vote and stay in power. special counsel jack smith wrote in the indictment, quote, the defendant widely disseminated his false claims of election fraud for months, despite the fact that he knew and in many cases had been informed directly that they were not true. the defendants knowingly false statements were integral to his criminal plans to defeat the federal government function, obstruct the certification and interfere with others' rights to vote and have their votes counted. the indictment also mentions six alleged co-conspirators. they are unnamed, but nbc news them to be rudy giuliani, attorney john eastman, attorney sidney powell, former justice department official jeffrey clark, and attorney kenneth chesbro. sixth is unclear but is described as a political consultant who helped implement the so-called fake electors scheme. special counsel jack smith says he wants to bring this case to trial soon. >> in this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens. >> the former president called the indictment fake and questioned why it took so long to file charges. one of his lawyers, john lohro, said on the "today" show that trump is being charged over what he said instead of what he did. >> this is the first time that the first amendment has been criminalized. it is the first time that a sitting president is attacking a political opponent on first amendment grounds and basically making a criminal to state your position and to engage in political -- >> i'll give you a little time-out on that one. because -- >> we haven't seen that before. >> well, the indictment specifically says the president has a first amendment right to speech, he even has a first amendment right to lie. says is right here. >> absolutely. >> this indictment is criminalizing conduct, not speech. >> joining us now, nbc news justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian. betsy woodruff swann of politico and msnbc contributor. charles coleman, former new york prosecutor. and glen kirschner, former federal prosecutor. charles and glen are msnbc legal analysts. so, ken, the former president is set to be arraigned tomorrow. what is that going to look like? >> good morning, jose. in one sense we can expect it to look a lot like the arraignment that happened down in miami. a lot of drama around the process, but in the event, actually pretty staid and boring and pro forma and donald trump doesn't say much in the courtroom. but this one may be a little different because it is happening here in washington, d.c. in the federal courthouse, just 1.7 miles from where donald trump used to live in the white house. and it involves conduct for first time in a criminal case it involves conduct at issue while donald trump was the president of the united states. so it is a historic and sweeping and detailed 45-page indictment that as you said alleged that donald trump engaged in a pervasive and systemic and destabilizing series of lies and went beyond just uttering the lies, but actually implemented a plan this indictment alleges to stop the lawful transfer of power and enlisted these six co-conspirators. it doesn't charge donald trump with inciting the january 6th riot or insurrection or seditious conspiracy, but says exploited the violence and was calling lawmakers as rioters were descending on the capitol urging them to slow down and stop the version of votes on january 6th. donald trump has some valid defenses here. he's going to argue as you heard there he was within his first amendment rights. his lawyers will argue he legitimately believed there was fraud in the election, but there is an avalanche of evidence in this indictment that he was told time and again that in fact he lost the election, and his claims were bogus, jose. >> and so, ken, we expect the former president to actually be there tomorrow at that courtroom in d.c. >> yeah, that is the standard procedure. and sources familiar with the matter tell me he is expected to be there in person, with the proviso that the judge has the discretion to allow virtual arraignment via zoom as has happened during the pandemic, but nobody thinks that's happening. donald trump showed up in miami and he's expected to show up here in washington, d.c., jose. >> charles, what stood out to you in this 45-page indictment? >> well, jose, there were two things that i noticed about the indictment that i thought were extremely interesting. the first one was the co-conspirators that have been identified by the department of justice, not necessarily by me, but through their actions. and the reason that that stood out to me was because donald trump has basically made his entire career based on the notion of loyalty by those who are closest to him. and so when you're talking about the number of co-conspirators, all of whom have likely cooperated with the doj to some extent and made themselves face charges at some point, that is all a bad sign for donald trump. it means the loyalty that aloud him to escape accountability so far is likely coming to a close because these are people who are easily identified, everyone who looked at this indictment and read it immediately identified co-conspirator number one as likely being rudy giuliani, and then john eastman and then sidney powell and so on and so forth. these are not people whose identities are not known to us, through their actions. that's number one. number two, the other thing as a civil rights attorney that i thought was particularly interesting was the last count on the indictment with respect to the deprivation of rights. the reason this was interesting to me is because it originates from the ku klux klan. when the clan was essentially trying to discourage and prevent black people from voting, this is the legislation that was enacted and so the notion that the doj has not charged donald trump with essentially trying to deprive the american public of their right to vote to