Indictment of former President Donald Trump. The former president just landed at Reagan National airport. This is a live image of him descending the steps from his plane. This is an airport located just across the river in washington, d. C. From here well listen and see if he talks to the press traveling neighbor. He mouthed thank you to someone. Theyre getting in his car. From here we expect him to head directly to the federal courthouse thats just in the shadow of the United States Capitol Building. There trump will be arraigned on charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election. That we expect to take place in about an hour. Special counsel jack smith indicted the former president on four charges conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruct of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. A mouthful. You look at the potential years he could spend behind bars and you see how serious these charges are. This is the former president s third arraignment. The first was on state charges in new york where mr. Trump is accused of making hush money payments during the 2016 campaign. The second arraignment was in florida where hes accused of mishandling classified documents. You remember the search of maralago in that case. Mr. Trump pleaded not guilty in both of those cases. We await to hear what he will say about this current case. Lets go to Aaron Gilchrist outside the courthouse. Aaron, walk the viewers through what is going to happen next. The former president is in a motorcade. Then what happens . Reporter kate, i think it would take probably ten minutes to get here from dca. The airport is close to 395, the highway that comes into the district. Ill point down the street here. Were at the corner of third and constitution. At the end of the block is the back side of the courthouse and an exit from 395. The president will come off the highway there, swing around the corner to c street and then go into the parking ge. ll get in an elevate that has restricted access. Hell go up for that arraignment hearing. Outside the courthouse we watched the Law Enforcement presence grow. Seeing a lot more secret Service Agents in the mix here. Obviously d. C. Police and federal protect Service Officers are outside the courthouse securing the perimeter along with these barricades that went up lateastht and now encircle the entire courthouse. For folks who have Business Inside the court, theres only one way in and one way out until after the arraignment for former President Trump is completed. Ill show you some video. There have been demonstrators gathering here throughout the day, not in huge numbers, but theyve been growing. Some of them trump supporters. Others almost in a party like atmosphere on the other side who want to see the former president , as one sign said, locked up. They havent been getting into any conflicts. Its been a peaceful gathering for folks here. Obviously a ton of media here on the courthouse sidewalks. The folks are here to try to get a glimpse of the former president and theyre making their voices heard fairly peacefully. Aaron, thank you. I want to tell our viewers what were looking at. Its a live picture from inside. You see that press one on the dashboard. That means thats the press pool, the group of reporters who follow former president s and president s. Right now youre looking at a live look of the motorcade as its leaving Reagan National airport, across the potomac river. Without traffic it takes maybe ten minutes for him to get to the federal courthouse. Let me bring in former federal prosecutor carol lam. Lets go big picture. How do these charges compare to the previous two indictments . People may wonder if a former president is convicted on these charges, what are we looking at . Now that weve seen the indictment, its fair to say its the most significant criminal indictment thats been brought against mr. Trump. When you look at the maralago event, while it is true those are very serious allegations, that he retained classified documents after he was no longer the president and he retained them at his residence, thats very serious. When you look at the scope and seriousness of this indictment, essentially trying to undermine our democratic way of electing a president , its hard to argue that thats not the most significant indictment hes looking at. I think that the former president really needs to take this one very, very seriously and hes doing it in a way he typically does through truth social and such. This is nothing to be scoffed at or taken lightly by the former president. Thank you, carol lam. You see the traffic stops there as the president s motorcade makes it on to 395, the major highway that leads into washington, d. C. I want to bring in chuck todd. Chuck, as were watching this, this is an area youre very familiar with. Most people cannot travel as quickly as we expect the president to. When he gets to court Peter Alexander was talking about this we dont expect to see or hear from him. That is normal. The courts in d. C. Have strict rules there. You cannot film anything even in the hallways. These charges that kate was talking about, one of them in particular, conspiracy against rights, thats a federal civil rights statute. How big of a deal is this . We say again and again its the third time hes been indictment. One indictment was a big deal, but this is different because of what it symbolizes, what he allegedly tried to do on the day of the votes being certified. Remind viewers what makes this different than the other two. Reporter you singled out the specific charge to make the point that i think youre setting up here, which i think is a fine one, ellison. Thats this issue of this was a crime against the voters. Thats what jack smith alleged. He essentially wanted the overturn the rightful vote of americans in seven states. So thats what makes this these are actions that he took as president. The other ones were actions that happened either before he was president or after he was president. These are actions he took while in office. I do think this is of that if you can somehow its like the spinal tap line, this goes to 11. Theyre all serious, but this one is bigger because the stakes are so high. Losing this case isnt just losing a case. The erosion of the rule of law is something that would be quite serious because of, i think, the stakes of this trial that also ramps things up. Ill be honest with you. We shouldnt be here. Its unfortunate this is the venue were having to do this in. The founders created a process to go this. The Republican Party refused to do it. Were only here because Mitch Mcconnell decided that the impeachment trial was not the venue for this. He made a speech saying, no, let the criminal Justice System sort this out and if the president has legal liability, this is where it should be. Unfortunately that wasnt right. It was the wrong call. It was the wrong call