i'm joined now by chuck rosenberg, former u.s. rney and former senior fbi official, now an msnbc contributor. chuck, the decision to charge seditious conspiracy, you know that place well, you know how cautious prosecutors are, they don't want to bring something unless they've got the goods. so what do you make of this decision and what do you think it means for the future other charges that may be coming? >> your point, i think, chuck, it means they got the goods. in order to bring charges we need to have a reasonable probability of conviction, meaning we expect to win in trial court. and we need to have sufficient evidence and the right laws so we can sustain the conviction on appeal. it means we got the goods. you know, the department of justice does not often charge seditious conspiracy, it's an unusual charge, a rare charge, in part because, thank goodness, not a lot of people are trying to overthrow the government of the united states. and some folks may think it took too long. i don't have that view. a year is not a long time

attorney and senior i fbi official chuck rosenberg, both msnbc contributors. if he had the chance. the january 6th committee investigating his efforts to overturn the election. he said out loud that's exactly what he wanted pence to do. what else do they need to see? >> that's a good question. he's said this out loud. it's difficult to square because we know it was his intent in 2021. but what's interesting here is he put out a statement also that said that congress is trying to rewrite the laws to make sure the vice president doesn't have a role, which means the vice president could have had a role and could have overturned the election, which is a wild misread of the law. i'm not suggesting donald trump is an expert on public laws, but the congress is to make sure that it's abundantly clear, without a shadow of a doubt, that congress, that the vice president of the united states, cannot and has no role in determining the outcome of a public election. that was already the case, but the law was written in 188. so congress is revising and reviewing it to make i

attorneys, now msnbc contributors chuck rosenberg and barbara mcquade. and we've been listening to this speed from attorney general garland in which he made clear that the department of justice will follow the facts as it relates to the investigation into the january 6 insurrection, but said something interesting, pete that stands out which is that the department of justice remains committed to holding all january 6 perpetrators at any level accountable, which seems to be a signal that there are bigger fish to fry yet to come. what stood out to you? >> well that is undoubtedly true. but who those bigger fish are is unknown, i think it is safe to say. for starters, we know that there are potentially are bigger fish on this central question that has yet to be answers, which is did somebody actually have a plan in advance to storm the capitol. now there have been conspiracy charges against many of the white supremacists groups, the oath keepers, the proud boys, the three percenters and their attending to have violence in the street and make enough noise and

attorney, former senior fbi official and current msnbc contributor chuck rosenberg. and let me take a beat to lay out the back story of this special grand jury request. remember, the big reason why we're here is because of that phone call a year ago, january 2nd, 2021, now infamous, when former president trump called up the georgia secretary of state, brad raffensperger, looking for extra made-up votes -- watch. >> so what are we going do here, folks? i only need 11,000 votes. fellas, i need 11,000 votes. give me a break. you know, we have that in spades already, or we can keep it going. but that's not fair to the voters of georgia because they're going to see what happened. and they're going to see what happened. >> reminder, of course, that donald trump lost the state of georgia. now you've got the fulton county district attorney saying she wants this special grand jury because some witnesses in this investigation have not been cooperaterative. pointing specifically to the georgia secretary of state and citing a moment when raffensperger told chuck todd he would co

joining our coverage, chuck rosenberg, former u.s.n is back, national correspondent for politico. david jolly is sticking around. all three are msnbc contributors. betsy, i come to you on this frame for the investigation that congressman jamie raskin gave me, the rioters outside, the conspiracy, maybe, carried out by extremist groups, we saw doj charge the first big conspiracy of the oath keepers' leader and then the inner ring, the coup. these subpoenas today seem directly targeted to the coup itself. >> right. there's no question. this is the select committee homing in on the legal team that trump used to try to take the battle that he lost at the ballot box and try to refight it in court. that legal effort, of course, was a spectacular failure, in large part because the facts were not on those lawyers' side, but it created a moment of significant suspense in the country in terms of just how far the president would be willing to go and the allegations that those lawyers made in court provided significant fodder to people pushing con

