Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/2/23

Episode Date: August 2, 2023

A grand jury in Washington returned a new four-count indictment criminally charging former President Trump with his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and subvert lawful votes.  

OK, I'll do this. I'm going to do this. Let's go. But this election is now over. Congress has certified the results. I don't want to say the election's over. I just want to say Congress has certified the results without saying the election's over. OK. But Congress is right now. Yeah, right now. I didn't say over. So let me see. Don't go to the paragraph before. Hours after the deadly insurrection, Donald Trump still refused to admit the election was over. Those lies and all the ensuing damage inflicted on the country are now at the center of the new criminal case facing the ex-president of the United States, who is a candidate to be the next president of the United States.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, August 2nd, the month of August, coming in like a lion. Let's dive right into yesterday's unprecedented events out of Washington, where former President Donald Trump, who took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution, has been indicted for allegedly trying to subvert that very same document. A federal grand jury convened by special counsel Jack Smith voted to charge the president for his alleged efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. The 45-page indictment lays out four felony charges against Trump. They are conspiracy to defraud the United States,

conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. Trump is scheduled to make his first court appearance in the new case tomorrow at 4 p.m. in Washington. Special Counsel Smith spoke about the case after the indictment was unsealed and emphasized the seriousness of the charges. The attack on our nation's capital on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.

It's described in the indictment. It was fueled by lies. Lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government. The nation's process of collecting, counting and certifying the results of the presidential election. Joe, we're going to dig deeper into all of these charges, the potential jail time that comes with all of these charges. But as people think back to January 6th, 2021, two and a half years ago, the way they felt watching people storm into the Capitol, the way they felt not hearing from the president of the United States to stop it, the way they felt watching cops getting beaten up with American flags. Justice is patience. And here it is, a 45 page indictment that shows the bill now has come due for that day.

Yeah, the wills of justice grind slowly, but they grind finely. Yeah. And we have, by the way, we have Jen Psaki, Michael Beschloss, Chuck Rosenberg, Ken Delaney, and George Conway, Mike Barnicle, John Meacham, Claire McCaskill, Andrew Weissman, David French, Al Sharpton. I mean, you go down the list, Bob Woodward, Joyce Vance, Michael Schmidt,

Neil Katyal, Ari Melber, John Haim. We have so many people here today to talk about what certainly is the most important criminal case in the history of this great republic. we do this every day and we see the lies and we see Republicans, unfortunately, and people on the Trump right in media just lying, going along with him and lying. And it's very discouraging. What stood out to me, though, reading this 45 page document, is it far from being a Democratic conspiracy against Donald Trump? It is a document, all 45 pages, filled with not only Republicans that supported Donald Trump and voted for Donald Trump, but people whose lives depended on him winning the election. Who would have been richer, more powerful, more connected

had he been elected? And these are the people, time and time again, that Jack Smith drew evidence from, got evidence from. And it is astounding, Willie, I go through this document and I see he's just throwing things against the wall, one lie after another, constantly. And time and time again, it's not a liberal saying, no, that's not true, Mr. President. It's not an editorial page editor for The New York Times saying that. It's not somebody in MSNBC primetime saying that. It's Republicans. If you all will be patient with me for one minute.

This is so telling. Jack Smith writes this. His claims were false and the defendant knew they were false. In fact, the defendant was notified report repeatedly that his claims were untrue, often by the people on whom he relied on for candid advice in important matters and were best positioned to know the facts. And he deliberately disregarded the truth, for instance. And then he goes through the defendant's vice president and all the times the defendant's vice president told him, Mr. President, that's wrong. It's against the law. We can't do it. Senior leaders of Donald Trump's Justice Department, the director of national intelligence, again, his principal advisor on intelligence matters, disabuse the defendant of the notion that there were any any election interference.

The Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency called it, quote, the most secure in American history. And then he was fired and he was fired the day after he put that out. All of Donald Trump's senior White House attorneys, there's a reason why he went after the co-conspirators he did. that stayed with him through racist comments about invaders, about asshole countries, about you name it, all the fascist language that stayed with him through two impeachments. They were the people that stood up, his senior White House attorneys, selected by Donald Trump to provide him candid advice, informed the defendant time and again there was no evidence, no evidence of this fraud, and also told him your president is going to end on January the 20th, 2021. Senior staffers on the defendant's 2020 campaign, whose sole mission was the defendants re-election

think about how much more powerful they would have been if he had won instead of searching for jobs what are they doing now i mean now they're testifying against donald trump talking about the lies and time and again they said what you're saying, Mr. President, just isn't true. State and federal courts, as Jack Smith said, rejected every outcome, determinative post-election lawsuit filed by the defendant, his co-conspirators, his allies, providing the defendant real time notice that his allegations were meritless. Again, Republicans, Republicans, Republicans in Arizona, the Arizona speaker of the House, who was pushed and pressured by Donald Trump,

said if there were evidence of illegal votes that were in the proper account, then Arizona law provides a process to contest the election. But the law does not authorize the legislature to reverse results of an election. As a conservative Republican, I don't like the results of the presidential election. I voted for President Trump and I worked hard to reelect him, but I cannot and I will not entertain a suggestion that we violate current law to change the outcome of a certified election. And his life was changed. Under laws that we wrote and voted upon, Arizona voters chose it. And our system requires that an evangelical, a Republican, lifetime Republican, a Trump supporter refused to do it in Georgia.

