the seat of american democracy. it's described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies. >> this hour, the charges, the co-conspirators and trump's arraignment tomorrow. plus, his defense as he compares his prosecution to nazi germany. and later, the reaction of his former vice president, including copious notes mike pence turned over to the special counsel. that's all ahead here on "ana cabrera reports." ♪♪ good morning, it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. and today the seat of our government prepares for the arraignment of the 45th president of the united states. donald trump called to appear at a district courthouse tomorrow in washington to face four federal counts, including three conspiracies to defraud this country and subvert americans' right to vote. special counsel jack smith's 45-page indictment details repeated and exhaustive efforts by trump to stay in power, a pressure campaign that involved attorneys and campaign operatives and lists six co-conspirators that prosecutors allege supported trump's efforts to overturn an election. we'll take you through all of this with ken dilanian at the doj. also with us, former assistant manhattan district attorney kathryn christian. former fbi assistant director, frank. lay out how this proceeds from here. what can we expect with this arraignment tomorrow? >> we got a great preview when donald trump was arraigned in miami. there's a lot of drama surrounding the buildup. but the proceeding is boring and trump says very little. he'll -- this will be a first appearance before a judge in this case and an arraignment, and he will be asked to answer for the charges, he'll be asked how he pleads and the charges will be presented to him. there may be some procedural issues discussed. this is a magistrate judge, not the actual judge in the case. those things like what trump can say about the case and who he can talk to, some of that may be reserved before his first appearance. nonetheless, high drama as we expect to see donald trump appear in this courthouse a few blocks from me tomorrow. >> the magistrate judge will oversee the arrangement. what do we know about the judge in charge of the case? >> she was appointed to the bench in 2013. she has an interesting background. she was born in jamaica. she spent time as a public defender in washington, d.c. she was also a corporate lawyer. interestingly, she's the only judge in d.c. who is actually sentenced january 6th defendants, the violent rioters convicted in those cases. beyond what prosecutors have asked for, stiffer sentences the prosecutors have asked for. and she ruled in an important case in 2021 against donald trump requiring that he had to turn over hundreds of documents to the committee investigating the january 6th riot. >> i know you've read through the indictment, like the rest of us, jack smith obviously paid attention to the details. he really paints a picture here. he lays bare all of his evidence. notes taken by former vice president pence, numerous accounts from people directly involved. this all culminating in four charges here. one obstruction charges, three conspiracy charges. why the three conspiracy charges? are they distinctly different? >> they are distinctly different, ana. i agree with you that this indictment is readable and worth reading, like the mar-a-lago indictment, it's clearly written to be read by the american public. and i think that the three charges are very different than conspiracies. the one that i find particularly interesting is the conspiracy to deprive people of their rights because i think that that one has enormous jury appeal in explaining why this prosecution is happening. why the alleged conduct was so harmful to our system of government. >> kathryn, let's listen to what trump's attorney had to say earlier this morning. >> this indictment is criminalizing conduct, not speech. >> it's criminalizing speech for this reason. what the president saw in the 2020 election was all of these irregularities going on. he had every right to comment on that and act politically. in a criminal case, they would have to show that all of that speech was not -- >> we're not talking about speech. it's very explicit. it says jack smith saw -- >> what do you make of this? >> say -- i saw him on a different network saying there's a smoking gun of innocence. what my client said was all protected speech. the false electors and all of those false certifications, i had nothing to do with it, and i was given advice and i think his lawyer referred to john eastman as an eminent legal scholar. he dropped his name a number of times. it's going to be -- he's throwing these co-conspirators under the bus. that's what donald trump is going to do. what i said, i own. but what was happening in those states -- and he didn't visit the state. it was co-conspirator number one, rudy giuliani, who was doing all of that. and then he'll say, they reported back to me and i tweeted it because i believe what they told me. >> yeah, i was actually really surprised, though, in the indictment to read that while it was rudy giuliani, co-conspirator one, it wasn't just him, trump was actually involved with guideline, other co-conspirators in communicating with different people throughout this scheme that's alleged in the indictment. and so when you take a look at everyone who told trump that his claims were just false, mike pence, senior leaders at the justice department, director of national intelligence, cisa, white house attorneys, senior staffers on trump's re-election campaign, state legislators, the courts, the list is extensive here. you also has the deputy