counts against mr. trump, handed up last night by a grand jury after a 2 1/2 year investigation conducted by district attorney willis in georgia. willis writes, quote, defendant donald trump lost the election. one of the states he lost was georgia. trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refuse to accept that trump lost. they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of trump. among those co-defendants, some of the most well-known people in the former president's orbit during his final days in office. including his white house chief of staff, mark meadows, personal attorney and former new york city mayor, rudy giuliani, jeffrey clark, who tried to assert significant election concerns had been identified, and a string of lawyers, including john eastman, sidney powell and speaking to the press just before midnight, she rejected trump's accusation on social media that she was persecuting him for political reasons. >> i make decisions in this office based on the facts and the law. the law is completely non-partisan. that's how decisions are made in every case. to date, this office has indicted over 12,000 cases. this is the 11th rico indictment. we look at the facts. we look at the law. we bring charges. >> a big question at this hour, when could an arraignment take place? they have ten days to voluntarily surrender to authorities in georgia. last night, d.a. willis told reporters she intends to try all 19 defendants in the indictment together. she will seek a trial date within the next six months. the official trial date will be set by a georgia judge in coming weeks. the laundry list of charges facing the former president and his co-defendants are numerous and stunning. among them, violation of georgia's rico act, solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, conspiracy and criminal attempt to commit false statements and writing, impersonating a public officer, forgery and conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree, criminal attempt and conspiracy to commit filing false documents, influencing witnesses, conspiracy to commit election fraud, conspiracy to commit computer theft, trespass and invasion of privacy, conspiracy to defraud the state, filing false documents and perjury. a conviction would mean prison time. the felony solicitation charge against trump is linked to that damning january 2021 phone call recorded by georgia secretary of state brad raffensperger. >> this is now the fourth indictment of the former president of the united states. this case is unlike the rest. the sheer scope of what's included in the racketeering charges, not to mention the number of co-conspirators, is ambitious and in many ways novel. what are the risks? what are the potential strengths of the d.a.'s case? perhaps the biggest difference is that in georgia, cameras are allowed in the courtroom, which means we get to see almost everything from the arraignment to the jury's ultimate decision. it could be the biggest platform of donald trump's political career. will it help him or hurt him in 2024? just as the other cases, trump has framing his own version for the public. last night, he attacked the d.a. as a, quote, very corrupt district attorney who campaigned and raised money on, i will get trump. this morning, he said to stay tuned for a press conference next monday at bedminster where he says he will lay out a detailed and irrefuable report on the fraud that he still claims exists. his lawyers called the indictment flawed and unconstitutional and said the grand jury presentation relied on witnesses who harbor their own personal and political interests. just as in the other three cases, donald trump and his political team are fund-raising off the charges. it is part of his effort to gin up support and gin up cash to pay his massive and mounting legal bills. >> let's bring in our panel. nbc's blayne alexander and garrett haake in atlanta. senior legal correspondent laura jarrett, former manhattan assistant district attorney catherine christian and former u.s. attorney chuck rosenberg. blayne, the ogistical question the defendants are facing in terms of the surrender, when, where, they have to do it before august 25th, that's ten days, what do we know, what do we -- we may need to find out from prosecutors, who is cutting a deal? >> reporter: the biggest thing we know right now is that everything is on the table. that's number one. two, these discussions are actively happening. when i say everything is on the table, i mean when i spoke with the sheriff and speaking with other officials who have knowledge of how these things play out, that means there's a possibility of fingerprints, mugshots and the possibility of surrendering at the county jail, rather than the courthouse. there are a number of people taking part in the conversations. we are talking about the d.a.'s office, the sheriff's office, who provides security for these things. then, of course, the defendants' attorneys along with a judge who has been assigned to this case. i can say that from my conversations with the sheriff of the county, along with the d.a., her posture and his posture is we don't provide anybody any special treatment. that's certainly something that's notable. as we are waiting to see what these terms of surrender will look like, as the people trickle down to atlanta and surrender, we are hearing from some of the people who have been named in this indictment. we got a statement from kenneth chesebro. saying that he was asked by the trump campaign to provide advice on issues related to constitutional and election law. each of the alleged overt acts that are attributed to mr. chesbro relate to his work as an attorney. that's the main part of that statement. i suspect that's going to be something that we repeatedly hear as we get more statements from the people who were also listed in the indictment. >> laura, let's talk about the size, the scope of this indictment. i think that was a surprise we are talking about 19 different people. i did a quick check. at least nine are lawyers. as i'm reading through, i'm thinking, this