have their vote counted is something of significance that we should all be paying attention to. >> you know, glen, picking up on what charles was talking about on the unnamed co-conspirators, why would jack smith hold off on indicting them now? >> great question, jose. because what i found unusual as a former career prosecutor was that none of these co-conspirators were charged in this indictment. i handled lots of conspiracy cases with co-defendants, ordinarily prosecutors like to charge everyone in a joint indictment. everyone who is believed to be or who we think we can prove to be was a co-conspirator. so, what i suspect jack smith is doing here is focusing like a laser beam on the leader of the conspiracy, donald trump, with a view toward ensuring a speedy trial for both him and for the american people. and i strongly suspect that with respect to these other six identified co-conspirators, at least by some of the acts that they undertook we believe we know who they are, you are going to see a subsequent indictment of these other co-conspirators and perhaps others. of course, the flip side is there are some sharply incriminating witnesses against donald trump in this indictment, like mark meadows, and vice president mike pence, two of the men closest to him who will provide some really damning evidence against him and that's going to be really hard for donald trump to defend against. >> in this indictment, one of the interesting new aspects of it is that we learn that the vice president was taking notes as events were being carried out. that seems to be something that would be important. >> oh, and, you know, when i read this one passage, it kind of made my heart sink. it reads like a michael connolly novel, even though we know the end, jose, but when you look at paragraph 97, after donald trump had been relentlessly pressuring mike pence to do the wrong thing, and basically corruptly throw trump the election, this reads that when vice president pence refused to agree to donald trump's request to obstruct the certification, trump grew frustrated and told pence that he would have to publicly criticize him and then as ken just noted, there is a section that follows, and the heading of that section is the defendant trump's exploitation of the violence and chaos at the capitol. this is some dramatic stuff. we know the ending here, but, boy, i really don't see donald trump having a viable defense, a persuasive defense to these charges. >> and, betsy, meanwhile, jack smith said yesterday the investigation continues into other individuals. are there any other names you're watching out for? >> there's a wide variety of folks who have been speculated as meeting the description of co-conspirator six. the name, of course, of co-conspirator six hasn't been identified yet. that's the number one item on every reporter's wish list today, to figure out who that sixth person is. of course, what distinguishes co-conspirator six from the five prior co-conspirators is that this person is not identified as being a lawyer. there is also no suggestion as to whether person number six is male or female. and person number six isn't described in extraordinary detail in the indictment. so, that's part of the reason, of course, that this person's identity hasn't been nailed down. one thing, though, that we -- that becomes really important, just from looking at those first five is that jack smith and his team appear to be heading off at the pass one of the most important defenses that trump and his legal team are expected to make at trial and have already been making to reporters and to media outlets ever since the inception of jack smith's probe. and that defense, of course, is the advice of counsel. the idea you can't break the law if your lawyers tell you that what you're doing is legal. the way that smith appears to be trying to head that off is by saying that five lawyers at the minimum were actually co-conspirators, actually appeared to have been in on the crime themselves and the fact that it is so easy to identify those first five in the indictment, points to how seriously smith takes their actions and the way he sees them as very much being knit up in the illegal activity rather than engaging in any sort of action that could be exculpatory. one more thing about the indictment that jumped out at me that is unusual and important, there is a sentence repeated verbatim word for word twice in the document. that sentence, we see it first on page one and then again on page seven, the sentence is, these claims were false and the defendant knew that they were false. that, of course, is going to speak to trump's state of mind, jack smith's team being able or hoping they're able to prove at trial that trump knew he was lying is clearly central to his investigation here to the case he's building against trump and we expect trump and his lawyers to push back extremely hard on that, on that core element of this indictment. >> that's fascinating. and, glen, just wondering, i mean, how difficult or what are the things that one has to have in order to prove that and in the case of the sentence that was repeated as betsy says twice, the defendant knew they were false. in other words, that aspect is very touchy, right? you have to specifically say he knew this was false. >> it goes to one's corrupt intent. and ordinarily when we prosecute cases, we don't have defendants to have been caught saying, by the way, i'm about to engage in a criminal act and i would like everybody to know my intent is corrupt. you prove corrupt intent with circumstantial evidence. juries in every jurisdiction in this country are instructed by judges every day. ladies and gentlemen, there is no way to look into the mind of another human being and discern what their intent is. that's why you're allowed to infer corrupt intent from the statements the defendant made, the actions he undertook and the other circumstantial evidence. i maintain that once they're in court and the rules of evidence are being applied, the rules of evidence provide that prosecutors can introduce incriminating statements of the defendant, but the defense attorneys cannot introduce exculpatory statements of the defendant unless the defendant testifies. i don't think proving donald trump's corrupt intent is going to be all that difficult for jack smith. >> ken dilanian and betsy woodruff swann, thank you very much. our special coverage continues all hour. up next, we'll dive into the trump defense strategy. and later we'll talk to congresswoman zoe lofgren whose work was vital to this indictment. don't go anywhere. we're back in 60 seconds. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. s you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. have fun, sis! ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ ) can't 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. ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ 15 past the hour. we're continuing our coverage of former president donald trump's indictment in the special counsel's 2020 investigation. this morning, trump attorney john lauro provided a glimpse of what his defense could look like. >> what president trump had was an actual opinion of counsel that his request to vice president pence was completely lawful and completely constitutional. >> he also had many, many opinions of his own white house counsel that that was not legal. >> you're entitled to believe and trust advice of counsel. >> joining us now, garrett haake who covers the trump campaign . how strong of an argument is that? >> absent what we have seen from jack smith and all of his indictments, not only the first one, but the superseding this one and this one i would actually give a little bit of credence to what donald trump's attorneys are trying to argue. the problem is that jack smith has done an incredible job in each of the speaking indictments of taking away all of trump's defenses, including this one. he acknowledges in this actual indictment very clearly that the defendant had a right to believe whatever he wanted to believe basically. but he also does go on further to talk about the notion in the law of willful blindness, which is basically saying you knew or should have known that what you were saying was untrue. and it is not exactly your speech that you're being prosecuted for, it is the actions that you took knowing that the speeches you were making were false and using your speech to try to further those actions. in other words, you had really good basis for knowing that what you were saying was untrue. in fact, the indictment goes painstakingly through enough detail to explain the myriad ways that donald trump had close advisers who told him he in fact had lost the election in jurisdiction after jurisdiction, state after state, and yet you continue to pedal these lies, all with the purpose of trying to disrupt the certification of votes and the peaceful transfer of power. that's what he's being prosecuted for and so ultimately the notion of his belief is only part of the conversation and not what jack smith is going to be hanging his hat on. that's why the defense itself is not going to hold up. >> and, garrett, as you pointed out, the trump campaign has been anticipating this indictment for some time now. but on social media, trump accused the doj of waiting to indict him as he's running for re-election. what is trump's defense look like politically? >> yeah, jose, it is basically a less nuanced version of what you heard from donald trump's attorney here, arguing this is all about timing, that the timing of this indictment is meant to knock the republican front-runner and what they believe is a strong opponent of president biden's off course. in fact, we're even hearing from some of the former president's congressional allies and others that it is even more specific than that, it is meant to step on bad news related to hunter biden, that somehow is damaging to joe biden's re-election campaign. they have long painted this, trump world has, as a purely political investigation into what should be considered political activity, political speech by the former president. that's how they're going to hang their hat and that's something on which they hope to fund-raise specifically like they have done on the last two indictments. >> and, glen, you mentioned you have experience with the judge from her days as a d.c. public defender. what more can you tell us about her? >> i tried murder cases against tanya chuck when she was a public defender for the district of columbia. i was trying murder cases and i will say it was a pleasure to try cases against her. she -- as a defense attorney, and still as a judge, i've been in her courtroom and observed her presiding over criminal matters in recent months, you know, she is strong, smart, honorable, ethical, and fearless. and as a judge, she has shown herself from nearly a decade now to be not only fearless, but fearlessly fair, independent, and, you know, she will give donald trump a fair trial. i have no doubt. but she will also hold his feet to the fire, i believe, and not indulge him in unnecessary delays, which we all know will be part of donald trump and his legal team's goal. it will be to try to run out the clock to the 2024 presidential election. i think with judge chutkan presiding, we may see this as the first case to go to trial. >> and, charles, 2021 ruling judge chutkan asserted presidents are not kings. washington, d.c. is a blue district. when trump's lawyer was asked about the possibility of a venue change, here's what he said, let's listen. >> would you seek a venue change? >> absolutely. >> where do you want it to go? >> there is other options. there is west virginia, which is close by. there is other areas of the country. >> west virginia? >> absolutely. it