for the Republican Party. It was the wrong call for the american public. It was the wrong call for the Justice System, but were here. This needed to be brought. He committed this crime against the country, but unfortunately were only here because the elected Republican Party in congress was afraid to deal with it. I do think we cannot let that go. Its only a historical stain now, but that stain belongs where its at. We shouldnt have to be in this precarious situation that the country is in, if not for the lack of leadership of the Republican Party in the United States senate during the second impeachment trial. Chuck, as we well know, the former president would say we shouldnt be here either. Reporter for other reasons. Right. He said its all a vendetta against him. That message resonates with his supporters. Reporter it does. This is why i dont think well see much of an impact right now on his standing inside the Republican Party. Look, he orchestrated this moment in some ways. Remember, he announced extraordinarily early. If you recall, kate, when you announce november two years before two years before essentially the again election in november of 2022. He did it because he knew the indictments were coming. He wanted to be able to say theyre coming after me because im a candidate. Lets remember, he wanted to create this spin that hes using right now which is theyre coming after me because i announced. Chuck, i want to pause for a moment. We continue to look at the motorcade making its way into downtown washington, d. C. To head to the federal courthouse. Were going to turn now to a Network Special report with lester holt. Ay r this is an nbc news special report. Heres lester holt and savannah guthrie. Good day, everyone. Were coming on the air for another consequential moment in american history. Right now former President Donald Trump is making his way to a federal courthouse in washington, d. C. He is set to be arraigned this afternoon on four charges accusing him of trying to overturn the 2020 election and defraud the voters of the United States. These are the most serious charges ever faced by a former president. When he arrives at the courthouse, and we expect that shortly, the former president will surrender to authorities for the third time in four months. The courthouse is just one block from the Capitol Building where mr. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president , but also, of course, the site of the infamous riots on january 6th. The charges involve the thenpresident s actions in the weeks leading up to that day and in fact, on the day itself. We are watching that motorcade as it heads to the federal courthouse in downtown washington. Lets talk about these charges, today. Theyre all felonies. Conspiracy to defraud the United States. Conspiracy to defraud an official proceeding, an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy cons against rights and what we will see today is just an arraignment and we will not see it. It is in federal court and there are no cameras. It will be brief and mr. Trump will be given a chance to enter his pleas and he is expected to plead, of course, not guilty on all counts. When the former president arrives, as we said, he will be processed and fingerprinted and no mug shot as was the case in the miami arraignment some weeks ago. This is a federal case as savannah points out. We will not see pictures from inside the courtroom. We do have reporters inside the courthouse. There is a media listening room, if you will, and we will get minutebyminute process. We expect the meeting to be short. The fallout, that is another story. The 2024 implications for president and beyond and we have our political and legal teams here with us to help us walk through all of us and we say good afternoon to you. Lets start with Peter Alexander who is at the courthouse for us. Peter, walk us through what we can expect today. Savannah and lester, good afternoon to you. You see the president now en route to this courthouse not as a former president so much as he is as a criminal defendant returning here to washington, d. C. , where he will be entering this Court Building behind us here. To be clear, this has become a familiar scene and this one is no less extraordinary. As you pointed out we are blocks away from the seat of american democracy, the United States capitol, the democracy that the former president is accused of trying to subvert in these two felony counts here. We do expect the president will arrive here. We will not see him, going through a back entrance going under ground where he will be taken into this courtroom alongside u. S. Marshals and secret service that are always in his company. The security, even in washington, that has become Battle Tested certainly in the wake of january 6th has been particularly tight here. You have the secret service. You have the u. S. Marshals that have assigned police tape says do not cross and the metropolitan police who have said they are prepared for this day hosting a series of calls in recent days. We have been seeing, among others, a small number of protesters, demonstrators on both sides, perhaps numbering in the dozens right now, but no sincere Security Issues that we have witnessed at this time. It will be a magistrate judge who will be presiding over todays hearing. We do not know if we will hear from the former president himself with that not guilty plea as with the indictment that took place in florida. Only a matter of weeks ago it was the attorney on his behalf who gave the not guilty plea. This magistrate judge is not the judge who is presiding over this case. Thats the federal judge by the name of mudzila, and shes presided over many cases with criminal defendants who are accused of storming the capital on january 6th and more than a thousand of cases have come through this courthouse. More than 700 of them have been found guilty, 560 in total now serving up to 18 years time and that judge, Tania Chutkan who will be presiding over the actual case and she has a history with former President Trump. It was november of 2021 when she was presiding over the case when the former president was arguing that executive privilege protected him from his white house records being turned over to the house, to the congressional committees that were investigating january 6th and at that time, though she did not see the former president in person this was all done through filings, paper filings, she did say among other things, president s are not kings. President s are not kings and the president excuse me and the plaintiff is not president. So she has very tough words and has been known for the tough tone she has taken toward criminal defendants in the past. That is the scene here and we expect to get notes from our teams not just traveling with the former president right now in that motorcade, but also those inside the courthouse. Savannah and lester, as we get those