also with us neal katyal, former acting u.s. solicitor general and host of the podcast courtside with neal katyal. and harry litman is joining us. he's a former u.s. attorney, former deputy assistant attorney general. he's a senior legal affairs columnist for the los angeles times. and, andrew, you are reading of the dueling motions tonight? >> well, i think a lot of viewers might be asking, what is all the fuss about? why is this such a big deal? why, for instance, am i really upset at what is happening here? and i think that -- what this is about is the government is trying to protect the integrity of the judicial process. and what i mean by that is that they do not want to see, not just that this case should not be tried in the press, that you should not have intimidation and retaliation against witnesses. mike pence is obviously one, that you have the former president having issued statements that he would go after people who go after him. and in the filing that was made by john lauro and todd blanche, they say that is prote

and neal katyal, former acting u.s. attorney general and host of the podcast courtside with neil castillo. andrew weizmann, i want to go to the conditions imposed on donald trump and have we see a possible violation of those conditions tonight when he called fani willis a left wing prosecutor, that sort of thing? is there some point in donald trump's language about the district attorney that obstructs the administration of justice? >> if i were looking for prior language that violates the letter and spirit of the rules to are not in place in georgia, as well as nbc, it would be if you come after me, i come after you, and as you noted, lawrence, telling the witness going into the grand jury that he should not obey a lawful grand jury subpoena. that, by the way, is a crime. you cannot cancel a crime, whether it's at the conditions in d.c. or in georgia. i do think that the fate of donald trump is in his hands. the reason he is under indictment is because of choices he made. he chose to commit crimes that led to the d.c. i

we're back with analyst neal katyal. first, neal, your response to some of what we heard there. >> so i don't have any problem with mr. burnham, ari. the guy couldn't answer who even won the 20 tent election which seems a little bizarre, but okay, i guess. he's got a tough job to do. he is trying to do it. notably john burn -- so weak as to almost laughable. coup plotter is not a description for a lawyer. and if mr. burnham wants to call john eastman's efforts here advising a client or representing a client, then thing is only one word to describe that, which is malpractice, because there is a good reason john eastman is being called a co-conspirator and not a constitutional scholar. if eastman were just writing law review articles or as mr. burnham said debating some law professors on podcasts, that would be one thing. but instead, what he did is actively pressure the vice president and state legislatures to go through with the hare-brained scheme that as you pointed out even he thought was illegal. you don't go seeking

i want to bring in for the first time this hour, neal katyal. neal, it is official now in a way that it wasn't an hour ago or even the day of the target letter. so with that in mind, i'd like your response, one, to what we just heard in special counsel smith, and two, quite seriously, what tonight means for legal history and democracy in america. >> ari, the gravity of this moment cannot be overstated. i mean, it is just unbelievable what we just saw with jack smith. you saw a career prosecutor, someone charged with enforcing the law, say the former president of the united states and the current leading presidential candidate for one of the parties is charged for his role in trying to upend a free and fair election. this is certainly the biggest legal case in our lifetimes. it is one of the biggest cases ever in the history of the united states. jack smith did something today to restore confidence in the rule of law in unimaginable ways, and you saw -- you heard him speak in such a measured way, emphasizing donald trump's presumption of innocence

also neal katyal, former acting attorney general and host of the podcast -- and tim heaphy, former u.s. attorney who served as lead investigator for the january six committee. i know that i think for all of, us we have waves that discovery, as we go through this material, as we digest day over the ours, and neal katyal, i want to begin with you. what is your ten pm reaction having digested as much of this as we all have by now to what this indictment tells us? >> so, lawrence, i think people who watch cable tv, they hear a lot of exaggeration about how important something is or something like that, this is no exaggeration, this is a momentous legal event, the most significant legal event of our lifetimes, one of the most significant legal events ever in the history of the country, it is up there voices marbury versus medicine, -- versus education, dred scott is a defining case for the times, and it is so because this indictment is really meticulous and it's detail, but it's also really balanced and compelling and lays out a case that a guy who was president at the united states, while