isn't bread crumbs. there are emails, text messages, phone messages, phone calls, public statements, public press conferences. risk versus strength. when you look at that idea that nine lawyers at least were involved in all of this, according to the indictment, what are the risks in the size of this? what are the strengths of this indictment? >> they certainly -- the prosecutors will argue they should have known better if they were lawyers. it appears at least in some of the communications, they did know better. john eastman says, the president is aware that these numbers are false, and yet he signed a certification, according to this indictment, anyway to the effect about voters in atlanta that was incorrect. they have signalled trump's legal team, that they will make this advice of counsel defense. that's a risky move considering it opens up pandora's box into discovery into communication back and forth. you might get more communication showing he was put on notice that what he was doing went against the law. >> explain why that would open a pandora's box. >> if you assert advice of counsel, you have to show that that was made on a good faith belief. he would actually, potentially, even the former president have to testify about what he was told and why he was operating under that good faith belief. the lawyers would have to produce documents, probably showing, we told him he was wrong. >> that means waiving lawyer/client privilege. >> that's a risky move. it's not something anybody in their right mind who want to do. it's been floated out on tv by lawyers right now. whether that's actually an argument you want to make at trial is probably dubious. >> some of the lawyers who gave the advice, particularly if they have been indicted, they aren't going to admit anything. they have a right to remain silent. they were not indicted by the special counsel, now five of them have been indicted, as part of this georgia indictment. >> one of the questions i have -- you touched on this, chris. the scope of this is a big indictment. a lot of charges. it's ambitious in the detail that it has. some of the detail, if you take it individually, wouldn't necessarily be criminal. there are a lot of co-defendants. what is the risk in lumping that all together? does donald trump potentially get lost in the mix there for d.a. willis? >> conspiracy in rico, prosecutors love it. defense attorneys hate it? why? because you can give the jury the whole scope of the alleged criminal activity. you provide -- you paint a picture. i think d.a. willis has said she loves this charge because this allows her to tell the complete story. it's not like the one-off charge where you are limited. defense attorneys hate it. if you are representing the schmoo, why is my client lumped in with donald trump? the risk is more for the defendant, particularly the lower level defendants. for the prosecuprosecutor, if t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, it is their best friend. >> chuck, let's talk about some of the co-conspirators in the jack smith federal case and this broad state case with 19 defendants, 18 co-defendants. what is the impetus for someone who is an unindicted co-conspirator to make a deal with jack smith to flip if they are indicted in the state? do you see the state and federal prosecutors agreeing on some sort of universal agreement for those who want to bargain in the next ten days? >> you know, your question gets to the heart of the problem, andrea. it gets complicated. these unindicted co-conspirators in the federal case still have a fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. for instance, if you wanted to use an advice of counsel defense, it would be hard to convince people who may have given advice to testify. there's no good reason to do that, because they may be charged. willis took a different approach. she charged just about everybody who could be charged. although, she has some unindicted co-conspirators mentioned in her indictment. coordinating this to your question between state and federal prosecutors is complicated. they don't have to coordinate. ideally, they do. but they don't have to. federal prosecutors can't immunize people on state charges. state prosecutors can't immunize people on federal charges. ideally, they work to the. these are big cases with lots and lots of issues. more complex than we sometimes make it out to be. the way it resolves, i think in georgia, is that some number of the 19 charged co-defendants plead guilty and cooperate. that doesn't mean they all do. it is possible in the federal case in d.c. that some of the unindicted co-conspirators are ultimately charged. the playing fields in both places are going to change over time. these difficult questions that you have asked, we will have better answers in a few months from now. >> as you mentioned, in the state case, there are several unindicted co-conspirators linked to specific instances, what comes to mind is the december 18th oval office meeting, a small universe of people, relatively small. clearly -- she said last night in her news conference or in her statement that they were known to the grand jury. at least in the state case, she's flipped a couple people who are known to be talking. so that has to be very concerning, right, to donald trump? he has someone in the oval office heard and saw everything, talking. >> a close reading of the indictment suggests strongly that there are a number of insiders. one of the most difficult things for prosecutors to do generally is to get inside, get inside the boardroom, get inside the warehouse. in this case, get inside the oval office. but if you read the indictment carefully, it seems like she has accomplished that. she has people who are apparently cooperating. i don't know if they flipped. that suggests they may have had some criminal exposure. that may not be true. it may just be witnesses. but a careful reading suggests there are some insiders, some may have exposure, some not, and their testimony is going to be very important, because getting inside the boardroom, getting inside the