we will share those with you and within the last few minutes we have learned that jack smith, the special counsel has departed his office only a short distance away. No indication exactly where hes going, but it is likely that he would be headed to this courtroom on the second floor courtroom 22 where the proceedings will take place. Peter, stand by there. We continue to watch that, and we have just learned that President Trump has arrived via the underground garage in the downtown courthouse in washington. Lets bring in senior washington correspondent Hallie Jackson, senior Legal Correspondent laura jaret, and Kristen Welker and legal analyst danny cevallos. This is the third indictment of this former president , but these charges, to many, stand alone. Kristen welker, this is the first time were seeing a former president accused of trying to stop the democratic process, the lawful election of a president. And as you said at the top these are among the most serious charges that hes facing in the indictments. Its a somber moment for the country undoubted lead. What does it mean politically with each indictment. Weve seen his poll numbers go up and his fundraising go up and his super pac has paid out more money in legal bills than its brought in in this past year and hes just become increasingly emboldened in this republican primary. Notably speaking, his former Vice President mike pence for the first time really started to sharpen his tone yesterday to say anyone who has violated the constitution in this way should not be president , but for the most part his gop challengers have really kept the gloves off and have walked a very fine line and have kept their sights trained on the doj and politically speaking, that has allowed him to continue to be emboldened. If you take a step back historically speaking, going back to Ronald Reagan in primaries where theres no incumbent, anyone with this type of lead run away with it with the example of one in 2008 when barack obama came back against hillary clinton. Well have to see if that happens this time. You say emboldened. The former president said one more indictment and ill be cruising to election. Lets turn to Laura Jarrett on the legal issues because as mentioned by lester, there are three indictments and cases pending in new york state court. Another federal case in miami. This case that we are going to see arraigned today is the heart of the matter. This goes to the very issue of whether or not he tried to obstruct, overthrow the transition, the peaceful transition of power in 2020. What are these charges . Walk me through. There areoudifferent charges and they primarily relate to all of the steps that the president , the former president and his allies, even though they not named in this actual indictment, theyre all over it, and its about a conspiracy. A conspiracy to stop the peaceful transition of power, to specifically stop what had been done by no other president to stop the actual Electoral College from voting on january 6th. When you think about the Iconic Images of the mob storming the capitol that day and that was one of the ways that many have tried to stop the peaceful transition of power and have been prosecuted for it, but this indictment tells another story in another way that the peaceful transition of power was thwarted according to prosecutors was by actually submitting these false slates of electors and the idea was to give the former Vice President a pretext to say, aha, look, we have dueling slates of electors, and therefore we have to kick it back to the states or in the most radical version actually was that the former Vice President could unilaterally just declare trump the rightful winner. That did not happen. Pence did not go along with the plan and according to prosecutors, that broke the law. Let me bring in Hallie Jackson and the two lanes at work here and that is a political lane. What we are seeing here is the Legal Process and the arraignment of a suspect, but in terms of the political messaging. From this point on the trial which coor a considerable amount of months it seems like donald trump owns the microphone and owns the platform. He does. Thats highway he likes it and that is what we are continuing to see, and on truth social, telling his supporters that hes having this happen for them. Hes putting it on his supporters. Thats what donald trump wants to see out of this. Something interesting happened today former Vice President mike pence was central to this indict, not for any reasons of wrongdoing, but because he is the one that rejected this scheme. The indictment lays out how the former president , this indictment says, turned to mike pence after mr. Pence told him i will not go along with this and said youre too honest. The former Vice President today also a president ial candidate, by the way, is selling merch, hes got hats that said too honest on it. Hes fundraising off of this very distinction and divide with donald trump on this issue of election security. You talk about the other rivals in the campaign, Florida Governor ron desantis has gone so far as to float legal strategies for the former president suggesting they should change venue. Look at d. C. And other places. D. C. Is a blue city. It should be note as were looking at live images and i know we saw the former president wave and come in. This looks a little different from when we were down in miami for the First Federal arraignment of former President Trump. Part of that is the political context here. Washington voted Something Like 92 for joe biden. That was not the case and it was not the case in south florida for donald trump. Its interesting when we talk about the legal and political lanes because in point of fact, theyre being massively conflated right now, and i want to turn to danny cevallos, another legal analyst on this issue because one of the political arguments is dressed up as a political argument. This indictment, it criminalizes the First Amendment. If you cant speak where is this country going . Can you take that issue on . I mean, is that what were talking about here . The weaponization of the justice department, this is what many, many people feel and believe about these indictments. The First Amendment has never been absolute immunity to say anything you want. There have always been exceptions to the First Amendment, for example, threats. For example, if somebody picks up the phone and calls the secretary of state of georgia and implies that hes engaged in federal crimes if he doesnt comply with what the person on the phone is asking him to do especially if that person is the head of the executive branch which is the head of the doj. Thats an example of speech thats pretty much unrelated to conduct. It is just speech, and that alone can be criminalized, but the core of this case is also going to all roads will lead back to trumps intend. What did he intend . A corolary to that is what