white house counsel telling trump, quote, there's no option in which you do not leave the white house on january 20th. so this sort of willful ignorance that he believed his own lies, that he was being led astray by these other co-conspirators who are lawyers, is that a strong defense? >> clearly, the special counsel anticipated this line of defense, that he believed everything that he was saying and he believed he had won the election. and right at the top, as you say, it refutes that as a question of fact. i mean, it is a question of fact and it's going to have to be resolved. but there's a ton of evidence in here, as you've suggested, that says that his people told him all along and at every step of the way that his -- those beliefs that they were putting out there were false. and so i think it's going to be hard to sustain that line of defense. >> frank, trump was charged with conspiracy and obstruction. but jack smith stayed away from charging him directly with the violence on january 6th. are you surprised by that? >> at first initially, ana, i was disappointed in my first read through, and then i realized that the violence at the capitol is very much a part of this indictment. it's not set aside yet and charged separately, but the violence becomes a fulcrum to leverage the big lie into some kind of pressure against pence, into action against congress. it's in there throughout. what's really disturbing are the passages in the indictment that show us how cavalierly the co-conspirators and donald trump were treating the likelihood of violence. if you continue this attempt to defraud people and steal the vote, there's going to be violence in the street. yeah, that's why we have an insurrection act. they seem prepared to invoke the insurrection act which means putting military troops on the streets, calling out a militia, all of that they were perfectly fine with. the violence is in there. >> so why wasn't trump charged then with the insurrection? why do you think that is? >> so we've heard already the mantra of, hey, this is free speech, free speech. if you start getting into the speech the morning of january 6th and you get into parsing, you know, commas and comments and who incited violence and was this inferred or implied by the crowd or not, you start a protracted process of battling the free speech issue. i think masterfully smith has stayed away from that battle and said, look, this was the result of what you did. it was part of your big lie, part of your defrauding the united states people. >> he incorporates the gravity of it to really encompass the totality of what he is alleges here. and then, ken, there are six unnamed co-conspirators. what do we know about them? and why unnamed and uncharged? >> we can only theorize, it appears that he brought a streamline case against only donald trump in an effort to try to get this thing to trial before the election. because he knows that if donald trump wins the election, this case could go away. and so that doesn't mean these people won't be charged. we're talking about rudy giuliani who has already lost his law license over making bogus claims of fraud in court. we're talking about john eastman who advised president trump on the false elector scheme, and jeffrey clark who had a plan to use the justice department to declare fraud which perhaps was one of the most dangerous aspects of this whole part. kenneth chesebro is reported to be the father of the fake elector scheme. these are allegations, of course, but they are not charged. that doesn't mean they won't be charged at a later date. >> so many more questions that we're going to continue to discuss throughout the hour. thanks to all of you. kathryn, stay close. you're back with me in a few minutes. new details from this indictment about how trump and his co-conspirators tried to undermine the 2020 election in seven different states. we're live in one of them where another case looms. plus, could the indictment cost trump support in the 2024 primary? steve kornacki joins me. and we'll talk to an historian about why this indictment might stand out. ndictment might stand out. game today? (hero fan) uh, yea. i have to watch my neighbors' nfl sunday ticket. (josh allen) it's not your best plan. but you know what is? myplan from verizon. switch now and they'll 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. the indictment of donald trump details a targeted campaign to organize a fraudulent slate of electors in seven states, arizona, georgia, michigan, nevada, new mexico, pennsylvania and wisconsin. now according to the indictment, the electors were tasked with mimics the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow under the constitution and other federal and state laws. blayne alexander is in one of those states, georgia. and joining us matthew sanderson. blayne, you're there in georgia where trump insinuated election fraud. he pressured election officials. there is a separate investigation under way there which we've been discussing. talk about just a collision of these probes in that state. >> reporter: well, the first thing i think that is stunning is the timing. we saw this indictment from jack smith yesterday and we're expecting any day now charging decisions to be announced in the investigation here in fulton county by the d.a. she's been adamant that her investigation is independent of anything else that's going on. she says whatever happens elsewhere, doesn't have any bearing on fulton county. but what's stunning about what we read is that could potentially provide a rather interesting foreshadowing or blueprint of what we could possibly see in an