The senior campaign adviser told Donald Trump that his dead voters claim was untrue. And he wrote this. He said, quote, When our research campaign can't back up any of the claims made by our elite strike force legal team, you can see why we're 0 and 32 on our cases. heresy shit beamed down from the mothership. Close quote. Close quote. Again, a Trumper who wanted Donald Trump to win. In Georgia, the lies about the 5,000 dead people, the Georgia Secretary of State said, well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is your data is wrong.

The actual number were two. The defendants then claimed out-of-state voters had voted in Georgia. The Georgia Secretary of State's counsel said, we've gone through each of those as well. And those numbers that we got, that we're just saying they're not accurate. You can go through every single state. The Michigan House Speaker.

This is an amazing statement. We diligently examined these reports of fraud to the best of our ability, said the Republican speaker of the House in Michigan, who Donald Trump had invited to the White House to pressure him. I fought hard for President Trump. Nobody wanted him to win more than me. I think he's done an incredible job, but I love our republic, too. I can't fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing electors for Trump. I fear we'd lose our country forever. This truly would bring mutually assured destruction for every future election in regards to the Electoral College. And I can't stand for that. I won't.

Not a New York Times editorial writer, not an MSNBC primetime host. Not Morning Joe host. A right-wing conservative speaker of the House who supported Donald Trump all the way said he can't do it. Then you go to another state and on December 27th, Trump raises with acting attorney general specific fraud claims in Wisconsin. And the acting deputy attorney general told Donald

Trump the claim was false. And Willie, we can go on and on and on. It's why did I spend all of that time talking about it? Because right now, Democrats are being blamed for this. Democrats are it's supposedly something to distract from Hunter Biden, who we've said time and again, if you do anything wrong, send him to jail. We don't care. I mean, like we it's it's up to the Justice Department. It's up to it's up to the people, the prosecuting. But they're claiming that this is some left wing conspiracy. This was written. All the statements, Republicans, the January 6th testimony, Cassidy Hutchinson, all of the people who testified there, they were Republicans whose very professional lives depended on Donald Trump winning.

That was the power. And yet there it is. That was the power and the effectiveness of the January 6th Select Committee. And it's important that you just laid that out because the argument already we're hearing from Trump defenders and even from his own attorneys on TV is that he was operating in good faith, which is to say he actually thought the election had been stolen from him. Well, no, if you go through these 45 pages, as you just did in a very important way, because it shows who exactly and how many people were telling him, sir, you lost the election. Here's a claim that you've put up. Here's why it's nonsense. Here's another claim. And state by state, go to Michigan, go to

Pennsylvania, go to Wisconsin, go to Arizona. And yes, go to Georgia, where we're waiting to hear more from the D.A. in Fulton County, perhaps in a matter of a couple of weeks here about that case. He knew. So the argument that this was all in good faith is nonsense as laid out here and as was laid out, as you said, in the January 6th committee. The other defense we're hearing this morning and last night was that this was about the First Amendment. He had the right to say these things. Well, Jack Smith, the special counsel, Mika short circuits that in the indictment, too. And yesterday saying, yes, of course, we can see that he has the right to say these things that is protected under the First Amendment. What he doesn't have the right to do is to go out and work to overturn the results of the election, which is to say, put in false electors.

So you can say whatever you want to do, but you can't do the things that he has alleged to have done here to overturn the 2020 election. And you're right, Joe. Speaker McCarthy, Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House yesterday, said as this came out, he was there. He was furious. We've talked about this. He was screaming at Donald Trump on the phone in January 6th. He knows what happened. He knows what Donald Trump did, said yesterday after this came out, this indictment. He said, well, this is just an attempt by Democrats in the Biden Department of Justice to distract from that big Hunter Biden news we

had yesterday. That is the defense in the face of all of this. So and let's be very clear here. I'm glad you brought that up, Willie. Let's be very clear here. While there were I talked about all the Republicans that chose country over an attempted coup. Last night, there are people like Kevin McCarthy, though, and there were also some people on other TV networks who continued the lie. I mean, I mean, these are people who spent the months after November the fourth election day, spent months undermining America's confidence in democracy, savagely choosing Donald Trump over American democracy and lied about it repeatedly. Evidence here in black and white. They lied about it. They knew they were lying, just like Kevin McCarthy knows he's lying. What are they doing now? All of their lies led to January the 6th. That's why people came and rioted, because they lied about American democracy.

