Results of the president ial election. Coming up, well dig deeper into the indictment and the former president s defense. Can trump be charged with lying if he believes what he said was true . The answer may hinge, at least in part, at least on district judge Tanya Chutkan, a vet ran on cases involving january 6th defendants. What members of congress are claiming and will it be a jury of his peers or the electorate who render the final verdict . We begin with tomorrows arraignment in a d. C. Federal court where donald trump will be formally charged for repeatedly spreading lies as part of an elaborate criminal scheme with the ultimate goal to hang on to power by any means necessary. In fact, trump is raising four federal counts including three conspiracy, to defraud the United States, to obstruct an official proceeding and to impede the peoples right to vote. Ever since the news broke, the former president , his allies and attorneys have been working furiously to smear jack smith and the department while minimizing or outright dismissing the charges even while simultaneously using them to raise money. Among the arguments, that trumps provebly false claims were protected by free speech. Here is his attorney john lara with Savannah Guthrie today. Its the first time a sitting president is attacking a political opponent on First Amendment grounds and basically making it criminal to state your position and ive got to give you a little time out on that one. Weve never seen it before. The indictment specifically says the president has a First Amendment right to speech, even has a First Amendment right to lie, says it right here. This indictment is criminalizing conduct, not speech. No. Its criminalizing speech for this reason. What the president saw in the 2020 election is all these irregularities going on, affidavits, examples of when the rules were changed in the middle of the game. He had every right to comment on that. In a criminal case, what he would have to show is all that speech was not entitled to First Amendment protection. I want to bring in ken dilanian. Garrett haake is following the case from d. C. Carol lamb, a former federal prosecutor and Andrew Weissmann was a Senior Member of the mueller probe. Both carol and andrew are msnbc legal analysts. Ken, give us an example of what weve been able to glean from this indictment and how it sets the stage for tomorrows indictment. Reporter chris, in many ways its an incredibly detailed, thorough narrative. But in other ways its quite a narrowly focused legal case when you consider the scope of the conduct involved. Former President Trump is not charged with verks, inciting the riot or directly causing the violence. Jack smith and his team makes the point in the indictment that he exploited the violence while it was unfolding including by Calling Senators and members of congress and urging them to delay that certification of january 6th and did nothing to stop the violence. Its related to the violence but not directly alleging a nexus to the violence. That may be as a way of making sure this case gets to trial more quickly as was, perhaps, the decision not to charge any of the alleged coconspirators, six of them not named, but weve identified five. Ive been talking to lawyers today explaining what they think trumps legal defenses might be. In terms of the First Amendment issue, the First Amendment doesnt protect speech in the face of a criminal probe. That one will be tough. He may argue that he relied on advice of counsel. That may be more plausible. Andrew, it is clear when you read the indictment that jack smith anticipated this. Let me read more of what he wrote. Quote, the defendant had a right like every american to speak publicly about the election and even to claim falsely that there had been outcome determinative fraud during the election and that he had won. The defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the Election Results. Theyre using it, and probably very successfully with republicans, andrew, in the court of public opinion. But in court what happens here when youre talking about First Amendment rights . I think youll see the defense try to make certain claims. I do agree with ken that the First Amendment claim here seems exceedingly weak. If donald trump wanted to simply say, i won the election and i think the electoral votes should be counted and thats all he did, he just said that, even though he knew the government could prove it was false, thats not whats alleged and thats not the crime. It is that he took action based on that. The details here are quite stunning including making numerous false statements and even threatening the Secretary Of State in georgia with potential criminal prosecution if he didnt go along with the scheme. Its quite detailed and theres no First Amendment protection for that, anymore than if you were to tell an agent of yours to kill somebody or to rob a bank. You have a right to say those words, but they have criminal implications because of the actions that you are undertaking or causing an agent to undertake. So i just didnt think the First Amendment is going to fly, and its not going to fly with a judge like judge chutkan. I think its hard to see that that will even be allowed to be presented to a jury because its really a form of jury nullification. It may be something thats rhetoric, as you say, for the public now, but i dont see that flying in a court of law. One of the things this does, this indictment, carol, in depth as you read it, its page after page after page of people telling donald trump, people who have been his