indictment here. that's because a number of the allegations that were laid out in that indictment are things that we know that willis is investigating in georgia. chief among them is that infamous phone call from donald trump to brad raffensperger. i'll read a section of it for you. basically stating the fact that four days before the certification proceeding, the defendant called georgia's secretary of state. during the call, the defendant lied to the secretary of state to induce him to alter georgia's popular vote, essentially telling him to find enough votes in order to overturn joe biden's victory here in georgia. now, that is what launched this entire investigation here in fulton county. that's what really set all of this into motion. but that's not the only thing. we also saw laid out in the indictment yesterday state farm arena video. we talked about the false statements that were made before georgia lawmakers. a number of things that is being investigated here. while they're independent, certainly the facts that the things showed up in the federal indictment can only bolster the case before a grand jury. >> matt, we got details out of georgia, but we're talking seven different states here. let's break down the ways in which trump and his co-conspirators are accused of creating this scream. cast fraudulent votes and sign certificates falsely representing that they were legitimate electors. matt, as you read through this indictment as it relates to this fake elector scheme, what stands out most to you? >> well, i think what jack smith is trying to do is anticipate the defense that this is mere -- that this is protected first amendment free speech. what he's doing is laying out the case where donald trump directly intervened to do more than engage in political speech and protests. what he's trying to do is say this is the president of the united states using his office to browbeat brad raffensperger to find 11,780 votes. this is the president of the united states calling michigan legislators into the oval office to pressure them to pass a resolution, this is the president of the united states using his office to overturn the vote results that voters cast and they were being counted in the normal course of the law. >> we're talking about the president of the united states. at least he was during all of this going on. and yet it was all of these people who would be below that top position who were the ones doing the right thing here, the indictment details many specific false claims from thousands of dead voters or noncitizens casting ballots, to a suspicious vote dump, to thousands of double votes, on and on and on, all claims that officials, campaign managers, advisers told trump were false. republicans got involved, georgia, nevada's secretary of state, arizona speaker of the house among those who disputed trump's claims to him. talk about the role of these state and lower level election officials had here in preserving the integrity of the american election system? >> we're very fortunate that people like the arizona speaker of the house did not and declined the invitation to take action, to call the legislature together to overturn the vote of arizonians. we're very fortunate that all of these state legislators and state officials acted according to their oath and didn't take the -- when they had every political reason to do otherwise, didn't take the invitation to overturn the election. now, it's an interesting -- it's interesting that the indictment lays this out in such detail, but that's on purpose because one of the defenses here by donald trump and his council will be that he ernestly believed that what he was doing was correct. but at every turn, every supporter at the state and local and federal level told him otherwise. and so when is it reasonable to continue to believe a lie when 60-plus courts say that there's no evidence. and they are still apparently going to relitigate, according to his counsel, every issue in the 2020 election for the jury. i think that's an interesting strategy given how little evidence there is that there was any fraud in the 2020 election. >> matthew, i appreciate your expertise. thank you very much for joining us. up next on "ana cabrera reports," new reaction out of trump world to this indictment. a window into one potential strategy. plus, new insight into the pressure campaign on former vp mike pence before january 6th, including a moment where donald trump said pence was, quote, too honest. and there he is. chaz. the rec league's self-crowned pickleball king. do you just bow down? no you de-thrown the king. pedialyte. 3x the electrolytes. why didn't we do this last year? before you were preventing migraine with qulipta®? remember the pain? cancelled plans? the worry? that was then. and look at me now. you'll never truly forget migraine. but qulipta® reduces attacks, making zero-migraine days possible. it's the only pill of its kind that blocks cgrp - and is approved to prevent migraine of any frequency. to help give you that forget-you-get migraine feeling. don't take if allergic to qulipta®. most common side effects are nausea, constipation, and sleepiness. learn how abbvie could help you save. qulipta®. the forget-you-get migraine medicine™. ♪♪ a 45-page indictment for the 45th president. and as trump's legal and political advisers begin responding to his third criminal case, one key question they're asking, why rush? >> the biden justice department has had three years to investigate this, to take president trump to trial in 90 days, of course, is absurd. the question is, why do they want to do that? if you want to seek justice, then