wasn't just showing up for court. numerous january 6th cases have been heard. the judge overseeing trump's arraignment has also overseen the cases of people including dominic fox and qanon activist who live streamed the storming of the capitol, a jared wise, a former fbi agent charged with assaulting a police officer on january 6th. this is all very much a trip down memory lane for mr. trump. now, there were no courtroom cameras today, but thanks to courtroom sketch artist bill hennessy, we know what it looks like when a former president of the united states appeared in court to be formally and federally charged for trying to subvert american democracy. there were more than 110 people in the courtroom to hear this arraignment including several of the federal judges who have been presiding over other january 6th cases, judges who showed up today in plain clothes as spectators for trump's arraignment. the judge presiding over the arraignment was a new york state judge inasmuch he read the charges aloud ipcourt and mr. trump pleaded not guilty to all four felony charges. and then the judge gave mr. trump a warning. quote, if you fail to comply with any of your conditions of release, a warrant may be issued for your arrest. your conditions of release may be revoked, and you may be held pending trial in this case. she continued, your most important condition of release, sir, is that you not commit a state, federal, or local crime while on release. i want to remind it is a crime to try to influence a juror or to threaten or attempt to bribe a witness or any other person who may have information about your case or to retaliate against anyone for providing information about your case to the prosecution or to otherwise obstruct the administration of justice. there has been so much discussion about whether trump will face jail time if he's found guilty in this case, but until today, until the judge said that no one had really considered the possibility trump could face jail time during this case. mr. trump is a man with a storied history of flagrant rule breaking, but he is now bound by the rules of the court for the duration of this trial. and if he violates those rules, prosecution can move to revoke the conditions of his release. they could argue trump should be behind bars before this trial is even finished. on that note, one of looming questions about this entire process has been when will this trial take place? will there be a trial before this election? will it happen before the republican party chooses its presidential nominee? well, today we learned we'll get the answer to that very question in less than a month. the judge scheduled trump's next hearing august 28th, which is a little over three weeks from today where the date for trump's actual trial, the united states vs. donald john trump is expected to be set. i want to turn now to nbc's chief legal analyst ari melber and nbc news senior legal correspondent laura jarrett. thank you both for being here tonight. laura, let me first get your sense of what if anything is signaled by the setting of this august 28th date, and that the judge today said the trial judge is going to actually decide on the trial date on august 28th. >> so a couple thing. the magistrate judge made it clear she had actually talked to judge chutkan, the one who's the trial judge who's actually going to be running this entire show. me made it clear we've already chatted, so she came ready with dates. lots of time you get a first court appearance and don't get a next date until later. number two, she made it clear we're going to set a trial date at that next date, so at that date we'll actually know at least for now when the trial will be. it's significant because it shows where judge chutkan it was head is at. it doesn't mean, again, there won't be attempts but i think it signals at least where her expectations are. >> it seems to be, ari, like a tas utrebuke to the floated strategy of the trump legal team, which is we're going to try to delay this until trump is president or in a position of power with the wheels of justice. >> they want to run out the clock which is unusual. but here the idea is the clock will reset. we ask this question through the years why is this night different, and it's an organizing question and you can use it in any space. why was this arraignment different today? i thought you in your introduction reminded viewers the scale and scope of this as well as the questions that went down in the arraignment. we discuss this a bit for viewers throughout the day and you and i were sitting there covering it in realtime. he's on trial for overthrowing the government he was in custody of today. this is different because of that reason. second, it's the only time he's been indicted for conduct as president. so those other cases while perhaps important are actually not about what he did at all. they're about classified documents and trying to use powers he no longer had allegedly. third and i think it's the premise of your entire opening tonight, this is the big one and everybody knows it. there's a world where he's convicted in new york, alex, and he's not sent to jail or prison. and so he tells his supporters it wasn't that big a deal, it's kind of like a slap on the risk, and his life goes on in a way. i'm not minimizing this, but functionally this is different. he could stand trial before the election, if convicted