did he know . Ive been hearing a lot over the past 24 hours that, well, you cant prove absolutely what somebody thought, knew, intended. Yes. Prosecutors have dealt with that since the first crimes were ever committed, and they have a workaround for that. They simply march in enough witnesses and circumstantial evidence so that a jury can infer what somebody actually thought and in a sense, jack smith is setting a bit of a trap here for donald trump in that if he wants to tell the jury what he actually thought, he may not have the burden to prove anything, but theres one way for him to go up there and prove that, hes going to have to take the stand. Same, too, with any advice of counsel defense. He will have to get up there and take the stand and say, look, i believe what i believed because of what these people were telling me, but make no mistake about it. The defense will put the election back on trail. Trial. They almost have to. Thats how they create reasonable doubt and argue in summation, look, it may not ended up being right and maybe sounded wacky, but donald trump was surrounded by people who told him that the election was being stolen and thats why he acted. It doesnt have to make perfect sense, it just has to create a reasonable doubt. I want to go back to the jury. We talked that it was a bluestate jury and the state of florida on other charges. There seems to be assumption that jury nullification is a risk . How common is it . Jury nullification, in a way, exists in the ether. We dont have rules about it. What jury nullification is the idea that the jury goes into the jury room in theory because most jury deliberations we never find out what happened and even if we poll the jurors after ward and interview them, we have to take their word for it because its not transcribed and we dont know what goes on in the jury room. When the jury goes in and they decide, well, look, all of the elements are there. Its all been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but we simply are not going to convict. The rules are very clear. We as lawyers can never talk about jury nullification in argument. We cant suggest to the jury that they have this power that theyve always had. It would make sense. I cant simply go up there and argue on behalf of the defendant, hey, the government has proven each and every element. If you find that, still, if you like this guy you can acquit him. I can never, ever say that in closing, but every jury does have that power. Theyre just never told that they have that power. So when it comes to statistics and how to deal with it, its a problem that exist, but its a problem that may never be able to be addressed. Lets take a step back here because were, of course, awaiting the arraignment of former President Trump for charges related for his alleged efforts to overthrow the 2020 election, but lets talk about the venue. Lets talk about washington, d. C. , laura. We know there was a federal case in miami. It was charged in and filed in miami. A judge was selected and that was a trumpappointed judge, aileen canon. Now we have washington, d. C. , they filed it there and there is another judge, a judge appointed by obama. First of all, lets just point out. The judge you get is completely selected at random in both cases. Its the luck of the draw and as far as venue is concerned because weve already heard President Trump said maybe they should move this washington case to west virginia, where he won by 40 points. Yeah. Talk about how a motion like that might be received by a judge either in washington or in miami, for that matter . Not well. Prosecutors first off, basic principles. You have to choose venue based on where the seat of the crime occurred and thats why they brought the case in florida because according to prosecutors, thats where the be on obstruction took place, moving the boxes and all of that and they would prefer to have aileen canon, but as you said its on a a wheel and they have no choice on the matter. And the judge was very tough on january 6th cases and thats why i dont think she will receive a motion for transfer of venue well. She knows the fact of the case and unless he has a good argument for why you cannot get a fair trial in the district of columbia that motion should be dismissed and you dont get a win by that motion just by looking at polling and by looking at the majority of voters who happen to vote for donald trump. You fundamentally cannot get a fair trial. The trauma that washington, d. C. Went through given the attack on the capitol, that could be an interesting argument and it cant be on the voting stats. Which trial will go first . That will be up to judge chutkan. If im jack smith i would say this is very simple. Youve heard him make the argument that he wants a speedy trial and as weve talked about of course the right to a speedy trial is there to defend the president and its a constitutional principle, but there is another thing on the other side of the ledger is the right of the public to have this crime, this alleged crime adjudicated fairly and thats an argument that you will start to hear from the prosecutors. Its fascinating because in his spare News Conference when jack smith addressed the cameras, he did say we are ready for a speedy trial. He said i can bring this court in 70 days and however it is the right of the defendant, and so they can ask, for not in perpetuity. We see Different Things in miami versus the state counts in new york. How will this go down once the president is inside and is placed under arrest and arraigned on these charges . The processing happens in each jurisdiction each time. So the president likely with u. S. Marshals and secret service will be taking to a booking area here where we are told that he will be providing his fingerprints digitally, no ink like back in the old days. Theres no expectation that a mug shot will be taken of this president , though you remember after the indictment that took place in new york the Trump Campaign posted a pretend mug shot and put it on tshirts to raise money to put it on tshirts and its likely theyll add for a booking process and there will be a question and answer session with authorities inside that will provide details that will include likely his age as that takes place. This whole process, he could be in the courtroom for a matter of ten, 15, 20 minute, but hes likely to be in the courthouse for a bit longer. In florida, the entire proceeding was short, but the entire visit to the courthouse there lasted just shy of two hours. Again, to be clear, at this time we have no expectation that President Trump himself will be the one that provides the not guilty plea today as took place after he was indicted in florida. It was his attorney who spoke on his behalf. Whats sort of striking here, lester and savannah is just how small this courtroom is. This is a very small courtroom. It will have as many or as few as five seats