is very close proximity to d.c. >> the political opposite of washington, d.c. >> it is much more diverse than washington, d.c., i think with 95% for mr. biden. >> what is your reaction to that? >> i'm not surprised, jose. early on when donald trump was under investigation, even prior to the initial indictment being filed, i predicted that donald trump's attorneys were going to seek venue changes in a number of different arenas because they liked to favor, retry and get a jury and a judge that is going to be to their liking. and so it would not surprise me at all if only for the purpose of seeking further delay to try and file for a venue change and then file an appeal if that venue change is denied in order to try and hand pick a jury that they think is going to be most favorable to their client. i'm not entirely surprised by it, nor do i think it is necessarily a bad move because donald trump is not a defendant who has a plethora of options. so when you're thinking about how to best construct a defense for him, this is one of the few moves that his defense team can actually make. that's legal. that's appropriate. that would provide him with a viable opportunity. it doesn't mean that he can't get a fair trial in d.c. so for those reasons i believe that such an appeal will be denied, but ultimately the move itself would not surprise me because like i said, they would love to have a jury that is not in d.c. that they believe is going to be sympathetic to their client, but moreover, if they can't get that, they will try to do it for the purposes of delaying the trial as far as they can. >> and so, glen, when are change of venues accepted and acceptable normally? >> you know, only if there is sort of demonstrable evidence that a defendant will be unable to secure a fair and impartial jury. change of venue motions are almost never successful. i'll give you an example in my 30 years as a prosecutor, i had them only filed by defense attorneys a handful of times. i've never seen one granted. not in my case and not in me of my colleague's cases over the years. it is not impossible. but i think it is extraordinarily unlikely we will see any change of venue. >> and, garrett, what do we know about how republicans on capitol hill could react when it comes to standing behind trump in light of this latest indictment? >> well, house republicans have been almost in lockstep behind the former president from speaker mccarthy on down. echoing his claims of election interference, even suggesting that they need to investigate this investigation. some republicans like matt gaetz, a close ally of donald trump, marjorie taylor greene trying to defund the special counsel's office. that will go nowhere in part because the democratic-controlled senate won't allow it and senate republicans are far less likely to fall in line directly behind the former president. the person i'm watching closely, jose, i want to hear what mitch mcconnell has to say about this. remember, after he voted to acquit donald trump in the second impeachment, he gave a speech excoriating him on the senate floor suggesting exactly this type of accountability could be coming for the former president. he hasn't said anything publicly since the indictment was unsealed. >> garrett haake, charles coleman, glen kirschner, thank you so very much. coming up, central to jack smith's investigation was the work done by the january 6th committee. up next, we'll talk to one of the committee's members, congresswoman zoe lofgren, we'll ask her whether jack smith's indictment went far enough. great to see you. we'll chat in just a minute. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. i. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. 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. 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! ♪ tourists tourists that turn into scientists. tourists taking photos that are analyzed by ai. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. ♪ sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. so researchers can help life underwater flourish. a house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. 28 past the hour. many of the facts contained in the new indictment against donald trump came from the house january 6th committee's investigation into the attack. and what led up to it. as california congresswoman zoe lofgren, a member of that committee wrote in a recent op-ed on msnbc.com, at the time i knew what we were doing was important, but until recently i didn't understand the true gravity of the work in terms of holding the former president legally accountable. she went on to say, if our findings kick the doj into gear, our work on the select committee was even more worthwhile. congresswoman zoe lofgren joins us this morning. grateful to see you. thank you. i want to begin by getting your thoughts on the indictment. >> it is not a shock. we expected it was coming. it is a mixture of sadness it has come to this that a former president would engage in conduct so wrong that it would require an indictment. along with a sense of hopefulness that we are still a nation of laws and no person is above the law. so those were my two reactions. >> you said in your msnbc.com op-ed that the special counsel was validating the work of the committee. what part or parts do you think were validated? >> well, as i skimmed through, i mean, i want to go line by line, but it looks like the facts were as we outlined them in the committee. it was a multifaceted conspiracy to overturn the election. and as the indictment goes through the elements, it is really what the committee was able to uncover. now, there is some things in the indictment that we didn't find because we were unable to interview some people. i was struck, for example, that the vice president relayed that when he refused to go along with the plot to overturn the election that ex-president