also neal katyal, former acting attorney general and host of the podcast -- and tim heaphy, former u.s. attorney who served as lead investigator for the january six committee. i know that i think for all of, us we have waves that discovery, as we go through this material, as we digest day over the ours, and neal katyal, i want to begin with you. what is your ten pm reaction having digested as much of this as we all have by now to what this indictment tells us? >> so, lawrence, i think people who watch cable tv, they hear a lot of exaggeration about how important something is or something like that, this is no exaggeration, this is a momentous legal event, the most significant legal event of our lifetimes, one of the most significant legal events ever in the history of the country, it is up there voices marbury versus medicine, -- versus education, dred scott is a defining case for the times, and it is so because this indictment is really meticulous and it's detail, but it's also really balanced and compelling and lays out a case that a guy who was president at the united states, while

solicitor general and host of the podcast courtside with neal katyal. also with us, bradley moss, a national security attorney who represents working on the intelligence community. and andrew weissmann is joining us, former fbi general counsel, and former chief of the criminal division in the eastern district of new york. he's a professor in practice at nyu law school, and msnbc legal analyst. andrew, i want to get your view of where, what we saw here, with the new reporting that we have about the way trump employee 4, as we were referring to him thursday night, came around on this case, gets a target letter, gets rid of the trump lawyer, tells the story to jackson. >> i think one of the things that the public is learning through this case is what happens in criminal cases involving groups of people, whether it be corporations, whether it's a political case with groups of people involved, where there is a hierarchy. there is a real problem when you've got, whether it's a mob boss who has house counsel for underlings, whether it's a corporation that has

neal katyal is the former acting u.s. solicitor general.unsel. beyond the official law firm of andrew weissmann and neal katyal, they join me now. so, andrew, i want to start with you. and i want to text to this question but i knew i was gonna say. the goal of this protective order is to trump stop trump from sharing evidence. but what about these social media posts -- they may not share evidence, but they are still threatening. so, what can the judge actually do, especially mike pence, which reads like a clear threat, what can the judge do to stop that? >> so, jen, you know, it's worth noting that on thursday at the arraignment, donald trump under oath swore that he would not retaliate against, or threaten any potential witness. and then, the next day, that post and others, with respect to mike pence, were issued. so, what can the judge do? the judge can start by bringing parties in, and giving, you know, a sir sort of stern lecture, that this is an admonition that you have one more chance. the other thing the judge can do, remember, donal

neal katyal and former georgia district attorney gwen keyes fleming. and they will tell us if they've ever seen a criminal defendant give a judge a deadline. i have never held and motion in my hands in which a criminal defendant gives a judge a deadline of five pm on the day the motion was filed. or a deadline of anytime, and for. criminal defendant, giving the judge a deadline. not surprisingly, judge steve jones ignored jeffrey clark's deadline. and as crazy as it sounds, to give a judgment headline, jeffrey clark's raisin stated in writing, for the deadline, is the single most childish thing, maybe the only childish thing, i have ever seen in a criminal defendant put in writing to a judge. jeffrey clark's motion says he was given the judge a deadline of five pm today because, quote, mr. clark would not need to be put the choice of making rushed travel arrangements to fly into atlanta or instead risking being labeled a fugitive. i'm sorry, but i didn't write that sentence as written. it seems to be missing a word. possibly the word through, as in, mr

>>> we're back with neal katyal as we focus on covering more of the stone tapes.another piece of tape we're going to air for the first time. the film maker mentioned it. we had stone plead the 5th on the january 6th committee. but the film makers were inside the hotel room as the scale of the insurrection became clear on that very day that captured the darkening mood. stone, who had hoped to be at the march and speaking from the lectern, watches the coverage and goes into a kind of defense or spin mode. >> i'm getting out of town. >> graphic image of a woman who was apparently shot earlier today. we don't have an age. we're told she's in critical condition. she is now being treated at a local hospital. >> we did nothing wrong. >> we did nothing wrong. >> change of plans. got to get these two to the car somehow. >> everything, both trolleys. >> change of plans, let's get out of town. what do you see in both that new clip we have as well as what we aired tonight in the stone case? >> so, ari, when you're planning a coup, it's usually not the best idea to have a came