that appeal could go to d.c. circuit, which is a very serious court. they could give a serious what we might call nonpartisan ruling upholding the convictions, and the supreme court has to decide with all the problems they have, do they want to come in and overturn something or leave it. by the way, i want to be clear with viewers if they get that conviction and leave it meaning they don't take the case, he goes to prison that week. >> already, the vision of the orange jumpsuit, john roberts getting involved -- >> we're not there yet. this is orange-ish but not a jumpsuit. >> decidedly not. >> i'm not saying that will happen. what i'm saying is whether you call that a 1%, a 49% -- >> everyone understand said the gravity. this was the one everybody was sort of waiting for because for a while -- we're now at a point he was being arraigned. for a while it wasn't clear he was actually going to be charged in this case. it is so significant to even be at this point because for so long it was like, whoa -- exactly. it was not even clear he was the target much less we'd be at a point. >> the other thing that makes this different is the mar-a-lago indictment which is full of information. certainly there are bread crumbs. >> but there's a lot not even here. >> for sure. but a lot of it we do know because of the house investigation into january 6th. and i wonder how that reality dove tails with the sort of line of argument from the trump campaign right now in court today this discovery process is going to be a beast. they're already setting the stage for trying to push this off as long as possible. the reality is of course there's going to be new information, but a lot of the stuff has already been litigated in court. there's already been rulings on privileges both executive and attorney-client. and i wonder whether you are optimistic about trump's defense trying to claim this is all incognito, we're going to need months and months. >> this is the role the judge plays. he's going to be the gatekeeper deciding which things are legit, which things are not. it's interesting to note which things are not in that indictment which are part of the january 6th report. there are a couple of big ones not in that indictment that makes me think either there's more to this, either they're working on deals and trying to figure out who's going to cooperate, who wasn't. it's unclear there. it's worth noting there are times where his attorneys were told specifically this plan is illegal, it's not legally sound. why isn't it there? there's interesting things like that i think to know. so i think to the extent there's more there, sure they're going to have an argument about discovery. >> and she in the words of glenn kirschner, these judges have come to play. the fact they're like we're going to set the trial date in three weeks indicative of people not wasting time. can we talk about lawyers for one moment? i don't know if you noticed the reporting evan corcoran was in the courtroom today apparently still affiliated somehow with donald trump and his defense team. evan corcoran for people who have forgotten, is sort of almost like a star witness in the mar-a-lago case from which he had to recuse himself. do you think it's odd that trump is keeping evan corcoran in the mix, as it were, given how -- >> wouldn't you want to? it's not clear he was acting as defense counsel. he's not sitting at defense counsel table, but he's there as sort of a quasi-supporter in the same way boris epstein. >> you think keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. >> wouldn't you want to? >> i think defendant trump is playing any angle he can even people who have obviously given up negative information about him, and that goes to a theme in all this. the medicate for all of this was the january 6th committee. they were using trump aids, sometimes lawyer as witnesses and jack smith clearly has then some. the gang versus the world it was always us, and then you wrote a statement that really messed me up. >> contemporaneous notes. >> contemporaneous notes. mr. corcoran was gang vs. the world, and he was supposed to ride and die for trump except he didn't. because trump did things so bad, so obviously heinous against counsel that he felt a duty even as a trump lawyer to start keeping notes. yeah, he's ipcourt today trying to tell his once on the same team gang friend, hey, we're still good but they're not good. and we know they're not good because of the cooperation. we have other individuals and i said today we don't know exactly know yet what mr. meadows is doing. we do know in the final pages of indictment, you have someone in the room saying what trump said, welcoming the violence late in that day. now, you don't put that in an indictment unless you had a dead to right provable in court. and jack smith is on the book. i would expect on that small list there are people who like mr. corcoran wrote a statement against the defense. >> we know mike pence, his vice president kept contemporaneous notes. we asked did the committee have contemporaneous notes. >> when subpoenaed by the justice department, by the grand jury and then ordered to by the d.c. circuit they couldn't turn it down. >> can i ask one quick question because the judge was so clear about violating the bail conditions. if you try and pressure witnesses, if you try and tamper with this trial in any way, mr. trump, that could change the