Forward so too does jack smiths other case, the one in washington, d. C. Today special special prosecutors revealedsp when the hope to schedule that trial. Jack smiths team told the court they want to begin the 2020 election case against trump on january 2nd. Prosecutors argued starting the trial on the second day of the new year before any of the nominating contests would vindicate the publics strong interest in a speedy trial. Now, we do not know whether or not the court willno agree to tt date, and trumps legal team will almost certainly push back, but if the court heeds the governments wishes here, then, wow, donald trump has a very busy dance card in the month of january. Take a look at this. A Potential Criminal Trial on january 2nd and then four days later the anniversary of the capitol insurrection, january 6th. Nine days after that it is the iowa caucuses, which of course is the first contest of the 2024 republican president ial primary. And then some time around then, likely the very next day, trumps legal team is scheduled to be in court for his second Defamation Case against journalism e. Jean carroll. And less than two weeks later trumps legal team is due in court again for a Class Action Lawsuit brought in his role for an alleged grift involving videophones in the early 2000s. Just so we are clear here, in the same fourweek period donald trump could be facing legal jeopardy for alleged attempts to overthrow democracy and conning people into buying crappy videophones that really looked a lot like portable dvd players. He is truly one in million, america. Whatever the judge decides the special counsels team is wasting no time preparing for an early trial. Just minutes after requesting that early trial date, doj prosecutors issued a separate filing a saying their 2020 election case may include a small amount of Classified Information. They asked the judge here, tanya chutkan, to discuss this matter at a hearing at the end of this month, which is interesting information. Now, keep in mind that all of this is happening the day before a very important hearing in this federal case against mr. Trump. Tomorrow judge chutkan is going to hear arguments from both the defense and the prosecution about whether to grant a protective order here. And that order would prohibit trump from Sharing Evidence in this case with the public. Now, so far there is very good reason to believe that trump would want to do just that. I mean, donald trump has spent the last weeks very publicly attacking thepu prosecutors in this case and other cases. His comments have not been subtle. Here he was last night in an interview with newsmax. Fani willis, the prosecutor in georgia, what are your thoughts ofre her . Is not a capable woman. Jack smith, hes like a deranged individual. Hes like a deranged human being. Hes a sick puppy. Those kinds of comments, those kinds of comments are a real challenge for trump who cannot seem to stop saying them and his legal team it is also a challenge for them because they cannot convince him to stop saying them if they even want to. But those w kinds of comments a also a challenge for the judge overseeing this case, a judge who has to balance trumps legitimate First Amendment right as a president ial candidate with the reality that trump is already very much targeting the judge and the prosecutors in advance of a criminal trial. And he appears to have a predetermined strategy here, which is to take as much and as loudly about this case as possible to shore up his defense. Joining me now is chucks s rosenberg, former attorney and senior fbi official, and glenn thrush. I know, chuck, you are an important legal asset for all of us here at msnbc in terms of your understanding of the nuances of the law here, and my question to you is how difficult a position is judge chutkan in right now in what seems to be fragrant abuse Ofs A Defendantn any case, and trumps legitimate right to talk about what may be aay potent political weapon goi into a president ial nominating contest. Very difficult, alex. Y i think you framed it exactly right. Weve never had as a criminal defendant somebody who is also likely to be a Major Party Nominee for president. So judge chutkan has to balance those First Amendment rights and his interest in campaigning, his right to speakn publicly about his campaign and his promise for office with the needs of a criminal trial, which include a lot of restrictions on a lot of defendants in ordinary cases around the country. And as you well know there are restrictive rules in this particular Federal Court that limit what a defendant can say let alone lawyers can say and give the judge aca right to impe strict conditions on them. A whole separate question, of course, is whether mr. Trump would abide any of those restrictions. Hes not veryse good at that as you know. Glenn, theres i mean, i dont think im getting ahead of myself here in saying i dont predict that trump has any inclination to stop doing what hes doing as evidence by the behavior of his own lawyers, right . John lorro, his attorney in this case was out on the sunday shows doing what youre not supposed to do. You can bet hes not getting legal advice to the contrary. Upe until this point trumps general position has been to flout authority, and i have a time imagining its going to be different in this scenario. I mean its morass, right . There are two reasons a judge issues a protective order. To keep the jury pool from being tainted so the defendant cant be out there talking about information that makes it very