joining us now are betsey woodruff swan and co-host of the prosecuting donald trump podcast, andrew weissman. thank you both for joining us tonight. andrew, are we going to see a superseding indictment here, or do you think this grand jury action is about the coconspirators unnamed in the initial indictment? >> well, i think the odds of seeing a superseding indictment in the january 6th case against donald trump are low, and that's because it's clear that the prosecution wants it to go to trial, and they want a trial date and they want it to be either before the election or even before the republican nomination, but what we could see is to your point the coconspirators i think it is highly likely some if not all will be indicted, but that could be in a separate case. and then on the financial piece, that also could be a separate set of charges, and that doesn't necessarily need to go all the way up to donald trump to bring that case. remember that case is similar to what we saw with steve bannon and his cohorts which is build the wall, which is basically a fraud case where you raise money fo

andrew weissman, let me go first to the hatch act raised by fani willis, which is not something we've brought up in discussions on this program because mark meadows' attempt to remove the case to federal court depends on his -- depends on his claim that everything he was doing was exactly what a white house chiew of staff does. this is the job. he was just doing the job. fani willis' brief takes serious issue with that. >> so a lot happened today that i think you have your finger on the thing that's most important in terms of really thinking about big picture. it is mark meadows' motion to remove this case, andti also ife were to win that for sort of essentially federal immunity, that is so important and to keep an eye on. fani willis' brief tonight i thought was a tour de force. i have to say i wasn't surprised in thei sense i thought she wod write a good brief, but it was really superbly done. i would recommend people reading it. the issue really comes down to was marbling meadows taking action that was part of his office, either under the color of office or something he was authori

andrew weissman still with us., mark. >> good to be here. >> is this a day that would have come out with january 6th committee's probe? >> well, i'm not sure i can answer that, but i can say that the indictment tracks closely with what the committee did. >> do you think that at the time of the committee's work when jack smith had not yet been named in the early days that the doj was on that path? >> there's been some reporting about what was happening in doj and the fbi in those many months while we were working before jack smith was appointed, and it seemed as if based on that reporting that there wasn't a lot of progress being made. you pair that with the fact that this indictment tracked very closely not just the work that we did in terms of developing evidence and witnesses, but just the themes and the approach. and so i think it's fair to say that the work of the committee had a strong influence on where we are today. >> strong influence. fair. i appreciate your precision there. hard job to ask to questions. s

so is andrew weissman, one of the many experts waiting on them we spoke about it earlier in our breaking coverage. david just pointed out this is the area where lives become criminal. i want to ask you something i haven't had a chance to discuss with you. jack smith goes out of his way in this indictment, as i read it, to say the defendant may lie in public. the defendant may zealously advocate for his criticisms of the election, and yet he went parter than that. why does smith say that? some people might be surprised it's okay to lie in the eyes of the doj, and why does he say something worse happened here, something criminal? >> i think that's really smart to make it really clear to people reading this what is lawful and allowed under the first amendment. it's clearly saying, just because you say something that's not true, that's not what you're being charged with. that may be a crime if you are lying to a federal investigator such as david and christy used to have in the southern district of new york. it may be a crime if you're under oath in front of congress. he's making it clear, y

bank is for. >>> we are back with andrew weissman and charlie sykes. nses should this arrive at the supreme court that there would be no conviction for his conduct i'm thinking of the proposal to push this trial up to to 246 and all of the plates pushing against each other, the speedy trial, adjudicating the alleged crimes ahead of the election and there couldn't be any more pressure, couldn't be any more tension between these two forces. what do you make of charlie's argument that if trump isn't accused of these crimes it may not prevail in front of the supreme court? >> well, it might even go further which is he's not accused of it and he is not convicted of it, just being accused may not carry the day. that's just -- you know, that's an accusation remaining to the proved. all of this is uncharted territory. the argument that judge luttig and larry tribe and other conservative scholars have made is that you have to separate what might happen in a criminal case which has to do with whether someone goes to jail, that's one thing, and the provision in th