conditions under which you're being released. i mean she sounded really serious in that, laura, and we know trump is not a master of self-restraint in terms of this arena. do you think that's a real threat for him? >> i think it's going to be up to how much force the justice department gives to it. i think it'll be clear how far they'll let him go on some of this stuff. today they were very clear do not contact witnesses on this case. last time they didn't bring it up, the judge did. this time around they affirmatively brought it up. we'll see, i guess. >> laura jarrett thank you for making time tonight. please stay around. >> you got it. there is a lot to unpack this evening, and we're going to get some insight as to what may be going on in trump world this evening when i speak with a lawyer who was until recently a defense attorney for donald trump. that is next. d trump. that is next [ tires screeching ] jordana, easy on the gas. i gotta wrap this commercial, i think i'm late on my payment. it's okay, the general gives you a break. yeah, we let you pick your own due date. good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general. when i first learned about my dupuytren's contracture, my physician referred me to a hand specialist. and i'm glad he did, because when i took the tabletop test, i couldn't lay my hand flat anymore. the first hand specialist i saw only offered surgery. so, i went to a second hand specialist who also offered nonsurgical options - which felt more right for me. so, what i'd say to other people with dupuytren's contracture is this: don't wait —find a hand specialist trained in nonsurgical options, today. i found mine at findahandspecialist.com. five... -it's happening, isn't it? four... three... two... one. okay, so the next time that jack smith's and donald trump's legal teams are due back in court in the 2020 election case is at the end of this month, august 28, 10:00 a.m. and at that hearing maybe the most important decision in this trial will be made. when will the trial take place, and how long will it take? both sides have seven days from today to basically tell the court when they think the trial should take place and how long they think they need to make their case. we know jack smith's team wants a speedy trial, but as far as trump's defense team here was a preview of its stance on fox news this evening. >> today in court, which was a very terribly sad day, they're attacking other parts of the constitution because they want to take president trump to trial in a few months. they want to deny him his sixth amendment rights to counsel to give me and my cocounsel todd blanch an opportunity to prepare. they want to deny president trump his due process rights to look at documents, to get witnesses, to use our subpoena power. they want to deny all of him those rights and a rush to judgment for one political purpose, and that's to uphold the biden administration. why the rush on this case? do they feel there's a problem in the other cases that are being orchestrated and they need to bring this case to trial in a couple of months in this venue? what does that tell you? >> what that tell me? it tells me that team trump is shooting for a significant delay. joining me now is tim parlatore, a former lawyer for donald trump. mr. parlatore, thanks so much for being here tonight. let me first get your thoughts -- how optimistic i should say is the judge in this case going to be recept chb to the argument the trump legal team is making sheer, there's going to be due process if there's a speedy trial? >> well, i think a lot of what he said there was more, you know, designed for the viewing public, not necessarily for the judge. really when you look at how federal criminal cases are scheduled, the idea it's going to be a couple of months is just not practical. essentially the defense would have to waive motions. you'd have to go waive certain defenses, and there's is a lot of significant issues in this case. in the grand jury phase related to privilege, executive privilege, things like that, and a lot of it will have to be revisited here. i think it's going to be far greater than that in the mar-a-lago case obviously without classification issue. so the idea this thing would go to trial in under 15 months setting aside any election is just not practical from a standpoint of how federal criminal cases are tried. >> that's interesting because there's been a lot of attempted tea leaf reading about when judge would schedule this. you believe it's 15 months. how surprised, and what avenues of appeals exist if the judge decides to do this, does the trump team have any recourse if that ends up being the case? >> you know, the ability to go to the appellate court in the middle of a case is pretty limited, but really all they have to do is file motions. once you file motions then they have to setout a motion schedule. the d.c. local rules, you know, setout what those normal time lines are, and then you have to have oral arguments and everything and it's one of those things that will naturally push the case out further. plus obviously you don't want to ask for such a long adjournment right in the beginning. you want to get the discovery, you want to go through and start to litigate the case. that way when you go back to the judge and say, hey, we need more time you can show the judge this is how much discovery we have, these are the problems we