situation for him walking down to the courthouse. >> it's working for him so far, mika, the polling is up, with the republican voters, which is all he focused on because he's not a long-term planner, he's immediate gratification, as you know, looking for it as he tries to get the nomination. >> especially when you think of the consequences as katy smartly pointed out and as you smartly point out, this does not work in the general sense, you think of 2018, 2022, when it comes to the republican party, this is allowing him to still have a grip on the party, even though he's lost such big elections this is a party that's still falling in love with the idea of victim he's been a showman in the idea that he is saying a grand conspiracy all of the problems he's dealing with, only because he wanted to run for president and better for the country. he's been remarkably consistent in that messaging, even as had

been proven at times to be a lie, proven at times to be consistently false, he's consistently able to make that and get republicans, his rivals to rally around that this is the top of the hour, 2:00 in new york city, and we are going to take a pause, just for all of us to take a breath and remind you of what's happening here donald trump is now inside of the courthouse in lower manhattan. we expecting him to walk down that hallway, where you see that heavy security presence. he is going to go into a courtroom for an arraignment we're told it's likely to be around 30 charges. we do not know what those charges are. we do not know if they're going to be read aloud in court. we do not know how many pages this indictment will be. but we know that donald trump by now, presumably, has been fingerprinted. and he is under arrest as we talk about the implications of this day, politically, neil cottier, let

me ask you about the legal argument we make here, in some cases we've already heard. trump is the victim of extortion. that's really what this case is about. it's a tawdry story, it involves an adult film actress, but in the end, he was struck trying to protect his life, something similar we heard, and not successfully from john edwards, another politician who got caught in the middle of an affair, they also have argued or do argue that the statute of limitations have passed. talk about the defense, agency we wait for donald trump, the defendant, to come down that hallway. >> everyone is right that it's tawdry, there's no question about that, but is that a viable legal defense? the answer is no trump is saying this is all political. but remember with the justice department in 2018 that investigated this very set of facts and indicted someone over a felony, michael cohen, trump's former lawyer, and the trump

aides, not the justice department, said this was a felony, and it was money that had no legitimate purpose and it was donald trump that orchestrated the michael cohen payments and that directed him to do it that was not the michael cohen justice department, it was the trump justice department that made that determination. so, when you hear this about being political and the like, i think it's important to remember that with respect to the statute of limitations, you're right, this senior events that occurred a long time ago. and you already heard barbara say, well, part of the reason why the delays happened is because of trump's own actions and holding back the documents there's another point, though, new york statute of limitations law, 30.10 says if you're continuously out of the jurisdiction, then that time period doesn't count for purposes of the statute of limitations. so donald trump was surely held at the jurisdiction during all of this time that's an open and shut, i think, argument for the prosecution. i don't think trump has a leg to

stand on when it comes to statute of limitations there's one other thing i say, if trump says it's all political and they're out to get him, well then he also says, well, this is all going to help me to win the nomination to win the presidency so, you know, if that's true, all the district attorney is doing is helping trump's candidacy. >> all right, let's bring in a couple more folks, daniel hor horowitz, former assistant district in the man hat can't d.a.'s office. and joyce vance, a allow professor at the university of alabama. again, we're keeping our eyes on this hallway the arraignment is set to begin at 2:15. some time before 2:15, we should see donald trump walk through. does he say anything to the reporters gathered we will find out daniel, let's talk about the case that the d.a. could be bringing today do you think that it's risky to bring a case about hush money payments against a former president? >> not if you put it in the context that i think it's going to be placed in.

this contrary to what i think defendant donald trump will say is not simply a case of blackmail. this is part of -- i think you'll see, a conspiracy count, and this is part of a conspiracy by defendant former president trump, michael cohen, people at the "national enquirer" to engage in conduct to protect then candidate trump from stories that are going to come out that would reflect poorly on him as a candidate and hurt his candidacy. this catch and kill program that the "national enquirer" had. i don't think you can look at this and see, we'll see when the indictment is unsealed whether or not this is just related to the stormy daniels payoff or whether or not this is an allegation, this payment made to stormy daniels, was part of this conspiracy to protect then candidate donald trump

