hi, i'm katie, i've lost 110 pounds on golo in just over a year. golo is different than other programs i had been on because i was specifically looking for something that helped with insulin resistance. i had had conversations with my physician indicating that that was probably an issue that i was facing and making it more difficult for me to sustain weight loss. golo has been more sustainable. i can fit it into family life, i can make meals that the whole family will enjoy. it just works in everyday life as a mom. tonight on "the reidout" -- >> the gays want to control everything. this is part of the left-wing agenda, to do away with christian values and substitute for christian values the, well, what is it, progressive concepts

of morality. >> televangelist pat robertson, famous for blaming gay people for 9/11, and black people for hurricanes, is dead. but his legacy of shattering the lines between church and state lives on in the quixotic presidential candidacy of mike pence. also tonight, i want to tell you about an under the radar supreme court case that could affect where special counsel jack smith brings criminal charges. as we await the possible indictment of donald trump. and surprise, chief justice john roberts and justice brett kavanaugh come to the defense of voting rights in an important victory for voters in alabama. so what happens now for all the other efforts to redraw maps to marginalize voters of color? but we begin tonight with the supreme court. there was a surprising decision today reaffirming the landmark voting rights act, and we're

going to get to that a bit later. but i want to start with a lesser known case that is still awaiting a ruling by the highest court in the land. the case is smith v. the united states. it involves a 43-year-old alabama software engineer, timothy smith, who was convicted in 2020 of stealing trade secrets from a florida company. that case was tried in a northern district of florida court where smith was convicted and sentenced to 18 months in prison. a year and a half later, the 11th circuit court of appeals overturned his conviction, claiming that the florida court was the wrong venue for the case. in its ruling, the appeals court wrote, quote, we can say that venue would be proper in the southern district of alabama, where smith was located when he took the trade secrets. but venue was not proper in the northern district of florida, because smith never committed any essential conduct in that location.

unquote. the case was argued just a few months ago in front of the supreme court, with the question at hand being, does the government have the right to try a case for a second time in another court if they get the venue wrong the first time around? it's an interesting case all on its own, right? but it's also one that potentially impacts the special counsel's investigation of donald trump's mishandling of classified documents. for months now we have reported on a d.c. grand jury hearing evidence and witness testimony regarding this case before going quiet these last few weeks. and just this week, we not only learned that a second grand jury has begun meeting in florida regarding this case, but that according to "the washington post," the special counsel is planning to bring a significant portion of any charges in a federal court in southern florida. just like in real estate, this comes down to location, location, location. without knowing how the supreme court will rule in the smith case, former fbi general counsel

andrew weissmann and founding coedter in chief of just security, ryan goodman, point out that the smith case may well be complicating the calculus for special counsel jack smith, writing, all else being equal, the prudent prosecutor will be reluctant to choose a venue where if the government gets the venue decision wrong, it cannot proceed to try the defendant in another district for her crimes. and when the defendant is donald trump, you don't want to leave any decision to chance. joining me now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney, msnbc legal analyst, and professor at the university of michigan law school. hugo lowell, political investigations reporter for the guardian, and anthony coley, former justice department spokesperson under attorney general merrick garland. i'm happy to welcome anthony tonight as a new msnbc justice and legal affairs analyst. welcome, welcome, welcome, anthony, and the hazing means

you go first. this is your hazing officially. >> thank you. >> go on. >> thank you, joy. i feel the love through the screen. good to be with you. >> absolutely. you are absolutely right that the jury matters in a case like this. what matters more are facts. and what we know now publicly is that there are an overwhelming amount of facts in this documents case. i hate to even call it a documents case, joy, because the fact of the matter is, we know that donald trump had 324 classified documents at mar-a-lago post-presidency. and he had multiple chances to turn that information over, and we know based on the public record that he refused to do so over any number of occasions. and then i really want to hear barbara's analysis on this, but

i want to point out the other thing that matters in addition to the jury, in addition to the facts, is what prosecutors, similar cases that prosecutors have charged, and there is a very strong trail of this justice department and prior justice departments charging individuals for illegally retaining and concealing government information. >> to stay with you for a moment because i want to hear barbara's analysis as well. having works for merrick garland and worked in that department, do you sense that supreme court case that is still active right now, like we don't know how that's going to go, would be a mitigating factor that might make them pause to try to bring a case in d.c. just in case the venue issue could kick in? does that track for you, that they would feel more confident and more comfortable doing the case in florida? >> listen, i think what i heard andrew weissmann say is that it would be prudent for a reasonable prosecutor to absolutely consider that case. and based on my experience, i