back with me tonight is neal katyal, department of justice veteran and former acting solicitor generalthe obama administration. his podcast, courtside, has a brand-new episode out on this indictment. and you must listen to it neal, we keep hearing about racketeering. can you explain exactly what that means, and how it applies in georgia? >> yeah. so, the racketeering comes from a 1980 georgia law and, indeed, a 1970 federal law. and the idea was to take the conspiracy doctrine, which is a flexible tool that prosecutors use, to go after bad guys, and apply it to criminal enterprises. and so, in order for it to apply, you've got to have committed two or more predicate -- acts that are criminal in nature. so, it can't just be a one-off kind of thing. and in a way, stephanie, it's just so sad to see how far rudy giuliani has fell. when i was in law school, of course, after 9/11, he was someone that we all looked up to. and to go from that to four seasons landscaping, what -- let alone a criminal indictment is just unfathomable. this guy has been suspended from the bar -- the d.c. bar has r

back with me this evening, neal katyal, department justice veteran and former acting solicitor generala administration. neal, i'm so glad you're here. now that you've had time to read the indictment, processed, what's your reaction? >> i'm struck by three things. i am struck by the detail in the indictment, by the balance in the indictment, and by the person who signed it, which we already knew but it was jack smith who is operating as a non career prosecutor. so we hear lots of exaggeration on cable tv news about how significant something is. there is no way to exaggerate the meaning of this indictment today. this is the most significant legal cases in our lifetimes. it is one of the handful of most significant cases ever in our court system. it will be remembered forever along with cases like marjory versus madison, dred scott, brown versus board of education, and it is because it alleges a very compelling story that the president of the united states, as president, not like afterwards or after he lost his job in florida, but as president, use the powers of his office to stymie the a

us, jonathan lemire, politico's white house bureau chief and host of msnbc's way too early, and neal katyalformer u.s. acting solicitor general. what for you, neal, is the headline as you watch what is unfolding inside that district courthouse today? >> well, this is a very solemn moment. this process, what donald trump is going to go through, is called arraignment. it traces back to the 14th century. it's reflected in our legal treatises of the founding, and indeed in our sixth amendment, which guaranteed a criminal defendant the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. so this is going to be a very simple, straightforward proceeding. donald trump is actually something of an expert at the arraignment process at this point in time. so he knows how to go through these motions. he's been to more courthouses in the last four months than most lawyers have. so i don't expect any news per se to come out of the hearing itself. but it's obviously a moment of enormous gravity and significance. i mean, donald trump was just down the street on pennsylvania avenue ear

it's available for preorder now and neal katyal served as acting solicitor general of the united statesxplaining why the trump trial should be televised. and both join me now. neal, i want to read from your op-ed here, about the way of doing it in a second. but first, given that trump's lawyer agrees with you, do you have any second thoughts? >> no, none at all. so, i rarely agree with donald trump about anything. maybe this is the only thing. but his lawyer said it. if i am jack smith, i think you go in next week and make a preliminary filing to the district court and say, this is what we are seeing. and evidently, trump agrees. and i think it is time to get this agreement right now and decide it. it may require going through and getting the permission of the chief justice, through the judicial conference, given the fact that donald trump's own lawyer agrees. i think there is a way to read through 53 to basically permitted anyway, even the absence of the judicial conference -- but, regardless, i think it is really notable that both sides agree that, look, this criminal trial is in the

we have to let you go, neal katyal. i think we need to talk more about this. we're going to let him take a break and we're going to also take a quick break. before we do that, i do want to bring in olivia troy, former senior advisor to vice president mike pence and the co-founder of the group mission democracy. i'm going to hold my my feelings about the john roberts piece of this and having to rely on him to get the trial televised but i'm going to pause on that for a moment because jen psaki did a great job for us. >> a dramatic reading is not as -- >> claire mccaskell said we're doing a book club and there will probably be amazing cake at it. i want to go right to page 36 and that is also on january 5th the defendant met alone with the vice president, your former boss. when the vice president refused to agree that he obstructed the certification, he said the defendant would have to publicly criticize him. we saw that dramatic restatement of your boss's refusal to get into the car and leave. he's in the garage. he's obviously in danger. we saw the phone call