~ ., , something to federal court, andrew weissman? ~ . , weissman?an? well, as he correctly points out, that was _ weissman? well, as he correctly points out, that was something l points out, that was something donald — points out, that was something donald trump tried to do with the manhattan criminal case and it was rejected. _ manhattan criminal case and it was rejected. these are different backs. but i rejected. these are different backs. but i think— rejected. these are different backs. but i think there are arguments both sides and _ but i think there are arguments both sides and we will see what happens. just to— sides and we will see what happens. just to he _ sides and we will see what happens. just to be clear, if it does go to federal— just to be clear, if it does go to federal court, fani willis and her team _ federal court, fani willis and her team stays — federal court, fani willis and her team stays with the case. one of the biggest _ team stays with the case. one of the biggest changes is that in georgia, trials _ biggest changes is t

laura jarrett is here along with andrew weissman, former fbi general counsel and former senior member of robert mueller's special counsel. also an msnbc legal analyst. blaine, i want to ask you about the judge in this case. what do we know about him? >> reporter: yeah. a couple of things, one, this came as a surprise to those of us who have been watching and following this case for quite some time because there has been a single judge who all along had been handling all of the developments from top to bottom. he was the one who was on the bench last night when the indictment was unsealed. that judge is not going to be handling this case. so certainly that came as a surprise, but again, again, we know this judge is going to be overseeing a number of different aspects. one, what the terms of surrender look like. two, this judge is going to have the final say as to whether or not cameras are allowed in the courtroom. it's something we've been talking about a lot. but the judge ultimately has the final say and it's likely he will approve it if precedent is any indication. >> scott mccalfy

andrew weissman knows his way around federal courtrooms.spent is majority of his career. i want to show you a lighthearted moment where he's been on the program, we were in realtime looking at these sketches when they first broke, trying to figure out who was who, what was what. here was andrew taking some light shade at one of the artists. >> this is holding to account a political leader who tried to engage in a coup. the courtroom sketches are not the best. that's sort of my read of a poor drawing. >> wow, shots fired at the cartoonist. >> exactly. >> we went on to discuss where andrew checks out art, and he likes chelsea. i say all that by way of introduction, because andrew and mary mccourt, who you see on this great preview tease, are going to be our special guests on "prosecuting donald trump" which airs this sunday, 10:00 p.m. eastern. it is brand-new. it will be our special, a tease off some of their work and the "prosecuting donald trump" podcast. i am hosting it or you'll see i'm cohosting with andrew. it's brand-new, airing for t

and then his opinion of this, andrew weissman's is weiss already messed up the hunter plea agreementd now this. so do you see a conflict between him continuing as a u.s. attorney in delaware but having the ability to file an indictment in another venue, as now a special counsel. paul? >> andrew is right, the cfrs, the regulations that control the appointment of a special counsel call for somebody outside of government. i don't expect that that fact, that specific regulation, has escaped merrick garland's attention. somehow they have made this appointment, taking that issue into account, and went forward. i'm not quite certain how it is they did so, but we can be certain that very smart people within the department of justice have addressed that issue, that that point hasn't escaped their attention. we will have to see how it is they navigate that specific piece. but it is interesting, andrea, that this filing comes on the day that merrick garland appointed mr. weiss as the special counsel, meaning, i think, as a fair inference, that this was an independent decisiot this was an indepe

assistant attorney glenn kirschner joins us and andrew weissman, legal analyst, and, joe, i will say,t to the experts but i'm curious, just your overall takeaway from reading this indictment compared to the three others behind it? >> well, it is certainly far more sweeping than jack smith's january 6th indictment which you sensed he tried to make that as tight and narrowed and focused as possible. that is not the case in georgia. you get a sense that fani willis understands with so many co-defendants, this is going to be a long trial and she wanted to make sure that fulton county gets their arms around all of it. certainly a sweeping indictment. i will say, too, again, following up on what andy mccarthy wrote yesterday in "the new york post," this georgia indictment is a bit different from jack smith's january 6th indictment, because in that indictment he got some existing statutes and did his best to make the fact pattern fit in to those charges. we'll see if a jury agrees with him that he did that in a way that would lead to a conviction of donald trump. here, though, john, you have