supporters, people who worked for him, republicans who said they voted for him telling him, no, this isnt true. Having said that, here is what trump attorney alina hab ba had to say about whether or not trump knew he was telling the truth. Take a listen. The thing about a criminal level indictment and charge is you have to prove the intent, the mental state of the president at the time, which everybody that knows donald trump and has read his truth, he Still Believes the election was stolen and he has good cause to believe so. Carol, is his mental state the issue here . Well, the mental state of any criminal defendant is at issue. But to elaborate on andrews point, a lot has to do with exactly what defenses the judge took and is going to allow at the trial and what her Jury Instructions are going to be. When you talk about intent, theres a lot of precedent for an instruction that goes to the jury that says intent can be intentional disregard of the truth. If there was ever an example of intention disregard of the truth, its what is laid out in the indictment here with not only objective parties telling donald trump that he did not win the election, but also his own advisers, his own Department Of Justice, his own Attorney General telling him he did not win this election. The Jury Instructions will be important, but i believe they will track the prosecutors argument that this is not an innocent issue of First Amendment rights. Obviously theres the legal team, but then theres the Political Team and all the confluences that that causes. What are you hearing since the indictment came down . Reporter to the degree to which the legal and political defenses overlap, its on the free speech and politics questions where donald trump and hips allies are making an argument that comes down to, yay, he did all this stuff, so what . Its politics. He was going to use every lever available to him to legally try to kind of win the election which is what he thought he was doing at the time. What youre seeing right now is the Justice Department criminalizing politics. Ive seen that line repeated several times by capitol hill republicans and others in the maga kind of orbit here arguing this is, as the former president describes it, election interference, an effort by joe biden and the Justice Department to, a, sideline him and, b, bury negative hunter biden news that had been coming out over the preceding several days. I dont know how successful that line of reasoning will be with the broader electorate. Its very successful in convincing republican primary voters to stay with the former president and to open their wallets to him. Every time hes indicted and arraigned, he has a big fundraising week and the campaign is working hard behind the scenes making sure this week is the same, pumping out emails, Text Messages and other fundraising appeals on a regular basis. Garrett, thank you so much for that. Lets talk about the timing, andrew. Jack smith says theyre going to seek a speedy trial. I want to play what john mara had to say this something about that . The Justice Department has had three years to investigate this, to take President Trump to trial in 90 days is absurd. The question is, why do they want to do that . If you want to seek e justice, you need to get ahold of all the evidence and understand what the facts are. How do you see this playing out, andrew . What decisions go into the speed with which this happens, and do you think its likely this trial happens before the election . I do think its important for people to even if you disagree with the overarching point of john lauro, that the defense is entitled to time to prepare. Its entitled to get the discovery, go through it, make motions and prepare an adequate defense. That is what it means to be a nation of laws. It doesnt matter if its somebody who you dislike, somebody you support. It doesnt matter who the defendant is. That being said, its important to note that this defendant has also had three years to prepare. This is not a charge taking him by surprise. He watched tch january 6th committee. Hes had access to all the evidence when january 6th ended its investigation and made that public. Hes not in a situation where this is all coming to him on the day that he was indicted. I do think the other thing to note is the judge here is highly respected, very experienced and was a public defender, a Defense Lawyer and is going to make sure that he has adequate time to prepare. Under the law, that speedy trial is presumed to be in 70 days. Most trials dont start within 70 days and i dont think this one will, but i do think it is entirely realistic to have this case before the General Election which, after all, is well over a year from now. I guess in some ways we saw that jack smith, carol, wanted to simplify this because there are six unnamed coconspirators, but they are not charged as conspirators here, although he says theyre continuing their investigations. Do you think that was a hard decision at all for jack smith and his team . I do think it was a hard decision, chris. There was probably no bigger surprise to me than the fact that this was essentially a conspiracy case being charged and yet there was only one defendant charged in the indictment. Thats very unusual. Prosecutors typically dont like to charge a conspiracy and have only one defendant in the courtroom because it naturally leads to the question, well, where are all the other conspirators you say were involved in this conspiracy . Its what we call the empty chair problem. I think it was a deliberate decision here, because if you