have. the government's not just going to give you all the discovery. there's going to be discovery issues where you want them to give over things they've withheld. and then you can go to the judge for something solid and say we need more time because of all these things. and it's very difficult for a judge to say go anyway because that's something that gets reversed. >> obviously it's a work in progress. the defense is obviously a work in progress. one of the main lines of counter argument we've heard floated in recent days by the president's defense attorney or one of two is this notion he was simply relying on the advice of counsel, and in this case one specific lawyer in particular, lawyer john eastman. i wonder if the trump team does use that argument to set aside its merits for one minute, does that not mean donald trump has to take the stand? >> no, not necessarily. a lot of this can be done through cross-examination and through presentation of other witnesses because ultimately, yes, if you're presenting an advice of counsel defense that does bring in an affirmative defense for you to put on evidence, which you can do through calling john eastman theoretically. but i would instead look at it from the perspective of the counsel -- the special counsel has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted with corrupt intent. and if you instead use that element to undermine his knowledge that there was no fraud in the election by bringing in all the evidence of the things that you were presented by rudy giuliani, by john eastman, by all these other people, that is a better route to do it, and it's not quite as narrow as the advice of counsel but a little bit broader. >> i think it's interesting because the person who could probably articulate the best defense is the former president, but it doesn't sound like the defense team wants to put him on the stand. do you think it's a good idea to put donald trump on the stand? >> that will be a decision for them. i will tell you in my experience i hardly ever want to put my client on the stand no matter what type of case it is. yeah, that's something you only do in very rare circumstances, and after -- after i have personally cross examined that client significantly and significantly harder than what i think the government will do to make sure they withstand my cross-examination before i even think of exposing them to the government. >> okay, especially if that client is donald trump. we'll table that for right now. >> i could see problems with that. >> yeah, it sounds like it. bill barr does not think the president should be on the stand in any circumstances. and i'm reading between the lines, and maybe you agree with that. >> i think that that's probably a good -- >> a good idea. let me ask you about just a parallel federal case which is the mar-a-lago case. now, there is a lot of talk as for people who have been very january 6th focused there's some interesting movement in that case this week. and yesterday jack smith, the special counsel, asked the judge in that case, aileen cannon, for a hearing to discuss whether the main defense in that case other than trump's defense attorney stanley woodward is representing too many clients in that case. he represents eight people in the mar-a-lago case including walt nauta, trump's named coconspirator, and then maybe three witnesses whose may be called to testify at trial in the case. he used to represent yucil taveras who's a primary star witness at this point. do you think sam woodward has too many clients and may be conflicted here? >> you know, that is a relatively standard motion in multi-defendant cases. in the second circuit it's a motion where it's not necessarily used to conflict an attorney out but rather to make sure if there are conflicts that the defendants fully understand those conflicts and knowingly waive them. for example, in this case walt will be asked by the federal judge do you understand that any confidential information that mr. woodward got from mr. taveras, he'll not be able to use that to cross examine it, and do you still want to be represented by somebody who is essentially handcuffed from doing that portion of the cross-examination, and then it'll be up to walt to make a decision on that. so, you know, the more people you represent, the more risk that there are -- that there is of conflicts like that. but ultimately it is the kind of thing the judge can go through and decide is this something that's waivable and up to the defendant you want to waive it. >> what would you do? >> if i were who? >> if you were walt nauta. >> or the judge. >> i mean given the defense. if you were walt nauta would you still want to be represented by sam woodward? >> while sam may not be able to cross examine yucil, his local counsel can. as long as you have an attorney representing you who doesn't have a conflict, and i've done cases before where you have one conflicted lawyer where when that witness gets up on the stand, that lawyer gets up and stands behind. it'll be up to nauta how much he believes in and trusts that and how much of a relationship they had. and i'd think he probably would be willing to waive that conflict and just have somebody else conduct certain portions of of the trial. >> especially if mr. woodward's legal bills are being paid by mr. trump. we'll table that discussion. on reading this back to the january 6th indictment we know