trump said, well, you're too honest. we didn't find that because we didn't -- weren't able to talk to the vice president. but i think that statement alone shows that trump knew he was wrong, that he was being devious, and engaging in unlawful activity. and that the vice president was unwilling to be dishonest along with him. >> yeah, you know. the committee sent a criminal referral to the justice department that also suggested that trump should be charged with inciting or assisting those insurrection. he was not charged directly in connection with the january 6th attack. is that something you would like to see down the road? >> well, we believe that there were -- there was evidence to support the incitement charge. but i trust the special prosecutor for evaluating the evidence and indicting only what he thinks can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. there is no question that as mr. mcconnell said right after the attack he's morally responsible, trump is morally responsible for the attack. but whether there is enough evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, apparently mr. smith was being very conservative on that point. but the other charges were along the lines of what we referred and they're certainly sufficient to really make the point, which is that trump was trying to really overturn the constitution, overturn a free and fair election that he lost so he could keep power. so, i think what the special prosecutor has done is prudent and i believe will be supported when the trial is held. >> and congresswoman, house speaker kevin mccarthy tweeted out after the announcement saying that the justice department was trying to distract from the news about hunter biden, and that there is a two-tiered system of justice in the united states. how do you respond to that? >> well, i mean, that was the talking points sent by trump. it was issued before mccarthy had even seen the indictment. i think it is kind of pathetic that the republicans in the house are reading from the talking points from the defendant rather than going through the indictment and seeing the serious charges that have been made. we'll find out what can be proven when the trial is held. this is not political. this is judicial. you know, apparently the republicans in the house are like lemmings, they're going to go right off that cliff with the ex-president. it is interesting that the senate republicans have been more silent and i think it may reflect the comments that mr. mcconnell made right after the attack. mcconnell said trump was guilty of inciting this effort to overturn the election and that he didn't vote to impeach, to convict, because he wasn't in office, but that he should be held accountable and referred the need for criminal prosecution, which is what we have now. >> you know, congresswoman, just thinking back on what you were saying about how, you know, your reaction included sadness, when you look back on the work of the january 6th committee, what do you think is going to be the overweighing, i guess, role and impact that that committee had on just american history? >> well, i think it, you know, at the time i didn't fully realize it, but i don't think the department of justice was focusing in on the scheme. they were focusing in on the foot soldiers, the rioters themselves. and when the committee uncovered evidence about this wide ranging multifaceted plot and the ex-president was at the center of the plot, i think that the department of justice had to say this needs to be looked at. and so that's an important role that the committee played. our job was really to tell the american people what happened. and i think we did that. we worked very hard and we were honest about what we found and we made all the evidence available to the public, including the department of justice. so, i think our role in history will be a group that was bipartisan, worked hard, told the truth, uncovered the plot, and perhaps spurred the department of justice to open their eyes. >> congresswoman zoe lofgren, thank you very much. good seeing you. >> thank you. we have breaking news, the jury reached a verdict in the sentencing phase of the tree of life case that is regarding the deadly pittsburgh synagogue shooting in 2018 that claimed 11 lives. i want to bring in nbc's kathy park, who has been watching developments. kathy, good morning. what do we know at this hour? >> reporter: jose, good morning to you. yeah, just a few minutes ago we learned that the jury has reached a verdict on a case that has basically been taking place for several months now. so we have about a 20-minute window before the verdict is announced by the judg right now it is unclear at this point if the jury decided for the death penalty for robert bowers or life in prison without parole. but up until this point, they have been deliberating for roughly ten hours, jose. they had posing arguments on both sides, which wrapped up on monday. and the big sticking point when it comes to his defense team was his past, troubled past, the fact that he had neglectful child care, caregivers, i should say, and they leaned on his mental illness, his schizophrenia, which they say led to the attack of 2018. however, the government prosecution disputed that, saying, look, he had hate in his heart, he had white supremacist beliefs and that is why he decided to do this. he purposely attacked the synagogue and had no remorse for doing it. those were the two sides coming to those conclusions when they wrapped up closing on monday and we're now standing by for the verdict, which should be coming down any minute now. and, of course, we'll bring that to you as soon as that is available. jose? >> kathy park in pittsburgh. thank you very much. up next, what voters in one early primary voting state have to say about this latest indictment. you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. nt you're watching "jose diaz-balart reports" on msnbc. 