warehouse, getting inside the oval office is how you get the information about a defendant's intent, willfulness, purposefulness, always the hardest thing to prove. >> garrett, let's talk about trump. brian kemp, the governor, just tweeted this. the 2020 election in georgia was not stolen. for nearly three years, anyone with evidence of fraud has failed to come forward under oath and prove anything in a court of law. our elections in georgia are secure, accessible and fair and will continue to be as long as i am governor. the future of our country is at stake, and that must be our focus. you can do quick math on the legal challenges that donald trump and his lawyers made against the 2020 election, their success rate, was 1.5%. and yet, garrett, we see the same playbook from donald trump. he will call a press conference because he has all the evidence to drop all of the charges. in the meantime, he will raise money. right? >> reporter: i think that's right. this is all going to come to a head in due time. if donald trump had the evidence that would exonerate him as he says and prove everything he claimed about the georgia election, we wouldn't be here and he would probably be president of the united states. that evidence didn't exist then and it doesn't exist now. brian kemp, the governor, knows it. he more than any other republican has effectively beaten back the trump messaging. he survived a primary challenge. he won a close re-election race. he talked to a republican yesterday who said his approval raing barely goes south of 55%. this someone calling out donald trump for lying about the election result, something no national republican has been willing to do. that's part of what makes georgia unique in the tapestry of criminal cases against donald trump. it will play out in a state where all this happened and in a state that donald trump needs to win. at least a significant number of republicans, led by the popular governor, believe his claims are totally bunk. in the short-term, that's not going to stop donald trump from running the playbook we have seen after the last couple of indictments. you will see posts on truth social and a lot of emails and texts to his supporters urging them to donate money. we saw it from marjorie taylor greene, one of donald trump's biggest surrogates here, saying now is the time to back him up, basically, with cash. running a presidential campaign amid four criminal cases with other people who you are helping pay for it is very expensive. all the money that donald trump has been raising around the indictments -- it's been millions of dollars -- they are burning through it at a rapid clip. it's only going to accelerate as the cases accelerate. the fund-raising effort between now and when he shows up in georgia to be arraigned is probably priority number one in trump world. >> have we seen the money issues limit donald trump's ability to campaign so far? any change from campaigns past? any change in scheduling, garrett? >> reporter: look, it's hard to pivot specifically to the money issues. number one, he is so far ahead in the republican primary that spending a million dollars on a rally isn't a very good investment. there's no need for it right now. if you can save a million dollars a week by not doing gigantic rallies and appearing for 90 minutes at the state fair instead or showing up to be arraigned and getting coverage, basically for free in terms of how your campaign looks at it, that's a better return on investment than spending big money on the campaign trail. where this starts to matter more is when we get into the general election, if donald trump is the nominee. as long as he has a 40-point lead nationally and a 20-point lead in any of the battleground early states in a republican primary, nobody's argument about electability will force him to change his hand. no campaign pressure is going to force him to spend campaign money on campaign stuff when he can spend it on legal issues instead. >> laura, i want to read to you something about the detail in this 97 pages. for instance, in the indictment it says, members of this enterprise, which she has labeled a criminal enterprise as part of the racketeering charges against all of them, members of the enterprise, including several of the defendants, corruptly solicited high ranking united states department of justice officials to make false statements to government officials in fulton county, georgia, including the governor, the speaker of the house of representatives and the president pro tem of the senate. donald trump stated to the acting united states attorney general, just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and republican congressmen. this implicates a lot of people. >> it does. it's important, i think, and the reason it keeps coming up in this indictment and the other one is it goes to his state of mind. if you say, say it's corrupt and leave it to me, it's not a good faith effort to get to the bottom of what happened. this is about a pretext so you can make whatever claims you want and then leave the rest to me and i will take care of it. that's why prosecutors keep using that. it helps flesh out the story of his intent. >> even though she doesn't have to prove -- at least jack smith doesn't have to prove in the federal law that he knew the election was lost. but this adds to the weight of it. >> it adds to the guilty mindset. it adds to the corrupt -- they have to show he was acting corruptly to prove their case. >> if you want to talk about the idea that -- whether or not this should have been brought in the first place, chris christie was saying, this is all covered by jack smith, this is maybe overkill. i'm putting that word in his mouth, but that was the intent of what he had to say. there are peopling writing op-eds saying this is the strongest and most important case in part because he couldn't pardon himself if he were to be elected president again. where do you put this overall as we look at these four indictments? not just maybe in importance but in strength of the case. >> it's not overkill. i'm clearly biased. a