andrew weissman points out trump admits he was acting on behalf of the trump campaign. we have more documentation. people saying look, i wasn't just coming up with the fake elector schemes and everything like that. i was doing it at the direct behest campaign. people saying, look, i was being told to do this. does this help them get out of potential trouble or does it make it easier for prosecutors to say, all lines go back to donald trump in. >> not necessarily, just the fact that you were taking direction from somebody else to, as part of a conspiracy to commit a crime doesn't absolve you of guilt. make us less culpable but not not culpable at all. you see three in the georgia case who were serving as electors said, we did this at the direction of donald trump. i think in this case when you have 19 defendants you're going to see a lot of people looking to cast the blame at each other. what that leads to is, you know, each defendant has to have a right to be able to confront witnesses, and when certain statements like that are being used against that witness but they'r

our colleague andrew weissman and mary mcchord have a podcast where they interviewed the former conservative appellate judge that advised former vice president pence in the days leading up to january 6th. he basically said to andrew, this moment makes me sad because former president trump brought this on all of us. but it is a stain on our nation if he's indicted for election interference and we shouldn't lose sight of is that. the weight of the moment as ken was describing it is weighing on me because it will be a tragedy for our nation. >> david, right now, we've all been going off of the criminal statutes outlined in the target letter when it comes to what could be an indictment. so when it comes to the charges, when it comes to the scope, what are you looking out for in an indictment? >> well, you know, of course the nature of the charges. which charges the prosecutors select. that will be initially be the most important thing. they stick with what is laid out in the reports in the target letter or do they go beyond that. the 371 the conspiracy charge, you know is that a conspiracy to de

andrew weissman, thank you for hosting the first half hour of this program with me. you as always my friend. when we come back these guys are desperate to get on the debate stage while this guy, the front-runner, is not even going to bother to show up. more on that next. w up more on that next. i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health qu

bluestein, "washington post" reporter, jackie, and former fbi general counsel and prosecutor, andrew weissman. so, blayne, this jail is really notorious. even the officials are admitting it's in terrible shape. there are all kinds of dangers there. as far as the prison population and the conditions. how is the sheriff preparing for 19 high profile surrenders including a former president of the united states? >> as we await the former president and others who turn themselves in, yes, this is a jail that is under doj investigation. a jail where they've seen sechbl inmate deaths this year. where they have issues with overcrowding, bedbugs, you know, according to one report, shanks being fashioned out of the crumbling building. now, it's a poor mistake that it is highly unlikely that the former president will spend any time inside that building once he's processed. typically, if someone were to be processed, just a normal person, that could take upwards of 12 hours. getting in, booking, if they make bail. now, certainly that process is going to be expedited for the former president. when you ask

. >> last night at this hour, i gave andrew weissman his toughest question of the day, i think, which is, looking at this from a defense lawyer's perspective, how would you defend donald trump? he couldn't come up with anything. but we will give him a chance during this hour to react to what the trump defense lawyer said today about it. and more importantly tonight, we have speaker nancy pelosi joining us, and i'm not sure where this story would be if she had not appointed that january 6th committee. >> so true. this begins with that very difficult and somewhat controversial decision to move forward without the candidates that kevin mccarthy wanted on that committee, and the work that they did laid the foundation of where we are today. >> i'm really eager to hear how she did it and how she made it work so well. >> gonna be a great show. >> thanks, alex. well, yesterday, as i began reading the newest indictment of donald trump, i wondered if this indictment would exist without nancy pelosi. the roadmap for the conspiracies described in this indictment was provided to the justice depart