attorney and msnbc contributor chuck rosenberg. k, typically i would want to hear from our reporters here. i think what's interesting on this particular charge, as it relates to this justice department news is what this means. you're so good at breaking that down. put it into context for us. >> sure. thanks hallie. so, sedition is an attempt to overthrow or to, you know, hinder the government. it meaning rebelling against the authority of the government. so, a seditious conspiracy, which is what 11 defendants have now been charged with, including stewart rhodes, the leaders of the oath keepers, is agreeing, coordinating efforts to prevent or hinder the counting of electoral votes. when you allege conspiracy, as the prosecutors did here, they -- what laws the conspirators attempt to hinder. it was two amendments to the constitution, involving the counting of electoral votes and the date and time when a new president takes office, as well as one federal statute involving the counting of electoral votes. and we generally think of consp

i'm joined by chuck rosenberg, msnbc contributor and former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official.you, my friend. let's talk about what happens when this jury trial begins tomorrow. what should we be watching for? should derek chauvin's conviction on the state murder charges, does that factor into these proceedings? >> not really, alex. i mean, it's not admissible evidence. nor should the jury consider things that happened outside of the courtroom. the judge will instruct them to consider only the facts and the testimony and the documents that are adduced in the courtroom. what will happen, the government will start with its opening statement. the burden of proof is on the government and is always on the government throughout a trial. and then each of the counsel for each of the defendants will have an opportunity to make opening statements as well. and after that, whenever that concludes, the jury will start hearing evidence. >> okay. let's turn then to the new developments in the 1/6 investigation. we have bennie thompson, who chairs the house 1/6 committee who said this morning

political reporter for axios, and chuck rosenberg, former senior attorney and former fbi official. phil, let's talk about biden. he was very clear, he demanded action on voting rights. said that we need to tweak, not scrap the filibuster many people said that we need a plan. that's doesn't sound like a plan. >> this was a long time coming for voting rights. civil rights activists in this country wanted to see the president speak with that sort of forceful authority. and righteous anger that he showed and atlanta today. he's clearly prioritizing voting rights now. but for some democrats, there is a feeling that it is a little bit too late here. also a question of what that plan really is -- the math doesn't add up to get to the 50 votes that are necessary, to change rules and passed the voting rights legislation. as you heard from senator schumer, democrats are going to move forward. later in this week, to try to build this to the floor. what you saw today and atlanta, biden and vice president harris putting it all on the line. see that the administration is behind us right. now >>

for the "washington post" and co-author of "i alone can fix it" also here senior fbi official chuck rosenberg and stephanie which will boston coal could have former friend and advior to melania trump. ali, let's start with do we know this morning, has ivanka agreed to speak to the committee? >> reporter: we don't know that at this point, chris. that is the open question after we see subpoenas or requests to come and speak with the committee is whether or not these folks in the former president's orbit are going to be willing to comply. in this instance we've heard from ivanka trump's spokesperson, they said yesterday that they only just learned about this letter being sent from the committee and they point out, as the committee already knows the statement says, ivanka did not speak at the january 6th rally and spoke against the violence using phrases like please be peaceful. of course, that's not what the committee says in their letter they want to get at. they know that thee didn't speak at the rally, what they're focused on are things she may have said behind closed doors. one of the things

chuck rosenberg makes the point that conspiracies do not need to succeed to be unlawful.it's not a defense for any of these folks -- we lost your voice, hopefully we can still hear your voice? i am here. >> he continues a conspiracy is an agreement to do something the law forbids. not all conspirators need to engage in all the acts if they agree on the objectives. pick up on katie's point about the call and response and tell me if you have a different view or a softening in sort of your exasperation that you expressed on this program that donald trump and his krenys are essentially not under any scrutiny. does this change any of your thought process here? >> i do think donald trump may be in the broader view. and now as we expand from january 6th, it is possible that they are starting to work up. the call and response issue that katie points out is one that is very hard for the lay person to understand. but in criminal law, you have to have mens rea, which is knowledge, and intent. and if donald trump is saying, as he did in the russia investigation that katie pointed out