hard to choose a jury pool and the third here seeking to intimidate witnesses through public statements, which is something weve also seen crop up in the maralago cases. The one thing we know is jack smith, the special counsel, doesnt want to s get into this trap, into sort of the bond trap of having there being a revisiting of these very lenient bond terms. Trump was virtually no conditions were imposed on his bond because smith understands the potential problems with this. I think the judge also in that case. So the question is is it okay for him outside the courtroom to beat the hell out of a judge, to demean a prosecutor without necessarily violating a protectivess order . I mean it might very well turn out as long as he stays within the confines of not discussing the substance of the case or witness intimidation, that, you know, saying these seemingly outrageous things about his main the arbiter in the case and his main opponent legally might be within the lies. The Tire January 6th indictment and the legal indictment filed against him is one legal production and to expect it to end at the Courthouse Door is just not realistic. Yeah, i completely agree. And the question is what sort of punishment awaits him on the otheron side . Chuck . Sort of throwing him in jail whichng seems a Possibility It fines . Is that the Legal Recourse on the table here . I agree with glenn i dont think his bond will be revoked, and i think the practy of putting a former president with Lifetime Secret Service protection in jail is enormous, but there are remedies. You touched on one, alex. A judge can hold anybody who doesnt obey a lawful court order in civil or criminal contempt,in but theres somethi else and i think we ought to mention it. Look at what happened in the federal case in the Southern District of florida. Thect government super seeded wh additional counts including additional counts of obstruction of justice. So if mr. Trump crosses that line, i think the government is just going have to accept theyre going to be criticized and denigrated. But if mr. Trump crosses the line and starts going after witnesses, intimidating, harassing witnesses, thats a separate federal crime. And the government has the authority to go to a grand jury and ask it to indict mr. Trump for those additional crimes. Look, it may be the case that nothing stops him. It may be the case that nothing slows him down, but there are remedies for the government and for the judge. Yeah, i mean adding more charges to what he already has mounting, that could be an incentive. We may see. We may not see. Glenn, i have to ask you about the other sort of ill call it an easter egg. Im not sure you think of it in the same way, this notion there may be some classified documents involved in the discovery. Do you have any sense where we might going on that . Onno, that was pretty interesting i haveo, to say. I dont know quite what that would pertain to. We have enough mystery with Unindicted Coconspirator number 6, were all puzzling trying to figure out precisely who that might be. No, this is actually quite a surprise, the fact there are a small number of classified documents, you know, indicates its not a big issue. The one b area i would say and scanned again through indictment to look for potential areas where that might be the case, there was some discussion about meetings in the white house involving National Security, a meeting with s milley that took place before one of the infamous oval officef encounters with Justice Department officials. So there was bleed over between those b meetings and some of th doj meetings. And then the other issue is in the indictment smith also refers to the director of National Security and other folks involved in the Intelligence Community giving trump counsel that all of these various schemes were illegal. So there is some theres some brushing of shoulders with areas that could be potentially classified, but your guess is as good as mine. Well, yeah, it would be ironic if it was mark milley who of course was the subject of the bed menster document waving around that now has worked its way into the maralago case. Truck, does the entrance of classified material into this, potentially slow things down given the fact trumps defense team was looking for any reason to delay, you know, these trials and will presumably make an argument, delay their classified certificationer, the seats of process. An d that slow us down in unfortunate way here . Un theoretically, but really, alex, it shouldnt, the Classified Information procedures act, the act you use when you have classified documents that the government wants to use at trial can be a little bit cumbersome, but if youre talking about a small number of classified documents, it really shouldnt act as a break on these proceedings. And by the way, i think glenn is right. My sense is that when Senior National intelligence officials come to the white house to brief theth president , they often bri with them memos or power points, sometimes charts or maps or diagrams. Those are often marked as highly classified in part because theyre going in front of the president. In and if those senior officials who were briefing mr. Trump and were telling him hed lost the election. If theyre t giving him classifd information, some of it may be in writing and subject to the Classified Information proceduresas act. Fascinating that it may all go back to fraudulent claims about International Interference in the 2020 election. Chuck rosenberg and glenn thrush, thank you for your time