>> joyce vance, assuming that the primary charges are going to revolve about falsifying business records what does the prosecution have to prove to make that case >> so, the prosecution's most important focus will be taking the step that makes what's normally a misdemeanor charge a felony and that means they'll have to prove that the records falsifications were committed in order to either encourage the commission of or conceal another crime. that will be an important focus here there are a lot of options there are tax options. there are campaign finance options. there may be others that they uncovered during their grand jury proceedings and so, like any crime, you have to prove the act, and that's the act, and then you have to prove the state of mind that was committed with and here that would involve intent to defraud. that donald trump intended to defraud when the false entry

records were made. it's likely there will be litigation around that but it looks like the district attorney, if that's the path he chooses to go down, will have a very strong argument because when you generate internal records for your business, you're not just doing that and setting them aside never to be used again you're doing that for a lot of external purposes. one day the tax man will come. you might use them to create records and statements used to get loans or insurance you might use them to create your financial statements. so those records really are created with the goal of them having internal integrity. and accuracy and when people intentionally cause false entries to be made, that is, of course, with an intent to defraud in the legal sense. so this is the law, the step, and the district attorney has to establish all of these elements of the crime before a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt it's a heavy lift for the

prosecutors but the manhattan district attorney's office knows that and they will have been very careful to scrutinize the evidence before they bring them. >> given that it is a heavy lift, and i think most legal analysts would also agree with that we spent a lot of time talking about the stakes for the former president. what about the stakes for alvin bragg and the office >> i think the stakes are high it's an office, historically -- obviously there's never been an indictment of a sitting president. but this is a local district attorney's office that is steeped in bringing high-profile white collar cases so, yes, the stakes are high i would submit to you i'm mere because of my legal acumen and obviously my political acumen, having worked in the district attorney's office for many years, the stakes would be equally high if they didn't bring the case i know there was talk before the hour in the delay, what the

reasons for that was, and whether that impacts whether the case should be brought and i will say this is an investigation that went on for a while. it started with the u.s. attorneys office and, you know, it was said it was the trump department of justice that decided not to bring the case so, yes, the stakes are high, but i think you have to look at the facts. and here, potentially, you have a series of crimes, falsifying business records which as we're just learning revolve around the commission of other crimes and those crimes are either tax fraud or campaign fraud. and those are important because they involve the integrity of our governmental systems tax crimes are crimes against the public and crimes that are committed with respect to our campaigns implicate the integrity of government processes andal offie

cases are high, but d.a. bragg had no choice beyond that. >> we're seeing a lot of activity out of that door, so if donald trump comes out, we're going to stop and listen because you never know with donald trump, he may have something to say, and we want to make sure we hear it. but is it proper to assume every minute ofhim leaving trump tower from getting in that building and what's happened in between, we're five minutes away -- there we seal the district attorney alvin bragg who has just come out. what does that signal to you, dan? should donald trump be very close behind >> yeah, i think we're getting ready for show time. the d.a.s will arrive early. and i think it's a matter of minutes before the former president and soon to be defendant donald trump will be escorted into the courtroom. >> let me add a little bit of context, just talking about it, if this is around the payment to stormy daniels, maybe a payment

to mcdougal. what was happening when the payments to michael cohen were made or when david pecker may have been winvolved, and was in the end of the 2016 campaign in the days before the 2016 campaign, in the couple months before the end of the campaign, it looked like donald trump's hopes for being president were dashed "the access hollywood" tape came out where he bragged about being able to grab women you know where, he was getting criticized by almost everybody, including everybody in the republican party, saying they couldn't support him. teary videos from people like mike lee, the senator from utah, saying they could never support donald trump after hearing these words from his mouth paul ryan, the same. i mean, it was everybody, essentially, saying donald trump was toast. there was also the comments he was making at the time about -- that came out about alicia

machado who was the former miss universe she alleged that he called her miss chubby. so his comments and his behavior toward women were very much in the spotlight. in the days before the election. at the time michael cohen alleged he made these payments to stormy daniels at the request of donald trump. and, andrew, that's important context to talk about why these payments might be considered, if they are a campaign finance violation? >> yeah. and you're so right to point that out, remember in trying to distract from the "access hollywood" problem, which as you say, speaker of the house paul ryan was criticizing it, among the others you mentioned, went into that debate, and he tried to bring out and did bring out, all of the women who had in the past accused bill clinton of

sexual improporieties and wanted him to have a news conference which he did do, and wanted them sitting right across from hillary clinton in the front row. the debate commission held a debate there was a whole question what was going to happen. they were eventually seated to the side so they were not directly in front of hillary clinton. when the candidate was about to debate donald trump in a critical moment on that stage. there was so much going on about the role of women. and that is all, you know, forgotten by most people that the context of this was very, very important at that moment in the campaign it was not at all clear at that time how donald trump was going to do in that campaign in fact, people thought that hillary clinton was the front-runner, inaccurately, as it turned out. but that was the turning point

it was a very important turning point. and that was one very big reason to try to pay hush money and to keep this story from adding on to "access hollywood" we continue to watch this corridor and press and all of the security there and we just saw alvin bragg come out. so, it's only less than a minute -- yeah >> less than two minutes away from what was to be the beginning of this court appearance what will next happen as well when that indictment is unsealed, we expect the defense attorney, the trump attorneys, will be able to ask for a short delay, so that they can read however long this sealed indictment is. as we've been today, it could be as long as 35 pages, laura jarrett pointed out earlier that was the alan wieselberg

