to live through it, and there could very well be a suicide note posted online, at their home, that they sent to somebody else, in their pocket, you know, who knows. so if you can stay around, and cedric as well. i want toce get back to what ju happened in that courtroom and bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin, and msnbc contributor, and new york times investigative correspondent sue craig. both inside to watch the proceedings. let me ask you first, and obviously were you aware inside of what was happening outside? right at the end, chris, we became aware. so there was a little bit in the overflow courtroom that we had, in fact, picked a jury of six jurors and six alternates. there started to be murmuring that there wassome who outside the courthouse has essentially self-emulated. i was sent video from one of our
in the indictment. and he also sort of opined on what it was like to have this job as the white house chief of staff saying that it was difficult to put it bluntly, that there was no way to really prepare for this kind of job and also pointing out that playing gatekeeper in the trump white house can be a difficult position to be in. certainly. how closely is team trump watching this hearing? well, they are certainly paying close attention to it. one of trump s attorneys in georgia was spotted i believe in an overflow courtroom or a team that was at court. and look, they have good reason to pay attention to this case. donald trump is expected to try to move the case to federal court, but he has not actually made that motion yet. and one of the questions as this mark meadows saga plays out, if the prosecutors will offer any kind of determination on whether they think that if mark meadows is successful here, does that mean that all of the other defendants in this case including donald
protected by the first amendment. everything my client said. yes, the first amendment protects words. words can also constitute crimes. when people enter into a conspiracy, guess what, they ordinarily use words to do it. they get together and agree to do it. once one co-conspiritor takes one step, an overt act, the crime of conspiracy is complete. so i was so disappointed because john lauro knows better when i was in court in the overflow courtroom on thursday and i heard him say the following, and i was furiously take being verbatim notes and we ve gotten a transcript. when he said he couldn t possibly propose a trial date as he was ordered by the court to do because there was going to be so much discovery provided by the prosecution, he said the following. he said, your honor, obviously in a case of this magnitude
to everything that happened in that room. i read the transcript and i have to say, john lauro delivered when i read to be the single best performance by a trump lawyer in the courtroom yet. no wiseguy comments about the prosecutions. no nasty sleazy remarks or slight here and there. just professional all the way through. we and then he goes on fox and throws the case away. but take us into the courtroom. yes, it s not that hard to be professional during an arraignment because generally nothing earth shattering happens. but i agree all parties performed well. but what i really enjoyed about watching, even though i was in the overflow courtroom, it was the specter of judge tanya chutkan hung over that proceeding. the proceeding was conducted by a magistrate judge.
and then yeah he goes on fox and throws the case away. but take us into the courtroom. yeah, lawrence, it s not that hard to be professional during an arraignment because generally nothing earth shattering happens. but i agree all parties performed well. but what i really enjoyed about watching, even though i was in the overflow courtroom, who is that the specter of judge tanya chutkan hung over that proceeding. the proceeding was conducted by a magistrate judge. which is not unusual magistrate judges often handle the relatively straightforward, low level, preliminary matters like an arraignment. but boy, when the magistrate judge said the prosecution will file a brief in seven days with their proposed trial date, and how long they believe their case in chief will last, and the defense will file up reply seven days thereafter with