So they've been sued. They've paid out almost a billion dollars. They're probably going to have to pay out another billion dollars. And what are they doing now? Let's be really clear about this. Now, Kevin McCarthy and Donald Trump's allies in the right wing Trump media are now undermining America's confidence confidence in our judicial system. Yes. James Madison's third branch that balances out the other two and protects the Constitution of the United States. Now, it wasn't enough from November through January the 6th to undermine Americans' faith and confidence. When I say Americans, 35, 36, 37 percent. But enough, enough to cause chaos. Yeah. Enough to try to make a run at overturning the federal government. That's how they spent their fall in 2020 and winter. Now they're spending their fall and spring of 2023 and summer of 2023 undermining America's faith in our judiciary, in our justice department. Just like they savage the military, just like they savage the Intel community, just like they savage universities and colleges,

the best in the world. They're savaging every institution in the name of a failed reality TV host, a failed president who has lost some elections from 2017 to 2023. And yet they continue to savage it. And so now what's Kevin McCarthy doing after savaging American democracy? He's now savaging our judiciary. And let's just say a lot of opinion hosts on other TV networks are doing the same thing. And I can see why they don't want to read this document. I never saw anyone actually reading it. We did look at everything.

We were watching. Nobody, they were drawing on it, doodling on it, joking about it. Talking about other things. It's a good reason why, because these facts. From Republicans. This Republican indictment, it's not something that you're going to want to read if you've spent the last couple of years depending on websites run by Chinese religious cults.

Let me say that again. are depending on Chinese religious cults for your information about the United States of America, the greatest country on the face of the earth. Or maybe Aunt Mabel's Facebook postings that she got from somebody like in Russia. You're not going to want to know the truth from Republicans. This is the truth from Republicans. Let's bring in the first of a number of all-star panels we have this morning for you. The host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, author of The Big Lie. Former White House Press Secretary, now an MSNBC host, Jen Psaki joins us. NBC News justice and intelligence

correspondent Ken Delanian is here. Former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg, attorney and contributing columnist at The Washington Post, George Conway, and NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss. Ken Delanian set it up for us. Joe, you guys set it up very well. But, you know, what's so remarkable about this indictment is it starts off, as you said, with Jack Smith acknowledging that Donald Trump not only had the right to claim fraud in the election, he had the right to lie about it.

He had the First Amendment right to lie. But not to launch a campaign of what Smith called pervasive and destabilizing lies and then act on it. That crossed the line into criminal conspiracy. And the indictment charges three separate conspiracies, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct that official proceeding of Congress on January 6th, and conspiracy to deprive voters of their rights in those seven states. And what I found remarkable, because there wasn't a lot of reporting on this along the way, is that I was wondering whether they were going to charge, and they did, the plot

to subvert the Justice Department, which I found to be the most dangerous part of the whole thing. Because remember, Jeffrey Clark, co-conspirator number four in this indictment, wanted the DOJ to send a letter to states saying that the Justice Department had found pervasive fraud in the election. And we recommend that you call your legislature into special session. And as you said, Joe, those Trump appointed career people at the Justice Department said, that's crazy. We're not doing that. And they stopped it. But nonetheless, Jack Smith has charged it in a conspiracy as part of this indictment here. And the indictment doesn't charge Donald Trump with inciting the violence on January 6th. It doesn't charge him

with seditious conspiracy. But what it clearly articulates towards the end is that Donald Trump, as the indictment puts it, tried to exploit and did exploit the violence at the Capitol on January 6th to continue his campaign, his alleged campaign, to try to delay and subvert the lawful transfer of power, in part by calling seven separate lawmakers. And there's some new evidence about calling senators, even as the violence was unfolding, and asking them to continue to delay. And last thing I'll say is that, and I'm stealing a little bit from Chuck Rosenberg here, so forgive me, Chuck, but there are legitimate defenses. Despite all the evidence that you laid out, a lot of people I talk to think that Donald Trump could persuasively claim that he legitimately

believed the election was stolen and or that he was relying on the advice of lawyers. But the problem with that defense is that it seems that it would require him to testify at the trial. Who else can talk about Donald Trump's state of mind? And that obviously would be legally disastrous. So it's a real trap that Jack Smith has set for Donald Trump in a breathtaking 45 page indictment, guys. It is a breathtaking 45 page indictment. It is it is narrow. It is focused. It is powerful for the reasons that Ken pointed out. Willie, first of all, he doesn't have to prove that Donald Trump was responsible for the riot. And secondly, he he he gives up at the very beginning. Donald Trump has a right to lie. If he wants to lie, he has a right to lie. But then he moves on to the conspiracies that he took part in where he lays it out specifically. I will also say the rights of voters. I will also say Jeffrey Clark's

name being in there makes one Eric Hirschman very prescient, who, as we learned again, another Donald Trump lawyer, a Donald Trump lawyer who defended him through impeachment and defended him to the very end up until January the 6th, telling Jeffrey Clark, you better get yourself a good criminal defense attorney. And we found out yesterday afternoon at about 530 that Eric Hirschman once again was right. Yeah. Even a lot of those people who were in the trenches right up to the end knew when it was time to get out, including Hirschman.