indictment >> we're seeing jing juxtapositf that courthouse, they just sent out again from this make america great fundraising email that sells t-shirts that have a fake mug shot on it we were told there would be no mug shot, there had been speculation if there wasn't a real mug shot, they would create one anyway, because they could raise money off of it. but this is not an actual photo, but it has president donald j. trump on a board underneath it it has the date. and it says "not guilty. so here we are, neil cotelle, here is a man, quite frankly, who would see the campaign as a

campaign or career-ending moment and try to turn it into something positive but how do you see this moment, as we wait, it's 2:15, this is when we were supposed to see the indictment read. >> well, donald trump is the master of the craft. this is part of it, everything is a fund raising opportunity. but at some point, the exterior, proclamations, fundraising have to give way to the cold reality of the law just think about what's happening now. he's being fingerprinted andrea and i have been fingerprinted. it's one of our prouder moments of our life. we've done it covering servants. and for the former president facing a criminal charge, it's a big, big deal and pretty disturbing, i would think. >> what about, there was an indictment against michael cohen

that said individual one directed michael cohen to make these payments and individual one was revealed to be donald trump this happened in 2018, this was the doj under donald trump that brought this indictment that actually put michael cohen -- was it the doj or sdny, i'm starting to get my offices confused andrew wiseman, bring us back to the moment when michael cohen was indicted and individual one. and why donald trump was never, even after the fact, even as he was out of the office, why he had not been federally charged, even though the feds have said, he was individual one who directed michael cohen >> the michael cohen criminal case it began in the special counsel mueller investigation. if you remember, michael cohen was charged in the special

investigation, for lying to congress he admitted to that, and the theory was he was doing so for the then current president donald trump but part of the case that related to michael cohen's own financial misdeeds and campaign finance was carved out of this special counsel mueller investigation. and was sent to the southern district of new york, an arm of the department of justice, where he also pleaded guilty and as neil reported, he pleated guilty, admitted it was a crime. the defense lawyer obviously understood it was a crime. the prosecutors thought it was a crime. the judge overseeing that matter accepted the guilty plea so, again, it wasn't litigated because you have the defense and the government agreeing it was a crime. but the judge did not challenge that in any way and accepted the guilty plea and understanding what he said he did was a crime. and in that charge, it saidtha he was doing that for individual

one who was clearly the then current president of the united states, donald trump why it was not brought -- there wasn't a charge under attorney general barr the information is that attorney general barr when he became the attorney general said stop, hold your horses, do not do this case and it appears that's when that case was sent to manhattan, which is why d.a. bragg has it there is no information, though, about why the current administration under the attorney general garland, and the biden administration, why d they did not pick up the case. there could be a whole host of reasons. it could be that the case had been handed off back to manhattan and they were pursuing it it could also be that attorney general garland did not want to look back wawards and wanted to

look forward there's some concern with that with the doj looking up at that case but it's unclear why the current doj did not pick this back up. >> so back in 2018, the southern district of new york which is part of the u.s. justice department, they don't always think of themselves as that way, but they are part of the justice department, did say in a sentencing with respect to michael cohen that it was trump that rejected these violations so they did signal him and an indictment wasn't brought. cy vance on sunday, on our network, went and said that the reason for that was the federal government, the u.s. justice department, told the local prosecutor, the d.a., to hold off on bringing charges. that itself is not unusual you can have -- well, every day, you have federal charges -- federal authorities saying to the state, hold off and the like, when you have concurrent jurisdiction

what makes it so unusual here is that the federal government never brought charges, as andrew said so that kind of hold off but then don't charge thing is extremely unusual. indeed, i'm not sure i've seen it before. >> neil, to that point, cy advance's office also said on sunday on our network, that he was surprised that the federal government did not pursue it once the administration changed. so, they had plenty of time. i know it was january 6 and everything else that had happened, but it was obviously occupying it when they took office january 20th. but still, he was surprised and he knows this case better than anyone >> andrea is exactly right and if we had this case, i can imagine, he comes in, sees january 6, the whopping examination of which trump is certainly implicated at the very least and thinks, well, that's

where i want to direct my resources and not this thing which is now a few years old of which there was probably some written determination not to prosecute that does he want to flip that? that's a very hard thing to flip, but maybe that was what was going on at the time you know, and then, of course, the stolen documents comes up on the radar screen for merrick garland as well. that's not to excuse garland i think we've taken way too long on these two federal investigations so, you know, hopefully, jack smith coming in has energized the investigations and it's going to final lead to some activity one way or the other. because it's not good for anyone to have the claims lingering, that could affect the possible defendants not good for the prosecution as evidence gets staler and the like. >> and you wonder if it will prove to be a vulnerability, the fact that the feds have not pursued, the doj has not pursued it i think that's the question to be answered in the coming weeks

and months let me ask you, dan, about this arraignment that was supposed to start at 2:15. any chance that the trump team got a copy of the indictment before heading into court and reviewing it now is that a possibility? >> i don't think so. possibly, but it seems the way the d.a. has set this up, you know, it's a very controlled and orderly process that is clearly by the book. which is the indictment does not get unsealed until the actual arraignment. it's possible -- you know, look, i don't want to sound trite, but sometimes, the wheels of justice do spin slowly and sometimes, there are administrative delays. they may be in the processing the president's processing was a little slower than they expected i don't think they're reading the indictment, no because, i think if they were, i think we'd know about that, given, you know, what the defense team and the defendant himself, the proclivity for public statements.