haven't worked at doj for five months now. that is certainly a reasonable certainly could be a reasonable outcome based on my experience there. >> barbara, your name was called. you were summoned. i would love for you to give your analysis of this. it is kind of a fascinating twist. it's not just what they have and anthony laid out the facts are pretty damning. i think they're pretty clear, but it's where they do it, even though this might not be their first choice of a place to do it because it's a much different jury pool in florida, let's say, that's d.c. does that track for you that this makes more sense to do this here, and also, do you get the sense that the fact we're not seeing lots and lots of information about new witnesses means this is kind of drawing to a close? >> yeah, it's hard to say. i will say this, having worked at the justice department for almost 20 years. prosecutors despite perhaps some reputation for being gun slingers, are very cautious. they want to be very sound. they want to make sure they have a decision that is not going to be reversed on appeal because

they want to win not just the battle but the war. the venue rules can be a little tricky. if a conspiracy is charged, for example, it can be charged in any district where any part of the conspiracy occurred. that could be d.c. or florida would be correct. if they're not charging a conspiracy, however, and it's just retention of documents and obstruction of justice, it may be that the bulk of the activity in this case occurred in florida. we're not sure. i think there's still a possibility that there could be an indictment against trump out of d.c. and then a one-off indictment against perhaps a witness who lied to the fbi out of florida. there are a lot of moving parts here and a lot of options. i will agree with anthony that the justice department is nothing if not prudent. >> well, hugo, let me go to you. you are actually in miami. there's been a lot of activity from the trump side. he complained, nobody told me i was a target, but the target lawyer went to his lawyers. i don't think anyone in the justice department is going to call him. they have been screaming, he

has, on his pretend twitter, about misconduct and trying to impugn the prosecutors who may be involved in the case. >> we reported yesterday that trump actually received his target designation in a formal letter last week and actually days before the trump lawyers went into the justice department and met with special counsel jack smith and a senior career official in the attorney general's office. but this is now coming to a head because what they were talking about in that meeting and what they separately put in a sealed motion to the chief judge in washington was an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct on the part of one of the top prosecutors in jack smith's office. there's the chief of the counterintelligence section called j. bratt, who we believe is still in florida after he came down for some grand jury activity yesterday. we saw him on the plane actually, but the allegation is

that jay bratt discussed a pending judicial application that one of the lawyers involved in this case had submitted. and it was in the context of trying to get his client to flip on trump. in this case, the client was none other than the valet, and this wasn't going to be an issue, i think, until roseburg, the chief judge in d.c., requested that lawyer submit an attestation basically a letter confirming the allegation, and they did so yesterday. now, he seems to be treating that very seriously, and even if this doesn't result in anything, the fact that this is now pending before the chief judge, i think, suggests a degree of seriousness we might not have seen beforehand. >> anthony, there allegation trump put on his truth social wasn't truthful. there's no allegation being made that mr. bratt said hey, you might get a judgeship in the

biden administration if you flip on trump. that is not what the allegation actually factually is. it's that he brought up the fact that he was interested in a judgeship in talking with him about the potential cooperation of trump's valet. talk a little bit about that. because that doesn't sound like misconduct to me, but i'm not a justice department lawyer. >> no, but you're right. let me say this. i was at the justice department for two years. i worked directly with jay bratt. i know jay bratt to be a meticulous, a thoughtful, a by the book prosecutor. and joy, i'm not telling you what i heard. i'm telling you what i know. so i just -- i take with a grain of salt what individuals told hugo. not his reporting but the people who told him that. i think what's happening here is the typical donald trump playbook of trying to distract

and pull attention away from his very real legal problems. that i suspect is what's happening here. >> and barb, just for the lay folks out there, if somebody is questioning an attorney who represents a potential material witness or potential target, and they bring up something about them, and they say did you apply to be a judge, run for judge, did you have interest in this, is that per se misconduct and could something like that interfere with a case, a potential case, because right now there is no case, against someone like donald trump? or even somebody like the valet, if the valet was a target. >> so, context matters. i think it's very important to find out exactly what was said. so far, all we have is this topic was mentioned. it may have been small talk. it may have had nothing to do with the cooperation whatsoever. i think the facts matter very much and this strikes me right out of the playbook of trying to

distract and go on the offensive. even if jay bratt personally did something wrong, that does not exonerate donald trump from crimes he may have committed. that would not come before a jury. brans, if this is true and it's as bad as it could be, he would be removed from the case, may be disciplined, but it does not in any way exonerate donald trump. >> hugo, it seems to me if they're making these kinds of noises, that sounds to me like fear. nervousness in the trump camp. >> yeah, look, this is, i think, more complicated than it seems on first glance. i think these allegations actually the lawyer in question didn't want to make these allegations. and going to have to go back a little bit. when trump's lawyers wrote the letter to the attorney general to request a meeting, there had been two versions of that letter. the initial one actually outlined this allegation among other things, and the lawyer in question pared that back and told the trump lawyers, please don't raise this because i don't

want to publicize this allegation because i don't want to draw attention to my pending judicial application. so i think that's the first point. i think the second point is, from the readout we have got from the letter and that describes the meeting, there is some additional context here about how basically, jay bratt and the other prosecutors sat with woodward in the sixth floor conference room at the justice department and told him, look, we think your client has made material misstatements in the case and we want you to cooperate or your client to cooperate with us against the department. jay bratt is said to have opened his portfolio and said, oh, i see you have applied to be a judge. and you know, i didn't take you for a trump guy. but i know you will do the right thing. i think woodward just came away from the meeting with a lot of -- with a kind of weird sense of what happened.