Joe, even the New York Post is playing it straight today. Conspiracy to defraud the United States, talking about Donald Trump. The New York Daily News, crimes against democracy. Of course, this is headline news and papers not just across the country, but around the world. So, Chuck Rosenberg, your name was invoked there by Ken. I'll let you have a crack at this 45-page document. What you see in

it, what's there, and what's not in it. Were you surprised by anything as you read through the indictment? It was an extraordinary indictment, Willie. Compelling, linear. By the way, prosecutors don't put things in an indictment unless they can prove it. What you see in this indictment over and over, as Joe so well articulated, are lots and lots of hoards of high-ranking Republican officials who told Mr. Trump over and over that he was wrong, that the election was fairly held, that he had lost, that there was no basis to challenge it once all of his appeals and lawsuits had been denied. There's a really interesting issue here, Willie.

If I wanted to prove what you know, I could either do it based on what you say or on what you're told. And this indictment is replete with what Mr. Trump was told over and over again that he had lost the election. So I think Ken is exactly right to point out that there's not a First Amendment concern in bringing these charges. It's not what he believed. It's not even what he said. It's what he did. The crime is what he did. He acted on falsely held beliefs. Now, again, the Department of Justice doesn't put things in an indictment that it can't prove. So I imagine that all of these witnesses, overwhelmingly high ranking Republican officials in the Trump administration,

have gone before the grand jury, have testified under oath. And that testimony will be the same testimony adduced at Mr. Trump's criminal trial. It's a damning indictment. It's a compelling case. It was and remains a threat to our democracy. You know, it's interesting, Willie, talking about all the people that testified before the grand jury. Obviously, Mike Pence, you can read this and see he played an extraordinarily significant role. But another name that's sort of floating out there, Mark Meadows, many assuming he was not named as a co-conspirator. He very easily could have been. It suggests that maybe some of the Trump team who were so worried that he had gone quiet, silent on him. Their worst fears may have been may have come true because their suggestion that Mark Meadows also helped put this together.

Yeah, we've seen a couple of weeks ago walking into a courthouse and staying mum on the case. A lot of people speculating that maybe he is cooperating. We don't know that, but that does lead to more questions as you read through this. George Conway, you're leafing through it as we speak. I know you read it yesterday as well. What jumped out to you as an attorney? Well, what jumped out at me is I think we owe a great deal of credit to the January 6th committee. Because, I mean, there are some interesting things in here that we haven't seen before. It's kind of hard, given the firehose of information that we've had over the last three years about this,

to figure out which things we've seen and which things we haven't. But most of it fundamentally tracks the themes that were laid out and the facts that were drawn out in the January 6th hearings. And including the charges, I mean, the charges 371, 1512, conspiracy to defraud the United States and a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, an obstruction of an official proceeding. Those were the same statutes that the January 6th committee were litigating about in front of the judge in Los Angeles when they were contesting Eastman's refusals to produce documents. So they really, they laid out a roadmap for the prosecutors and the prosecutors have just went with it. And I'm really impressed with how quickly Mr. Smith has put this all together, even though so much of this was gathered by the January 6th committee. It's a lot to kind of strip it down to its essence, to what we really need to prove. And the fact that he only charged one defendant, I think,

is absolutely critical because the more defendants you add to this, the more exponentially complicated the pretrial proceedings become. And so what he has done here is he's trying to package a case that can be tried next year. And I think, you know, with the right judge and people say this judge, you know, she's an experienced trial lawyer, a former public defender. She can she she should be able to navigate this to a trial next year, I think. And that judge has handed down some of the stiffest sentences yet to January 6th participants, those rioters. The second sentence, the second sentence of the indictment is simply the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. It goes from there that he spread lies that he'd actually won.

Those claims were false and the defendant knew that they were false. And it is interesting how actually little the events of January 6th play in here. This is about the big lie. This is about the months of the lies and the conspiracies and efforts to overturn the election ticking through state after state. Some states that Donald Trump lost by less than a point, like Georgia, won New Mexico, where he lost by 10 points. It is a conspiracy that is laid out so clearly and so plainly. And it's interesting what charges do not appear here. There was nothing here about inciting the insurrection. There is no seditious conspiracy

charge, which some had speculated might be part of this because we saw some members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys receive similar charges. That's not the case. To George's point, this seems like it is meant to be as clear and as streamlined as possible to move forward as quickly as possible. And Joe and Mika, we are left with a scene next year where Donald Trump is going to be shuttling from courthouse to courthouse, from campaign rally to campaign rally. It's not just that he's a former president. He's the leading Republican to be the nominee for that party again. He has a chance to be president again. And what this indictment is about, it's so serious.