who five of the coconspirators are. do you have a theory who the coconspirator six is? >> i've heard a couple of theories. >> do you embrace any of them? >> i don't want to put all my money on one of them, but i would say between mike roman and boris epstein, those could be the most likely of people. i would put more money on mike roman simply because it says political consultant whereas the other ones identify them as a lawyer and boris does have a license to practice law. >> so boris is only thing keeping parlatore as a candidate. thanks for joining me. >> all right, thank you very much. still ahead, how trump's 2024 rivals are reacting to today's historic arraignment and what is waiting for mr. trump down in georgia. >> unless someone tells me differently, we are following our part, our normal practice. and so it doesn't matter your status, we have mug shots ready for you. >> we have mug shots ready for you. that is all coming up. stay with us. ay with us life ine through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80, what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information. when i first learned about my dupuytren's contracture, my physician referred me to a hand specialist. and i'm glad he did, because when i took the tabletop test, i couldn't lay my hand flat anymore. the first hand specialist i saw only offered surgery. so, i went to a second hand specialist who also offered nonsurgical options - which felt more right for me. so, what i'd say to other people with dupuytren's contracture is this: don't wait —find a hand specialist trained in nonsurgical options, today. i found mine at findahandspecialist.com. we are back for more legal analysis on this historic arraignment day with msnbc's own ari melber. ari, i was just speaking with the former trump defense lawyer tim parlatore. the thing that struck me was this notion he believes the trial it's without debate in his eyes that a federal trial will take much, much longer than i think most of public believes it will. and he pegged it as 15 months from now and that was a reasonable time line for this trial to begin. do you think that is wishful thinking on the part of someone who used to be part of trump's defense team or is there some accuracy there? >> yeah, i think it's wishful thinking and a stretch and i don't think he's going to get the judge to agree on setting that trial date. i thought it was a newsworthy interview on a night like this. that said, i don't think everything that he claimed tracks. i was a little bit reminded of in "wedding crashers" where the guy is giving a toast and it's going left, that would be trump. and then tim parlatore grabs the mic. i think what he's trying to say is love is beautiful, love endures. >> i think that's is litigation compliment because he's doing better than the defendant. i think what we heard from parlatore is this sort of more warm, polished, almost nothing to see here mood. there's a lot to see here because there's damning evidence, and there's a lot to see here soon because as we've reported today and tonight, the presiding judge who matters told the magistrate get him back here the end of the month and i'm ready to go figure out the trial date. if they raise really good arguments they might get an extra month, a year and a half but we'll see. >> there's another bit where i asked him whether donald trump could and should take the stand. do we have that piece of sound, control room? let's take a listen to that. >> do you think it's a good idea to put donald trump on the stand? >> that will be a decision for them. i'll tell you in my experience i hardly ever want to put my client on the stand no matter what type of case it is. yeah, that's something you only do in very rare circumstances. and after -- after i have personally cross examined that client significantly and significantly harder than what i think the government will do to make sure they withstand my cross-examination before i even think of exposing hem to the government. >> yeah, i mean, and then i said -- i brought up the case bill barr said donald trump should never take the stand in his own defense. it seemed difficult to me -- not a person with a law degree -- for trump to make for his defense team to make the case. it's hard to make that case without trump himself taking the stand. parlatore threw cold-water on that. that seems like a tough defense without the principle. >> criminal defendants rarely take the stand, and when they do it's in extreme circumstances. when the trial has gone so left they think they're losing. there have been murder trials where the evidence is so strong where they say if nothing changes, they put imon the stand to try to get the jury to empathize in some ways. oftentimes there's someone so likable in the community they put him on the stand, and we've seen that. those are exceptions, and i don't think either of those at this point we could say would happen to trump. as the advice of counsel defense, it is probably weaker when the counsel in question have all been named as coconspirators by the government. they're unindicted at this point, and that's a procedural matter. but the government is saying with jack smith on tuesday that we have the goods on all these people. that's nut a small matter. one of them recently worked with the justice department, jeffrey clark. "a," that strengthens the government's case. and "b," if your ace in the