and i think that the way that the d.a. has set this up, in terms of the public statements and the public relations aspect of this is that unless the indictment is unsealed in court which is where i think it's going to be unsealed, the d.a. gets to speak, right we're going to hear -- there's no live camera in the courtroom. so the d.a.'s going to -- we're going to have the indictment unsealed and then the person who gets to speak first about it publicly is the d.a., because he's going to hold a press conference. so, i think this has been set up in a way that the d.a. gets to speak first. >> we are now getting information that this is running 15 minutes late which means about six minutes from now is when we're expecting this arraignment to start ari melber for the beat here on msnbc. is back with us now. ari, as we wait for donald trump to come through those doors, presumably, he still will and

walk through that corridor, if-l he have anything to say inside, will he be asked how does he plead? >> he should be asked how does he plead, guilty or not guilty and they will plead not guilty we're going to watch this from the outside eventually, as noted, we'll get the normal sketches you get from a courtroom. it doesn't have live cameras most states tend to allow it we don't here in new york city, so that's that but also, i think he's going to walk out a different man this is the first day of the rest of his life he's very accustomed even in new york this is a city he knows well it's a city in many ways, he maneuvered for a long time on the edge of the law and on all of his deals, this is a different experience i think it's one if you have views about donald trump, we've come to know him as a nation, this is still a humanbeing as we said, the defendant has

rights, but he's also going to have to take time to process it. he may not do that in the next hour he may not do that tonight he may be in public presentation mode but in the days ahead, i think today will be an experience that weighs on him like so many other have gone through the experience, we've got legal experts and lawyers who know it well, it does change people, even successful people, even powerful people, as they see that they're in a different arena. and for him, it is an arena he does not control today >> but i want to actually ask katy tur about this who has literally made a study of donald trump over the years because donald trump is different. he processes things differently. emotionally. and politically, so zr does thi really penetrate does the gravity of what is happening penetrate with donald trump? >> you know, it's a hard question to answer because you never want to put yourself in

somebody else's mind, it's difficult to do that but by all outward appearances if it is going to penetrate, what we're going to see is him lash out, as he does, when he feels backed into a corner and we've already seen that. we've seen him lashing out at the d.a. lashing out at the d.a.'s wife lashing out at the judge lashing out at the special counsel. anybody that is questioning him, or trying to hold him accountable, he is going after him. he's even going after today alone his former attorney general, bill barr, who in the conversation we were just having did not pursue the case against him. i guess he hasn't seen him to be satisfactorily cheering him on over the past few years. again, he didn't investigate what he called election interference -- not election interference, the fraud during 2020, donald trump wanted him to investigate and to hold the new election and do everything within his power to do things over. and bill barr said, no, i see no

evidence of it this just isn't there. this isn't a case. donald trump is not right about this, he used more colorful language than. we also see in the campaign send out a blast and hear a couple of donald trump's lawyers, joe tacopina, boris ep stsepshteyn,d trump's legal advisor, longtime friend of donald junior, that's how he got into the orbit. but a long time ago, saying already blasting off political t-shirts with his quote-unquote mug shot on it we know that a mug shot has not been taken they used a picture of donald trump and put it in front of the standard mug shot look here's donald trump walking in the hallway. let's see if he speaks to reporters? >> president trump -- >> okay, so that was pretty

brief. i thought he was going to come towards the cameras and enter the courtroom doors. apparently not, you can see jason miller, communications director in the campaign following behind him he's entering in that courtroom. the indictment will be presented to him, at which point, we will see if the indictment gets unsealed immediately and handed to reporters by paper copy or distributed through email. or if there's just a viewing copy which reporters will then have to take photos of and send out. we'll have to wait to see how tell goes but with 30-plus counts in this indictment, it could be a very long document, andrea we'll just have to wait at least a few minutes to find out what will happen next >> we're going to find out, we're replaying that video, the video of donald trump walking out with security, with his attorney he is, of course, and secret service. going into that courtroom, in the courtroom, reporters are not