And maybe it will be the hardest to prove in a courtroom, but it is about the very heart of our democracy, an important moment like we've never faced before. That's why it's interesting that this indictment is very simple on President Trump's actions, not on the actions of others riding at the Capitol, but on his actions trying to change the results of an election and infringe on the rights of voters, impede them. Jen Psaki, curious what stands out to you in this. And is the Biden White House playing it right by doing a movie night?

Presidents often weigh in on big moments. You're right, Mika. And I think, though, this is, as we've all been talking about, unprecedented and an unprecedented moment in history. And this is about Donald Trump. It's not about Joe Biden. And if you're sitting in a White House right now, that's what you're thinking about. You want to leave space for this, the significance of this indictment that we've all read through and highlighted and left notes in and the moment in history and not

make it about the presidential campaign or the political campaign. Now, while they let it breathe right now, which I do think is the right thing to do, they are going to at some point have to figure out how to run against Trump and what is and the details of the type of things that are in here. And the contrast there is not about getting into the specifics of the indictment or the or Trump's criminal challenges or the legal cases or what is going to be said in hearings necessarily. It is about the contrast of what Joe Biden is going to represent if he's elected to a second term and what Trump would represent. And as I was reading through this week, I was thinking yesterday or last night about the day before January 6th, January 5th, 2021, if we all remember, was the day that there was the election in Georgia.

Right. When Ossoff and Warnock were elected, they won those special elections. I was on the transition. And what we were worried about and thinking about at that moment was, yes, a delay in the certification of the outcome and shenanigans on the floor. By shenanigans, I mean things done from a legislative standpoint or from members who are supporters of Trump. We underestimated. We all did what Trump was capable of. And reading this is a reminder of what he is capable of. And that is the thing that stuck out to me because we still have a lot of time to go. Trump is not going to be mute. He's going to be out there on the campaign trail. We've seen him already try to. He's raising money,

already tried to get his people to come out. And that's the other place to watch. But overall, I think the White House, if you're sitting in the White House, you want this to be about Trump. You want the air, the space, all of that to be on that because that's the right thing for history and the right thing for them politically in this moment as well. You know, Jen, I we all did. Certainly you said you did. I'll just say I did as well. Underestimated the lengths to which he would continue to go trying to overthrow this election. And after reading this, I also will admit I underestimated many Republican office holders dedication to their oath over Donald Trump. You read through this time and time again, whether it was whether it was acting attorney generals inside the White

House, whether it was speakers of the House. You know, there would be a collective panic when you would see Michigan Speaker of the House and head of the Senate go to Donald Trump. When Donald Trump would put out a statement lying about Mike Pence, would say Mike Pence agrees with me time and time again. Pence time and time again pushed back on the lies. It really was. It was striking by reading this just how far Donald Trump would go and how time and again he met resistance from Republican officeholders, Republican appointees. Yeah, I completely I had a similar reaction and I kind of have these nerdy labels at the top state by state because what is so effective about how this is written. And maybe Jack Smith is a better communicator than we give him credit for, by the way, that's another takeaway, is that the officials

in these states, to your point, I mean, there's an entire section on each state. Georgia specifically stuck out to me as all of these officials standing up time and time again. Now, we knew this from all of the reporting and discussion over the last couple of years, but it does stand out to you. Also, on page 36 of this indictment, if people haven't read through, I recommend they do it. It starts the whole conversations and the whole perspective of Mike Pence and the private conversations Mike Pence had with Donald Trump, including which stuck out to me and I can't get it out of my head. This moment where his chief of staff was so concerned because Donald Trump essentially threatened him in a private meeting. He was concerned about Mike Pence safety.

That is the vice president of the United States who served with the president, who stood by him, campaigned with him, advocated for his policies. And his chief of staff was so concerned about his safety because the violence here and the threats was of no concern, it seems, as you read this indictment. And that also stuck out to me. So concerned about his safety after hearing Donald Trump's threat that he notified he notified the Secret Service. Yes. To let them know that the vice president would be in danger the next day on January the 6th. And sure enough, he was. Michael Beschloss, I tell you, I mean, you you you I saw your thread. Is that what we call them? I saw your thread last night when you said, remember this night. And I went back through my lifetime. And, you know, back when we were much, much younger, I remember for me on August the 9th, 1974, my grandmom was driving me through Elmira Heights

when the news broke on the radio that Richard Nixon had resigned. And that was one of those moments that stuck with me that really stood out. Remember this night, what you said last night? I think I suspect we all will be looking back on last night as as a turning point. And this horrible chapter of American history. Totally agree. And I think one thing we'll remember is how last night and the 12 hours since Jack Smith delivered that indictment with the help of a courageous grand jury, you know, how does this fit into the larger American story? I think the last 12 hours

fit perfectly into the American story. And that is this. From time to time, America faces threats from monsters who want to destroy our democracy. That happened in 1861 with the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln and, you know, northern soldiers and northern voters came to our rescue, saved the union. The same thing happened in 1933. Almost at the last minute, Franklin Roosevelt came to power, saved our economic system. Pearl Harbor, 1941. We were bombed.