for members of the public, as few as 11 seats for journalists who will be pooling their information. There is an overflow room where other journalists from organizations not just around the country, but around the world can witness what happens inside. There is a larger courtroom inside this building. Thats not being used for technological reasons because they cant get the audio and video out, but there are certainly no cameras that will be in there shooting any video or photos that can be shared or disseminated widely. All of this will effectively happen in the dark minus the information that is provided by those witnesses in the room. Among those likely to be there, jack smith, the special counsel who was headed in this direction only a short time ago. As you talk i am reminded in miami that the judge imposed conditions that the prosecutors didnt ask for in terms of who the former president could contact and talk about the case. Is that something that we might expect, laura, here . Yeah. It was interesting because that just came up on the judges own whim, and really wanted to make sure that the former president wasnt talking to any witnesses and the idea is that you dont want to be having an accusation that theyre trying to get their story straight. You have six indicted coconspirators. Correct. These are people that we put the pieces together of who they are, but theyre not accused of any crime. Theoretically the judge on her own could say i order you not to talk to any of the witnesses that might have materiel information in this case. This is a magistrate judge that will handle this arraignment today. Judge chutkan will ultimately be the trial judge. But do you think the judge can put restrictions like that . Easily. Lets watch for that. Chuck rosenberg, also an nbc news legal analyst. You heard us chatting about the jury and washington, d. C. , what should we know about this venue and how it may or may not affect what happens Going Forward . Well, lester, i believe that a defendant can get a fair trial anywhere if the judge and lawyers on both sides take the time to do things right, and savannah might remember this in the Eastern District of virginia when i was u. S. Attorney. In that case, judge brinkma, and the federal courthouse is in alexandria, virginia, and it is three miles from the pentagon, the site of one of the hijacked planes was crashed and the question was could you get a fair trial in the venue given the trauma and given the connections to the pentagon and given a number of victims who were from the area and what judge brink ma did was send out hundreds and hundreds of questionnaires to a very large pool of potential jurors, and then lawyers on both sides with the court involved with the process, went through those questionnaires for anyone who said they couldnt be fair in either direction, lester. From that large pool of people who responded to the questionnaires, the judge brought many, many more potential jurors into the courtroom so she could directly question them and ascertain whether or not they could be fair. Meaning, they werent looking for people who had never heard of the attacks of 9 11. That would be a little bit frightening. They were looking for people who could put aside what they knew, what they believed, what they supposed and who would promise under oath to listen to the evidence deduced in court, to follow the instructions of the judge and to apply the law. So if youre concerned about the notoriety of the case or the notoriety of the defendant or the proximity of where the case is being tried to where the trauma occurred, there are procedures that judges can use with both parties participating to call jurorses from a very large pool. You need 12 jurors and 16, with four alternate. Can you get a fair trial in the district of columbia . Absolutely. A motion to change venue will be made and it will be denied. A good reminder, Chuck Rosenberg and you were the u. S. Attorney, and it underscores the point that this is not the first highprofile case that has been tried and not the first highprofile defendant and people who have never heard of the person or never heard of the case or the facts of the case. Its for people who say that they can be impartial and that jury will be selected in all of these cases after a electee voir dire or questioning process. Lets turn to director and moderator of meet the press, chuck todd. One of the issues here, theres a legal calendar we can talk about and theres a political calendar and the election, whatever it is, 14, 15 month away and i know you probably know the dates by heart and you probably have a countdown on your calendar there, but theyll run right into each other and its quite relevant as to how this might turn out. Look, it is, and thats the thing. Whats interesting is, you know, those that are paying the closest attention to this are not necessarily, you know, know all of this, but i think theres a lot of voters out there that arent fully paying attention, and when the actual trials start some time in the spring of 24, which is if any of them start that early, im a cynic. I assume somehow lawyers always find a way to delay, but lets assume they are, then there will be a sort of a primary one day, a Court Appearance another, and a primary another day and maybe hes wrapping up the nomination and then theres a Court Appearance. Maybe its for a motion. Maybe its for Something Else and then thats when i think it will have a political impact, and i think a lot of elected republicans then will have that panic attack going oh, my god, what has the party done . And it will be too late, and i think whats interesting here when you think about it before the iowa caucuses, its unlikely there will be any more new information that might have an impact on voters that comes out, but say come may, june or july, maybe you see mark meadows testify against them, and it might have an impact, but it may be too late. Hey, i want to throw two topics for your group to discuss, savannah. I think this is the most important trial in american history, are we really not going to have a live audio . I can understand live television. We will not have live audio . The Supreme Court has made exceptions when the cases are of a high importance to the public, and considering the world of misinformation, i think wed want everybody everybody would want to see this in real time and the second thing is we shouldnt even be here. This should have been done with the impeachment trial, but Mitch Mcconnell decided that this was the better place. Once the founders knew what the right venue was, Mitch Mcconnell decided otherwise and here we are. Chuck, assignment accepted. I think we should clarify the second question. Yes, okay. Good. I think what chuck is introducing for all of us to consider is the founders in the constitution contemplated impeachment as the remedy for a president who did wrong, not a criminal trial. There