hole is they told me to do it, it would help the person say that. >> also he's probably a terribly unreliable wbs to say nothing of everything else. ari melber, thank you my friend for playing double, triple duty this evening. appreciate your time, buddy. when we come back hot indictment summer not yet over. an investigation in georgia is heating up and one prosecutor says she's ready to go and ready to decide if donald trump is going to face a fourth set of charges. >> i took an oath, and that oath requires that i follow the law. that if someone broke the law in fulton county, georgia, that i have a duty to prosecute, and that's exactly what i plan to do. d that's exactly what i plan to do we planned well for retirement, but i wish we had more cash. you think those two have any idea? that they can sell their life insurance policy for cash? so they're basically sitting on a goldmine? i don't think they have a clue. that's crazy! well, not everyone knows coventry's helped thousands of people sell their policies for cash. even term policies. i can't believe they're just sitting up there! sitting on all this cash. if you own a life insurance policy of $100,000 or more, you can sell all or part of it to coventry. even a term policy. for cash, or a combination of cash and coverage, with no future premiums. someone needs to tell them, that they're sitting on a goldmine, and you have no idea! hey, guys! you're sitting on a goldmine! come on, guys! do you hear that? i don't hear anything anymore. find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. if you are donald trump, three federal indictments, three federal criminal indictments is apparently a hat trick, something to be celebrated, a sort of leg up on the competition, and he wants more of them. on truth social this morning mr. trump wrote i need one more indictment to ensure my election. that is it, number four and 1600 pennsylvania avenue. beyond being a re-election strategy trump sees these indictments as a lucrative fund-raising opportunity. there are trump t-shirts and trump mugs with a fake trump mug shot specifically commemorating this very moment in american history. but as the old adage goes every crisis is merchandising opportunity and the former president is not the only one to recognize this. former vice president mike pence who's likely a star witness in this case has new indictment swag for sale. his campaign is selling t-shirts that reads "too honest" is a reference to the allegations trump berated pence for his lawfulness in and around january 6th complaining pence was too honest. protect the constitution but also make it a crew neck. he's calling on the doj to tell the truth about trump's prosecution. >> is this a politicized persecution through prosecution? i certainly believe it is. >> south carolina senator tim scott is concerned about hunter biden that there are two different tracks of justice, one for political opponents and another for the son of the current president. former south carolina governor nikki haley said she'd like to just move on. >> i didn't rush out with a statement yesterday on trump's indictment for one simple reason. like most americans, i'm tired of commenting on every trump drama. i've lost track whether this indictment is the third, fourth, or the fifth. >> she's lost track, and maybe that's because governor haley has not discovered mr. trump's secret thoughts here. four indictments and five, five indielts, well you can just shoot for the moon. now, we do have new intel what we might see after potential indictment number four, and that is a trump mug shot. that is coming up next. stay with us. p next stay with us a wrap this commerc, i think i'm late on my payment. it's okay, the general gives you a break. yeah, we let you pick your own due date. good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general. that's some bad luck brian. and i think i'm late on my car insurance. good thing the general gives you a break when you need it. yeah, with flexible payment options to keep you covered. so today is your lucky...day [crash] so today is your lucky...day for a great low rate, go with the general. as of today donald trump has been arraigned on 78 criminal charges across three different cases. but there is still sort of unbelievably a fourth shoe that may drop in fulton county, georgia. the district attorney there, fani willis, says she is ready to announce her charging decisions and nothing is going to get in her way of doing that. >> anything surprise you on that? >> no. >> are you coordinating with the special counsel's office at all? >> i'm not going to comment on my investigation at this time. >> how much overlap is there between what you're planning to do and what's in this special counsel's investigation or indictment? >> obviously we're concentrating on georgia and things that impacted georgia. >> does it have any bearing on your investigation at all? >> i'm not sure i understand the question. >> does it affect what you're planning to do? >> no. >> okay. >> now, willis, has said she'll announce any potential indictment before september 1st. and to that end her office has announced some roads will be closed around the courthouse beginning august 7th. joining me now is the political reporter for the atlanta journal constitution. greg saw 16 fake electors gathered behind closed on january 2020. the special counsel's indictment alleges that the republican