that was basically the allegation. >> david, you want to get in. anthony, you want to get in. >> this doesn't sound like the jay bratt i know. let's even assume it happened, which i highly doubt, bratt, before he was in the special counsel's office, worked in the national security division. neither one of those positions would he have influence over federal judgeships. >> there we go. there's another question i want to bring up. this is the question of copies versus originals. i hope we have time to play this quickly or i can describe it. a former attorney for trump who is part of a team handling the justice department's classified docs investigation, spoke with lawrence o'donnell the other night on the last word, and barb, he brought up a defense, a potential defense saying the items found in trump's office were copies, not originals. does that matter? if you have classified documents, and you take a picture of it with your phone and then you take that with you, does it make a difference in terms of your potential legal

liability? >> not a valid defense, you. it is the information, not the paper it's printed on. >> i would add quickly, when i was at the justice department, you weren't allowed to have cell phones in these scifs, so cell phones shouldn't have been anywhere near these classified documents. >> yeah, the idea is well, you know, i didn't do anything wrong. it's just a copy of a classified document about iran's nuclear secrets. no biggy. barbara, hugo, and our new family member, anthony coley, welcome and thank you. check out anthony's op-ed laying out the extend of donald trump's legal jeopardy on msnbc.com. up next, an unexpected ruling from the supreme court has saved the voting rights act. the landmark voting rights act, at least for now, but the damage has already been done. i'll explain when "the reidout" continues after this.

(pensive music) (footsteps crunching) (pensive music) (birds tweeting)

(pensive music) (broom sweeping) - [narrator] one in five children worldwide are faced with the reality of living without food. no family dinners, no special treats, no full bellies. all around the world, parents are struggling to feed their children. toddlers are suffering from acute malnutrition, which stunts their growth. kids are forced to drop out of school so they can help support their families. covid, conflict, inflation and climate have ignited the worst famine in our lifetime. and we're fed up. fed up with the fact that hunger robs children of their childhood. fed up with the lack of progress. fed up with the injustice. help us brighten the lives of children all over the world by visiting getfedupnow.org. for as little as $10 a month, you can join save the children

as we support children and families in desperate need of our help. now is the time to get fed up and give back. when you join the cause, your $10 monthly donation can help communities in need of life-saving treatments and nutrients, prevent children from dropping out of school. support our work with communities and governments to help children go from short-term surviving to long-term thriving. and now thanks to special government grants, every dollar you give before december 31st can multiply up to 10 times the impact. that means more food, water, medicine and help for kids around the world. you'll also receive a free tote bag to share your support for children in need. childhood without food is unimaginable. get fed up. call us now or visit getfedupnow.org today.

today in genuinely shocking news, the conservative majority supreme court ruled 5-4 in favor of black voters, in a congressional redistricting case in alabama, with two conservative justices, roberts and kavanaugh, liberals against a republican effort to weaken voting rights law. it tells you something about the standing of the court when there is shock they didn't further gut american voting rights. the heart of the case is whether

alabama had unfairly carved up its congressional districts creating just one majority black seat out of seven in a state where more than 1 in 4 residents is black. the state claimed they used a race neutral benchmark last year. a lower court with two trump appointees on it ruled the map violated the voting rights act and ordered them to redraw it. the ruling was stayed by the supreme court using its infamous shadow docket, effectively helping republicans win back the house majority. during oral arguments, it sounded like the majority of justices agreed with alabama. but it is possible that chief justice john roberts recognized the precarious position that the court stands in with the public, following the overturning of roe v. wade and a string of ethics scandals. whatever was behind the 5-4 surprise vote, alabama will now have to draw a new map for next year's elections. this ruling will undoubtedly impact similar cases in louisiana and georgia, and in a

plot twist, roberts, who wrote the majority opinion in the shelby case that gutted the voting rights act, wrote the majority opinion today. here wrote, the heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. it's about alabama's attempt to remake our section 2 jurisprudence anew. that single minded view of section 2 cannot be squared with the vra's demand that courts employ a more refined approach and be inclined to adopt an interpretation of section 2 that has been the baseline of our section 2 jurisprudence for nearly 40 years. basically, he's relying on stare decisis, the magic words which means courts and judges should honor precedence. notably, they didn't care about stare decisis when they overturned roe. that said, this is very good news and we'll take it. but that doesn't mean we're out of the woods. kavanaugh, while siding with the majority, signaled he is willing to blow up the voting rights act in the future, writing separately, even if congress in