look at the clock, jack smiths team is in a race against the clock. Theres no other way to say it. Hes got a defendant who is looking at probably six trials, four criminal, two civil, within the next year and a half. Thats an enormous number of trials, each separated by about two months. If jack smith were in a situation where he had six or seven defendants in front of him, five of whom are lawyers and all the various motions he would have to deal with before the trial, that would take a very, very long time. I think it was a wellconsidered decision and probably some of these coconspirators are going to end up testifying, whether under immunity or because theyre cooperaing willingly. Carol, i want to ask you about news that broke in the last half hour or so. We just learned jack smith is asking for a hearing in a potential Conflict Of Interest in the classified documents case involving walt nautas attorney, stanley woodward. Help our viewers understand which this is important. Its very important. It gives a little more insight as to whats going on on the defense side and what jack smiths team is dealing with with respect to whether they should make these motions which typically do tend to slow the Proceedings A Little Bit because, if they prevail or if the judge decides that, in fact, there is a Conflict Of Interest, one attorney representing a defendant and possible witnesses for the government in a trial, if the judge determines thats a Conflict Of Interest, hell have to take himself off of one or more of the cases and hopefully go get new attorneys. Thats a tradeoff jack smiths team has to make because the concern here is that the same attorney, stanley woodward, who is representing mr. Nauta who is a defendant in the maralago case is also representing witnesses one and two who are Government Witnesses who the government intends to call at trial, and he has in the past also represented mr. Tavares who is a cooperating witness for the government and was party to that very important discussion where one of the defendants said to him, the boss wants to destroy the surveillance tapes. The bottom line is mr. Woodward cannot be in a position where he is using information that he knows because of his attorneyclient relationship, he cannot use that information to cross examine his own client. That is a pure Conflict Of Interest and the judge is going to have to decide what to do about it. Were out of time, andrew. I want to let you weigh in briefly here. Do you think theres a clear conflict potentially here . I think it is potentially waivable. Somebody else could come in and do cross examination. I think it raises the issue that mr. Woodward looks really bad here when he was told by the government months ago about this potential conflict, he did not stop representing a cooperating witness who had information about another client. Thats really poor form, and that should not have occurred if these allegations are correct. And its a problem when you have multiple representations and one of those people wants to cooperate. They need to have separate counsel. You dont represent all of them. Thats not what youre supposed to do. Ken dilanian, thank you. Coming up, subverting Election Results in states won by joe biden. The deep details on seven states that the indictment says trump hoped to win and help him overturn the election. Thats in 60 seconds. Lection. Thats in 60 seconds a striking part of this third indictment against the former president of the United States focuses on seven battleground states. You can see them all here. Arizona, georgia, michigan, nevada, new mexico, pennsylvania and wisconsin. All of them won by joe biden in 2020. But former President Donald Trump attempted to, according to the indictment, subvert the legitimate Election Results and change electoral votes in order to cling on to power and the white house. I want to bring back Andrew Weissmann. Seven key states, seven different strategies, Disproven Claims of vote dumps in michigan, phantom Absentee Ballots in pennsylvania, voter fraud in arizona, and then, of course, the pressuring and threatening of officials in georgia. Help us get these claims into context here, in the context of the charges against the president , the former president of the United States. One of the schemes thats alleged is this Pressure Campaign with respect to the states that you mention. There are various forms that it takes. There are various alleged lies that are laid out. Quite notably, chris, a number of the conspirators, their roles are really detailed here with respect to what they did in different states. For instance, in arizona, it seems very hard to imagine there wouldnt be State Investigations based on these allegations. So a whole variety of different schemes and obviously the one we know the most about is georgia because of the fact that Brad Raffensperger has a taperecording of the president s comments, not just asking him to find one more vote that is needed to win, but also when raffensperger refuses and says, theres no fraud here, the president lets just say he politely but not very subtly suggests he could be subject to criminal prosecution if he doesnt go along with the scheme. So quite an array of charges with respect to this aspect of the scheme. There are other aspects related to the Department Of Justice and to mike pence as well laid out in the indictment. Pretty clearly suggests that raffensperger has the wrong person in terms of who committed a crime here. I want to ask about the Michigan House speaker because he pushed back consistently about the repeated claims of