federal prosecutor will say federal prosecutors do it. if you read her indictment in conjunction with the january 6 indictment, this is even more comprehensive. first of all, she indicted those five co-conspirators, the special counsel didn't. he may do that. this is more encompassing than any other of the indictments. >> why is hers more encompassing? >> his is comprehensive. but there are six co-conspirators he left out. i know practically why he did that. >> why? >> if you indicted them, now you have seven defendant indictment and that case is not going to trial on january 2nd. he had a legitimate, strategic reason not to do that. >> he has to get the case done. >> she does not have to do that, the d.a. of fulton county. she can lean back. she can wait. there's no -- she said she will do this in six months. that's not going to happen with 19 defense attorneys. he cannot, if he is re-elected or if a republican is elected, pardon himself or any of the other defendants in this case. even the georgia governor, who is republican, can't pardon him or any of the defendants under the georgia law. >> what is the timing? what do you believe the timing is going to be? you say six months is unlikely. >> they can wait until after the election. i know you are always saying, be ready, be ready often, say you are ready for trial. she will answer ready. but all the other defendants and their lawyers, particularly the schmoos, there's no way. it's up to the judge. the judge in georgia decides when the trial will happen. >> a quick question for garrett haake, who has covered capitol hill for years. we heard from former speaker newt gingrich, who is a former speaker from georgia, former house representative from georgia, saying, fellow republicans, house republicans, fire all the federal prosecutors on this case, fire everybody you can, cut off the money, basically, to jack smith as of the end of september when the budget year ends. there's a senate that could override that. what is the threat as well that jack smith could have his hands handcuffed, if you will, by members of the senate as well as members of the house? >> reporter: look, that sounds like the newt gingrich who got forced out by his own members. house republicans have some significant amount of power to force the issue on funding on the federal cases. they could try to choke off money to the special counsel. they could hold up spending bills. we are in spending bill season on capitol hill with the government needing to be funded by the end of september. first of all, they have a democratic controlled senate that's going to go along with that and a democrat in the white house who wouldn't sign a spending bill that does it. do you want this fight and tip the government into a shutdown? do you want the preeminent issue that you put the votes behind the de-funding the police, a thing you said you didn't want to do in election after election, to defend donald trump? is that what you want to go campaign on? i don't see kevin mccarthy going for that. i could see him making noise to that effect between now and when the rubber hits the road on the government funding bills. >> thank you very much. let's stick to news from the house of representatives. kevin mccarthy denounced it as a desperate sham by a radical d.a. who is using donald trump to fund-raise. jim jordan, chair of the house judiciary committee, called it a witch hunt and ted cruz said democrats don't believe in democracy, they are using the justice system to take the choice away from voters. joining us now is congressman ken buck, republican of colorado, and member of the house judiciary committee. we appreciate your time. i want to start with asking, have you had a chance to read the indictment? >> i have not read the whole indictment. >> what have you read? what do you think of what you have read? >> i have read the beginning and i read a lot of analysis of the indictment. it's a rico charge primarily. in my view, as a former federal prosecutor and state prosecutor, the federal indictment could have been a rico indictment. they didn't choose to go the rico route. i think properly so. rico was meant to cover mafia cases, it was meant to cover international drug organizations. this charge is really a nuclear bomb where a bullet would have been appropriate. i think the scope of this charge is really something that should have been done at the federal level, if it was going to be done at all. >> the d.a. used rico charges to prosecute teachers. it hasn't just been organized crime in the past. do you think that all of these legal cases that surround donald trump -- do you think none have merit? is there something to be concerned about? >> i think there's a lot to be concerned about. any time a grand jury brings charges, you have to be very concerned. i think that some of the cases are more likely to be successful. i think the case involving the classified documents is a case that has fairly straightforward elements to it. if, in fact, the facts that are alleged are true, that's a very difficult case to defend. i think these other cases involve speech and really the president's mental state. to say that he knew that he had lost the election is going to be very difficult to prove. there were people around him who said he lost. there were people who said he didn't lose, it was stolen. i think to show his mental state in both the federal election case as well as this election case is going to be very difficult. >> congressman, it's chris jansing here. there's legal and there's the political. outside of the courthouse yesterday, after he was inside that courthouse, former georgia lieutenant governor jeff duncan talked about the opportunity he thinks this indictment presents for your party. let me play that. >> launch into a gop 2.0, one that focuses on policies that matter, not lies, not tweets, policies that meet america at the kitchen table. that's what this is all about. let's have a discussion about the facts. if we have a discussion about the facts, i like the outcome. >> do you see it that way, congressman? do you think that will