you need to offer president trump an opportunity to get ahold of all the evidence and understand what the facts are. >> joining us now, garrett haake and dasha burns and kathryn christian garrett. we saw trump's lawyer saying they need time, this shouldn't rush to trial. what else are we hearing from the former president and his team? >> he said the justice department has 2 1/2 years to investigate this so they should get 2 1/2 years to respond. the idea of delaying the trial is at the heart of the strategy. we've learned from interviews with lawyers that they're going to also make cases that the president's speech is being criminalized here, trying to argue that everything he said in the course of this -- laid out in this indictment is political speech that can't be gone after and he was relying on the advice of council and it's his lawyers basically who should feel the blame here, not him for what he was saying at the time. the political argument is much broader. it has to do with the idea that he's being specifically targeted because he is joe biden's top rival for the white house. that's the argument that we heard echoed from republican lawmakers yesterday, even some of his campaign rivals on the trail using similar language. the reality is, this is worked for donald trump at least in the short term. when you look at the online fund-raising they've been able to do matched up against the indictments and arraignments that he's faced already, he gets huge spikes in fund-raising when he appears in court and when he's able to drum up interest in this idea that he's being attacked for his electoral prowess around these indictments and arraignments. and i expect we're going to see a similar effort attempted this week. >> the message coming from trump that this indictment, investigation is election interference to hurt him in 2024. that may be his political argument. but does that argument hold up in a legal sphere, especially when it comes to the timing of the trial as they argue this all needs to happen after the election. >> well the special counsel is looking at the calendar. november 2024. it could be said that the public has a right to -- if he's the leading candidate for the republicans, to get this out the way. he's going to be acquitted or convicted. the reality is, all of these cases are not going to be tried. clearly not going to be tried simultaneously. >> there's an argument to be made that this should go faster not slower. >> and this one will probably, i predict, go first. there's no classified information. so you don't have those issues. there's one defendant, not seven, which is why you did not indict the co-conspirators. the manhattan d.a.'s case, he's said that it will be up to the judge, that he's going to step aside if the judge agrees. that case in march will probably not go. so the civil case -- i don't want to say they don't matter. but trump does not have to be there. really, this one could be tried in the spring and i know we have the mar-a-lago case. but it's the same special counsel. so he can decide, let's do this one first. >> same special counsel, different venues, different judges. there's a lot that has to be juggled around. let's talk about mike pence. the former vice president shows up a lot in this indictment. what is he saying now? >> he's all over these pages here, ana, and he responded last night saying it serves as an important reminder, anyone who puts himself over the constitution should never be president of the united states. of course, on the campaign trail, he's been very outspoken about january 6th, that the actions he took that day, that he stood up for the constitution in spite of the pressure from the former presiden and the pressure campaign from donald trump on mike pence is laid out very clearly here. and we now know from this indictment that the former vice president took contemporaneous notes and listed here are at least four conversations that he took notes on, including a conversation on december 25th when mike pence called the president to wish him a merry christmas. instead of talking about the holiday, the president quickly turned his attention to january 6th and requested that the vice president reject the electoral votes that day. another situation where the president called mike pence too honest when talking about this issue. so these notes and the vice president's recollection and his testimony here, could end up being critical. he, of course, is also a candidate, rival now to his former boss on the campaign trail. so this relationship, former allies now political rivals and now potentially a witness against his former boss as well. >> we have that graphic that was just so striking showing repeatedly these phone calls, these private meetings between pence and trump where trump keeps coming at him, asking him to do something that's illegal, that's unconstitutional. and mike pence keeps pushing back, culminating with the "you're too honest." >> and that's made clear over and over again that it's made clear to the former president and mike pence knows as well that these are -- this is illegal. it's not constitutional. that there is no valid reason for him to overturn the election. >> kathryn, how do you see mike pence fitting into the case moving forward, his testimony, his notes, even that quote from trump to pence that you're too honest. it seems to have implied that trump knew what was right. >> first of all, i don't think it's an overstatement to say that the president of the united states put his vice president's life in danger. on page 36 in paragraph 97 and 98, i find it chilling, the president tells mike pence, you