Our system was very much in danger. Our democracy, many people were giving it up and saying that, you know, the democracy had seen its last days. Franklin Roosevelt helped to put a coalition together at the last minute to save democracy and freedom around the world. 9-11, 2001, Osama bin Laden and other terrorists hated our democracy, tried to destroy it. You see where I'm going. What we see in this indictment is that on January 6, 2021, Donald Trump, just like those other threats to American democracy, tried to destroy our system, to take away our rule of law. Came very close to doing it.

To take away our system of elections. To take away our tradition of peaceful transfer of power to a new elected president. It almost happened. And the thing is, Joe and Mika and Willie and everyone, it's almost happening again this morning. Just as you said, who is the Republican frontrunner? Donald Trump threatening to do it all again, but even more effectively, saying he is going to institute a presidential dictatorship that we may assume is going to take our democracy away. And this indictment, and I'll close with this, is coming at almost the last minute. I think if it had been two or three months later, we'd be a lot less optimistic

about the chance that a trial can take place before next year's election. Yeah. And your comments reminded me of Lincoln's statement that all the all the armies of Europe and Asia couldn't take a drink from the Ohio River or make a trek through the Blue Ridge Mountains. But if we as a nation are to die, we'll die by suicide, by our own hand. Right. And and that's it. Never underestimate America democracy. We protect ourselves. We save ourselves from danger. So to that point, actually, this is where I think it's it's it's fair enough to question those right now, like Speaker Kevin McCarthy, like Republicans in Congress and like those TV hosts. I understand the fealty to Donald Trump. I understand the fear they may have of Donald Trump. I accept all of that. But what I don't understand right now is denying what is in this document and the testimony under oath by other Republicans in six different states. Local politicians who stood up and testified telling their story.

And I don't understand why these lawmakers, why the Speaker of the House and why TV hosts who are constantly feeding Donald Trump's ego, why they can't give these people a chance to be heard, why they can't read this document and take a look at what, OK, might have happened, did happen to our democracy. If you were there on January 6th and if you saw what happened. They know what happened. They know what happened. They know what happened. But my point is you're actually at this point going against what Republicans are saying. They know what happened. And you can see this on Fox News last night is split between some opinion.

It really, really just turned in some extraordinarily sad and depressing performances. And they're doing it because they fear, unfortunately, their own viewers. But they know. They know. And other people on Fox News. And we saw, I think it's Steve Doocy. We saw a clip of Steve Doocy early on. Brett Baier last night talking to Trump's attorney.

There are other people in Fox News. Covering the news. Cover the news. Covered it straight. Covered it hard. Told the truth. So there's a split. And the people, the people, same with Republicans.

We talked about the Republicans that have done the right thing here. And I think what's all the more remarkable about the Republicans in here that have done the right thing are how many we've seen over the past six years who haven't. They don't fear Donald Trump. They hate Donald Trump. Let me say that again. Kevin McCarthy, all these other Republicans that suck up to Donald, they don't fear him. They hate him.

They fear his supporters. They fear his supporters will turn the channel to another network. They fear his supporters will vote for another Republican. That's a toxic relationship. In a Republican primary. They fear that. We see and hear Republicans who are like, listen, I'm a conservative. I voted for Trump.

I wanted him to win. I love the Constitution more than I love Donald Trump. I will not lie for this guy. I will I will not betray my country for Donald Trump. And so, again, that's what's so disappointing with some of these people that we see who spent from November the 4th to January the 6th, undermining American democracy and turning a mob against the United States Capitol and against Congress. And now the same people on TV and in Congress that are doing everything they can to turn Americans against the system of justice that sustained this great republic for over 240 years. Chuck, can you give me a timeline? We understand the timeline of the document case. Any idea what we should expect? We've heard

fair and speedy trials several times over the past 12 hours or so. What sort of timeline are you expecting to see? Yeah, and I want to refer back to something that George Conway said, because it's an important point and it helps answer your question, Joe. Right now, there's only one defendant in this case, Mr. Trump. The Mar-a-Lago case, as we know, has three. And so this is a simpler case. It's more streamlined with three defendants. You have three defense teams, which means three opening statements and three closing arguments. And every government witness is cross-examined three times. That's not true here.