allowed to have cameras. they're not allowed to have recording devices. there are a few still photographers in there at least in the beginning, it will be judge merchan, of course, presiding, and reading the charges. and the indictment will be unsealed at some point, imminently and then, they, the defense, will be able to ask for a brief delay to read it, understandably, to see what the charges are. we know that they're going to plead not guilty and probably move through several other quick motions. but the whole thing could take about 15 minutes once it's unsealed, we will have the answers to what is the legal basis for moving this from a misdemeanor to a felony. this has been widely reported. what are in the 30-plus charges, how far beyond the hush money payment which is not illegal, but the way it was -- the way it was documented how far beyond that does it go

do they try to make the novel case that this was an illegal campaign contribution? a campaign contribution that was not recognized as such chris. >> yeah, this is so interesting to see this split screen, right. what you were talking about and what katy was talking about which is these various 30 charges, the legal implications for donald trump, while at the same time, not only is he putting out a fake mug shot with a $47 t-shirt with that picture on it, but dan scavino tweeted from inside the motorcade, jason miller who will we just saw had previously tweeted some pictures from the motorcade we saw his son eric yesterday who was putting out social media from inside the plane. he said something like, you know, the plane from the plane and he is continuing to try to make what is, by any other account, a negative moment into something positive for him,

something we have seen him do time and time and time again but, again, never like this. let's talk through what exactly is going on in the courtroom right now, dan we now know that donald trump is inside his lawyers are inside what's happening >> so, i think the first thing is i think the indictment is probably being handed out. and the defense lawyers are reading it and the judge will make sure that happens so once they actually start the arraignment process, and i agree with andrea, it will take 10 or 15 minutes, probably less. but that can go forward smoothly i think that once they're -- the defense lawyers have digested, if you would, the indictment, they'll signal their readiness to proceed and the judge will proceed with the arraignment. in which basically, the court officer, or the clerk is going to read -- basically give the defendant an opportunity to either waive the reading of the

indictment which he's entitled to have, or go ahead and have the indictment read. my guess is, having seen it the defense attorneys will waive the reading of the indictment. and then the judge will ask the defendant how he pleads. and the defendant then trump will enter a plea presumably of not guilty there will be some discussion about how this is not a bailable offense. but this is not -- it's a felony, this is not a crime that warrants bail, so there will be no discussion about bail and they'll proceed to a discussion about motions and they'll ask the defense lawyers, are there any motions that you wish to file and what kind of motion schedule would you like technically, under new york's discovery criminal procedural laws, the defendant has 45 days to file any kinds of pretrial

dispositive motions to dismiss but i can guarantee you in a complex white collar charge like this, that schedule will be relaxed. and defense says once we have this amount of time for motions, the judge will then turn to the prosecutor and say you have an equal amount of time to respond. they'll set a motions schedule, and then they will set a date for the defendant and the parties to return. one question that we talked about repeatedly is, will the judge say anything and provide warnings or issue a gag order? base this would be the time to do that. meaning, will he actually impose an order that restricts the defendant and his lawyers from saying certain things? or will he, as i believe he will, and i think i heard neal say something along these lines earlier, provide some warnings and admonitions, so that there are some guidelines and guard rails about what is appropriate

and what isn't appropriate so that if the president and his lawyers act out and say inappropriate things and threaten the prosecutor, and threaten the prosecutor's wife and say things that are going to poison a potential jury pool, that he then has a legal basis to say, i warned you, i told you not to do this and you agreed that you would not do it. and now you have done it and so, i am going to impose this kind of sanction. and i agree with somebody who said earlier that there's probably a continuum of punishment that the judge would provide. i think the analogy was to, you start when you're dealing with your child at sort of a lower level. and if the behavior does not improve, you progress. so, i think that you'll hear that today and then the arraignment will be over >> i've got a couple of questions for you. one of them is when the arraignment is over and they set up the hearings, the pretrial

hearings, and the trial itself, when does donald trump have to show up? is it not until the trial begins itself and then secondly, the judge decided not to allow cameras in the courtroom. i know that's a long-standing new york rule but the judge does have discretion. would have been arguing for a camera in the courtroom? >> first of all, i want to remind the viewers what's going on, the process of arraignment it goes all the way back to the 14th century it's reflected in the sixth amendment. it's a short thing noted in the charges. so our viewers don't get excited that we're going to have a substantive debate or footage, basically three things happen, one, the charges are going to be read and trump's going to learn about them not of the evidence against trump, but just the charges themselves the evidence is going to take months to unfold second, trump is going to say whether he pleads guilty or not guilty and third, as dan says, there's