know, i'm going to have to publicly criticize you. his chief of staff grows alarmed and alerts the secret service. and then the next paragraph, trump acknowledges, you know, tomorrow, meaning january 6th, the crowd is going to be angry. so he has a recognition that they're going to be angry. and then we know what happened on the day of january 6th. he tweets, you know, mike pence, you know, didn't do what's right for his country and then the secret service grabs mike pence and puts him way in a secure location. the narrative of the -- as dasha laid out, of trump specifically targeting mike pence through tweets, every time mike says, no, i can't do, is in many ways chilling. because you can see the intent. his intent clearly, obviously, they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, was to not just get the pressure -- to pressure mike pence to do what he wanted to do, but have the crowd go after mike pence. he'll say, clearly, i didn't want him killed. i was just, what, playing. page 33 to 38 is the narrative about how his life was put in danger. >> just very quickly, do you think we'll hear mike pence take the stand in a trial? >> he will. he clearly gave over his notes and this narrative came from him, probably his chief of staff and probably other people in the room. >> thank you, all. up next on "ana cabrera reports," you may be asking, could this be a tipping point for more of trump's 2024 rivals to finally go on the attack against the front-runner? so far the answer appears to be a big no. plus, the other two indictments haven't appeared to move the polling dial much with republican voters. will this one? republican voters. will this one? with bounce pet, you can cuddle and brush that hair off. bounce. it's the sheet. at pnc bank, you can find us in big cities and small towns across the us, where our focus is to always support the people who live and work there. because you call these communities home, and we do too. pnc bank. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools, like dynamic charting and risk-reward analysis help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. ♪♪ welcome back. we are watching to see how republican voters react to the latest indictment of former president donald trump. previous polls suggest, the base rallies behind him whenever he faces legal trouble. steve kornacki is here to help break it down for us. steve, it's been less than a day. we don't have new polling, per se, what are you watching for? >> as you say, the pattern has been pretty clear this year with previous indictments, with investigations, with pending indictments, the question is, will anything be different this time. the pattern is pretty clear. let's take a look at it, again. here's a poll from the "new york times" that came out just a few days ago that asked if donald trump had committed serious federal crimes. it's before this one. news of this potential indictment has been circulating for awhile and there's been all sorts of other indictments and investigations. among republican voters, more than seven in ten say, no, donald trump has not committed serious federal crimes. and we've consistently seen a big gap between where republicans are on this question and where all voters are. you see a small majority there, 51%. it is a majority. 51% of all voters say they believe the former president has committed serious federal crimes. ask it another way, this is from that "new york times" poll. they asked specifically about donald trump's actions after the 2020 election. that gets to what this new indictment is about. was donald trump exercising the right to contest the election? three quarters of republicans say yes. did he threaten american democracy? a majority of all voters, 53%, say yes. the former president's actions threaten democracy. just a huge break there between where republicans are and where the general electorate is on this. how is this played out? here's a question we've asked a few times in our polling. a lot of words on the screen here. i think it's key to key context for the indictments. we said to republican voters here, given the investigations, is it important to nominate a candidate who won't be distracted. is trump going to be too tied up to be a viable candidate or we ask them, are these politically motivated and an attempt to stop trump. we must support him now to keep his opponents from winning. almost two-thirds of republicans chose the rally around trump answer to that question. and that is reflected in the polling. here's the average of all the polls out there right now in the republican side. trump is trouncing everybody and the trend, i think this is the most striking thing, early this year, the orange line here is ron desantis, the blue line is trump. trump's lead over desantis was not that big early this year. and it really started to explode right here at the end of march. that was the first indictment in manhattan. republicans rallied around him. you see the various legal actions that preceded this and that trump trend line has not come down. he went over 50%. he stayed over 50%. one indictment, one legal action after another. and we'll land on this one, the one thing to keep in mind, though, for all of those troubles saying trump's action threatened democracy, when you ask all voters in the latest "new york times" poll just out this week, trump versus biden in a rematch, it's a tie. for all of the problems that trump has here legally, politically, it seems to have helped him with the republican base in the primary and he's not out of it by any means when it comes to the general election. >> all very, very fascinating. steve