defendant. in this case mr. trump. she will instruct the jurors to only consider the evidence that is offered in court and set aside any of their preconceived notions. and she will say that it is the government, jack smith's heavy burden to prove all charges beyond a reasonable doubt. if the prosecution doesn't prove that, then they must find him not guilty. and one other point, the judge was unanimously confirmed by the senate. he was ted cruz. but yesterday he said that she would not give trump a fair trial. and that is just the beginning of the venom that the judge will likely receive. much of it will be racist and

sexist. yesterday was the first day in court since she was assigned the case of united states versus donald trump. everyone in that courtroom knew the judge's life would probably never be the same. one lawyer said be safe and she said i'm fine. >> the latest ad from the trump campaign which really focuses largely on latitia james and of course on jack smith is any measure, there will be a lot of heat coming from all sides. chuck, i want to also focus on what jack smith says he is seeking which he says is a speedy trial. that means within with 70 days from when an indictment is filed. bute postponed for all kinds of reasons. but does he have a point? >> typically in the interests of the government to try a case as soon as it can following indictment. by the way, speedy trial is for

both party, not just the defendant, not just for the government. it is for everybody. that said, i'm told that bine gets better with age. i don't know that to be true because i don't drink wine. but criminal cases do not.i don because i don't drink wine. but criminal cases do not. it is to the prosecutor's advantage to try the case as soon as possible. the speedy trial provision of the constitution permit about exceptions. so the statute requires a case be tried within 70 days but there are also a number of exceptions for complex cases. defense attorneys trying to push this as long as they possibly can for legal reasons and for political reasons. >> one quick followup here. this compared to mar-a-lago with classified documents is not as complicated a case at all. >> it doesn't have the classified documents component,

that is true, so there wouldn't be a classified information procedures act set of issues in this case. but that doesn't mean that the defense counsel can't raise other ancillary issues challenging the indictment which will complicate matters. i can see a number of them coming down the pike. >> but they are familiar with a lot of the evidence that is being presented because a lot of this is about the virtue of the federal subpoenas presented by the january 6 committee. this is the same narrative but dressed up if you will with firsthand testimony from a number of good players. >> good point and another difference, only one defendant in this case. there are three in the southern district of florida case. so this case by definition is somewhat more streamlined. >> so one line of defense we're expecting from the team is that he was just taking the advice of counsel. and bill barr was asked about that yesterday. let me play for you what he had to say about that line of defense. >> i don't think that there is

against of advice of counsel will go toward because i think that the president would have to get on the stand and subject himself to cross examination in order to raise that. and he'd also have to waive attorney/client privilege. >> and what would happen if he got on the stand? >> i think that it would not come out very well for him. >> do you think it would hurt him? >> oh, yes. >> and so there is really two questions there, but let's start with the first which is advice of counsel and where that lies in terms of strength of a defense. >> it is not a strong defense. i anticipate that he will raise it with his lawyers, that he essentially was just relying on these lawyers who told him that it was fine to go ahead and claim that there was election fraud, bring the baseless lawsuits, have the fake elector

schemes. but ultimately what will do them in, you can't rely on legal advice if you are being told to do something illegal. and with respect to john eastman in particular, throughout the indictment, there are acknowledgements that not only did john eastman who is believed to be co-conspirator two knew what he was doing was illegal, but that he also communicated these facts to donald trump. there is one example where donald trump is signing and filing a verification about election fraud in a georgia lawsuit. and john eastman acknowledges in an email correspond to the indictment that information in that var if i skags was false and that he and donald trump knew it but they filed it with the courtney way. same thing with the violations of the electoral count act. there are acknowledgements from his counsel that these legal

theories would fail before the supreme court. and yet again donald trump is, you know, having conversations with his lawyers and presumably they are having conversations about the fact that there is nothing to these legal theories. they are just a way to try to delay as pretext any kind of certification of the election. so that is the heart of it, what donald trump knew about the fact that there was nothing to these legal defenses, that they were blatantly unreasonable for him to rely on. and i suspect that the government has thought this through and that they have the evidence to show that there is no real defense here. >> so if bill barr is right that the president would then have to get up on the stand if they use that as a defense and subject himself to cross examination, there certainly is not a defense attorney i can't imagine who would want donald trump to get on the stand. >> donald trump is certainly not

going to take the stand. he would find himself facing perjury charges. so that won't happen. but could he still waive the attorney/client privilege and could certain communications in writing be subject to use, yes, i think that that is likely where he would see that coming in. i mean, you have judge carter's decision in the central district of california when he viewed communications between john eastman and donald trump and based upon his review of communications, that it would more than likely dispose of them in the conspiracy to obstruct. >> and a lot of this will go intent proving that he believed that he lost the election and there was widespread fraud. so his defense lawyers are