joining me now is neal katyal, the former acting u.s. solicitor general during the obama administration. he's the host of "courtside" podcast on substack. neal, thanks very much for being with us. the judge signaled she wants this trial to move quickly, set the next hearing date for august 28th. realistically, do you think this trial will commence and be over before election day? >> i do. i think this trial doesn't have the procedural complexities of classified information and the other things that are an issue in the florida stolen documents case. and i do think that this judge was signaling -- this magistrate judge had talked to the presiding judge, chutkan, over this case. and i think all indications are that they wanted to move this thing more quickly. she's going to hear from donald trump's lawyers on the 28th, or i think there's going to be a brief filed even before that. for why there should be some delay. but there's no argument for much delay here. certainly not something past decide say of this year. trump's lawyers have been si

and this week neal katyal argues it would be -- for the sake of truth over disinformation. rites, quote, this criminal trial is being conducted in the name of the people of the united states. it is our tax dollars at work. we have a right to see it. we have the right to ensure that rumor mongerers and conspiracy theorists don't control the narrative. back with neal, glenn and katie. you write about how this could happen, either congress pass has law or with the exception made by chief justice roberts. it seems like a no-brainer to you or maybe he doesn't want to reignite the argument for cameras before supreme court proceedings? >> i do think it is ultimately a no-brainer. this rule originated in 1946 and we now live in a digital age where people think visually and are accustomed to seeing things with their own eyes and, look, i know the chief justice and many of the justices have a concern about cameras in the supreme court, but that's a very different thing than what we're talking about here for two reasons, one is in the supreme court there are no witnesses or credibility

lawrence >> good evening rachel, after we get through andrew weizmann and neal katyal talking about where the case against donald trump stands tonight we are going to get to the united nations which we don't do often enough here. we're gonna speak with our u.s. ambassador because the united states becomes the head of the security council tomorrow. it is our turn or the investors turn we should say. >> you had ambassadors fantastic i was just talking about the u.s. having this confounding dilemma or decision to make deciding whether it's gonna keep its word on being really mad at uganda's tell the case law while simultaneously planning to go ahead with this hundreds of millions of dollars of findings that we give them for anti aids this year and that's it you're gonna talk to her about that tonight of course the u.s. has it even bigger level of influence and we usually what. that's fascinating. >> i will ask for your question when she gets here. >> god bless, you thank you so much. >> thank you rachel. >> well the pressure is working the pressure from special prosecutor of donald trump's a

lawrence >> good evening rachel, after we get through andrew weizmann and neal katyal talking about where

neal katyal is still with us. neal, i want to and ask you now you've had a little bit of a chance to chew on this a bit if you think there's anything particularly problematic, controversial, anything that feels like an overreach in this indictment that might be vulnerable in terms of people challenging this prosecution. >> no, right now it looks very strong. obviously we focused of the statement of the press conference, about 19 defendants being tried together and that i think is controversial and don't think will happen, but that's on the indictment itself. to me, rachel, the real issue there are 19 defendants, and the thing about 19 defendants that's a lot of opportunities about cooperation. we've already talked about rudy giuliani being someone who might flip, and indeed the whole doctrine, the conspiracy doctrine is written in order to encourage people to flip. and when rico was enacted both at the federal level 50 years ago and in georgia in 1980, it was structured in a way to almost be a super conspiracy doct

discussion tonight, neil catio, former acting solicitor general, and host of the podcast, courtside with neal katyal. glenn blabbing, a -- in cobb county, georgia, and bradley moss, an attorney representing people working in the defense community. neil katyal, trump's first amendment rights. is jack smith trying to take away his first amendment rights? >> trump is right, he is the first politician, or at least the first president to be accused of several serious federal felonies. they're two different indictments. the idea that this has to do with his first amendment rights is bogus through and through. i think the jack smith debunked it in a filing earlier this week before judge chutkan. what he said is, i'm not trying to undermine your first amendment rights. you're like to speak, but there's a difference between speaking and intimidating witnesses. trump was warned about this, lawrence, at his arraignment. an extraordinary moment last week with the judge. the judge said, look, you can't go and try to influence jurors, things like that. he said he understood. and then within 24 hours, here is thre

neal katyal here is

neal katyal here is here on what it means for donald trump 's former lawyer. -- then the legal consequences hour" gets underway on this tuesday night -- good evening once again, i am stephanie ruhle. former president donald j trump now has ten days to