kornacki, thank you for laying that out for us. much appreciated. let's bring into the conversation now rick tyler and democratic strategist. we mentioned earlier the pence reaction saying anyone who puts himself over the constitution should never be president of the united states. now he's not the only 2024 hopeful with that message. take a listen. >> he's 78 years old and the -- if any one of those counts is found, he's found guilty, he's going to be in prison for the rest of his life. that's what he's focused on. >> donald trump, for the good of the country, should drop out of the race. now he won't. but that's what should happen. >> but here's the thing, these are the candidates who have already been critical of trump and we saw will hurd get booed recently at a republican event for similar criticism. so, rick, even with, you know, all these details, what do you think? will trump's critics get any more traction? >> no. i don't think anything is going to change. i think it's going to stay on the same trajectory, unfortunately. the indictment is very well written. people need to read the indictment. when you read it, it wouldn't pass for a hollywood script. it's so ludicrous. the whole scheme is harebrained. yet it happened. and i think the prosecutor smith has laid out a very good case and this is going to be -- this will be the election. the election will be simply about where will trump serve his next term, in the white house or the big house? that's all this election is going to be about. the media is going to cover the trials, the intrigue around it. the republicans are not going to get to talk about anything they want to talk about. and even if you would, just indulge me for a second, the 64% who support trump no matter what, if one could be tempted to vote for a criminal rapist, what do you get? do you get a lower deficit with china? no. do you get a secure border? no. do you get lower employment? no. none of those things happen under trump. one thing, it could be -- maybe there's a temptation to elect trump because you get his policies, but all you get is losing. >> trump is running away with the republican voters. >> it's incredible. >> you see some of his fellow candidates try to kind of play to his side, going so far as to promise preemptive pardons if they're elected. let's listen to that. >> i intend to be our next president and, yes, i think one of the right ways to move us forward is to pardon the former president of the united states. >> that was sunday. but he promised to pardon again last night and you have ron desantis saying as president, i will end the weaponization of government, replace the fbi director, and ensure a single standard of justice for all americans. while i've seen reports, i have not read the indictment. he's criticizing the doj in this statement after the indictment came out. but he's not talking about substance of the allegations. can he thread that needle? >> i mean, he's going to make his bet on threading that needle. unfortunately, more republican leaders don't share rick tyler's opinion and that is because another piece that that "new york times" poll said 71% of republicans who plan to vote in the primary think the republican party should defend trump. and that means ron desantis, tim scott, and others who want to retain a future in republican politics are going to vote their way through the election because that's what, unfortunately, the base wants. and it's despicable. instead of banding together to defend democracy and figure out a way to make that happen, they're going to take advantage of all of this political chaos that donald trump has sewn to hold on to whatever power they can. >> what strikes me that so many republicans, they don't care what's in this indictment. even desantis admits he didn't read this indictment. he's running with the narrative that you need to get rid of the doj. there's something corrupt going on which is baseless. there's no evidence of that. >> desantis has become a joke. he's criticizing an indictment that he didn't read. that's like saying the movie barbie was terrific but i didn't see it. it's preposterous that he would not read it. the minimum he could say is nothing or he could say i don't have time to read trump's indictments. either one of those would have been slightly clever. someone in his campaign needs to sit desantis down and say, governor, we're returning against the president, okay? we're running against the president. we're not running for him. we're not defending him. you are an attorney, but you're not his defense attorney. don't comment on it or use it against him. and at least -- the least he could do is run against trump's record which from a republican point of view or a conservative point of view is an abysmal record. it's astonishing that this -- what's going to happen -- i'll tell you what's going to happen. if trump gets the nomination, he will be soundly defeated and the republicans will experience a wipeout comparable to watergate. and that may be good for the republican party. because the republican party needs to start over again. because there's no way you're going to win an election with a thrice-indicted candidate with more to come. >> how much do you think the issues are going to dominate the election? >> i think they're going to dominate the election throughout. and republicans are pretty much determined, at least the establishment republican party now, is pretty much determined to defend him all the way throughout it. as long as his polling numbers are there. he's got three indictments against him so far. looks like georgia is probably going to come back with an