It also doesn't involve classified information. There's no SEPA, Classified Information Procedure Act, proceedings that will be necessary to bring this case to trial. So it's simpler. Now, here's my bias. I come from the Eastern District of Virginia, where I was a federal prosecutor. It's known as the rocket docket, and cases move with dispatch. My belief is that this case can be tried before the election. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't. That's not up to me. It's up to the judge. But this seems like a much more streamlined case. Now, one caveat. Mr. Smith said yesterday, and we haven't talked about it yet, that the

investigation continues. It's always possible that this indictment, too, will be superseded and other defendants could be added. But in its current posture, I believe it's not just possible but imperative that it be brought before the election. And, Mika, I hope this makes you feel a little bit better. This case will not be decided in the halls of Congress and it will not be decided on television. It will be decided by 12 ordinary citizens in a federal district courtroom in the District of Columbia. Those are the voters who matter in this case. We can talk about it all that we like, but this case will turn on the facts and on the law and in the appropriate

venue for a determination that Mr. Trump committed among the most serious crimes imaginable in the history of our republic. That is such an important point, Chuck. Everything we're hearing on cable news, all the truth social, all caps, posts, everything you hear from members of Congress, that's politics. This is the law. And you cannot run from this 45 page indictment. Luckily, we have four hours this morning because there's so much to get through here. And can just a couple of quick passages from page 33 as pertains to Vice President Pence. Mike Pence on Christmas Day 2020 calls then President Trump to wish him a Merry Christmas. Quickly, in response to Merry Christmas, Donald Trump asks him to overturn the results of the election on January 6th. And the vice

president reportedly replies, you know, I don't think I have the authority to change the outcome. But Merry Christmas to you, Mr. President. January 1st. And boy, doesn't this capture the whole thing? The defendant, former President Trump, calls berating Vice President Mike Pence because he had opposed a lawsuit seeking a judicial decision that would have helped Donald Trump. Trump says to Vice President Pence, quote, you're too honest. That was a flaw that he was too honest.

So, Ken, as you look over the horizon now, we know that President Trump, former President Trump, will have to be at the arraignment tomorrow or appear in some form at the arraignment tomorrow. What happens from here? What kind of timeline are you expecting on this, given everything else we know, including another case from the special counsel's office? Yeah, that's right. Well, first on Mike Pence, I found it fascinating that the statements from his campaign last night were some of the most

aggressive we've seen. Yeah. Not lamenting the prosecution of a former president, as he has in the past, but saying essentially no one's above the law and you shouldn't subvert the Constitution. So fascinating because he is a key player in this. And it was interesting that it appears that the special counsel obtained his contemporaneous notes that weren't available to the January 6th committee. But in terms of timeline, I mean, I agree with Chuck and George Conway that the whole point of bringing this case with a single defendant and unnamed co-conspirators who potentially could be charged later is to get this to trial before the election. Because because while Chuck said that it's absolutely true that 12 jurors will decide this case if it goes forward, if it's not tried before Donald Trump is elected president, if in fact he runs and is elected president, this case is going to go away. That's what Bill Barr said. And that's what

everyone believes. Now, the Georgia case, which we can talk about later, can't necessarily go away because Donald Trump would be elected president. But this case and the other federal cases could. And that's why this is so crucial in terms of the system of justice to get this to trial. And we have a judge, Tanya Chutkin, who was appointed by Barack Obama in 2013, who is the only judge in Washington, D.C., who has exceeded the recommendations of prosecutors in some of these January 6 violence cases and who actually ruled against Donald Trump in a crucial January 6th case. He was trying to keep his documents away from the January 6th committee. She ruled that, no, in fact, he had to turn over hundreds and hundreds of documents.

And then one last thing I'll just say, amplifying what others have said, this indictment really did rely in huge part on the work of the January 6th committee. You know, a staffer, investigator for that committee, texted me last night and said, I'm going to pretend that Jack Smith thanked us in his remarks. She was being sarcastic. And you're going to have Tim Haefi, the chief investigator, on later. Tim Haefi essentially was forced out of his job as the general counsel at the University of Virginia

because of his work on that committee. The nation owes that committee a great debt because there were a lot of people at the Justice Department and the legal community who didn't think much of this case, who were not prepared really to even imagine an indictment like the one we're reading right now until that committee put this evidence in front of the American public. Yeah. And there was a deep unhappiness about how slow DOJ was moving until the January 6th committee sort of kick-started them. And we should also note to this judge, if George, if passed his prologue, this judge will undoubtedly receive a number of really hateful and undoubtedly racist attacks from the former president and his supporters. Ken mentioned Georgia, and that's actually where

I was wanting to go with you. It's one of the states highlighted in here. We are expecting news from the DA down there in Fulton County in the next couple of weeks, at most, of another charge. But talk to us about the interplay here that Georgia features so prominently in this federal case and then this state one. How is that going to work? Well, they both seem to be doing their own thing. I mean, Fannie Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, said the other day that she couldn't pick out Jack Smith out of a lineup or something like that. It doesn't appear that they've been coordinating closely at all. But they're what they're trying to do, what they're trying to do and what they're trying to prove is parallel.