projecting that he ask say that they can argue for him that the covid era, the pandemic era, voting changes led him to believe that there would be fraud. and we heard jim parlatore saying that the federal judge when is ruled that there was not widespread fraud in all of knows different cases must be believed because a lot were decisions based on standing. can you address that? >> yeah, so it is a relatively well written indictment. i'm going to teach it as students as a way to write a compelling legal document. i tell the story and that to anticipate defenses. so in terms of trump's intent, look at paragraph 90 of the indictment which relates a conversation where donald trump told the vice president that he

was too honest. gentleman -- i can't imagine anything more core ran bra difference than that. so we'll see what all of the lawyers who told trump that there was no fraud in the election. >> paul, christy, andrew, chuck, thank you. and this indictment a potential turning point for congress, but the gop has its sights set elsewhere. how it could affect their investigations into president biden, next. investigations into president biden, next. at pnc bank, you can find us in big cities and small towns across the us, where our focus is to always support the people who live and work there.

because you call these communities home, and we do too. pnc bank. 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.

donald trump continues to head to the airport ahead of his third criminal arraignment in four months, he's sending a clear message to house republicans and it is this, impeach president biden or risk losing your job. and there are plenty of signs that message has been received. joining us now from coach bowl jake sherman and also correspondent eugene daniels. so i should read to you the way punch bowl put it, politically this indictment will be a challenge for republicans for the next 460 days leading up to the election. instead of a laser focus on biden's perceived shortcomings, gop lawmakers will be asked over and over again about the former president's behavior on january 6 and efforts to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election which trump lost. we tend to talk about the impact on the 2024 presidential down

ballot. and they are talking about this in a lot of places especially if you are a republican in a purple district. talk about what it. >> they are right. we'll continue to ask questions, did then president trump act in the right way, did he do something wrong, what do you think about the indictments. and when you talk about republicans and they are being absolutely honest with themselves, that is not what they want to be talking about. they talk like ron desantis which is that they want to move on from those kind ofkki haley how she is tired of it. they know that their candidates will be hit every day with what donald trump has been saying, doing and what he's done in the past. >> tell me a little more, jake, about punch bowl's reporting about the constant threat there is that there could be primaries that if you are not on team

trump, we'll primary you. >> well, eugene said it well, but i'll add when talking about primaries and donald trump, donald trump has a knack of picking particularly bad candidates which is why in many people's estimation including many republicans on capitol hill who are in charge of the election why they didn't win seats that they could have won in 2022. so i think that we're beyond the point in most districts in america, not many, but most where the threat of a trump backed primary is going on scare you. i think that that is a broad statement but i think that that is right in some places. now, in addition to that, i mean, i can't tell you -- and in that same newsletter, we wrote hundreds of republicans and lawmakers generally lived through january 6. and so as eugene said, if they are being honest with themselves and you, and they are mostly not on this issue specifically, they would say that donald trump's behavior on january 6 was not

sx every exemplary. why would you want to talk about an attack on the capitol. i can't think of a political up side in discussing that issue. so if you bundle all that together, takes pretty precarious political position for republicans. >> jake, there are so many lawmakers mentioned in the event that led to trump's indictment looking at kevin mccarthy with his angry call with trump on january 6, house judiciary chair jim jordan. >> yeah, that's right. i mean, a lot of people were involved and not only by the way in the public sphere, not only were they involved in the public efforts to over turn the election objecting to safe recertification and things like that, but there were plenty of

people behind the scenes strat guiding with trump and people like mark meadows and rudy giuliani especially in the house of representatives. so this is something that not only did republicans experience but in many cases were involved with. and were a part of, which is a very, very interesting wrinkle here. and this is unlike the documents case. the documents case is compared to this far away from members of congress because they weren't involved in it. this they were involved in. >> and is this going to inevitably lead to more and more focus as we've seen in this ad that just came out from the trump campaign today, more and more focus on the hill on hunter biden and biden's finances and allegations yet unproved? >> yes, this is -- the capitol which i'm in right now will be intensely focused on hunter biden and joe biden. remember, kevin mccarthy said before the recess, they are out for another 40 days or so, kevin mccarthy said before the recess the only way to get the information they want about joe

biden is an impeachment inquiry. so that tells a lot. >> and let's talk about hunter biden, what about joe biden, shouldn't he be impeached. is there a sense that you get when you are on the hill that they really think that that is a winning strategy for them? i'm not talking about with the maga base, i'm talking about with people who have to really run in 2024. >> when you talk to those frontline of the people in the purple districts, they are worried about this. they are worried about an impeachment inquiry. and people talk about that we're just using it to find information, that is what nancy pelosi also said about impeaching donald trump. you have to have something at the end of that, right? and so the idea most likely that they would want to try to bring articles of impeachment to the floor. these people in the purple districts, they don't want that, they don't want to have to go back to the places where maybe even joe biden won and talk about why they have to vote, why are the people in their party

going to -- far more importantly, without evidence, right? they walked in saying that they would impeach joe biden. they didn't say that we'll find out, we'll do the investigation. they said we're going to impeach this man. and it started from the very beginning. so at this point no actual evidence to the kinds of things that they are saying. even joe biden's friend talked about how he wasn't as involved as the comer and others have said. >> eugene, thank you so much. thanks to jake sherman. trump's legal team strategiing possible defenses. arraignment in just a little more than two hours. will it fly in court. it fly int subway's now slicing their deli meats fresh. 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? (♪♪) 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. 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.