joining me now is former lead investigator for the january 6th committee, ari, and andrew weissman.o, tim, a lot of what we saw here is stuff you guys uncovered on the january 6th committee. was there anything that stood out that fani willis was able to obtain that you guys would have loved to have had? >> sure. there are more meat on the bones that we set forth in our report and hearings. the court conduct here has been evident for a long time. right? a multipart intentional plan to disrupt the joint session. to prevent the will of the people not just in georgia but a number of states from being manifested and transferred power. so sure, there are some new text messages, some new phone communications. the coffee county stuff is a bit beyond what we found. we didn't focus as much on the access to the ballots and voting machines but it all reenforces the same core story we told in our proceedings last summer and in our final report. >> so, ari, more meat on the bone. as we said in the lead in, trump can't pardon himself in a state case. it might be on tv. you can debate about whether

as andrew weissman and others have said, probably the most important trial in the history of the united states, in the history of the united states justice department. jack smith is the one leading it. i told you this is one of our special reports. i have more footage in the conclusion when back in 60 seconds. seconds. the citi custom cash℠ card automatically adjusts to earn you more cash back in your top eligible spend category. hi. ♪♪ you don't have to keep tabs on rotating categories... this is the only rotating i care about. ... or activate anything to earn. your cash back automatically adjusts for you. can i get a cucumber water? earn 5% cash back that automatically adjusts to your top eligible spend category, up to $500 spent each billing cycle with the citi custom cash℠ card. i love it... [voice vibrating] >>> our special report continues. jack smith's view of accountability is pretty clear, and that may concern donald trump as well as unindicted coconspirators. smith believes in a tough old-school view that punishment matter because it deters future crimes. if you prosecute ever

. >> last night at this hour, i gave andrew weissman his toughest question of the day, i think, whichnd donald trump? he couldn't come up with anything. but we will give him a chance during this hour to react to what the trump defense lawyer said today about it. and more importantly tonight, we have speaker nancy pelosi joining us, and i'm not sure where this story would be

he'll be joined by msnbc legal analyst and veteran prosecutors andrew weissman and mary mccourt to offerastern on msnbc and streaming on peacock. shingles. the rash can feel like pulsing, electric shocks and last for weeks. a pain so intense, you could miss out on family time. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. 50 years or older? ask your doctor about shingles. being middle class right now, it's tough making ends meet for sure. republicans in congress say if we just cut taxes even more for the biggest corporations the money will eventually someday trickle trickle down to you. right. joe biden would rather just stop those corporations from charging so damn much. capping the cost of drugs like insulin. cracking down on surprise medical bills and all those crazy junk fees. there's more work to do. tell the president to keep lowering costs for middle class families. (fan #1) there ya go! that's what i'm talkin' about! lowering costs (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 a

andrew weissman, as i think every anchor says these days, stick close to that set.l of us. we're nearing 5:00 p.m. in what would normally be the close of business at the courthouse in fulton county, georgia. but as we all know, as vaughn has reported, these are not normal times and that grand jury is still at work. another hour of breaking news straight ahead. please, don't go anywhere today. d please, don't go anywhere today. - did you see my tail when that chewy box showed up? - oh, i saw it. - sorry about the vase. - can we just say vase like normal people? - fine. - i always wondered what it would be like to have a tail. - maybe you did one time. and maybe a thousand years from now, i'll be tail-less using that chewy app to get you great prices on treats. - i'm pretty sure it takes more than a thousand years- - vase. - pets aren't just pets. they're more. - vase! - [announcer] save more on what they love with everyday great prices at chewy. (air whooshing) (box thudding) struggling with the highs and lows of bipolar 1? ask about vraylar. because you are greater

chris matthews joins our political panel, plus we'll get andrew weissman's legal take on everything going breeze driftin' on... ♪ [coughing] ♪ ...by, you know how i feel. ♪ if you're tired of staring down your copd,... ♪ it's a new dawn, ♪ ♪ it's a new day... ♪ ...stop settling. ♪ ...and i'm feelin' good. ♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy, and save at trelegy.com my late father-