I think I think that the strategic choice that Mr. Smith has made to just focus on Donald Trump is a very, very smart one. And I think that's good that his case will go to trial, I think, before hers, because by all accounts, she's going to bring a much more organized crime kind of case involving the Georgia Rico statute that's going to involve a lot of defendants. And that's going to be, as Chuck points out, that makes life more difficult for a trial judge. But I think at the end of the day, what matters is you get two bites of the apple in this instance. I just don't see how he survives all of these cases, Donald Trump, because it's just each one is, he's played Russian roulette with the law.

And I just don't think he's, I don't think he's going to make it through the next year. Michael Beschloss, Donald Trump, at 4 p.m. tomorrow, I want to ask you to give some perspective to that moment as he faces this indictment head on. This would be his third. This is an arraignment of a former president and his third indictment head on. This would be his third. This is an arraignment of a former president and his third indictment. I can't think of a historical parallel because there isn't one. Right. Right. Well, there is none. Sometimes there's not. And in this case, you know, here is the ex-president, presumably assuming he's found guilty of this, returning to the scene of his crime. I mean, it's such an American tale here.

He's being brought to Washington in the vicinity of the Capitol where this insurrection took place near the White House, where he planned this plot against America to steal our democracy. And a jury of 12 ordinary, and no American citizen is ordinary, but 12 American citizens, which is the highest title we have in this country, not president, not chief justice, they will meet to decide his fate. If the founders came back from 1787 and they saw this happening, what better tableau that demonstrates the fact that no human being in this country should be above the law? No man is above the law. And Jen Psaki, Donald Trump now faces 78 counts across three criminal indictments. And as

people who have been supportive of Donald Trump all along, lawyers have said, many have said if he's guilty on even one of those 78 counts, it could in effect be a life sentence for him. Just one. Just just one out of 78 of all of those. And Jen, that doesn't even include Georgia, which is coming up soon. I'm just curious. Feel free to comment on that. Also, comment about how you started to talk about this before, but how difficult it was actually during the transition, trying to set up a government because all of this chaos that was going on. Yeah, look, I'm going to I'm going to play a student in Michael Beschloss's

class right now that's trying to please Michael Beschloss. But I will say that what's important to remember here that doesn't get a lot of attention is the history of peaceful transitions of power. And I was working in the Obama administration when Barack Obama came in and took over for the Bush administration. There were lots of disagreements on many policy issues, Iraq, the Iraq war being a big one. But we worked in lockstep with the Bush team to help address the financial crisis, to help address any national security threats. That is how it is supposed to work. Even when you have substantive disagreements,

you accept the outcome, but you also work with people where you have battled, where you have fought publicly, where you have debated. When, when Donald Trump came in and I was in the Obama administration during that transition, what president Obama said to all of us is, yes, this is not the outcome we wanted. That is clear. But I expect all of you to behave the way the Bush team behaved when we came in, which is to treat people with grace, with respect, provide them with information. Yes, we disagree with how that guy ran and many other things, but that is what we are expected to do. This entire transition and everything around it threw into question that peaceful transfer of power

that has been part of our country for hundreds of years. And that I think is not, should be a part of the conversation as well, because it's such an important part of how we continue to operate as a democracy. And there are so many other parts of this conversation still to come this morning. Jen Psaki, NBC's Ken Delaney and former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg, George Conway and presidential historian Michael Beschloss. Thank you all very much for coming on on this important and historic

morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe, much more on this newest indictment against former President Donald Trump. We'll take a look at what Trump's lead attorney is saying about the new charges and a possible defense, plus more on the judge who's been assigned to the case and her history of handling down stiff penalties to dozens of alleged January 6th rioters. Also ahead, how Trump's 2024 campaign is already trying to profit off this new indictment and what it means for the GOP primary race. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. The day after, Eastman, I don't remember why he called me, or he texted me or called me, wanted to talk with me, and he said he couldn't reach others.

And he started to ask me about something dealing with Georgia and preserving something potentially for appeal and I said to him are you out of your effing mind right I said I only want to hear

two words coming out of your mouth for now on. Orderly transition. And the screen reader said, I don't want to hear any other effing words coming out of your mouth no matter what, other than orderly transition. Repeat those words to me. And I said, eventually he said, orderly transition. I said, good, John. Now I'm going to give you the best free legal advice you're ever getting in your life. Get a great effing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it. And then I hung up on him.