voter fraud in his state. He said, quote, i fought hard for President Trump. Nobody wanted him to win more than me. I cant fathom risking our norms, traditions and institutions to pass a resolution retroactively changing the electors for trump. Thats unprecedented for a good reason. To a jury, how beneficial is it to hear statements like this from, in fact, Many Republican officials who supported the former president in the election, wanted him to continue leading the country but in the end said, you didnt win. The fact that this case, just like the january 6th Committee Hearings is made through trump loyalists makes it that much stronger. It avoids the issue of saying this is just cooked up by a bunch of democrats who want to see a certain political outcome. This case is made from, as people have said, inside the house, people who were loyal to donald trump but not more loyal to donald trump than the constitution of the United States. And the quote that you gave is just one, as you note, chris, of many people who stood up and acted out of principle. For a jury which is going to be tethered to the facts and the law, i dont think this is much of an issue. I think that the issue here is for the American People, how much they are going to be tethered to the facts and the law in judging what happened as opposed to closing their eyes to what should not be a political issue. This should be an issue that is fundamental to democracy. This is really a trial i think of the American People and the public more than a trial of donald trump in the criminal courtroom where the facts and the law i think are going to be quite clear to a jury. Andrew weissmann, thank you so much. The front page of todays New York Times cements the moment in history. Peter baker writes not since the framers emerged from Independence Hall on that cool and clear day 236 years ago has any president been voted out of office and then accused of plotting to hold on to power in an elaborate scheme of deception and intimidation that would lead to violence in the halls of congress. At the core of the United States of america versus donald j. Trump is no less than the viability of that system. Peter, let me pick up on what you were writing an frankly, what we just heard from andrew here. Whats at stake here . Donald trump has been accused of so many things, so many times, on so many levels that weve kind of lost sight of what this point is all about. We merge them all in our minds. All the other things including the other indictments, hush money and classified documents, as important as they are, they all seem kind of small compared to what were talking about here which is literally the viability of ap democratic system in which we have a peaceful transfer of power between a president who has lost an election and a challenger who has beaten him. This is something we have never seen before in our history, a sitting president trying to manipulate the system and spread lies in order to hold on to power. Think about that. We put that too often to the side. The idea here, the goal here was to hold on to power that the voters had decided they didnt want him to have. Thats why this case is so important. In fact, its a stress test of our system weve had for the last 200 and some years. The numbers can be in dispute because you have people on both sides who are very clear on where they stand on this issue already, but there are people who, unlike us and unlike our viewers, arent hanging on to every word, arent reading the front page of the newspaper every day but will vote in the election. How important do you think it is for this to play out before the election of 2024 and really allow people to in some ways be their own jurors in whether or not donald trump deserves another term assuming, as it looks now, that he ends up being the nominee . Its hard to to imagine voters determining who should be the next president if the trial hasnt happened. The trump team will do what it can to delay, as long as it can. Thats been the traditional strategy. This is about as important as it gets in terms of judging who we think ought to be holding the ultimate power of the oval office. Whether or not a president is guilty of crimes, three conspiracies and an obstruction charge, what jack smith refers to as the biggest fraud on the American People certainly in generations if not ever. Its hard to imagine they wouldnt have some verdict to judge before they go to the polls. Well see. That year and a half until the election, anything can happen obviously. I fusomely recommend the article. Peter baker, thank you for being on the program. Still ahead, presiding over a case like no other. What the u. S. District judge assigned to this case could mean for a potential trial. Next, the differences in how republicans on the trail and on capitol hill are reacting to trumps third indictment. Youre watching Chris Jansing reports only on msnbc. Youre watching Chris Jansing reports only on msnbc is this your plan to wat ch the game today . hero fan uh, yea. I have to watch my neighbors Nfl Sunday Ticket. josh allen its not your best plan. But you know what is . Myplan from verizon. Switch now and theyll give you Nfl Sunday Ticket from youtubetv, on them. hero fan this plan is amazing josh allen another amazing plan, backing away from here very slowly. fan 1 that was josh allen. fan 2 mmhm. vo for a limited time get Nfl Sunday Ticket from youtubetv on us. A 449 value. Plus, get a free Samsung Galaxy s23. Only on verizon. [sneeze] astepro allergy, steroid free allergy relief that starts working in 30 minutes, while other