electors greg saw gathered behind that door were casting fraudulent ballots for donald trump at trump's direction. and that december 14th meeting has peaked d.a. willis' interest as well. greg, thanks for being here. i know another journalist i believe has been subpoenaed by the d.a. to talk about that moment on december 14th. and i would love to know when you saw that happening what did you think was going on behind that door? >> i was completely surprised because i had actually written stories about the lector meetings in georgia, because of course there's a major deal in georgia that joe biden was about to be formally elected by democratic electors in atlanta. and i called some republican electors just in case there might be something going on. and several of them said there were no such meetings. i was shocked to see some familiar republican faces. when i went up to that door the logestics team in the second floor of the state capitol knocked on the door and looked at them and said what's going on here. one of the fake electors said we're just having an educators meeting and kicked me out and i had to get up stairs. it wasn't until a few minutes later i realized what they were doing, and they were actually holding a fake electors meeting. >> the secrecy and to be honest the lies they told you about the subject of this meeting, what was actually going to pass behind that door, really doesn't -- i mean what do you make of that reality that you witnessed and the contention that these fake electors thought they were doing everything above board, that they didn't really realize they were part of any kind of potential criminal plot? >> now the narrative they were being transparent and open, but we know at the time they were doing anything but that. they've not told us in the media. it wasn't like in the press release saying they're going to be meeting at noon on that december day. instead we know from the january 6th commission trump staffers sent e-mails to the fake electors asking complete secrecy and even shielded some georgia state troopers who were reporting to governor brian kemp. they didn't want the governor knowing about it. >> yeah, greg, i have to say there's so much renewed interest in what exactly was happening with the fake electors given what was going on earlier this week. the breadth of the plot, the nefarious nature of the plot and this is the bedrock of the case of what the fake electors did. we know there's some overlap between the case jack smith is putting together and the hearing. what is the expectation when that indictment may come out? we have this reporting some of the roads around the courthouse are going to be closed august 7th. can you give us any insight? what are you hearing? >> first, you heard from the d.a. herself just saying a separate track, there's overlap. we know she's contacted both federal investigators and her investigation and contacted governor kemp and brad raffensperger. we're expecting within weeks this investigation to reach a conclusion. all signs, of course, point to donald trump's indictment. we're not expecting it imminently in the next few days but really within the next two weeks. the d.a. has said we'll have a decision before labor day. >> is there any overlap between the federal case and state case here? because there's certainly a lot of witnesses in common, and traditionally the federal criminal cases supercede, if you will, a state case. do you think there's going to be any deaferation to that when it comes to. a. willis. >> when the d.a. was asked about this a couple days ago she joked whether jack smith would even be able to get her name right. i'm not sure, you know, how the court scheduling could conflict with a federal case and a georgia case. we know there will be all sorts of pretrial litigation anyway, but fani willis has said over and over again she's going to move forward and conducting her own separate investigation. >> just to be clear i was talking to tish james over a month ago and she said very clearly if the federal case comes out in august, i will adjourn, alvin bragg will adjourn and fani willis will adjourn the case. but it does not sound that memo got to d.a. willis' desk. is that an accurate assessment? >> yeah, and we asked her aides around the same time if that was actually the case because it looked like the georgia case would be related. we were given the note they would move forward, and remember this has been going on for years now and the special grand jury met for monthsmism i don't think her time line is going to be affected by anyone else's time line. >> wow, it is going to be really interesting to see how these indictments intersect with one another and overlap. greg bluestein from the atlanta journal constitution witness to the fake electors meeting on december 20, 2014, thank you. that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. ulttimately what president trump said is let's go with option "d." let's just halt, let's just pause the voting and allow the state legislatures to take one last look and make a determination as to whether or not they were handled fairly. that's constitutional law. that's not an issue of criminal activity. >> that's donald trump's attorney in the 2020 election case seeming to admit that the former president did exactly what he's been accused of doing. we'll have a full break down of trump's historic arraignment yesterday and