going to be some motions, perhaps something about trump's ability to speak and attack the prosecutors and the like now, you asked katy about cameras in the courtroom, and donald trump yesterday filed a motion to prevent cameras from being placed in the courtroom, because he said it would create a circus-like atmosphere, which is in my mind a kind of interesting thing for him to say since he's the one creating a lot of the circus. i think he really just wants to be the ringleader. but as ari said a moment ago, new york generally doesn't have cameras in the courtroom so it's not surprising to me that the judge hasn't allowed that here. and then, with respect to when mr. trump would be in court, it would be at the criminal trial he can certainly come for anything earlier than that, if he wants but i suspect the next time we would see him is at the trial itself maybe they'll make some incendiary motion about the judge being biased and trump will try and show up to that argument as he sometimes does, to

intimidate or something like that but i don't think we will necessarily see him before the criminal trial itself. so today has been kicking off of that criminal process, it's called arraignment but the trial is a long way from now. >> and jeh johnson, i want to bring you in, of course, former secretary of homeland security and former prosecutor in manhattan, and you know so well these procedures how extraordinary is this, obviously, unprecedented to have a former president charged in that courtroom, but just how difficult and challenging is it for the prosecutors and for judge merchan, given all of the attacks and the threats? >> andrea, there are many unprecedented aspects to this. in discussion of a potential gag order, for example, if i were the judge, i'd think device about imposing a gag order right up front, when you're dealing

with a presidential candidate who will no doubt make this prosecution part of his platform, as a presidential candidate. and when you impose a gag order, have to be prepared to enforce the gag order. and that would be exceedingly difficult against this particular individual. i agree with the comments made earlier, that at this stage, the most important thing from of the judge might be admonitions about what crosses the line in terms of personal attacks on the judge, the judge's family, the d.a., the d.a.'s family. and then in a form of escalation, see where it goes. the other thing i have to say, andrea, i'm looking at what's going on, observing the motorcade, observing everything around 100 centre street, it's obvious to me that a lot of defense work into this effort today, with the secret service, where they brought the

motorcade. it's obvious that they thought a lot about this, and this is a very difficult situation for them >> we are about to get our first pictures from inside the courtroom. andrea, you mentioned just a short time ago that there are photographers who were chosen to be in there, they could not do it during the actual arraignment, but before the arraignment. the still photographers were in there to take photos from the daily mail, the new york post, associated press,reuters and getty. we are told very shortly, we're going to get those still photos. it will be our first look inside that courtroom we have it let's take a look. there he is sitting surrounded by his legal team. let's talk, a little bit, if we can, andrew weissman, about his legal team which includes a new addition in the last 24, 48 hours. >> sure, the woman that we're seeing to donald trump's right is susan necheles.

she is a career defense lawyer she's extremely well respect he was one of the primary people who ordered the trump organization trial she lost that trial, you can be very, very good and still lose a case it's a veryhard case for anyon to prevail in. but she is somebody that has a really good reputation, a very good relationship with the district attorney's office so, we're really actually only seeing donald trump for once actually getting somebody who is sort of appropriate to the occasion and the person to donald trump's left is joe tacopina who i think everyone familiar with this show has seen repeatedly on air i'm not sure he's going to actually enter a notice of appearance being counsel of record, meaning he will actually be on the case if he does, there will be a lot of issues that have been raised about whether that raises a

conflict, because he attorneys to have a attorney/client relationship of some sort with stormy daniels she may be a witness you can't really be a lawyer for a defendant and a witness. there are ways to navigate that, but they're complicated if he actually files an appearance and then the newest lawyer is to susan's right. hand he represented paul manafort not in the federal cases that i handled as part of the special counsel investigation. but in a sequence case that this district attorney's office brought against paul manafort after paul manafort was pardoned if you remember, they said, you know what, i think there are state charges that we can bring because it's really not right that he gets pardoned when he's committed these state crimes and he prevailed on a legal argument which was that it was barred by the state double jeopardy rules so you can understand why he might be attractive to donald

trump as somebody who can prevail on a case, dealing with the district attorney's office one little point that i would make, this is a lawyer who left his law firm and now is solo just representing donald trump that is a hard position to be in, in terms of trying to control your client, because he has one client who is the former president. and so, how much control he's going to actually exert, when you only have one client is, i think, kind of a fraught position but fortunately, there are other lawyers like susan necheles. >> andrew is such a great lawyer, we got an incredible breakdown of every lawyer at the bench there. i just want to point out to viewers, this is the first time we've ever seen an image of donald j. trump as a criminal defendant in his life. this is the face this is as we're told by our anchors here, just moments before the cameras were ushered out of the room. people rememberer the judge did not clear cameras for the actual

proceeding, the brief arraignment but they do have in normal course cameras right before this is the image donald trump does not want you to see this is the actual real documentation of him in this now filed case, the people of the state of new york versus donald j. trump, defendant. that's the face of a defendant i would say he's also legally presumed innocent but if it's not a happy face, it's a different donald trump and it is quite different from the fake false mug shot people may hear about from donald trump. that's the fake news there is no mug shot, we've been told as of now this image, those police behind him, they are there to keep order. while this is a former president with his own secret service, he is going, as mentioned in our coverage, adjust to a scene like this the police are there to keep order, including if necessary, him and his lawyers in order he is just a human being