was an impeachment proceeding. Chuck is saying that Mitch Mcconnell and the republicans did not convict in the senate when they had the chance, hence now we are left to the legal this other branch, the judiciary. Does the Political Team here want to weigh on that . Want to toss it, and at that time savannah, to remind people of the context, you heard republican senators say actually the proper venue is not in congress, it is in a court of law. Look where we are. Look at whats happening at this point just to show that needle, that thread get pulled through the needle here. Absolutely. Mitch mcconnell said that, by the way, as well. Ive been talking to Top Republicans who have expressed frustration with the time line of all of this. They make that same point. If we had dealt with this at the time we wouldnt be here now because they want to hold on to the house. They want to win back the senate and yet, what are they doing . Theyre having to answer questions about former President Trump and about january 6th, not what they want to be talking about and they wish that the Legal Proceedings had gone more quickly and based on your interview with trumps attorney on the today show, it seems the strategy there is to run out the clock because there is a scenario where he could be potentially convicted and also elected president. We also have to remember the Republican Party is not a monolith. There are serious factions inside the gop as to who they want to see be the leader. Im talking about im talking about in d. C. Inside the beltway. Because voters are overwhelmingly supporting trump. The gop thinks they should back donald trump no matter what in the legal issues. Seven in ten think hes done nothing criminally serious. The folks in the senate and the folks in the house and look at what conservative allies are doing in the house of representatives. Theyre going after the political opponent joe biden and his son hunter and you are seeing that cranked to an 11. We did not see it here, but a former spokesman to the president s team addressed reporters largely talking not about donald trump, but about what they see as wrongdoing by president bidens son. You are seeing a handout given to reporters traveling with the president , the former president in that socalled pool talking about quote, unquote criminals not referring to the former president , but referring to the bidens. This is something thats been a political strategy for the former president and we are seeing that in a big, big way here today. When we were talking about the political calendar and the court calendar. If the court, if the judge starts making allowances because there is a president ial election, does that not become a slippery slope . Yes. And thats the argument that you will hear from her is that i cant just make exceptions because he happens to be the republican frontrunner. On the other hand, there are other criminal trials and thats something she will take into account, and the fact that he is has a criminal trial date of may of next year in the classified documents case, if they say, judge, look, were facing this other trial that is a legitimate argument she may consider. You talked about the interview we did with john lauro one of the Defense Attorneys who will appear today. Okay, the feds want to take him to trial in 70 days. How are we supposed to take him to trial in 07 days . The issue is you as a defendant can say i waive my right to a speedy trial. I need more time. I want to file this motion and i lost this motion and i want to go out on appeal. All of this can be stretched out and its up to the judge whether or not the requests for delay is legitimate, substantive and correct. Heres the thing. The question is when it runs into politics. If the trials last past the election and trump is reelected is it for all intents and purposes these cases are over . Oh, 100 . Is that part of the strategy . Run out the clock. 100 . We should remind viewers the state cases do not go away. The case were talking about today is the federal case. The classified documents case is a federal case and the first case that brought us all here and the hush money case out of new york having to do with allegedly falsifying business records, that does not go away and thats set for march of next year and we are all waiting with what will happen in georgia as it relates to election interference, that will not go away. You couldnt pardon or dismiss the cases, but lets be clear under the constitution you can be a convicted felon and run for president. Let me get Chuck Rosenberg into this conversation. Chuck, there are a lot of ifs and what ifs, but theyre real. Theyre real, lester. So i can imagine two ways that these cases could disappear, the federal ones could disappear if mr. Trump is reelected first because as president he would be the head of the executive branch. So with or without the consent of his attorney general, he could order the dismissal of any pending federal cases. Second, as president , he could pardon anybody for any federal crime which means all of the unindicted coconspirators, for instance, in the newest indictment could be pardoned or all of his codefendants in the florida case could be pardoned. There is an open question because the constitution is not clear on this point as to whether or not a president can pardon himself. The only exception articulated in the constitution, lester is that a president can pardon except in cases of impeachment. So had he been impeached and removed, in other words, convicted in the senate, and he was not, he couldnt pardon that. However, the question of whether or not a pardon a president can pardon his own federal criminal conduct has never been litigated. There are principles strewn throughout our law that suggests that no person can be a judge in his or her own case. We know that no person is above the law, but breathing life into those tenets are difficult and untried and untested, and so yes, he could certainly pardon anybody as president other than himself. He might also be able to pardon himself and we would have to litigate that and if any federal cases are pending, he could have those dismissed as the head of the executive branch and someone on the panel just a moment ago wisely raised the point that a president could not pardon any state criminal conduct. Let me just add one more note to that. In georgia, the governor of georgia does not have a pardon power. Georgia is one of half a dozen states where the pardon by statute has been delegated to a commission or to a committee. So for george a it would have to be done by a parole and Pardon Commission in new york. It could only be the governor of new york on the federal level, of course, and it would be a president. Thank you very much. I just want to say we are watching this scene unfold outside the courthouse in washington, d. C. , as we await moments from now, 15 minutes from now if they follow the