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. from prom dresses... ...to workouts... ...and new adventures. you hope the more you give the less they'll miss. but even if your teen was vaccinated against meningitis in the past... they may be missing vaccination for meningitis b. although uncommon, up to 1 in 5 survivors of meningitis will have long term consequences. now as you're thinking about all the vaccines your teen might need, make sure you ask your doctor if your teen is missing meningitis b vaccination. when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd things changed for me. breztri gave me better breathing, symptom improvement, and reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. ♪ i gotta good feeling about this, yeah ♪ vision changes, or eye pain occur. ♪ i'm with it ♪ ♪ i gotta good feeling about this ♪ ♪ yeah, ♪ ♪ so let's get it ♪ ♪ i'm feeling good vibes ♪ looking for a bladder leak pad that keeps you dry? all of the things that you're looking for in a pad, that is always discreet. look at how it absorbs all of the liquid. and locking it right on in! you feel no wetness. - oh my gosh! - totally absorbed! i got to get some always discreet! subway's now slicing their meats fresh. that's why soccer pros like me profer the grand slam ham. and this rookie pro... profers fresh sliced turkey. and if we profer it, we know you'll prefer it too. glad you made the cut. you mean slice? seriously? i used to wait to run my dishwasher 'til it was super full. now— i run it daily. weekdays— weekends— you might think that's wasteful, but it's not. even half loads use 80% less water than handwashing. saving $130 on utilities. cascade. dare to dish differently. you've evolved. you've changed. so have we. that's why new dove body wash now has 24-hour renewing micro moisture for continuous care. new dove body wash. change is beautiful. 40 past the hour. seven states were referenced concerning the fraudulent electors scheme including nevada with the special counsel writing, quote, the defendant claimed that there had been tens of thousands of double votes and other fraud in nevada. the nevada secretary of state had previously rebutted the defendant's fraud claims by publicly posting a facts versus myths document, explaining that nevada judges had reviewed and rejected them. and the nevada supreme court had rendered a decision denying such claims. joining us from henderson, nevada, is nbc's steve patterson. good morning. you're in a battleground early primary state. how are voters there reacting to this latest indictment? >> reporter: well, jose, i think it is important to be here for the reasons that you laid out, that as soon as those fake electors were called, to falsely certify the election for donald trump in the nature, the narrative of the legal drama for the former president changed from a national story to a local story. and it really has been local news for people here, since before subpoenas were even handed out. you had on top of that the fact that, yes, early voting is happening here. people are going to go to the polls for the primaries very soon. and so not only are we getting the campaign blitz on tv ads from people who are visiting the state, donald trump was here not too long ago in clark county, but also what they're interpreting and what they're seeing with these indictments, they're going to take into the polls. and so it is still early here. what better place than the international house of pancakes, i've been speaking to voters all morning, trump supporters undecided, republican supporters and i can tell you i think that the calculus has changed dramatically. i have heard the name tim scott more here this morning than i think i have in public at any other time. i spoke to specifically two women, one very staunch trump supporter, another somewhat undecided and both of them said that the entire game changed on january 6th and it was reinforced by what happened yesterday. listen to this. >> everybody has to pay, no matter who they are. if they do something wrong, you got to pay. >> don't do the crime if you can't do the time. >> i'm sorry. isn't that what america's about? we're trying to get back to the right america. and that's what we need. i am undecided. i have to listen to everybody. and in the beginning it is all this and that and that. we need to wait until it gets down to the fundamentals where i can actually feel like i can understand what they're honestly saying. >> reporter: and i can tell you i spoke to trump supporters who still say they might consider voting for donald trump, but nobody, even if they were supporting trump back in 2020 and 2016, nobody says essentially it is a sure thing at this point. jose? >> steve patterson in henderson, thank you very much. and in less than 20 minutes, former vice president mike pence is set to speak just one day after his former running mate was indicted for the third time this year. pence, who was mentioned more than 100 times in the special counsel's election indictment, put out a statement last night saying, quote, today's indictment serves as an important reminder, anyone who puts himself over the constitution should never be president of the united states. joining us now is secretary julian castro, former housing and urban development secretary under president obama and 2020 democratic presidential candidate and former ohio governor john kasich, a 2016 republican presidential candidate, both msnbc political analysts. so, john, let me start with you. this was a strong statement from trump's second in command. what do you make of pence separating himself from trump here? >> it is about time, don't you think? it is about time that he began to say something. and, but, look, you know, this is extremely serious. you know, one of the most important cornerstones of american democracy is the ability to have