he's just a citizen. i draw attention to this because we're getting the great breakdown, mr. calwaulder. this is a man who needs criminal defense lawyers and doesn't want you to see the image which is why he's doing the counterprogramming we haven't seen the fake mug shot because it's not the real thing. we've mentioned because there's no propaganda out there. this is a moment in history and tr striking, chris, because this is the picture. >> it is, you don't want to hold out a single picture but he's seen flanked by his lawyers a man very much in an uncomfortable situation that he's never found himself in, almost pensive, katy, somebody

who by all accounts for a very long time, you know not only skirted the law, people made accusations against him. he often did not find himself ever in a position where he was actual little a defendant. but this is, if i may steal the line from neal, a moment of reckoning for donald trump, katy >> you know what's interesting in 2015 and in 2020 when he was running -- mostly in 2016, when he was running against hillary clinton, the images at the rallies, buttons and t-shirts. and in prison jumpsuit was hillary clinton behind bars. hillary clinton going to jail, lock her up is what you would hear at the rallies from supporters and occasionally from donald trump himself now, the campaign is using a fake mug shot of donald trump to garner support for him so, it's an interesting turning of the tables to say that you

can't vote for hillary clinton, she's a criminal, to vote for me, even though i've been accused of being a criminal and here's a fake mug is shot to help raise some money. i want to ask about the lawyers, and, ari, i'm going to have to recuse you from this question because it does somewhat involve you. joe tacopina has been appearing a lot on television, including ari's show, is that helpful? i know he wants a bulldog, but is that helpful? >> well, it is important for the president to influence public opinion and get their version of the story out, especially because there's such a -- such a false i didn't feel equivalence, because the district attorney, yes, they will have the document of the indictment out there, and that will get coverage, and, yes, you'll hear alvin bragg

once give a press conference but after that, as neil and i note, you're sort of silent, other than what you say in court. whereas, joe tacopina, susan necheles, even donald trump, are very vociferous about their version. and they keep repeating it and so, that's something when in special counsel mueller's investigation, everyone sort of talked about that sort of differential from complete lockdown from the prosecution. and the defense does get to speak. they're supposed to stay within court rules, but sometimes, they don't, as we've seen i think that joe tacopina does actually have that function of getting that story out, knowing that they're not going to really be rebutted from somebody who has the inside information and knows all the evidence >> andrew, let me just jump in

here, nbc news is now reporting that inside that courtroom, donald trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying records. felony counts of falsifying business records andrew, what does that tell you? >> so, we heard reports about the 34 so this is confirmation. the felony counts is really interesting that there are no misdemeanors everyone has been talking about whether there would be this filing of false business records that can be charged as a misdemeanor and as a felony. it's very interesting that the choice was made here to only charge felfelonies, and i do thk we're going to be very interested in seeing how they get there. it does suggest to me real confidence in the case by the district attorney, that they are not charging misdemeanors, that they think that their facts and legal theories as to why it is

only felonies is appropriate here it does suggest, i'd say, real confidence on their part and it's worth noting that this is the district attorney who initially held off charging when he became the district attorney and said that this said that this case was not ready and it's only a year later that he has said it'snow ready to proceed. and the fact that they're all felonies does suggest to me that there was probably something that happened, whether it's witnesses or documents or both, in that intervening year while alvin bragg has been the new district attorney. >> let me just jump in here, because it's -- according to nbc news, it's 34 counts of falsifying records and conspiracy now, nbc news is not reporting felony reuters and others apparently rrk are, but right now what we are reporting is 35 counts of falsifying business records and

conspiracy >> so, that would be very different. sounds like this is -- we're in an information vacuum. the conspiracy count is one where people, including myself, thought they might bring that in order to have the david pecker/karen mcdougal information in that as part of broader conspiracy involving this catch and kill scheme so i wouldn't be surprised if they did that so what they're focusing on is not solely stormy daniels and those payments. >> thiis the number of counts wr look at here any indication of the breadth, the seriousness >> i think people should not overreact to that. i think that you can have one core set of facts, and it is possible to have sort of many

crimes that emanate from that. if you have a false business filing and that filing is made repeatedly and you use it in different ways or you create many different documents, all connected to one scheme, the fact that you are able to charge that 34 times doesn't really change the way i think that a jury might look at it, but certainly not how the judge is going to look at it. they're going to be looking through half those charges to see what is the actual scheme being charged? when i used to do securities fraud, wire fraud, mill fraud cases, you could charge thousand of counts because there's so many ways mail and wire fraud count can happen, and you usually take representative samples. so i don't think the number of charges is indicative of the seriousness. >> we were talking before the show about, basically, what are we looking for i think there's three things we