schedule of the arraignment of donald trump on these four charges. It is interesting. Its great. We have the legal side over here, and [ laughter ] we can just watch it unfold. Seriously, it is so interesting because i was noting that jason miller adviser to President Trump is with him right now. Hes tweeting and making commentary about coming to washington. He is also not by name, but hes in this indictment and we see this time and time again. People that are still in the president s orbit, very much in the president s orbit are all over these cases as potential witnesses, if not more. Absolutely. Go ahead, kristen. I was going to say, youre absolutely right. Jason miller among those still in his inner circle and yet its gotten smaller and smaller. It lays out how many voices were in his ear, rudy giuliani, for example, another jason miller has one of the more colorful quotes. Dont say it, savannah. I wont, but hes saying it was all being conspiracy doodoo, did he really believe the election was stolen . That was his quote and hes on his way to the courthouse. We should talk about the unindicted co pf conspirators that are in the indictment, people that we identified that relate to the issue of a potential speedy trial. The fact that the special counsels office didnt bring in here, and danny im sure you want to weigh in here because they want to get this thing going and they dont want to be bogged down. Or they want to talk to them. Rudy giuliani. You have people like sydney powell, a conspiracy theorist part of the Trump Campaign apparatus there. Kenneth chesebro, a Top Department justice official, and Jeffrey Clark as well. These are people who were a part of the alleged plot to steal the election named not by name, but still people that donald trump talks to in large part today. Everything about this indictment is designed for speed. Thats why you have unindicted coconspirators so you dont have any of the muddling of the docket with numerous motions to dismiss, motions for severance, all manner of motions that would ordinarily clog up the docket and cause delay. Jack smith, a man of few words, in his statement yesterday still revealed himself when he said we will seek a speedy trial. We can see that from the caption in that there is one defendant named and yet the government believes they were no less than six coconspirators. That is they believe they were criminally liable and theyre choosing not to indictment. It does indict the case and also, laura, in practice, a lot of times prosecutors will put unindicted cocon spir stores, hoping to flip them and saying come in and testify against the defendant or soon you will be facing an indictment. Weve seen some of them go in for proffer sessions where someone has to say what they know and as long as they dont lie to the authorities, the prosecutors cant use what that person says and the whole idea is that its part of a sort of a negotiation so that you dont get charged and the government gets something out of it, too. We dont know if any of these people will be eventually charged, but we should point out this is not everything that the special Counsel Office has. This indictment tells part superseding in the previous case. Likely in this case . Perhaps. You run into issues about how quickly they want to move, but you can already look at this and say theres a whole bunch of evidence that the january 6th committee brought up that is not even in here and you understand wonder what else prosecutors have that they havent alleged in this indictment and plan to use later. One of the things that is in this indictment is the list of people who said to former President Trump that this election was not stolen and that is one of the key arguments, i think, that is worth noting including the former Vice President , including officials at the department of justice who said, look, was there no fraud. So that, i think, is part of the crux and the thrust of this case that the governments laying out. Peter alexander is outside the courthouse. Peter, i know you have some color from inside the courthouse that reminds us that while these indictments are not specifically on the events of january 6th, they certainly all link. Lester, youre exactly right. Those, vents of january 6th still haunt this community and haunt this country right now and among those individuals now inside the courtroom, and not in the courtroom and one in the overflow rooms where they will be witnessing todays events are at least three of the officers who were there on january 6th itself. Two of them Capitol Police officers including harry dunn, a face that is familiar to many and another in d. C. , a metropolitan Police Officer a man by the name of daniel hodges. Youll remember this photo and this video where he was screaming out in pain as he was crushed between a stolen Police Shield and the door frame of the capitol on that day. He testified in this very courthouse in august of last year against three of the criminal defendants who were accused of storming the capitol, being a part of that riot on that day. He described them as being part of the cultlike control that donald trump had of his supporters so those are just some of the folks that will be inside the courthouse on this day. Ive got to tell you standing outside the Court Building right now, it is a striking scene and none of those massive protests that some had feared would happen. There is certainly a ton of security, but here in washington, d. C. , one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country where you find the white house and this has become a tourist attraction with tons of visitors not just from here, but from around the world coming to get a glimpse. They will not see the former president , but you will see the circus that surrounds these indictments. Peter, thank you. Can we talk about mike pence . He seems to, reading in this indictment, that interaction seems to be the heart of the governments case. Hes at the center of the object of the conspiracy according to the indictment. He is the one they were asking to violate the law according to prosecutors and i was so struck by his boards yesterday. No, he is not. He unleashed the hounds in terms of his words against donald trump. It is not like mike pence to refer to anyone, let alone the former president s lawyers when he said they were a bunch of chuckleheads ive never heard him speak like that. What donald trump wanted to hear in his itching ears. That is not pencian. Something has changed because frankly hes not registering in the polls very much so does he feel that maybe, hey, this is the time to take the gloves off. The question is there are signals from his team that theyll make the campaign about other issues and its the integrity question. Mike pences team, people around him have been telling all of us for months that they feel he is, for lack of a better phrase and these are my words, kind of the adult in the