Allergy Sprays take hours. With astepros unbeatably fast allergy relief you can astepro and go let Innovation Refunds help with your erc tax refund so you can improve your business however you see fit. Rosie used part of her refund to build an outdoor patio. Clink dr. Marshall used part of his refund to give his practice a facelift. Emily used part of her refund to buy. I run a wax museum. Let Innovation Refunds help you get started on your erc tax refund. Stop waiting. Go to innovationrefunds. Com you really got the brows. Still living with odors . Get back in there and freshen instantly with new febreze air mist. Febrezes new, finer mist floats longer in the air to fight even your toughest odors. So long stinky smells and hello amazing freshness. Discover the new febreze scents today a watershed moment for republicans. Thats How Punchbowl News is describing the latest donald Trump Indictment, especially for republicans on capitol hill. The former president within minutes starting an onslaught of fundraising emails, one of thchl telling his supporters, quote, reports indicate i could face a combined 561 years in prison for the lefts witch hunts, six lifetimes. At least one opponent turning that statement into an opportunity of his own. Youre not focused on the future of the country, youre worried about not dieing in prison. Hes 78 years old. If any one of these counts hes found guilty, hes going to be in prison for the rest of his life. Thats what hes focused on, and thats not acceptable. Thats not what the American Public deserves. Compare that to speaker kevin mccarthy, again, focusing on hunter biden and claiming the Trump Indictment is the dojs attempt to distract from that case and attack the frontrunner in the republican nomination, donald trump. Matthew dowd is the former Chief Strategist for bush chain nay 2004. Symone Sanders Townsend is a chief spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris and host of msnbcs simone. Great to see you both. In calling it a watershed, matthew, punchbowl argues this, trumps upcoming trial will be as much about the gops future and who controls it as it is about the former president and his efforts to return to the white house. Do you agree with that statement . Whats the impact here . How much is riding on this for republicans in general . I think it all depends on the you give republicans truth serum. If you give the republicans truth serum, they dont want to be talking about donald trump for the next year and a half. It looks like because of the trials and because of these indictments theyre going to be. We have learned from various elections, 2018, 2020, 2022, if voters are listening and hearing about donald trump, its no the detriment of the Republican Party. So the Republican Party has really got themselves in a box here. You would think they would want to separate themselves from donald trump, but the problem is donald trump wont let them and they dont seem to want to. Thats a very bad place to be going into an election. Meanwhile symone, President Biden is stating hes staying out of it. Counts 41 through 44, the president and first lady went to see oppenheimer. I think theres likely no political gain for joe biden to comment. Chris, i think this is such an important question. We often talk a lot about the president ial race. Theres so many other folks on the ballot. Resingle member of the house is up. There are Key Senate Seats that are up. There are very vulnerable House Members and very vulnerable, i would argue, democratic senators. I think its important they tow the line and make sure they reassert this is about the rule of law and they refer back to the words that are contained within the indictment because as i believe Andrew Weissmann say a moment ago on your program. What is so remarkable about what he saw in this indictment yesterday, is that these are Donald Trumps own people. These are not democrats or folks who were not supportive of his efforts or people who were determined to tear him down detailed in this indictment. This is the contemporaneous notes of his own Vice President , the actions of his own lawyers. Staff and people who work for him, republicans across the country who supported his efforts and said no, im not going to violate the constitution or the will of the people. I want to remind everyone, matthew, that after the second impeachment trial, Minority Leader Mitch Mcconnell justified his vote to acquit trump by saying the expresident could still be held accountable by the courts. Here it is. We have a criminal Justice System in this country. We have civil litigation, and former president s are not immune from being accountable by either one. He said trump didnt get away with anything yet. But i wonder how much of the country, and im talking about republicans in particular, will look at this jury, look at these prosecutors and believe that whatever comes out of it is the truth. Thats the problem because the Information Sources going into many of the republican households in this country arent telling the voters the truth, as we saw in the fox lawsuit and all the stuff related to the Election Denialism and all that stuff, they received information that is counter to what the facts are. My guess is, if we looked ahead to the election, 94 or 93 of most republican households are going to vote for donald trump if hes the nominee against joe biden. Its mainly because their sources are information are not factbased, and they seem to all whether its fox news or all the other different platforms that are on there, toe the line of donald trump in the course of