1982 could constitutionally authorize race-based redistricting under section 2 for some period of time, the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future. and then there was clarence thomas. who continues to make it clear -- to make clear the irony despite being one, to paraphrase pre-trump kanye, clarence thomas doesn't care about black people. in his dissent, he wrote, a proper districting benchmark must be race neutral, it must not assume that an acceptable plan should include any particular number or proportion of minority controlled districts. in his main argument here, alabama simply carries these principles to their logical conclusions. we indulge the pernicious tendency of assigning americans to creditor and debtor races even to the point of redistributing political power to those bases. joining me is elie mystal, and

maya wiley. i'm going to come to the table to you first. i think we share a similar view that this might have been a face-saving ruling. what is your view of why it went this way and why the two justices went with the liberals? first, to be clear, i'm shocked. john roberts has been an enemy of black people voting rights for his entire career. this supreme court has either rejected or whittled down the voting rights act at every opportunity it's had since roberts came on the court until today. jaw off the floor, okay, pretty shocking. why? well, let's go back to clarence thomas's dissent. he's talking about a race neutral benchmark. how do you set up a race neutral benchmark? alabama said use these computers. this is what it is, and john roberts hates computers like john conner hates computers in the terminator series. i always thought john roberts

hated black people more, but when a computer can tell you what's race neutral, he understands that means a computer can tell you what's racist. that means judges can't make the decision of how much race is involved in voting. i think more than anything else, that's why roberts went against his own type, against his own prior arguments to uphold the voting rights act after a career of trying to destroy it. >> very interesting. basically, he thinks ai is going to replace the court. maya, let's go into this. i'm going to put up a map here that shows how egregious this is. we have talked about this before in alabama. if you can see it there, the purple shows you black representation and how that big circle is around all basically where the black folks live, and they're all packed in one district. that's 27% of the population, they get one member of congress. talk about this ruling from your

point of view as somebody fighting this fight on the ground. in the courts. >> first, let me say, i agree with elie. we were shocked and surprised. happily and pleasantly because the supreme court did the right thing. but it's exactly because of that map, because look, 27% of the population is black. in 1982, when congress amended the voting rights act of 1965, it said look, voter dilution, no go. you can't just dilute black people's vote. and what the court did, the supreme court said in its precedent is right. you can't dilute the black vote. and here are the ways in which we look to see whether we do that. in alabama, we saw an 80,000-person increase in the size of the black population between the 2020 census and the previous census. that means the population number goes up. you should be able to see more

opportunity for black people to have the ability to select who leads them. and instead, what we saw is the state, the state legislature saying, actually, no. we're going to find a way to make sure that there's less ability, not more ability, for blacks to be able to say who leads them. by the way, if we were truly a country that said we need to make sure that we're being fair, that we're being just, how would we ever go into any community of any other racial group and say, you know what, we're going to either pack you all into one district and then split the rest of you up so that even if you're a third of the state, you can send one member to congress out of five. that is simply clearly on its face an effort to say we just don't like who you vote for, and we want to make sure you can't actually undermine us. the powerful few. >> in this case, it's 1 out of 7, and mississippi has the same.

they got one. this actually could impact other states. louisiana, same thing. you have the south is where half of african americans live. and yet in all of these states, they get one member of congress. they put all the blacks in there, south carolina, all these states, you get one. and they split up the rest, which is completely -- you know, what i do wonder. this could result into up to eight more members of congress who are african american. i will note this supreme court let that map lie in 2022, along with the illegal florida map. they engineered republican outcomes even as they're supposedly fixing. >> you saw what they did there, huh? because what happened is this map was sued before the midterms. and the lower court said this map is clearly racist, before the midterms. it went up to the supreme court, and by a vote of 5-4, roberts also saying this was a bad decision, brett kavanaugh was the swing vote, and he allowed alabama to use its racist maps for the last election, which helped republicans gain control

of the house. and it's brett kavanaugh who looks like the buffoon now for flipping at the late date. now it's like, it was clearly racist. it turns out pam alabama got this whole federal election cycle with a racist map. >> first, it feels like a setup a little bit because they have a whole bunch of other cases like affirmative action and all sorts of other stuff coming down the pike they could actually really hurt folks on, so it feels like that could happen. i will note, tina, am i going with this right now? i don't see it up here. donald trump, i will note for my two legal eagles here, is putting on his social media platform that he is being indicted. he is saying that. so we don't have any confirmation of that. it's donald trump. he says that he's going to appear in court, in miami, on tuesday at 3:00.