the transfer of power. and what is at question here is did he do everything he could to prevent the transfer of power. and that will be something that will have to be decided through the courts. one thing that strikes me, jose, is all these charges mount and there is probably another one coming, another indictment coming. is it conceivable that at some point donald trump will try to cut a deal? that he'll say enough is enough and have an excuse and make his case, everybody was against me, i don't know. i'm not saying that's going to happen. but i'm saying that as these charges, you know, multiply, does he at some point say, you know, i'm going to try to figure out how to get this behind me and move on and not seek the presidency? it is possible. >> julian, former governor christie and former congressman hirsch put out responses. is there now an opening for other candidates to take trump on directly? it seems as though every time something like this happens, we're now on the third indictment, there is this kind of questioning, yet it doesn't really happen. is there an opportunity now, you think? >> yeah, i mean, this does -- >> sorry. >> it provides the other window for his opponents to jump in there. the problem is that aside from pence, most of them don't -- maybe chris christie, they don't have the name i.d., they don't have the credibility with the base, to make a strong attack on the issue of electability. i mean, that's really what you're talking about. you want to get the voters to think we cannot not nominate donald trump because if we do that, we'll lose to joe biden. their best hope is to all gang up and in chorus to make that electability argument against donald trump and so far only folks like congressman will hurd and asa hutchinson have done that in a full-throated way and these are candidates that don't have much name i.d., they don't have a snowball's chance of winning, so right now there is not enough firepower going against donald trump on this argument. and i don't think that it is going to change anything for just a couple of candidates to be out there making the argument. >> and, just wondering, john, as someone who went up against trump at one time, how does this primary become about anything else but trump? >> you see, i think that's a problem. as -- i think as everybody has observed, if it is all about trump, then it is all about trump. and the problem that people are having is being able to have their voice heard. to me, you know, what is your positive vision for the country? the fact you can't have a guy under these kinds of charges trying to carry the banner forward and put yourself out there in a position of what you want to do for the country. if all you're doing is talking about trump, you're not -- that's not going to work in my opinion. the problem you have is the poll that nbc was just connected to, i think it was nbc, showed that only 17% of republicans really felt that trump's done anything wrong. so once you start making the case that trump, you know, has been -- has done terrible things and all that, the question is do you lose the bulk of those people? but, jose, we're back to the same issue i talk about over and over again. sometimes you need to just make the case. you need to say what you're for and why this guy, with all of his troubles, doesn't make any sense for the country, for the party, for anything. and if, in fact, you don't win, so what. you have your integrity. you have your -- you can feel good about what you have done. and maybe, just maybe, if you can unite the never trump wing, and unite it with the, well, i don't really care for trump, but i might vote for him, if you can bring them across, you start to put a coalition together that is big enough. and the other thing the republican party ought to think about is ending this winner take all primary system. make it proportional. but i think the party, the national party is so controlled by trump, i don't think they do that. but if they did that, that's a game changer. >> you know, julian, i'm thinking, yesterday, fitch downgraded the u.s. government's credit rating from aaa to aa plus and important financial story, but kind of like lost in the news where, again, it is trump taking up all of the oxygen. how does something like this change or do you think this is just what it is going to be going forward? >> i mean, we have been dealing with this, jose, for about eight years now, right, from when he announced in the summer of 2015. if there is something trump knows how to do, it is to take up a lot of that oxygen in the room. and to his credit, joe biden and his campaign team, i think, have been doing a better and better job with this push on bidenomics and trying to make people understand how well the economy has been doing under joe biden, biden compared to where we were before, especially in january of 2021, at the height of the pandemic. they are pushing on it from the biden campaign. i think they're starting to have more and more success. on the other end of things in the republican primary, everything is trump. the world on that side revolves around trump. i don't see any candidates doing a very good job of trying to take him on, define other terms, as kasich says, hint of their version of the future, if you don't do that, there's no way you will beat this guy unless he really does go behind bars because of one of the court cases. >> let me just say this. julio, you know this, having participated in the debates and run for president yourself. you got these debates coming up. there could be a breakout moment for somebody. somebody that's able to thread that needle between the never trumpers and those people who don't like trump. these debates have an ability to reshuffle the deck, particularly with all these indictments mounting up. it looks inevitable at this point. some people say inevitable. i don't. nothing can change that. i think