i'm joined by ben collins, nbc news senior reporter, neal katyal, professor of law, former acting solicitor general and msnbc legal analyst, and peter strzok, former fbi counterintelligence agent. peter, i want to start with you because you were in law enforcement. i thought about this the other day when i was reading the indictment, which is a fascinating read that gives a lot of detail about the lengths and pressure that was placed on public officials in georgia and out to try to force them to go along with this scheme to steal the election. it involved intimidation, it involved intimidation against election officials, it involved intimidation of brad raffensperger, the secretary of state. it was gang-like activity to me, but talk me down if you think i'm wrong about characterizing the maga gang as a gang. >> i think you're absolutely right. what was so compelling about the indictment was the scope and how broad it was. walking through everything that went on trop the top at trump and all the efforts, whether it was trying to influence state officials, getting fake electors, breaking in t

neal katyal, maya wylie, anthony coley. thank you all very much for coming to the saturday show.xt, republican reaction to trump's latest indictment. some are turning their anger towards president biden, and others, on trump. you are watching the saturday show. urda show we all need fiber for our digestive health, but less than 10% of us get enough each day. good thing metamucil gummies are an easy way to get prebiotic, plant-based fiber. with the same amount of fiber as 2 cups of broccoli. metamucil gummies the easy way to get your daily fiber. as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com (fa

solicitor general neal katyal, our friend, argued last night on our air, this trial needs to be televisedality is tv and visually seeing it in live real time is going to be the most important antidote for disinformation. and the idea that we're going to have this trial, the most significant trial in our lifetime and not on television i think is really dangerous. >> how do we get this trial televised? what are the rules? how is it done? >> the way in which it gets done and it would be historic is for the chief justice, john roberts, to authorize the televising of this trial. >> even trump's lawyer has said just a few weeks ago thinks it should be televised. how critical do you think that is? >> i think it is very important. i frankly don't think it will happen. the federal courts have been so conservative and so reluctant to have especially criminal trials televised that i find it difficult to believe that the chief justice will take that step. nonetheless, i wish he could. because i can't think of anything more important. we're dealing with the former president of the united states. it ha

orders to potential witness intimidation two very questionable arguments, i've got 100 questions for neal katyaland later, he served as an impeachment manager and on the january six committee. congressman -- joins me live to discuss his reaction to the charges and what he's watching for, next. what he's watc

last night attorney neal katyal who you know from msnbc posted this, it would not surprise me if judge called a hearing with trump's presence given his new remarks. joining us now msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos. we have a lot of topics to get through with him. thank you for being here. let's start with that new protective order. what is happening here? trump is seemingly so blatantly pushing back against it. what you've seen, do you think he has already violated it? the dwruj suggested she would give him some leeway, but do we think that neil might be right and we are going to see a hearing this week? >> we spent the last week ranking from one to four the not only pending cases against donald trump but if you include georgia the potential criminal case against trump but now i'm add ago fifth to the mix and it's pretty high on the list in terms of threats to donald trump's liberty and that is a potential contempt charge or any kind of penalty for violating not just judge chutkan's order but any other pretrial order insofar as he may threaten witnesses. i've imagined along with chuck

stuart stevens, neal katyal, thank you gentlemen both. appreciate it. that is "all in" for this week. "alex wagner tonight" starts right now. good, evening alex. >> this feels like it has been a week of institutional fortification, doesn't it? >> i think it has been. yeah. >> it has. and that's a good note to end. and have a great weekend. >> thank you. >> thanks to you at home for joining us this evening. so, right now, at this very moment, former president donald trump is giving his first extended -- extended -- public remarks since he was indicted on tuesday for trying to overturn the 2020 election. at this event tonight, trump has been railing against the department of justice and multiple federal -- multiple federal criminal indictment that have been brought against him by that department. he has called out marxist prosecutors for what he referred to as racist in reverse -- racists in reverse, just making sure you get, that racist in reverse -- presumably means racism -- white people. according to his prepared remarks, there's also some room in the

neal katyal, ari, some members of the panel may have a better sense than i do.f these cases are going to be heard in a court of law before november of 2024. that timeline, can trump stall out the clock and get through to election day without having faced any of the these charges in a court of law? that's number one. and number two, if one of any of this case or any of these other cases, does go before this case and the documents case. if they get in front of the court, are they going to be televised or not? i will say, if the cases are not televised, not only will we miss the opportunity of educating the public about what actually happened here, but we will plant the seeds of further polarization, further conspiracy theorizing. if the cases are not on television, will believe they never happened. will believe that it was all made up. they will think that it is -- these cases are the moon landing that somehow it all took place on a sound stage in burbank. we will have deeper distrust between the right and the left over there, unless we show people in real-time th