so that is from donald trump. again, that is not from a news outlet. it's from truth social, which is not the news, but donald trump is not good at filtering himself. he is not good at discipline. and when things happen, he's not good at not saying it and not spilling the beans. if this is true, so i'm going to ask, we have two great legal minds here. would it make sense, and i guess i will start with you here at the table, elie, for the potential defendant to make such an announcement before there has been any word from his attorneys? could he have been informed and received not just a target letter but a you're getting indicted notice. >> his attorneys could know beforehand. i will point out with the bragg indictment, trump said he would be indicted on tuesday and it didn't happen for another week and a half. we don't know the timing but it's possible that somebody within trump world has a good idea that an indictment is coming some time next week and that he will be required to turn

himself in peacefully. i wouldn't bele documents. >> he did. and put them in his bedroom and in his desk drawer. maya, the thing about it is, the thing about trump's criming, alleged criming, is it's all quite obvious, right? he goes and he has his lawyer, michael cohen, pay off stormy daniels, and then he writes him a reimbursement check in his signature magic marker signature, and hands it to him in the oval. so he's not subtle. in this case, he goes on cnn and on his friend hannity's show and says, i can take the documents, they're my documents. he says he did it. what do you make of this possibility, and again, possibility, that this is in fact happening soon? >> well, i agree with elie. we don't know whether or when

it's actually happening but there's really no benefit to donald trump to admit he's about to be indicted, whether or not we know what day it's going to happen. i think his own former lawyers from bill barr to ty cobb have said he's in real trouble and he very well may be indicted. so that's because the evidence, just what's in the public record, has been so strong, including his own public statements about it. here's the point, i think at the end of the day, what is true here is donald trump is likely to face additional charges. the question is how many, how many counts, and how quick or slow the process will be because we know once he gets there, he's going to be saying he was a victim, that it's political. despite all the evidence, and despite the fact that no one else who owns public office would be able to get away with endangered national security and the national defense, which is very possibly one of the charges that he will face as the

espionage act. >> the one benefit i could see, elie, in making this kind of announcement or sort of getting the bad news out himself, is that the likelihood is that a case such as this would happen in florida. florida is his backyard. it's trump country. it's a very far right wing, it's become a very far right wing state and the jury pool is more trumpy. maybe this is sort of speaking to a potential jury. >> i'm not sure about that. one of my problems with how long it's taken to get to this stage is to get from where he's indicted to an actual trial, we're talking about another year, something either right before the next presidential election, which i don't think is going to happen, or most likely right after the presidential election if he should go on and lose that election. i don't think it's jury tampering. what i think, quite frankly, the same thing again, he tried this with bragg. putting it out there early so maybe his people rally to his defense. in the way that maga people

sometimes rally to the defense of donald trump. i think he is trying to gin up some outrage and public support over what he will perceive and what his people will perceive as an unfair prosecution. that could be the benefit of putting it out there early, but i dont think it's going to work. >> it's not going to work, except, maya, florida is not the florida people used to think of as lots of oranges, beaches, and disney. florida is now home to one of the largest concentrations of extremist groups in the country. it has now become a beachhead for racial extremism, noxyism. people like orlando, it has become a kind of headquarters. the proud boys have a huge base in florida, in miami-dade county. they have members or at least affinity people on the broward school board. they have essentially taken over the miami-dade republican party.

so florida is in many ways a place where the danger to the country, how many floridians were there on january 6th? a lot. they are a huge source of extremism and pro-trump extremism specifically. >> you know, and sadly -- >> and also, i will add one more thing. it's also a state now where you can carry a firearm without a permit. sorry. >> no, look, you're pointing, joy, to sadly statistics we have been seeing rise. and we know it increases in election cycles, the violence of hate and extremist groups. i think we also have to remember how many average floridians do care about the rule of law and do abhor hate and violence. and simply put, it's going to be incumbent upon all of those very rational, sane floridians to recognize, do you want democracy

and do you want peace, or are you going to go with anyone who, if, i'm not saying donald trump has or will, in this particular case, but goes to stoking that, exactly what that means for the future of the country, and having been doing work with community based groups, particularly in central florida, i'll say there are a lot of folks who are getting active and engaged because they are concerned about preserving their state's democracy. and that does matter. and we have to help keep them safe at the federal level and insure that the federal government is doing everything it can to make sure those resources are getting there to protect the people. >> yeah, and i will note the governor of florida is no longer jeb bush, who you can say whatever you want about his policies, but he was a rational actor. the governor is now somebody whose entire base of their presidential campaign is hate and grievance and rage. and i will now bring in our msnbc chief legal analyst who

conveniently was not able to leave the building in time, and sometimes when you don't get out, you get back in. we do not know, and again, i love your show, one of the main reasons i love it is you're always careful to say we only know what we know. all we know right now is that donald trump is truthing, truthing that he's getting indicting and he believes it will happen on tuesday. he's done it before. what do you make of the fact he's doing it again? >> you make a very important point. we have seen a version in the new york case where he did announce this and his timing was off initially, but the core of it, that his lawyers had been warned, we know in this they were told he's a target, so it's big news that donald trump is doing that again. we are now frantically in breaking news mode tracking this down. i suspect this is a night to keep on the news. we're going to learn more in the coming moments. i think the specificity of his post is interesting. we talked about things only a