the prawns are delicious. oh, i have a shellfish allergy. one prawn. very good. did i say chicken wrong? tired of people not listening to what you want? it's truffle season! ah that's okay... never enough truffles. how much are they? it's a lot. oh okay - i'm good, that - it's like a priceless piece of art. enjoy. or when they sell you what they want? yeah. the more we understand you, the better we can help you. that's what u.s. bank is for. huge relief. yeah... ♪ former president's legal team floating possible defenses,

but his former attorney general bill barr is not convinced that they will fly in court. >> they are not attacking his first amendment rights. he can say whatever they wants. he can even lie and tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. but that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy. also, i don't think that this defense of advice of counsel will go forward because i think that the president would have to get on the stand and subject himself to cross-examination in order to raise that. and he'd also have to waive attorney/client privilege. >> joining us now is former watergate prosecutor who turned down the opportunity to join donald trump's defense team last year. and we should point out that all the major issues of the defense didn't come up at the arraignment today. we understand that that is just very simple very brief procedure and a plea.

but john, do you agree with former attorney general bill barr about the two trump defenses that his team has been floating? >> i don't think that it is quite that simple. i think that mr. parlatore and john lara made good tries. i think those defenses pass the good faith threshold for an honest lawyer and i think that they are going to be legitimate motions dismissed before the court. but i've been on tv a number of occasions and talking about this, but now i have to pinch myself to believe this is true. the former president of the united states is going to be arraigned for -- i know they didn't charge in the insurrection, but what involved here an attempted coup, something we all saw on television. and it is just -- you know, if i took this plot to hollywood with

a screen summary, they would throw me out. a year ago they would say you are crazy. but the very constitution that former president trump said hey, maybe that should be suspended, that will protect him now with the presumption of innocence and burden of proof on the government. and simply without getting too much like a lawyer, free speech clearly has its limits. the crime of conspiracy is about talking. and it only involves one overt act. and that does not have to be criminal. and so clearly just to say that it was just talk and that is not a crime i think andrew -- no, check row chuck rosenberg said a legal term that is nonsense, but it is a little bit better than nonsense, but mr. trump also

will employ the strategy of delay. every criminal lawyer does that, but to suggest that it should be put off a couple years is absurd. but i think that the mar-a-lago case will have to be put off, that may trial date will have to be put off. there is a new defendant. he hasn't even been arraigned yet. and they are now moving to disqualify walt nauta's lawyer. so that will have to be put off. this gives the district of columbia judge the opportunity to set this case in the late spring and seven, eight months is really enough time to prepare this case. there is another -- besides counsel and first amendment, there is another issue which i think the trump team can raise and that goes to the unindicted co-conspirators, the six of them. i think that those people will be charged because they are all one by one coming out saying that we did not make deals, we didn't do anything wrong. and what is alleged for each one

is criminal conduct. and so i think another defense trump can say is that some of these people are my essential witnesses. i had the advice of counsel. some of these are the lawyers who told me and i believed in good faith and you, mr. smith, special counsel, are making them unavailable to me because you called them unindicted co-conspirators. so despite what they are saying now, they made take the fifth and not testify for him and that violates my due process rights. and i think that is another issue and i think the reason jack smith only indicted mr. trump individually was -- >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but we're to look at these live pictures. thank you for that. donald trump is arriving at newark airport. he's made the short drive from bedminster. and he will board the flight and

then a ten minute drive to the courthouse. and there he is with his suit and red tie. ascending the steps to his private jet. and will be flying the very short flight to washington reagan national airport. and then the drive over to the courthouse, which you know well. you have been living in washington most of your life and covering all of the big stories, andrea. >> i feel like i have been living at the airport, at reagan national. >> we have both served our time there. >> back with us is andrew weissmann and chuck rosenberg. chuck, we heard what john had to say. he raised a couple points about, you know, possible defenses here as well. >> that's right. look -- >> he name checked you. let's just say that. >> fair enough. there are always defenses, whether or not there are compelling defenses or successful defenses is a completely different matter. >> is there a prospect this trial which is so momentous,

could start earlier than the mar-a-lago case? >> i hope so because in my mind, andrea, this is the most compelling case i can imagine. a president of the united states, at least a then-president, trying to thwart the peaceful transition of power in a democracy is as compelling as it gets. not to say the mar-a-lago case doesn't matter. it does. it's also an important case. but not on the scale of this one. and i would hate to see these things postponed very long, too long, certainly would hate to see them postponed until after the election. that's still a possibility, though. >> can we just talk about what we're seeing now. yes, there is a sameness to this. this is the third indictment in four months. and there are people, frankly, i'm sure they have asked you, andrea, as well, which one is this? there are so many cases, frankly, against donald trump, and so much people have heard about them, that not everyone follows it as closely.