tonight. Appreciate it. We have much more still to come this evening. Brand new propublica reporting on luxury items lavished on Justice Clarence thomas. Youre not going to believe the views. Plus, republicans plow full steam ahead on the Biden Crime Family boondoggle. There is a why in here somewhere, and we are going to get to it with claire mccaskill. Thats coming up. Caskill. Thats coming up [bell dings] are you good . No, i think im late on my car insurance. Good thing the general gives you a break when you need it. Yeah, with flexible Payment Options to keep you covered. Just tag us in. Ouaaaahhhh [bell dings] for a great low rate, go with the general. Bridgett is here. Ouaaaahhhh [bell dings] she has no clue that im here. She has no clue whos in the helmet. Are you ready . Im ready alright. Xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, and onceinalifetime. I heard you yesterday refer to them as a crime family and and this was organized crime. So make it easy for us. What was the crime . Well, the crime is that creating policy for money. Which policy . Well, were going to get into that. For months months House Oversight chair james comer and his republican allies have been suggesting they will finally be able to get into the evidence about the Biden Crime Family, the Biden Crime Family. And now the House Oversight committee has released a memo showing more than 20 million in payments from entities from russia and ukraine and causic stn to the biden family and their business associates. But there are no direct payments to joe biden listed. There is no evidence even that joe biden was involved in any of this. In other words, they still havent gotten into that. This is now the third memo that fails to show evidence linking President Biden to his sons private business dealings, but the Oversight Committee says it doesnt have to show payments linked to biden to prove he is corrupt. Joining me now is claire mccaskill, former democratic senator from missouri. Claire, thank you for being here. I am trying to make sense of my position here because on one hand it seems so obvious that they havent actually gotten into the substance of these very incendiary claims theyre making about the biden family, and then another part of me thinks at your own peril ignore the machinations of the rightwing. Where do you stand on this . Well, first of all, what hunter biden did was dumb and i think had a great appearance of impropriety, may not be illegal, but joe biden didnt do it. By the way, we have a long history of Family Members playing off president s to try to make money. Going all the way back to fdr, we had Richard Nixons brother. Frankly, we had billy carter who was taking money from libya. What drives me crazy about this is the blinking red light around Jared Kushner. Why does the senate not start a hearing . I mean lets just briefly walk through what Jared Kushner did. He was put in to run a huge port polio in a government where he had no experience, running Foreign Policy in The Middle East process, no experience. What does he do first . He becomes best buddies with the crown prince of saudi arabia. He has he gets trump to go to saudi arabia for his first trip. He has the crown prince in the white house dining room. He does all that. And what happens the minute trump leaves office, he starts for the first time a private equity fund. He goes over and asks the crown prince for 2 billion. And you know what the Committee Said that runs the Sovereign Wealth Fund for saudi arabia, alex, they said this is really bad idea. They did their Due Diligence and it failed miserably in every test of Due Diligence and Management Fees were excessive. And they remmed against making a 2 billion investment. Of course the crown prince came along and overruled them and gave Jared Kushner 2 billion. Compare and contrast that to Steve Mnuchin who was treasury secretary. He went to the crown prince to try to tradeoff his Trump Connectionsmism and instead even though hed run an investment company, they only gave him 1 billion and paid him less in Management Fees. This is a huge scandal. I do not understand why the senate is not doing a hearing on all the trump grift, and im not even talking about the money they made on Foreign Government while they were in office. I hear what youre saying about im fired up on this. No, i think theres probably because i wonder if you think the answer to that question, if you looking at hunter biden, why not look at Jared Kushner . Is the reason democrats, for example, are not leading the charge on that because theres a tacit acknowledgement in it that what hunter biden was doing was sleazily if not illegal and that democrats maybe in large part in deference to the white house are loathe to do that. Do you think thats factoring in here . Is that part of the strategy in not touching Jared Kushner . I dont understand that strategy. Thats a good way to make every headline about hunter biden and have everybody forget about when trump family did. Massive grift while they were in office, an even bigger Grift Trading off the influence of the name trump after they got out of office. So i really think that what hunter biden did, i disagree with what he did. I dont know if his father disagreed with what he did. I dont know if he was tormented by the death of his other son and his addiction with hunter. But the more we give them an open Playing Field to try to pretend like joe biden did something wrong because of what hunter did, the bigger mistake we make. We need to explain to the American P