lawyer orsomeone who has done homework would figure out, that there would be a schedule for this, he would go tuesday to the federal courthouse in miami to turn himself in and then he included the regular bluster and attacks he has. so what we're reporting, and it's accurate on the screen here, on "the reidout." this is donald trump says he's been indicted. he says this, but the context that his lawyers were recently given the respectful target of warning which is what you're supposed to get, matches this. so this is a whole different world if what donald trump says tonight is true or broadly true, that if it's a difference of a few days or a week, if he has been federally indicted and will be following what the doj does through actual charging and an actual possible arraignment, then this is the biggest problem he's had. this is bigger than new york. much more significant than the many other legal clashes he's had. he faced down mueller at a time where there was a ceiling, where

mueller was not allowed to indict him. everything that happened, including people went to prison, had a ceiling. jack smith does not have a ceiling. he has a lot of power. he's rattled trump's lawyers and now donald trump. they're clearly afraid that they're facing what they were warned about, that he's the target of the indictment in this probe. >> let me ask you this because this is something i think, it's language we use on our showed because this is what happened. a target letter is what it sounds like, a target letter, but is there a scenario chin a person receives a target later and then they're not indicted? is it possible a target letter is more frightening than it is completely sort of, you know, i don't know, indicative of what's going to absolutely 100% happen? >> i would say legally very rarely. to make a very simple comparison, most planned weddings occur. every so often, you get the invite, you fly out there, and they don't. it's that level or i would say even higher. that's before you involve a

former president. as soon as we have reported that the doj did in fact tell the lawyers that donald trump was targeted, it sounded like a matter of when. now tonight, you have the whole world is going to gear up for this tonight, and the coming days, because donald trump is not only confirming that, he's saying his lawyers told him he's de facto indicted. we'll have time to discuss this in your breaking coverage, but a federal case, there's a reason why they say don't make a federal case out of it. they don't say don't make a new york misdemeanor out of it. they say don't make a federal case out of it. i don't think jack smith would go anywhere near saying this man was targeted unless he thought he had all the goods and evidence to win this case, and thus, to convict donald trump and try to put him in prison. now, if he's a defendant, he's legally presumed innocent and we'll report that out, but this is more than a federal case. this is the first ever targeting of a former president. >> everybody please stay with me. we're not letting anyone go. we're going to be joined by

former u.s. attorney, harry lipman. harry, you have been confident this was coming. we don't know that it is here. again, we'll reiterate. donald trump is saying on his pretend twitter, his truth social, that he is being indicted, that he will be in court on tuesday. he has cried wolf before, but it wasn't really crying wolf because he was indicted in new york, he just didn't get the day right. what do you make of this, given the news and all that has accumulated up to today? >> i think the wolf is here and he's getting out in front of it. to ari's point, many more grooms and brides leave at the precipice of a wedding than people get target letters and aren't indicted. it's happened once in my career. it really follows even though by its terms it's possible, it follows like day from night. the only time it doesn't is because one purpose of a target letter is to let a defendant go in front of the grand jury, testify, talk them out of it. that happened with karl rove in

the scooter libby case. but that's it. or if they come forward with something that really gives the doj pause, and they have to chew on it for a few weeks, but they gave him nothing on monday. so everyone who was familiar with practice knew once that target letter came, not only was everything already on the table all set, but it was imminent in terms of days at least if nothing in the southern district of florida which seemed a little odd, was going to upend it. i credit this now, and it makes all the sense in the world from his having received that letter. >> elie, there is reporting that essentially, donald trump's defense plan is running for president. and that is really the extent of the plan. how, if this is happening, you just talked a little bit about the fact it's all going to converge on an active campaign for president.

>> as ari points out, he's innocent until proven guilty. but based on what we know in the public sphere, his best way out of this is becoming president again, clothing himself in the power of the executive office, and protecting himself from prosecutor. it is literally the plan that julius caesar had. i'm not making that up. his entire plan was to avoid prosecution by becoming pro-counsel and dictator of rome. at the same level, donald trump's best way to get out of this at this point is to run for president and win. if he's not president, if he's just a private citizen, his peers have stolen classified documents. as ari is pointing out, donald trump has never faced a litigant with the kinds of resources that the department of justice and jack smith can bring to bear on him and his little kabul. he's going up against the most difficult litigants of his entire life, and he's got no great defense for what he did.

his best way out is trying to dupe the american people into electing his president a second time. >> the thing he's had going in his favor is the extreme deference of the department of justice toward a former president. at least the perception that there was extreme deference. how does that deferential attitude change when it's a former president who is attempting to be president again but who is no longer in office? . it's a great question because what you're alluding to is the deference they once showed them will now if there's a trial be used against donald trump. because yes, there are aspects of the presidency and even the transition because people point to the pence case or other examples, where did the document go? there is initial deference if you tell the truth, there is initial deference if you just hand it back. a lot of people don't even get that. joe blow citizen, you got classified documents, game over. but there is a history of, you know what, whatever type of president you were, and people can leave their thoughts on that to the side of the legal, you