the one thing that scared me tonight was neal katyal saying that it's up to chief justice john roberts chief justice john roberts can make the decision of whether this cases televised, in this trial is televised. joe martin banks did add later that the statutes say the federal judge in this case can make that decision. they can allow cameras in the courtroom. i dearly hope that we have a televised trial, because a simple and straightforward as these facts are, i think they need to be believed at least by a substantial portion of the american public, because this is an unprecedented case. we've never had a president try to remain in power by force and by armed robbery. i think we need to see this trial happen on television. >> and that alone, that question of how much public access to allow to the proceedings is yet another test for the judicial system, a test for the legal system that is -- you just hope they will be able to rise to meet the challenge. it's not necessarily that one answer is always definitely right and one answer is wrong, but you would hope that they would recognize t

neal katyal is the former u.s. accounting act general and the former fbi general counsel. have you here on set with me today. so there are so many different components of this week, and i want to dig into as many as possible. a judge granted cheeseburger quest for a speedy trial, sydney powell filed one request. there also reports that john eastman is asking for the same thing. that means that a number of these codefendants would be separated from donald trump. what does that mean for trump's case? >> okay, so there are two january six cases, there's the georgia one going on at you are talking about and there's the federal one with jack smith has asked for a trial to begin on january 2nd of 2024, with respect to this request from ken chesbrough, who is one of the architects of the january 6th coup, he said that i want to travel right away. on october 23rd, fani willis, the prosecutor, says yeah, game on. the judge says, fine, game on. so what this means is that the first january six trial will happen, and it will likely be in georgia and it will likely be just mr. chesbrou

orders to potential witness intimidation two very questionable arguments, i've got 100 questions for neal katyal and andrew weissmann. and later, he served as an impeachment manager and on the january six committee. congressman -- joins me live to discuss his reaction to the charges and what he's watching for, next. for the third time in four months, the former president of the united states has been indicted, arrested, and a range. and let's face it, we've become oddly familiar with how this all goes. there's the release of the indictment itself, helicopters following black suvs, and of course, the court sketches, all followed by a barrage of deranged posts on truth social. there's a bit of a rinse and repeat feeling that starting to set in. but this one did feel different, because it is different. it felt bigger, because it is bigger. the indictment filed by special counsel jack smith this week detailed the ways in which an american president engaged in a criminal conspiracy from the oval office to subvert the will of the people. of course, like any criminal defendant, trump is innocent until

last night neal katyal posted that it would not surprise me if judge chutkan called an appearance given his remarks. wouldn't it be in his best interests to push this to the limit? >> no, it is not in his best interests to push it -- >> in some ways. i think it does. >> no, here is the thing. we are all so accustomed to donald trump saying outrageous things and getting away with it. just like we were accustomed to that guy that was lying about sandy hook parents saying really outrageous things about everybody. and then he got a billion dollar settlement. tucker carlson on fox news saying the most outrageous things. and so i guess you just get away with it. no. why? because the great leveling wind is a judicial system. donald trump thinks that he is fighting against the "post" in 1977 and against marco rubio in 2016. against clueless people like you and me on news that they can set up as -- you know, set up straw men and knock them down. i guarantee you, you can say what you want about the lowly country law that happens to fall off a turnip truck and get a tv show, you cannot do that to

solicitor journalist neal katyal is with us. neal, i start with you.s is when the inner workings and what i am sure lawyers and people inside the system think really is sort of the blender of the system burst into public view and we see these processes that maybe we have seen in tv shows and movies yield their fruit, things like mug shots are going to start coming out. things like arrest warrants if you don't turn yourself in. i mean this is where i guess the proverbial you-know-what gets real. >> yeah. i mean news4 we are all as americans, we know where criminal justice begins and it starts with an arrest and an indictment, and then there's a mug shot that is taken, there's fingerprints that are taken. there are bail conditions, bond agreements and so on. that's what every criminal defendant has. donald trump, unfortunately, has gotten away even in new york and under the federal indictments with being treat specially. he didn't get finger printed. he didn't get the mug shot every other criminal defendant does. i'm glad to see georgia saying, not in ge