happen? >> i think ultimately what we as republicans need to do if we're going to win the white house in november of 2024 is to talk about the issues that americans care about and try to get away from the trump indictments and the scandalous nature of the accusations surrounding this president. we need to talk about the border. we need to talk about inflation. we need to talk about crime in the streets. those are issues that republicans are strong on and need to run on. this is a really difficult distraction to try to win the white house, and especially when leading candidate is the subject of these indictments. >> is that what you hear from your constituents? >> you know, my constituents are split right now. we have a lot of donald trump supporters in colorado. they are adamant this president is being treated unfairly. we have a lot of other republicans who want to move on, who are concerned about how joe biden is running the country and they want to see a change. really, i see a divided party at this point. >> congressman, andrea mitchell here. we appreciate you coming on. many of your colleagues have not accepted our invitation. so thank you. how does the party and particularly the candidates on that stage in milwaukee, how do they get to the issues you want to talk about, joe biden's record or other related issues, when donald trump himself is dominating the field with such a big lead and is talking constantly about 2020 and understandably because he is a defendant now under four indictments? >> yeah. i think it's very difficult. i can remember when donald trump was president and he would tweet something out and it didn't matter what was happening in north korea or anywhere else, the media wanted to cover the latest tweet. that was frustrating to those of us that wanted to talk about substantive issues. it's more difficult now during a presidential election when the news is constantly about donald trump and these indictments and his actions during a time of the election and up to and after january 6th of 2021. i think it is difficult to break through that noise right now and try to get a message -- a positive message about where america could be heading under different leadership. >> congressman ken buck, thank you so much. we again appreciate you coming on the program. thank you. joining us now, "new york times" chief white house correspondent peter baker and "washington post" reporter jackie alamany. in addition to what it means in terms of being on the campaign trail for the other folks who are running, what about him logistically? now that we are at four, how does he pull off a presidential campaign as a defendant in multiple trials? do we have any idea what that's going to look like? >> no. there's no road map for this. there's no history to point back to and say, so and so did it this way. he will have four criminal trials coming up. he has a couple other -- two or three other civil trials coming up, which are important to him. i think even if some of these get pushed off, the number of motions hearings and discovery issues and pretrial skirmishes will be time consuming, certainly for his team, and probably also at some point for him. you don't have any way to get around that. he is going to end up campaigning to some extent in these trials or through these trials if he goes on trial in january, as jack smith wants him to do in the january 6 election overturning case, it's literally whether the iowa caucuses are about to happen. you see him making statements to the cameras and that becoming his equivalent of campaigning, his rallies. he won't be with diners kissing babies. he will do it from the courthouse. that's the reality of the situation we find ourselves in. >> the country is in uncharted territory, but especially so the 2024 race and the republicans in that race. as we were talking about a moment ago, being constantly asked to react to donald trump instead of about the issues. let me play tim scott who just spoke with our own ali vitali. >> reporter: we heard the phone call with the former president, then president at the time, where he said, just find me the requisite number of votes i would need. doesn't that feel anti-american, not what a president should do? >> as i see it, we see the legal system being weaponized against political opponents. that's unamerican and unacceptable. we need a better system than that. >> we have seen this play out now for eight years. 2015, 2016, the entirety of donald trump's presidency, republicans having to react to the latest thing that donald trump did that was way outside of the norm, in this case, potential criminality. i'm surprised that chris christie is one of the only ones on the campaign trail who is willing to come out and say, listen, this is not a republican party problem, this is a donald trump problem. >> yeah. chris christie seems to be the only one who realizes this is the power of donald trump. the problem for the republican party, especially as garrett noted, once we get to the general election when trump is forced to consistently talk about all of his criminal exposure without any of his republican counterparts left to sort of deflect and rally in these rhetorical, you know, tongue twisters that you are seeing, that it is going to most likely hurt him more in the general than it will in the primary. what you are seeing is the tried and true permanent offense that trump and his mentors, people like roy cohen have been proponents of. it doesn't matter what you talk about. all matters is that you are in the center of the conversation. you are having a bad news day, you have been indicted for the fourth time, it's still more beneficial to you to be in that dialogue. you are going to see that continue. as peter noted, any distinction between trump's white house bid and his criminal defense is going to consistently vanish the more charges mounted against him and the more we get into the actual trial dates where he is vacillating between campaign rallies, presidential debates, and appearing in the courtroom and facing witnesses who are going to be presenting and