know what, you gave it back, you're probably good. >> mike pence. >> yeah, he didn't do that. his lawyer corcoran, we'll hear a lot more about, who was making voice notes, making those, why are you making iphone voice notes? because apparently he was concerned like michael cohen and many other examples, he was being pulled into a new active crime, obstruction of justice, in the mueller era, we were told you're also overseeing the doj, maybe it's murky. ain't murky now. you have a lot of evidence that the deference he was given was abused, and then you have a judge who approved the search warrant. that's never been overturned. and found probable cause for the crime fraud exception, translation, looks like you and your lawyer are committing new crimes so we pierce the privilege. so again, presumed innocent, but if i'm handicapping what is likely to be a federal case, very bad for the defendant when you have those standing rulings, the lawyer, and the idea there's more than one crime that's already been sort of half

litigated, a lot more evidence than, say, starting from scratch, whose document is this? we'll start from scratch. >> let me cut you off to make this announcement, nbc news has confirmed donald trump has been denited. he's been summoned to appear on tuesday. he was accurate. i want to go to ryan riley, one of our justice reporters. ryan, give us the full update. i have given the summary. >> that's right. we don't have the specificity, but he'll be in court on tuesday. this is a really historic moment, something we were waiting on pins and needles all day for potentially at the justice department. it was kind of quiet there. it's sort of an indication of the way they have handled this probe. they have really followed the guidelines to the book here. i think some of the stuff we saw come out and even indications we saw that this was happening in miami, was pretty late in the

game that reporters really got a sense of that, a sense of that fact that that was happening out of miami, that this had all sort of moved. that's sort of what ended up happening. they used d.c. as a investigative grand jury and eventually moved all of this down to miami, where most of the alleged crimes actually took place, so this is confirming what donald trump has said on his social media and every indication is that the former president of the united states, donald trump, has become the first former president to face federal charges, twice impeached, charged on the state level. here we are, charged with federal crimes. >> and it is a moment. this is an historic moment. this has never happened to a former united states president, and cue rachel maddow. when something this historic happens, there is one person we all, i think, want to hear from. rachel, what do you make of this news that nbc news has confirmed that donald trump has been indicted in the documents

mishandling case? >> well, joy, it's one of those days when you both think, wow, this is happening in my generation, in my lifetime, we're the first people to see federal criminal charges against a former president. it has a shock factor to it, but at the same time, i think we have really known it was coming for some time, and i don't know. i mean, there are elements of what we know thus far that cut in the former president's -- to his benefit, i think, in terms of what could have happened here. i'm sure he would rather face a jury in florida than a jury in washington, d.c., just as a matter of pure trial strategy. if this means that the charges are very specific to the handling of classified documents and we'll have to see what the exact charges are and how many there are, and how serious they are, but if they are specific to

that and not to broader issues of election meddling and trying to stay in power after he had been voted out of office, you know, there's an interesting track record he can look to in terms of other people, even other high profile people, like for example, former general david petraeus, who have been dinged for criminal conduct like that, and essentially gotten a slap on the wrist and gone on with their careers. that said, other people have had to do prison time for these things. it feels like both unbelievably serious in terms of what this means for us as the american people and a new benchmark low for our politics and what we expect of our political leaders. it also seems like it might not be the at least not at this point. >> you know, the one time that we came close to an historic moment like this, obviously, was richard nixon, who we all have interviewed former

prosecutors on that case were very clear that he would have been indicted but for the intervention of the succeeding president who pardon him. and then, of course, there was spiro agnew who was indicted also. but this feels like it was on a level of its own, because this also involves national security than aided states. the casual treatment of our national security by a president who, for whatever reason, for braggadocious eo, two point against general mark milley, or for whatever reason, didn't seem to aggregate to himself the authority and power, even after he wasn't president anymore, to use our national security for himself. this is on a different level from even the worst things that nixon did. >> it's a good point. we'll have to see what the charges are and how serious they are, and also what they

say about motive. you are right, if we're talking about a national security indictment that implicates him in using information, the disclosure of which could hurt, materially heard the national security than instate, and he discloses it anywhere, plans to disclose it or retain it anyway for his own personal purposes against the interests of the country, that's a very different thing. both with nixon and agnew, they were both facing serious charges in agnew's case. we know he was facing 40 felony counts. but conceivable indictment of mitt nixon. we have to write that ourselves a bit. because of the ford pardon. but in those cases it was about finality. it was about corruption. it was about abuse of power for personal gain. but not necessarily in a way that was about screwing our allies and our own national security on the international

stage. whatever this indictment says, when it materializes, whatever it says about motive, it's gonna be important in terms of us assessing just what kind of treachery is being alleged here. and you are right, even with the examples of nixon and agnew, it's new. >> it is extraordinary. an extraordinary night to be here and i am so grateful, rachel maddow, for the opportunity to speak with you. thank. you >> i'm glad you are at the desk when it happened, my dear. i am not jealous. >> i was actually going to ask if you might want to drive down a come down, because i have our good friend nicole wallace, and we could form the trio again if you are here. thank you, rachel maddow. i truly appreciate you. >> thank you joy. >> i want to bring in the great nicole wallace. the one person in this gang of ours here that has worked for a president of united states.