. >> neal katyal is with us. ugh this 45-page indictment, and just at a glance, you can see that it's multistate. i've seen already talking about crimes or attempts to further the crime in pennsylvania, in wisconsin, in michigan, and ga, that there's a reference to the infamous georgia phone call that the defendant made to brad raffensperger in which he instructed him to find 11,000 plus votes. the level of detail in this is astonishing and specifically as it relates to january 6th, several pages, almost a minute by minute account of what happened on january 6th between the defendant, the communication that he was having and the coconspirators around the violence of january the 6th. >> yeah, ari described this as a screaming indictment, and he's right. the level of detail is so astounding it's going to take us a while to go through it all. eamon, i think what you're reading about the different states reflects jack smith's tactical decision, was to use the conspiracy doctrine. the most important thing about the con

neal katyal, thank you for joining us and vaughn hillyard for taking us inside the chaos as it was happeningyou always, always, my friend. david jolly sticks around for the hour. when we come back we'll switch gears completely and turn to the stunning breaking news out of russia today where our state media is reporting that wagoner boss yevgeny prigozhin was on the passenger manifest of a plane that crashed today, two months to the day after he launched his mutiny against vlad meier putin. plus eight republican stand ad, were in the first primary debate and what tonight could reveal about the threat of the party for the american democracy. it's an idea gaining traction the or the right could be barred from his role in the capital insur ekz. we'll tauj about how that works and how to operationalize that legal theory and what it means for the 2024 election. all of that when "deadline white house" continues. don't go anywhere today. contins don't go anywhere today. (crashing sounds) everyone's gonna need more tide. it's a mess out there. that's why there's 85% more tide in every power pod. -see

attorney's lustful general and msnbc legal analyst neal katyal.>> you know, i think it's going to be a straightforward just, you know, take the mugshot and show up at the prison and the like. and i do think you're absolutely right to say it's that imagery, which jen, we're going to remember from this week, it's not going to be nikki haley attacking ramaswamy for putin, it's not gonna be chris christie defending mike pence. and the image is not going to be this tucker carlson on televised interview with trump where trump evidently said nothing. i couldn't really find the interview. i think it's somewhere online, but i don't, know i can find it. but i think he said nothing. the imagery is going to be donald trump going to jail for his mugshot. this guy went from the white house to the jailhouse. that's what's happening tomorrow. >> so, asa hutchison made a point tonight about the 14th amendment. and i always know things breakthrough when it's on my text chain with my girl friends from college, they're all talking about the 14th amendment too. so, i

i also understand neal katyal and others, i agree with them about the importance of televising, figuringle, but this case is not going to be a difficult thing. this case is going to be televised. and i think it will be good for america to televising all the cases is good for america, it is an exercise in civic education and legal education and to your point, it is maybe the only way for some of the people that john meacham is just referring to, for the people who continue to not just remain loyal to the president, just not willing to vote for the president, but who believe in all of his lies, in all of his conspiracy theories, in all of his victimology that they will be forced to watch this and they will not be able to say that it is like the equivalent of the moon landing was staged on a -- was put on in a movie studio in a sound stage somewhere, which was fake, which is what they will say, many of them, millions of them, about the other cases. this will be live on camera, and it will be very difficult to make the argument. i'm sure a few will still try, but very important in this case

solicitor contributor neal katyal and metty hasan and jonathan lemire.disinformation, which seems to be multiplying by the day with a.i. and other things on the horizon. you've written a piece about why the trump trial should be televised. tell us why. >> look, i love garrett haake, but my question is why do we have to as american citizens have to have this trial filtered through people like him telling us what happened yesterday in the courtroom. why do we have to look at these ridiculous cartoon sketches? why can't we see this trial for ourselves, see the primary source? after all, this trial is being conducted in the name of the american people. it's being paid for by our tax dollars, and we have a right to see it. that's particularly so because of the point you made about kind of deep fakes and about spins and things like that. trump is a master of disinformation. the best way to avoid that is sunlight. louis brandeis called it the best disinfectant. federal law bars criminal trials from being televised. that's the same thing we faced in the george f