but the historic significance of this and the pressure that is on this prosecuting team, nobody who works for jack smith is going to tell you this is a slam dunk. talk about what this means for the lawyers, the pressure they're under. both legally, but also frankly as human beings who find themselves in the middle of a trial that will make history, whatever happens. >> well, having been on two task forces most recently with special counsel mueller, i have some sense, but i always thought special counsel mueller would be the most intense experience anyone would have, but this is obviously a different level and degree. what i can tell you is that the lawyers and the analysts who are on the team do develop a very

strong esprit de corps and a close-knit working relationship. and you do really try to just block out all of the noise and even when i was in the special counsel mueller, i didn't watch tv at all. i just tuned out all of this and just kept my head down. and i think very similar to the mueller investigation, you're seeing the team be very quiet. and they're doing -- they're talking through actions and filings before the court. so yes, it is intense. yes, there is a lot of protection and security which is unfortunate, but it's necessary, but i think in many ways it heightens the sense of duty and a responsibility that you have in law enforcement and everyone

understood what they were signing up for. so it's difficult, but i think that in many ways it is something that they're not used to but can easily handle. >> andrew, what do you think is going to happen to the unindicted coconspirators? john was talking to former watergate prosecutors about how now they would take the fifth if they try to get them to be witnesses. i could imagine them not considering them as witnesses now that they're unindicted coconspirators? do you think they could be indicted or are already in a sealed indictment, before the trial was to begin, or is that a deliberate strategy not to indict him so he can move more quickly with his very trimmed down, you might say, case against one person? >> i do think there was a deliberate strategy to just have a single defendant, because speed matters here. jack smith is aware of when he was appointed and the need

consistent with due process to have the cases go to trial before the general election. and i think that judges will feel that too. again, understanding that it's got to be consistent with due process for any defendant, including donald trump. i do, to answer your question specifically, i do think that -- i actually think all, but certainly a large group of the six people are going to be charged. i say that because it is unusual to see that much detail in an indictment of people who are unindicted. you easily could have imagined this case with all seven in it if there was not that time constraint. >> andrew weissmann, chuck rosenberg, thank you so much. chuck, i think you're still going to be with us. our special coverage of the indictment of former president donald trump continues right here on msnbc.

and ana cabrera is going to join us next after a very short break. don't go anywhere. (♪♪) 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! trying vapes to quit smoking with astepro's unbeatably fast allergy relief might feel like progress, but with 3x more nicotine than a pack of cigarettes - vapes increase cravings - trapping you in an endless craving loop. nicorette reduces cravings until they're gone for good. type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk,

and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. you may pay as little as $25.

when you shop wayfair, you get big deals for your home - every day. so big, we'll have you saying... am i a big deal? yeah you are, because it's a big deal, when you get a big deal. wayfair deals so big that you might get a big head. because with savings so real... you can get your dream sofa for half the price. wayfair. it's always a big deal.

♪ wayfair, you've got just what i need ♪ so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 bucks a line per month. that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. no wonder xfinity mobile is one of the fastest growing mobile services. you really shouldn't walk out the front door without it. switch today at xfinitymobile.com when i first learned about my dupuytren's contracture, my physician referred me to a hand specialist. and i'm glad he did, because when i took the tabletop test, i couldn't lay my hand flat anymore. the first hand specialist i saw only offered surgery. so, i went to a second hand specialist who also offered nonsurgical options - which felt more right for me. so, what i'd say to other people with dupuytren's contracture is this: don't wait —find a hand specialist trained in nonsurgical options, today.

i found mine at findahandspecialist.com. lelo, thank you so much for staying with our special coverage. i'm ana cabrera joining andrea mitchell and chris jansing, ahead of donald trump's third arraignment in the last four months. the former pred's flight from new jersey is expected to take off in just moments. we showed you those pictures just a moment ago as he was getting on that plane. he'll arrive in washington about an hour or so later and his motorcade will head to the federal courthouse just blocks away from us here where he'll face a magistrate judge, hear the latest charges against him, and enter a plea. >> we're joined by one of the former president's republican primary rivals. former arkansas governor