indictment. it's going to be the entire subject of the election. but you're going to watch them both false equivalent si through this. did you see hunter biden did that? did you see hillary clinton did that? they're going to do whatever they can to defend donald trump to the end. >> appreciate the conversation. thanks so much. up next on "ana cabrera reports," remember this from republican leaders in the days and weeks after the january 6th attack? >> president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. >> the president bears responsibility for wednesday's attack on congress by mob rioters. >> we have new reaction from our nation's capitol to the latest charges against the former president next. er president next (josh allen) is this your plan to watch the game today? (hero fan) uh, yea. i have to watch my neighbors' nfl sunday ticket. (josh allen) it's not your best plan. but you know what is? myplan from verizon. switch now and they'll give you nfl sunday ticket from youtubetv, on them. (hero fan) this plan is amazing! (josh allen) another amazing plan, attack on congress by mob sl. attack on congress by mob (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. (♪♪) rsv can be a dangerous virus... [sneeze] ...for those 60 and older. it's not just a cold. and if you're 60 or older... ...you may be at increased risk of hospitalization... [coughing] ...from this highly... ...contagious virus. not all dangers come with warning labels. talk to your pharmacist or doctor... ...about getting vaccinated against rsv today. ♪♪ we have this just in from our team at the justice department. nbc news has confirmed the special counsel's office expects donald trump to appear in person, not remotely, for his arraignment tomorrow. we'll bring you anymore updates on what to expect from that course appearance as we track reaction in congress to trump's indictment. the top democrats in washington, chuck schumer and hakeem jeffries calling the case the most serious and most consequential thus far. while republican house speaker kevin mccarthy didn't focus on the details of the allegations. instead taking aim at hunter biden, arguing that the cases show a two-tiered system of justice. let's bring in julie tsirkin and mike memoli in delaware with the president. julia, i know members aren't there today, but what are hearing from them in response to this new indictment? >> yeah, ana, i'm so glad before we went to break that you played those two bites from house speaker kevin mccarthy. then he was the republican leader and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell who minutes before he gave that speech voted against convicting the former president for the role that he played in inciting the insurrection on january 6th. we're hearing nothing from mcconnell and we haven't over the last two indictments as well, despite how strongly he felt that the former president was responsible for that day, two years ago, when he made those comments. speaker mccarthy on the other hand defending the former president. you showed a tweet on your screen a little bit of what he said yesterday calling this a two-tiered system of justice, really using his power and this moment to appeal to the hard right of his conference, to have used their leverage in having a majority and their majority in the house to investigate the current president to investigate his son hunter biden and they're really galvanizing on this indictment of former president trump to continue perpetuating their claims to that effect. i want to read you a part of a statement from mccarthy's number three, elise stefanik, who you'll remember actually replaced liz cheney who went up to be the vice chair of the january 6th committee that spent a year and a half in investigating the attack on the capitol and the former president's role in it. she said, quote, today's sham indictment of donald trump is yet another disparate attempt to distract attention away from the mounting evidence of joe biden's direct involvement in his family's illegal influence peddling scheme. this is somebody who has the ear of the former president and somebody to watch as speaker mccarthy possibly continues moving in the direction of opening an impeachment inquiry into the current president, perhaps, to appease members of the hard right and the former president himself. >> mike, president biden, we know, is on summer vacation. he's largely avoided talking about trump's legal troubles. what is the white house strategy there? >> well, ana, very quickly as news of this indictment came down last night, we got no comments, both from the white house, referring questions to the justice department as well as biden's campaign saying they were simply not going to comment at all. that's been consistent with this approach by the biden team to try to illustrate the degree to which the president, his team is not involved in the decisions being made by the justice department, specifically by the special counsel in any of these legal issues involving the former president. we know that that's been a republican attack line. and ana, it was so jarring in its normalcy to see almost whether intentional or not to underscore the point he is so removed from this process. last night, the president as the news was breaking about the indictment going on date night with the first lady, going to dinner, heading to the movies, going to see "oppenheimer," going for a stroll of the beach. this morning, the president once again riding on his bike in the area and reporters attempted to shout questions both about the indictment proper, but also another big story we would otherwise be talking about