prosecutors who will make the case against him. >> peter baker, how do trump opponents, republican opponents as well as white house opponents, how do they break through indictment fatigue? how do they get voters not only energizing democratic voters, but certainly maybe not maga base but independents, swing voters, how do they get voters to focus on the substance of some of these indictments as many times as we use the word unprecedented? >> yeah. we are in this bizarre moment, of course, where the unprecedented has become routine. we have seen this four times already. there's no question that the country has gotten oddly accustom to it. it's another week, another indictment. here we go. i think there is a fatigue factor that they have seen, one consultant told me he hears voters -- for them, it's white noise. they can't make a distinction between the cases. all they know is trump is in trouble. they come back to their pre-indictment views of him. either they think he is being persecuted unfairly or they think he is a serial criminal who is finally being brought to justice. they are not spending a lot of time on the details of it. a lot of people thought the indictments -- if there was going to be an indictment, that would pull him down. that turned out to be not true. the question is whether what we talked about earlier with all of the trials and everything, eventually just weighs down -- even republicans who like him say, enough of that. i would like to move on like jeff duncan and ken buck told you. >> the last one will be on camera, which is a big difference as well. thanks so much to both of you. coming up, what we know about the next steps in fulton county's case against former president trump. why will it likely mean the very first presidential mugshot? stay with us. you are watching special coverage of the indictment of donald trump right here on msnbc. ♪ chevy silverado has what it takes to do it all. with up to 13 camera views. and the z71 off-road package. ♪ you ok? yeah. any truck can help you make a living. this one helps you build a life. chevy silverado. businesses need 5g solutions today. that's why they choose t-mobile for business. mlb partners with t-mobile to not only enhance the fan experience, but to advance how the game is played. aaa relies on t-mobile's network to stay connected nationwide, so they can help get their members back on the road. and we're helping pano ai innovate, to stop the spread of wildfires. now's the time to see what america's largest 5g network can do for your business. how will the fact that this will play out in a state court in georgia, where television cameras will likely be permitted, how does that change the case? what will it look like at the courthouse? joining us now is former district attorney robert james. thanks so much for being with us. you know the process and how it's going to play out in the courthouse. how will reporting to the courthouse work for former president trump and his allies indicted in the case whether they first come for their arraignments? >> sure. before the arraignments, in georgia, when someone is indicted, there's a grand jury arrest warrant issued if the case didn't originate with a police officer, like this case. the first thing that's going to happen is that they're going to turn themselves in. i believe d.a. willis indicated she would give them until next friday. they will go through the process of booking. they will not sit inside a cell or anything like that. they will go into central booking. i expect it will be a private affair, no cameras, i wouldn't expect. there will be a mugshot most likely. fingerprints. their personal information will be given. the same thing that happens. i would expect everyone indicted to go through this process. after that, they will get a notice to come back for an arraignment calendar. that's typically a month to two months, 30 days and 90 days out. they will come to court. they will essentially answer the charges. they will call the defendant's name. the defendant will stand up and plead guilty or not guilty. typically, that's not a day for a lot of fanfare, a lot of grandstanding. it's just to be made aware of what you are charged with. that's when things start after that arraignment. that's when the motions start getting filed. that's when you get a potential trial date. that's when the fireworks half after that. >> knowing how this works and presuming you have read the indictment and you have seen the evidence that she has laid out, what are the charges between now and when we see those folks go in for an arraignment that talks begin for the possibility of a deal that someone might flip? what would d.a. willis look at in making a decision about whether or not to offer someone a deal? >> sure. let's start with the last question, what will she look at to determine to offer someone a deal. it's how useful they are. the time for deals is over for the most part, because you had enough to indict the case. you feel comfortable trying the case at this point. if you didn't, you should not indict it. it's going to be sort of a use-based analysis. if i were her, do i really need this witness? is this witness credible? that's where that process starts. i would not be surprised if that happened. if it does happen, it's more than likely someone that's on the lower rung of this alleged conspiracy. i expect a lot of the larger name public officials, like donald trump, rudy giuliani, state senator -- i wouldn't be surprised if they flip. >> when you talk about how useful they would be and pointing to lower rung co-defendants, are you talking about co-defendants who approached ruby freeman and her mother and tried to get them to not flip but confess to election interference, confess to changing votes? are they going to be helpful? if so, how? >> yes, they would be helpful. as a prosecutor, obviously, donald trump is the main name in this. right? there are other individuals who have big names. his is the biggest. when you talk to someone on a lower rung of a conspiracy or you want to ask them to testify and become a witness, ultimately, you