settled on, ari. one is how many are felony, how many are misdemeanors, so looking at that, how serious are things number two, the scope. is it just around storm yi daniels or also involving karen mcdougal and the "national enquirer" and the potential campaign finance stuff there and third, what is the theory or theories that the district attorney, the prosecutor is going to use to convert these misdemeanors to felonies at least two we've heard about, bandied about they were further tax violations and further campaign finance violations. >> one of the things that adam reese is reporting, the 34 counts related to hush money payments to two women. >> two women, so it does suggest it's karen mcdougal and stormy daniels. we'll have to see. maybe there's someone else we don't know about but if it's those two, it wouldn't surprise me if part of the theory of felony enhancement the is using

is a campaign finance violation one, because mcdougle payments were wrapped up with campaign finance. there can be state, that would be hard. there could be federal finance charges for violations that could be the basis for this aggravator to make this a felony we'll have to see. >> yes, i think that's the -- >> we will see if it's karen mcdougal in just a moment, but it made sense because we saw david pecker testify in front of the grand jury a number of times, and he was involved in the catch and kill of karen mcdougal's story, paying her to not say anything about the affair she had with donald trump. we're going to go to adam reese, our nbc news producer who was inside that courtroom. we're going to share him with nbc news, so it might be a kind of awkward juggle to get there if i have to interrupt, forgive me that's a fair warning. if we're talking about karen

mcdougal and stormy daniels, talking the about the days before the 2016 election how much will the prosecutors make of that moment in time? earlier i was talking about the "access hollywood" tape, the way he was talking about the former miss universe pageant. are they likely to bring the courtroom -- bring the jurors back to what it was like the days before the election to try to set the stakes for why donald trump would want to be paying a woman off not to say anything about an affair she says she had? >> absolutely, and i think that one of the critical things that we just learned is it's a conspiracy count now, the conspiracy count is important because it doesn't just give the district attorney a legal platform to make -- to bring in the catch and kill narrative, but it heal will likely be what's called a

speaking inindictment. as andrew and neal know, indictments come in two flavors. the traditional is a highly legalistic document that tracks what is stated in the law with a very small smattering, if you would, of facts. a speaking indictment, which is often used when there's a conspiracy count, gives the indictment -- the flavor if you would of telling a much more robust, full story so it's an opportunity to marry narrative and law, and i don't think there's any question that in the prologue to the conspiracy count there's going to be a reference to the election, to the stakes, and to evidence that indicates that now defendant donald trump had an intention to commit these other crimes related to his campaign

in 2016. >> i just want to read what adam reese and gregorian has said trump pleads not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records related to hush money payments pleaded not guilty to 34 count of falsifying business records for his alleged role in the hush money payments to two women. as you pointed out, most likely karen mcdougal towards the end of his 2016 campaign, but the indictment has been unsealed in the brief proceeding before judge -- >> andrea, can i jump in just to echo what we have been saying but i want to put a button on it according to adam reese, our court reporter, we have information about two women. that is the first time in this case, in this court proceeding we've ever had that from the government there's been reporting and inference. our colleagues katie tur and

others saying what we knew about witnesses going in, but sometimes witnesses go in and don't lead to charges or other corroboration, rebuttal or fact pattern. breaking news here out of the courtroom. we don't have in our hands yet the full unsealed indictment, but we do have new information for the first time out of court that the d.a. is charging this as a false business records and conspiracy case with regard to payments to more than one woman, to two women. >> adam reese is on a line from the courthouse >> great >> lester, good afternoon. we all started at about 2:32 when the judge came in just prior to that president trump entered the courtroom wearing a blue suit, white shirt, and red tie he slowly walked past the reporters seated he almost sort of ambled his way into the courtroom he took his seat at the defense table in between his four

attorneys. he was seated just between his attorney susan nichols and joe tacop tacopina todd blanch added yesterday was sitting at the end he spoke on behalf of president trump. chris conroy was prosecutor, the assistant district attorney. he began by saying that there were 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree when he was asked, president trump firmly said he pleads not guilty the prosecutors handed over the indictment they said it was unsealed at 1:30 in describing the indictment, they said that mr. trump tried to conceal a conspiracy and undermine the 2016 election, to identify and suppress negative information. this was covert and illegal payments at mr. trump's

direction, directed to michael cohen, and the purpose was to suppress this affair and this negative information he paid cohen, and in doing so, he falsified those business re records. he falsified it as cash, was concealing the -- the -- another crime, a more serious crime. the prosecutor went on to say that mr. trump has made recent threatening emails and speeches, both directed at new york city, and courts here in new york, and justice system, and the district attorney's office. he said that these are irresponsible social media posts, threatened death and destruction, and even world war iii. he said that these public statements to the district attorney, which included a photo of him swinging a baseball bat towards the district attorney's h head, was very concerning.