this. You would think at some point the republicans like Mitch Mcconnell did that for a brief moment, told the truth and said president s can be held accountable and thats why were not going to impeach him. My guess is, if Mitch Mcconnell, if you asked him in the quiet of his office, he wants donald trump to go away. If the only way hed go away is him being sent to prison, he would be okay with that. He wont say it out loud. Anyone who cares about American Democracy wants donald trump removed from the process. Symone, the indictment itself just as mathew said, these other sources of information. If it means that joe biden is probably going to face an Impeachment Inquiry at some point during the next year, in essence the way they talked about hunter biden, the kind of counterprogramming. Chris, i find this talk about impeachment very interesting because, just as i detailed, there are very vulnerable members who are democrats within the House Of Representatives who have to defend their seats next cycle. There are some extremely vulnerable republicans, particularly republicans who sit in seats in districts, if you will, that President Biden won overwhelmingly in the 2020 election. So those folks, im talking about your don bakins, democratic pat ryan, new york 19 which was a bellwether. Folks like don bacon, they got to go home and justify a vote to impeach the president of the United States. This is serious stuff. I think thats why you saw kargt saying one thing in the press last week about this, speaker mccarthy, and then another thing in the caucus meeting. This is very serious. I think youre going to see the talk of impeachment. Youre going to see the talk of Holding Biden and officials accountable for what they have done. Youre going to hear a lot of talk like that from republicans within the house because that conversation youre going to see sham investigations from these republicanled committees because that is designed to potentially muddy the waters and set up the oxygen and turn an eye for what are very serious concerns of donald trump and, frankly, members from within the United States House Of Representatives who did aid and abet in some of these efforts. Symone Sanders Townsend, you guys are the best. Coming up, hoping for justice accountability. How the Capitol Police officers who defended the building on january 6th are reacting to Donald Trumps indictment. Youre watching Chris Jansing reports only on msnbc. Ching cg reports only on msnbc the January 6th Insurrection was a life changing moment for the Police Officers who vowed to defend the capitol at all costs during that constitutionally critically day and every day. Special counsel jack smith has a message for those officers, many of whom still bare the scars, physical and emotional, of the violence on january 6th. The men and women of Law Enforcement who defended the u. S. Capitol on january 6th are heroes. They are patriots and they are the very best of us. They did not just defend a building and the people sheltering in it. They put their lives on the line to defend who they are as a country and as a people. They defended the very institutions and principles that define the United States. Nbcs Julie Tsirkin is following reaction from former and current Capitol Police. What are they telling you, julie . Reporter im so glad youre taking a moment to talk about these people. Ive been talking to officers, both current and former since this indictment came down yesterday. Theyve been watching it very closely. Five officers has lost their lives as a result of january 6th, but many more of them still brought not only the physical scars of what happened that day but having to relive that moment over and over again when you looked at the january 6th committee and the work they did. A lot of these officers were sitting in the front seat during that hearing. Some of them im talking to are trying to go tomorrow to the arraignment of the former president themself, continuing to want to be a part of this process. I want to read some reaction weve seen from some current and former officers who have taken to twitter. We heard from Winston Pin John who said, quote, i want justice for what my fellow officers and i endured while defending democracy on january 6th, one step closer. We heard from Capitol Police officer harry dunn who said 937 days and counting, a reference to 937 days from January 6th 2021 when he and the lives of his fellow Service Members changed essentially forever. We heard from former Metro Police Department officers, the d. C. Officers who assisted Capitol Police officers, officer Michael Fanone saying donald trump spent his entire lifetime fing around and hes about to find out. Id like to think in some small way i played a part in all of this. We also heard last hour from officer daniel hodges, an officer for mpd. He talked to our colleague Andrea Mitchell and explained what it would be like to have to attend the trial of the former president when it comes to this indictment. Mind you, hodges was crushed between a stolen Police Shield and the frame of one of the doors in the capitol building. He testified against the rioter who did just that. Watch this. It never really goes away. There hasnt really been a day thats gone by where i havent thought about it. Partially because i Pay Attention to the news and how its continuing to impact the current events, and partially just how burned in my memory it is. So the trial is definitely going to bring some of that up for people, but its necessary. Reporter so its necessary, and thats the comment ive been getting from officers