are looking to see if they can connect the dots. some of the acts may be easy to prove when you say donald trump did this, giuliani did this, but the indictment says knowing and willful. you need evidence to show it was willfully done. when you speak with these co-defendants that you are trying to flip, if that happens, you want to hear facts and evidence and conversations that took place that would allow you to prove what we call state of mind. >> mr. james, some of the former federal prosecutors, including chris christie, have been very disparaging of this indictment, of willis using rico. have you tried a rico case? tell us why the rico law in georgia is very different from the federal rico law and why it specifically could be tailored as a powerful weapon for this case. >> it's not very different from the federal rico law. our rico law here in georgia was patterned after the federal rico law. there are things around enterprise you have to prove under federal law that you don't have to under state law. it's pretty much the same thing. this is an opinion, right? some people will say that using rico in a case like this is like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant. some people say it's not, that it's a powerful tool that allows you to bring in assorted criminal activity and some activity that's not criminal but perhaps may be unethical and tell the whole story. right? when you stand back and look at it, things -- you see this potential crime, that potential crime, but ultimately the prosecutor has to bring it together and prove it was done as part of a scheme. rico allows you to tie it together. i don't know that you could successfully prosecute this many individuals for a broad array of crimes like this until you did use rico. >> robert james, good to have you on the program. thank you for being with us. joining us now, devlin barrett, frank figliuzzi and former u.s. attorney joyce vance. joyce, i want to pick up with rico. when you think of it, you think of organized crime. this is what the indictment reads. trump and the other defendants charged in this indictment refused to accept that trump lost and they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of trump. that conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity in fulton county, georgia, especially in other states. the scope of this, not just the number of people, but the number of places where it goes, i think, for a lot of folks, when they thought about a georgia indictment, i tailored to what happened in georgia. tell us what you see here and why it works in the rico indictment. >> the rico statute does give prosecutors broad powers to go after groups of people who commit specified types of crimes together. it's not simply limited to organized crime. although, that was its original and intended use. the statute, federal and georgia, doesn't just say street crime. she is a specialist. she's brought on her team a lawyer named john coyt who is known for his fluency with the georgia rico statute. that gives them the ability not only to exceed her jurisdiction in fulton county, georgia, and look at events that took place elsewhere in the state, but it does permit her to include these overt acts that took place outside of georgia as well. >> in reading the indictment last night and this morning -- because i got cross eyed last night. it was very late at night. i was struck by, as everyone was, the level of detail and the way that she went through day and day after day after day, donald trump made this call, this email was sent, it was responded to. devlin, you have been covering the aspects of this case even before we got this indictment, all of the aspects of what happened between the election and january 6. do you think she did a good job laying it all out? >> i think she did. i think to get to joyce's earlier point, rico really allowed them the prosecutors to cast a very wide net. you see that in this more than overt acts listed here. overt acts aren't specifically or necessarily crimes, they're just things that were done to help the overall alleged criminal conspiracy. and so what you see in this indictment is that there are just tons and tons of overt acts. everything up to and including the speeches that happened on the morning of january 6th. so, what she's really doing is creating a much larger, longer story of january 6th and the efforts to undo that election, compared to the federal indictment, which is a much tighter and shorter story. >> and can you just define overt act for us, for anybody who might be joining us now? >> right, so, you know, i used to cover many years ago mob trials and classic overt act would be, okay, so, if you're going to kill a guy, if you're a mobster and going to kill a guy, when you go to the home depot or you go to a hardware store to get a hammer and some rope because you're going to tie him into a head and tie him up, that's an overt act. it is not a crime to buy a hammer or a crime to buy a rope, but that is a kind of act in furtherance of a crime that is going to happen. >> frank, rudy giuliani, recent statement about the indictment, writing, quote, this is an affront to american democracy, and does permanent irrevocable harm to our justice system. it is just the next chapter in a book of lies with the purpose of framing president donald trump and anyone willing to take on the moving regime. i would like to get your reaction, especially in the context of rudy giuliani, the former prosecutor and head of nysd. >> yeah this is quite a statement coming from somebody who grew up within the department of justice as we all know. u.s. attorney, southern district of new york, assistant attorney general of the united states, a doj, and for him to actually issue the statement and claim that this prosecution, of him and others, is causing irrevocable harm to american democracy and justice is asinine. what the charges say is giuliani undermined the justice system for their own profit and in this case i think a pathetic search for relevance to maintain relevance. i would assert that not charging these