the one thing we love about politics is that what's true today may not be true five minutes from today. let's not call it in yet. there's a long way to go and a lot of time. >> those debates are -- i will tell you, as a matter of fact, i think if i'm not mistaken, i was part moderating a debate that you were in. i thank you both very much for being with us this morning. appreciate it. up next, former president donald trump has been indicted before. this time it's different. why this case is such a monumental moment in our nation's history. you are watching "jose diaz-balart reports." bout! (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, 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. cut! another health insurance commercial, another aqua-aerobics scene. yup. most health insurance companies see us all the same: smiley seniors golfing, hiking... don't forget antiquing. that's why i chose humana. they see me, not a stereotypical senior. i'm pre-diabetic, so i talked one-on-one with a humana health educator who really helped me. now i'm taking free cooking and meditation classes. not aqua-aerobics? better care begins with listening. humana. a more human way to healthcare. have fun, sis! ( ♪♪ ) ( ♪♪ ) can't 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. your brain is an amazing thing. but as you get older, it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription. - you like that bone? i got a great price on it. - did you see my tail when that chewy box showed up? - oh, i saw it. - my tail goes bonkers for treats at great prices. sorry about the vase. - [announcer] save more on what they love with everyday great prices at chewy. 55 past the hour. people across the country woke up to front pages covered with the news of former president trump's indictment. these are a sample from atlanta, south florida, new york, san diego, anchorage, alaska. joining us is eddie glauden and an msnbc contributor. i've been thinking about what you meant of the significance of this last indictment. >> it's great to see you. it's historic. we have moved from kind of a discussion of whether or not donald trump is a corrupt character, whether or not he lacks the virtues to be the president, it's about him, to this figure actually trying to undermine our democracy, trying to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power, trying to deny citizens the right to vote or refuse to count votes, a conspiracy to overturn an election. here is a figure beyond whether or not he is individually corrupt, who has tried, according to the indictment, who has attempted to corrupt our democracy. i think that shift is critical. it's critically important. >> that shift, which includes -- i'm thinking, this trial is set to be one of the most consequential in our country's history on so many levels. what impact could it have on people's perception of an independent judicial system? it's such a pillar of democracy, the independent and non-partisan judicial. >> we have to think about the accumulated affects of the lies. calling into question the legitimacy of our elections has eroded confidence. now we see the same strategy directed towards the judicial system. calling into question the rule of law. talking about the weaponization of government. how the courts are used as one of the weapons. this works on behalf of -- i should say an autocratic figure who aims to literally disentangle, disrupt the way in which our democracy works. the question we have to face is whether or not millions of americans will choose to believe the lies or will choose to defend american democracy as such. that's where we are. >> you know, i think just even in our hemisphere, there have been investigations, indictments and arrests of former leaders. i'm thinking of el salvador, guatemala, brazil. the list goes on and on and on. what does this process here say to the rest of the world? >> well, democracy is always an ideal towards which we strive. american democracy is -- we are always -- we are on the road to a more perfect union. we are in process. there have been corrupt administrations before. think about grant, andrew johnson, harding, the nixon administration. what we have never faced is a president who has called into question the foundations. this is new for us. the question is, will we allow the ugliness to overrun? >> there's an echo of history in the indictment that echo of the enforcement act of 1870, which was designed to curtail the kkk. there's an ugliness in our past that's being echoed in our current moment. we need to understand who we are and try to figure out who we aspire to be in this critical juncture in the nation's history. >> those who ignore the past may be condemned to relive it. i'm paraphrasing. i'm thinking, what do you take away as the most permanent and deep-rooted affect and impact of this? >> no man, no woman is above the law. that the most important figure or role in our democracy is the role of everyday, ordinary people. we also have to finally, finally root out the hate. root out the grievances and fear if we're going to get off this hamster wheel. >> it's a pleasure to see you. thank you so much for spending time with us. appreciate it. >> appreciate you. >> thanks. that wraps up the hour for me. thank you for the privilege of your time. i will be back tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern live in d.c. andrea mitchell picks up with more news right now. right now on "andrea mitchell reports," the federal courthouse just blocks from here bracing for tomorrow's arraignment. a former president will stand in court accused of a conspiracy to overturn an election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. the detailed grand jury indictment charging three conspiraies to defraud the u.s., to obstruct the electoral college certification of the votes, and a 19th century law first targeting the ku klux klan, to depri