ive been talking to, including one who was a former Capitol Police officers who told me minutes before i came on with you, chris, hes really seriously considering trying to go tomorrow to try to be at the front and center of the story. Julie tsirkin, thank you for that. Donald trump will face a judge well versed in these kinds of issues and who has a track record with january 6th defendants. The clues that could provide on the direction this trial might take. Plus, the coconspirators one through six, theyre otherwise unnamed in the indictment. Well unravel the details that could tell us the names behind those numbers. Youre watching Chris Jansing reports only on msnbc. Have fun, sis cant stop adding stuff to your cart . Get the Bank Of America customized cash rewards card, choose the Online Shopping category and earn 3 cash back. We all need fiber for our digestive health, but less than 10 of us get enough each day. Good thing Metamucil Gummies are an easy way to get prebiotic, plantbased fiber. With the same amount of fiber as 2 cups of broccoli. Metamucil gummies the easy way to get your daily fiber. upbeat music awww. Awww. Awww. Nope. Constant Contact delivers the Marketing Tools your Small Business needs to keep up, excel, and grow. Constant contact. Helping the small stand tall. I have Type 2 Diabetes, but i manage it well. Its a little pill with a big story to tell. I take oncedaily jardiance, at each days staaart. As time went on it was easy to seee im lowering my a1c. Jardiance works 24 7 in your body to flush out some sugar and for adults with Type 2 Diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. Jardiance may cause serious side effects including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and Genital Yeast or urinary tract infections. A rare, lifethreatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. Stop taking jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection, ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction, and dont take it if youre on dialysis. Taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Jardiance is really swell, the little pill with a big story to tell. The judge who has been assi President Donald Trumps trial on charges of trying to subvert democracy has a history with him and a track record of cracking down on captain tour riot. District judge Tanya Chutkan was one of the first to reject trumps attempts to hold information about january 6th. Writing president s are not kings. Shes also been one of the toughest across the board against those convicted on the attack on the capitol. Sentencing every single january 6 defendant who has come before her to prison time, sometimes even beyond the recommendations. Im joined by nbc analyst carol bland, a former prosecutor and a former judge. Ryan, you have followed these cases more closely than anyone. Tell us more about chutkans past rulings. Reporter you know, she really did stand out amongst the judges especially in the very early days that she was getting a lot of these. Because she made strong pronunciations about these. Le her history is the background of a federal public defender. What she did in those defendants that she represented in those cases was a lot of privileged attitudes that we heard coming from the january 6 defendants who thought they could commit this crime and sort of not get much punishment. And even when the Justice Department in several cases had recommended a period of Home Incarceration or something short of incarceration, she said, no, that a period of incarceration was important here, albeit a short one, just to really send home the message because of what happened on january 6, being so seriously, deadly serious, and making sure that message got home to these defendants. Its important to note, carol, that donald trump is not charged with acts of violence so did chutkans record on rioters provide any clues about this upcoming trial and how shes going to handle it . Well, chris, when i think about how this trial is going to happen, getting it under way and getting it completed, im actually more ruthed about a judges ability to manage a courtroom. On the trial level, shes a trial judge, a Federal District trial judge. Shes not an Appellate Court judge. Its all about court of management. You have a lot of parties and constituents whom you have to manage in the courtroom. So, when we talk about how she has sentence in the past, thats pretty far down the line, i think her challenge initially is going to be getting this trial under way and having it completed within a confined period of time. But i think that she is not the finder of fact. That responsibility lies with the jury. However, the fact that she is, apparently, fairly law and order, could be reflected in how she rules on motions brought by both parties. I think shes less likely to indulge, perhaps, the defenses ful the defense tries to bring frivolous defenses. She might crack down on that because, again, shes a defense attorney. And shes seen a lot of meritorious things and probably a not of nonsense on that side. And i think shes going to stick pretty close to the straight and narrow to get the case done. Theres no doubt that this case is going to be watched. Some people are already comparinging to o. J. Simpson, which that broke all when it was he televised. She said she had to grow a thick skin. Last year, you talk to the chicago tribune, about you got used to assumptions about you as a woman of color every time you walked into a conference room. As she walks into the courtroom, how does that complicates . Does it . And, frankly, do you