and nothing like this even with nixon analyst has ever happened involving a former president, because this is on another level because of the national security aspect. again, we don't know the specifics of the indictment, and i appreciate racial for making that clear, but i'm eager to hear your thoughts on all this. >> it's so interesting to listen to you and rachel talk about the national security aspect here, because i have been thinking about the stories of trump's disdain for the men and women of the military and i think it's deeply connected to this. he didn't want to be seen with people who were wounded, fighting to practice native states of america. he didn't wanna go to ceremonies to honor veterans of wars, people who had fought in the for the united states of america. his disdain and his inability to appreciate sacrifice, service, national security

equities, his affinity for kim yang earn in his affinity for vladimir putin all brought us to this point. i've been obsessed with the dogs that have embarked since he's been under criminal investigation. for mishandling classified documents. he's also been under criminal investigation for violating the espionage espionage act. because those crimes are more opaque, they have done sean hannity show and his own truth social feed, we're not quest focusing on the questions you're focusing on, and those are the violations of national security laws. he was under investigation by the justice department before he decapitated the top of doj by follow firing comey and mccabe. he has been a national security questions last threat since the day he was born, and this feels like something that finally caught up with him, the crimes were too blatant, they were to flagrant. he didn't too many people. and it appears he is after a

long period of time of disregarding, disrespecting and violating all of the norms, crossed some lines and at least, according to jacques bit and he and his investigators, committed crimes that he believed he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. >> what do you make of the fact, and we talked a bit about the deference that the doj has for the president, the ballots as you can today the sitting president. don trump was protected as he was clothes in the power of the presidency. but he is that on january 6th to try to stay in power, to essentially say that he was a king, that he was above the constitution. that is the dog that hasn't hunted. we don't know the specifics of this indictment but we are presuming that has to do with the documents case. there is the other piece of what jack smith is investigating, which is the criminality around january 6th, for which a lot of oath keepers and proud boys are sitting, are about to be sentence or have been sentenced for some

seditious conspiracy. >> trump makes you feel like if you still reside on earth one, where facts are facts and opposite up is down is down, the year the craze, one in a fear appears that jack smith resides on earth one also, and whereas mueller spent 23 months from the gate was hemmed in by the olc memo that said you candidate a president, it also impeded his ability to articulate crimes that trump admitted, that he discovered in the 23 months long investigation. as you smartly pointing out, all the shields of the presidency which he perverted and exploited, i think we all see that he did, he used them to protect him from wrongdoing, not protect the office. that's why that memo existed. it didn't conceive of donald trump when it was created. but i think we're seeing what he looks like and what the rule of law might look like without some of those protections. >> donald trump is suing a

generous. he is not even a member of the ex president club that has brought together people as politically desperate as barack obama and george w. bush. there is a bond that has formed among these former leaders, and of course bill clinton and jimmy carter, whom we are continuing to watch his house. but they are all part of a group. but the thing that brings them together, nicole, as you saw well now having worked for president bush, is a reverence for the country and their constitution. it is our to have had a president that never expressed that reverence, who only expressed a disdain for the country, a sort of darkness about his view of the united states. do you think that the way he went inwards to say that america was in decline, that america was not great, that it would be made great by his presence? perhaps it is what wound up tripping him up? perhaps if he had had more reverence for the constitution in for the country, he might not have arrogated the things

to himself that he thought with his powers, to take whatever he wanted, to do whatever he wanted and stay in office. >> i would bet my -- he's never seen or read the constitution. i don't think it means anything to him. and it's so interesting that you bring up the former president. the moments when they spoke in unison with one voice in the same message were right after his election, before his inauguration, where they both descended the freedom of the press. they both spoke in unison on january six when they spoke together about the peaceful transition of power and it's important in our democracy. so the fact that he has been on the other side of the ex presidents club really isn't an ideological or partisan reality. it is what you are talking about, it is disrespect in this for the constitution of the rule of law. >> are you concerned, as we prepare to head over to chris hayes, about the thing we spoke about earlier, the national

security implications of indicting donald trump, especially if he appears in florida, where we have seen a rise in extremism? >> i'm more concerned about the other path. i think you talk to people and you look at people in our country from outside our borders, and it's an open question about whether the rule of law applies to everybody in america in the same regard. because they've watched what we've watched, someone who has trample the constitution, trampled were rules and laws, which if any of us who had violated we would, been prosecuted a long time ago. >> nicolle wallace, thank you so much. i appreciate. you >> i second, rachel. glad you're in the chair. >> i expect rugged be in the chair tomorrow, spending some time together. i'm just guessing. thank you, nicolle while us, rachel maddow. the great harry whitman, edema starlings with, me airy melber. we brought the big guns in tonight we're gonna in