room in this republican primary coming in this person coming in of integrity and person of honor, boy, when donald trump is telling mike pence youre too honest that validates the argument that theyre trying to make. Keep in mind, how much of this information laid out in this indictment is on the prosecution. Contemporaneous notes. Very briefly, the former president , we are told, is now inside the courtroom waiting for his counsel. It seems like theyre running fairly close to on time, 4 00 is the scheduled time for this arraignment. And feet away from special counsel. Im sure you all have as well, theyre pretty darn small. So its tight quarters in there as the kids would say, awkward. Mike pence came in and talked to the grand jury. He did not talk to the january 6th committee. Clearly, hes saving his power for subpoena and the criminal case and hes a key witness on not only the events and the power of the Vice President. Hallie said theyre selling hats that say youre too honest, President Trump knew he was lying about the Election Fraud claims and that line, youre too honest to mike pence is evidence that yes, he knew darn well it wasnt true. And they need that irk is stashl, and he didnt come in to talk with him and all they had were the witnesses who are essential and in so many instances the president sort of laying it bare, i think, in the youre too honest and just say its corrupt and well take care of the rest of it, right . Thats what he said to the acting Deputy Attorney general about this whole scheme. It speaks to the idea as prosecutors will say that he knew what he was doing was wrong and that it was a consciousness of wrongdoing. I think youre going to hear, this is again the first step among many. The arraignment is just the baby steps, but along the way, i think you will hear prosecutors say we dont actually have to show that he knew that he lost. All we have to show is that he actually had a corrupt intent, a corrupt mindset, and they lay out their evidence for that, but they are going to say that we dont actually have to show that he knew he lost. And just to put mike pence into context, this is someone who was deeply religious before he announced he was running for Vice President , we are told he was raying with his family and he is barely registering in the polls and has not qualified for the first debate yet and the question for each of these candidates is how do they stand out . How do they get in this game . Part of this is mike pence trying to get into the game so that he can make that debate stage in just a few weeks now. You will have an array who will take the gloves off and Chris Christie is one of them and asa hutchinson, and then you have the desantis getting on the weaponization train and what about hunter train . Its not really helping any of them. Pick your lane. Its not helping because donald trump has 54 of the vote right now in the primary. This goes back to part of what we learned in 2016 which is that donald trump has a base that is immovable, and if you look at the polls, the gettable votes are the voters in the middle and what is striking is that you have very few candidates trying to go after them. I talked to a Top Republican who said what needs to happen is that some of these candidates need to start dropping out or they need to sharpen their tongue. The other piece of it, too, there is a new poll out today saying 45 of republicans would not vote for donald trump if he was convicted of a felony. Roughly 55 presumably would and that speaks to your point, savannah and your point, kristen, mike pence and Chris Christie and other candidates can try the different lanes, but the republican primary electorate like donald trump and just to remind people, you cant get to the white house if you dont win in the general election. The question is the political middle and how harmful will it be . Will there be a fatigue . This is a concern that has been relayed to folks in our team that the indictment noise becomes just that noise. We are now in indictment number three and there may be indictment number four coming in a matter of weeks and to what point does the general audience start to tune that out . Let me bring in former Manhattan District Attorney katherine, and also an nbc news legal analyst. I know you had thoughts about the importance of mike pence in this indictment. There are great descriptions there of things that he was being asked by the former president , but they dont link that to necessarily a specific charge. How do you think they finesse this or handled this or made this a part of their indictment . I think it is actually part of a specific charge, the obstruction of the congressional proceeding to certify the election, and i think mike pences anger yesterday was because, quite frankly, when you read the detailed narrative in the indictment of the pressure that the president of the United States put on his Vice President you also see, quite frankly, that the president of the United States endangered the safety of his Vice President. It began on Christmas Day of 2020. Mike pence called donald trump just to wish him a Merry Christmas and then immediately the president turned the conversation around and started asking him to help overturn the election. Weve heard about the youre too honest. That happened on new years day. On new years day, donald trump, after mike pence said to him, i dont have the Constitutional Authority to overturn the election, donald trump told him youre too honest. On january 5th, mike pence was told by the president im going to have to now publicly single you out. That so concerned mike pences chief of staff that mike pences chief of staff alerted the secret service, and then later on that day mr. Trump and said this was january 5th, that the next day the people who are going to be there are going to be angry. So donald trump knew that the people who were showing up the next day on january 6th were going to be angry, and on january 6th we know that President Trump did, to the crowd, single out mike pence, and in the afternoon, after people have been saying hang mike pence, after the violence has occurred, donald trump tweeted mike pence mike pence didnt have the courage to do what he should have done to protect our country. One minute after that tweet the secret service grabbed the Vice President and took him to a secure location. So i think that detailed narrative about the pressure and quite frankly, the putting his Vice President in danger sort of speaks to what that charge is about obstructing the congressional proceeding. If one is inclined to read this indictment, that particular series of quotes and passages are quite interesting. Our former assistant attorney from manhattan makes it clear that if this comes to trial, mike pence is the star witness against donald trump which is quite a remarkable thing to contemplate. It is the top
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.