worry for her safety . I think these days, unfortunately, chris, any judge in a highprofile case, whether is it has political overtones or not has to be somewhat worried about their safety. It really wasnt that much of a concern when i was a federal prosecutor unless i was prosecutinged a mob case or highprofile case. But these cases, social media, unfortunately, its just out there. Now, with respect to being a woman and with respect to being a woman of color, she seems to have a she seems to be pretty comfortable with that. Her head is in the right place about it, shes got a position of authority in power, and i think shes going to be just fine. Carol lamb. Ryan reilly, great to have you both on the program, thank you. How voters are reacting in a key swing state, one where trump was accused of trying to overthrow its results. And youre watching Chris Jansing reports only on msnbc. josh allen its not your best plan. But you know what is . Myplan from verizon. Switch now and theyll give you Nfl Sunday Ticket from youtubetv, on them. hero fan this plan is amazing josh allen another amazing plan, backing away from here very slowly. fan 1 that was josh allen. fan 2 mmhm. vo for a limited time get Nfl Sunday Ticket from youtubetv on us. A 449 value. Plus, get a free Samsung Galaxy s23. Only on verizon. My a1c was up here; now, its down with rybelsus®. His a1c . Its down with rybelsus®. My doctor told me rybelsus® lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill and that people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. I got to my a1c goal and lost some weight too. Rybelsus® isnt for people with type 1 diabetes. Dont take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple Endocrine Neoplasia Syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. Stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. Serious side effects may include pancreatitis. Gallbladder problems may occur. Tell your provider about Vision Problems or changes. Taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. Side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. Need to get your a1c down . You may pay as little as 10 per prescription. My active Psoriatic Arthritis can make me feel like im losing my rhythm. With skyrizi to treat my skin and joints, im getting into my groove. uplifting music along with significantly clearer skin. Skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. And is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. Skyrizi attaches to and reduces a source of excess inflammation that can lead to skin and joint symptoms. With skyrizi 90 clearer skin and less joint pain are possible. Serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. Thanks to skyrizi, theres nothing like clearer skin and better movement. And that means everything. Nothing is everything nows the time to ask your doctor about skyrizi. Learn how abbvie could help you save. Every Business Time to ask your doctor about skyrizi. Thats why Comcast Business De is launching theal. Mobile made free event. With our business internet, new and existing customers can get one year of unlimited mobile for free. Its our best internet. Powered by The Next Generation 10g network and with 99. 9 reliability. Plus one line of free mobile for an entire year. Its the mobile made free eventhappening now. Get started for just 49. 99 a month. Plus, ask how to get one free line of unlimited mobile. Comcast business, powering possibilities. Sleepovers just arent what they used to be. A house full of screens . Basically no hiccups . You guys have no idea how good youve got it. How old are you . Like, 80 . Back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. We dont get scared. Oh, really . Mom can see your search history. Thats what i thought. Introducing The Next Generation 10g network. Only from xfinity. This new donald Trump Indictment comes 166 days from the republican primary kick off with the iowa caucuses. So will it affect how voters pick their candidate . Nbcs Steve Patterson is talking with voters in henderson, nevada, one of the states named in the indictment. Steve, what are you hearing . Reporter yeah, i think nevada is incredibly important to the story. One of the fake elector states. The minute the Trump Administration called the state to have people certify falsely for donald trump, the calculus changed for voters here. This changed from a National Story to something of a local story. Its been in the news ad nauseam since then. Also, this is an early voting state. You have Campaign Votes and tv ads. Donald trump was here not too long ago right here in clark county. We wanted to speak to voters to see how they feel. I spoke to trump voters, i spoke to undecideds. And all of them say, yes, this has an influence. Heres one woman who said the calculus changed january 6th. Listen to this. I think i might have voted for him if that wouldnt have happened . Caller really. It may be, that january 6 situation, it was it was the Tipping Point for me. He can be bought and he can be sold. Everybody has to pay no matter who they are. If they do something wrong, you got to pay. Dont do the crime if you didnt do the time. Im sorry, isnt that what america is about . Were trying to get back to the right america. And thats what we need. Reporter and i did speak to trump voters more staunchly in his camp, no matter what, theyre thinking, thinking about voting him. Everybody is deciding what to do next after the bombshell yesterday. Back to you. Steve, thank you so much. Weve got a lot to cover in our second hour of Chris Jansing reports. Lets get right to it