today, fitch's downgrade of the u.s. credit rating. he did not respond to either of those questions. it is interesting, though, to compare the different indictments in this case. in the first case as it relates to the former president's handling of classiied documents, the president facing special counsel into the handling of his documents. you have to remember, even if the president is not commenting on trump's legal woes, remember how he launched his 2024 election video, the opening scene of that video was january 6th. very much something we can expect the president, his team to talk about, if not in the context of trump's indictment. >> mike memoli and julie tsirkin, thank you, both. up next on "ana cabrera reports," why donald trump's third indictment centered on our democracy and the peaceful transfer of power, what makes us americans, why it may be the most historically significant of all the criminal cases he now faces. e criminal cases he now faces. astepro allergy, steroid free allergy relief that starts working in 30 minutes, while other allergy sprays take hours. with astepro's unbeatably fast allergy relief you can astepro and go! oh stuffed up again? so congested! you need sinex saline from vicks. just sinex, breathe, ahhhh! [sniffs] what is — wow! baby: daddy. sinex. breathe. ahhhhhh! for moms, from centrum. ♪ this new mom ♪ ♪ here i go ♪ ♪ i am strong and brave i know ♪ ♪ with a little time for me ♪ ♪ no doubt i will get through ♪ ♪ loving me is loving you ♪ ♪♪ new from centrum. the women's choice multivitamin brand. welcome back. americans from coast to coast waking up to similar headlines this morning, marking donald trump's latest indictment as a moment that will be remembered and taught through history. joining us to discuss is author and historian douglas brinkley. doug, unprecedented, this is a word we hear a lot to describe donald trump, his presidency and now his post presidency. it almost feels overused. how would you describe this moment and the gravity of these specific charges? >> well, you know, ana, attorney general merrick garland was in philadelphia and made his comments yesterday. he was in philadelphia for a reason. it was the cradle of american democracy, the birthplace. and standing there, he spoke only a few brief seconds but he said it was the largest investigation of the department of justice in u.s. history. there was a determination by the justice department to find out what happened on january 6th, was donald trump guilty of trying to run a fraudulent election, overturn an election, create fake electors? and it turns out the grand jury in 45 pages says, yes, in four counts that president trump is guilty. so that's epic. this means that the target, the bull's eye, the person that history is going to be blaming january 6th riot, the siege of our capitol is donald j. trump. >> you have such a wealth of knowledge and perspective when it comes to big historical moments. are there any in history that you look to or can point as a reference point, compared to what we're experiencing today with this indictment? >> well, you know, i was thinking about vice president mike pence. and, you know, we had vps often and we sometimes don't even know what it is they're actually doing day by day. sometimes in tragedies in american history, a vice president suddenly becomes president, like when john f. kennedy was shot and you had lbj delivering for our country's civil rights. mike pence helped save democracy. we can see now by all the hours and moments, the pressure that trump was putting on him to be his partner in a coup d'etat. and pence said, no, he held firm. at one key moment he reached out to former vice president dan quayle, who served with george herbert walker bush, and pence now comes down as a bit of a profiles in courage for what he was able to do on those days leading up to january 6th. >> we only have about 30 seconds or so, doug, but what does it say about the state of our democracy? are you discouraged that an event like january 6th can even happen or encouraged that our institutions seemingly held? >> i think our institutions are holding up. the attorney general, merrick garland, and the justice department here has done an extraordinary job, jack smith has worked diligently. this is somebody that used to look at human rights abuses and kosovo war. he's a genius investigator of fraud and crime. and he has slammed the hammer of justice on donald trump. trump still has a right to defend himself and he will. but i at least feel the wheels of american democracy are still on track. >> douglas brinkley, i always appreciate our conversations. thanks so much for joining us today. >> me too, ana. that's going do it for us right now. i'll see you back here tomorrow with special live coverage from washington as the former president faces arraignment. until then, i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. jose diaz-balart picks up our special coverage right now. good morning. it is 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. i'm jose diaz-balart. for the first time in american history, a former president will appear in court to answer charges he committed grave offenses against the country he once led. tomorrow, president donald trump will be arraigned on four charges related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. on tuesday, a grand jury indicted him on four counts, including conspiracy to defraud the united states, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiracy against people's right to vote, and have their votes counted. the 45-page indictment lays out in detail trump's efforts to stop the certification of