offenses with this level of evidence would actually be the act that undermines democracy and justice. >> joyce, you tweeted out today that rico does not have a mandatory minimum sentence. and a question a lot of people who believe that donald trump has done wrong, that he has been a threat to democracy, have been waiting for a moment when they believe he will be brought to justice, what they consider to be justice. but let's look at this overall. what are the possibilities here for donald trump and any of the other people who are named in this indictment? >> yes, so there is interesting analysis here. sentencing law is always a little bit arcane. it varies from state to state. and while this georgia rico provision on its face looks like it includes a mandatory minimum, in practice there is another georgia statute that gives the judge the opportunity to issue a sentence that is lower than five years. but there is some interesting georgia precedent. fani willis prosecuted a case involving a number of georgia educators who were caught up in a test scoring scandal. and in that case, some of the lower level participants received sentences that were significantly below five years. others pleaded and didn't go to prison. on the high end, some looked at sentences that were seven years and beyond. beyond what we would look at as that five-year mark. that has to be a precedent that some of the defendants' lawyers in this case and the defendants themselves are very seriously considering. fani willis has not messed around in the past when she's brought these cases. and she has precedent at her back that suggests that people convicted of these crimes and i don't want to get ahead of ourselves here, we're a long way from here to there, but if there are convictions, she has this powerful precedent that suggests that significant sentences are appropriate. >> i think it is just interesting to underscore and i know this is part of the racketeering charge, but that she has labeled donald trump as allies, lawyers, people caught up in this, as a criminal organization. >> right. that's really what the rico law is meant to address and enterprise of criminal activity. and so one of the things you have to show is that these people were all engaged in overarching criminal effort. overarching enterprise and organization. and that's obviously a loaded and important charge. it is another way in which this indictment is very ambitious. this indictment is very far reaching in what it accuses people of, and that all the types of behavior it says was part of that criminal effort. >> devlin barrett, joyce vance, thank you very much. and coming up in our next hour of special coverage, critical differences, why the georgia indictment against former president trump could end up having much more staying power than even the two federal indictments he faces. plus, what's the georgia trial going to look like on tv? and what that could mean both legally and politically for somebody who is running for president again. you're watching special coverage of the indictment of donald trump, right here on msnbc. ictm trump, right here on msnbc sometimes jonah wrestles with falling asleep... ...so he takes zzzquil. the world's #1 sleep aid brand for a better night sleep. so now, he wakes up feeling like himself. the reigning family room middle-weight champion. better days start with zzzquil nights. permission to dig in? granted. breyers carbsmart is so rich, so creamy, it tastes totally off-limits. but with only 4 grams of net carbs in every delicious serving, you've got the green light. better starts with breyers. somedays, i cover up because of my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now i feel free to bare my skin, thanks to skyrizi. ♪(uplifting music)♪ ♪nothing is everything♪ i'm celebrating my clearer skin... my way. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin, even at 5 years. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. thanks to clearer skin with skyrizi - this is my moment. there's nothing on my skin and that means everything! ♪nothing is everything♪ now's the time. ask your doctor about skyrizi, the #1 dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis. learn how abbvie could help you save. my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once-monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems. allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala. it ain't my dad's razor, dad. ay watch it! it's from gillettelabs. this green bar releases trapped hairs from my face... gamechanga! ...while the flexdisc contours to it. so the five blades can get virtually every hair in one stroke. for the ultimate gillette shaving experience. the best a man can get is gillettelabs. ♪i've got home internet from t-mobile.♪ ♪it only costs $50 bucks at t-mobile.♪ ♪just one cord to set up.♪ ♪say goodbye to that truck.♪ ♪oh, what a beautiful mornin'...♪ ♪oh, what a beautiful day...♪ ♪they won't raise your rates at t-mobile...♪ ♪you'll get a great deal every day!♪ home internet from t-mobile... just $50 bucks a month. hey bud. wow. what's all this? hawaii was too expensive so i brought it here. you know with priceline you could actually take that trip for less than all this. i made a horrible mistake. ♪ go to your happy price ♪ ♪ priceline ♪ mr. senna's into nature. professor kot's into science. but together, we work! like our senokot laxatives. to relieve occasional constipation, senokot's made from the senna plant. refined by science to be reliable. perfect match! just like us! hmph! senokot. age is just a number, and mine's unlisted. try boost® high protein with 20 grams of protein for muscle health versus 16 grams in ensure® high protein. boost® high protein. now available in cinnabon® bakery-inspired flavor. learn more at boost.com/tv welcome back to msnbc's special coverage of donald trump's indictment in georgia. i'm chris jansing along with my colleagues andrea mitchell and katy tur. with donald trump and a host of co-conspirators, the real work is just getting started for fulton county d.a. fani willis. she has vowed to try all 19