good day. i'm chris jansing along side my colleague katy tur live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. after claiming his innocence, over and over, in the courthouse, out on the campaign trail, on social media, donald trump has chosen not to do it under oath, in front of a jury. the former president raising a fist as he left court today, but refusing to answer questions about why his defense rested in his hush money trial without calling him to the stand.

after saying repeatedly he wanted to testify. >> trump did, however, stop for the cameras before going into court earlier today. and here is what he said. >> we're resting the case. i won't be resting. i don't rest. i like to rest sometimes, but i don't get to rest. >> he won't be resting. the main witness, the defense did call, was robert costello. and he was back on the stand trying to undercut michael cohen's testimony earlier today, a day after being admonished and warned by the judge that his behavior was contemptuous. >> even though testimony in this case appears to be over, a huge decision is now looming. will jurors be allowed to consider lesser charges, misdemeanors against the former president? or will felony charges be their only option? the charging conference that will decide that question and potentially go a long way toward deciding how this case ends is just one hour away. i want to bring in msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin

remaining outside the courthouse with us in studio, chuck rosenberg and catherine christian. so, lisa, let's start with the charging conference. how exactly does it work and what is the significance? >> well, catherine and chuck, as experienced prosecutors, know this better than i do. but when we come to this charging conference this afternoon, it is like an oral argument on jury instructions is how would i explain it to viewers. they have prepared draft instructions that are already with judge merchan. i should note they're not publicly available yet. and then they'll essentially have argument on those things about which there are no agreement and the judge will hear from both sides as to whether or why he should instruct jurors a particular way. one thing that i expect to be an issue this afternoon has to do with a particular phrase in the statute at issue. i should note there is only really one crime that is being charged here 34 times. it is new york penal law 175.10

and it says simply this, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, meaning falsifying business records and this is what makes it a felony, when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal in the commission thereof. the question is -- goes to the question of what it means to falsify business records. if you are the person who is actually doing the falsification, of course you can be found guilty. but another theory on which a person can be held criminally liable is that you cause somebody else to falsify business documents and that, of course, begets the question of what does it mean to cause another person to falsify a business record? that's a particularly important question here in this case where donald trump didn't create any of the business records that are at issue. you'll remember there are 11

invoices created and signed by michael cohen, there are checks and check stubs and while they were nine of them were signed by donald trump, they were created by employees of the trump organization. and then finally you got entries in the general business ledger, again, created by employees of the trump organization, pursuant to instructions that they received either from jeff mcconney, allen weisselberg, or both. so, the prosecution has to prove that trump caused these business records to be made. there is some case precedent in new york that says if you take a particular course of action and it is reasonably foreseeable to you that that course of action could cause somebody else to make false business records, you can be held criminally liable. but, of course, the defendant is going to want something a lot more stringent than that, something that is more akin to you actually directed it, you told somebody to do it, and that's the kind of evidence that is in short supply in this case, which is why the meaning of the word cause could be one of the most important issues in dermg

determining the outcome of this trial. >> got to get your semantics down in the world of law. andrea mitchell joins us, thank you for getting back so quickly from the courthouse t was quite an experience to be there today of all days. tell us all about it. >> it was an experience to be there, to see the courthouse, to see donald trump, to see donald trump in a completely different way than any of us have personally viewed him before. the former president of the united states, you know, in this unprecedented moment, walking into a courtroom in new york city. i've covered the courts in philadelphia as a cub reporter for ten years and, you know, i've covered other courts over the years, other trials, but never before anything this momentous and you have to wonder how are these jurors going to assess exactly what lisa rubin was talking about? when does a misdemeanor become a felony? this is an unusual case. and are they -- all the evidence that donald trump was such a controlling figure, that allen weisselberg would not have made

these documents, and donald trump would not have spent the money, you know, all this money on michael cohen, and, you know, pay him more to pay for, you know, all these other expenses, and to make it worth his while, but none of this would have happened if he had not wanted it. so, they're going to have to make a decision in that jury room and when they begin the deliberations a week from now. >> imagine how insane it must feel to have the responsibility of potentially finding guilty or exonerating a former president of the united states, not just anyone, donald trump who is such a vitriolic figure. >> and, you know, the fact that he surrounds himself with these figures. they're sort of minor back benchers from the republican house, and one was the former acting attorney general, matt whitaker. i met him in the department of justice when he replaced jeff sessions, big man from iowa, football player, not a

distinguished attorney general, but he has the title of former acting attorney general of the united states. it shows you the contrast between the prior administration and what they are projecting, their view of law, the law, don jr. there who came out and called this case a creation of the bolshevik press. it is all of that is on the weight of the jurors. all of us have sat on juries. >> i have not. i was dismissed. >> i was dismissed twice. >> i've been on a jury, and you feel a huge responsibility. one jury i was on was really up to me as it came down to it and i just helped decide a case, contrary to everything i believed because i thought there was reasonable doubt and you just carry that responsibility the way many of us carry that responsibility, you and i have been white house correspondents, you walk through the gates, you feel the responsibility of representing the american people inside that building and

communicating to the public. so, people take their, as chuck said and catherine, people take their civic responsibility very seriously and that can work both ways in this case. he's a former president of the united states. >> take us into that courtroom, because every single person who has reported on the jury has said they are not giving away anything. >> nothing. nothing. >> and you know that -- i said this yesterday, maybe you felt it too, that when they said i thought -- i'm ready for this, i've been covering this since the first day and many months before that, when they said the people of the state of new york versus donald j. trump will now come to order, there was something w ordinary americans, ordinary new yorkers, chosen out of potentially thousands of people who could have been called in, are going to have to make this decision. >> and in this case, and as

chuck and catherine can bear me out, they can make a decision on some of the charge and bump it down to a misdemeanor. is that not the case? >> only if the judge instructs them on that. >> and so that's another reason why the judge was indicating today that the instructions are very, very important. and that's what they're going to be doing at 2:15. there is this very unusual and he said to them, this is unusual. this long lag time, but that he thought it was best not to have a gap between the summations, which are so important, which are going to come on tuesday, and then the jurors, the judge's charge which will likely be wednesday and will go to the jury on wednesday a week from now. so, you know, you just think about it, chuck, pick it up there, because -- >> and to your very good point, andrea, and as catherine noted, some of this turns on how the judge instructs the jury and we will see that soon. >> so why does everyone say a case could literally turn a jury instruction -- i just googled

jury instructions and several cases came up, where after the fact jurors said i voted this way because the judge said this. even though i thought maybe it was something else. >> from being in there, they were listening to the judge. they were just gripped by that. i think especially after they saw his displeasure with robert costello yesterday before he excused them, it was building to that, you know, really legally that was almost an explosion afterwards when the jurors left, i think they really have trust and faith in this judge as many judges, but in this case, you got a choice between discredited, convicted, you know, michael cohen, perjurer, on the stand, and robert costello, who definitely did not come from the higher echelons of jurisprudence, and on the other side, you know, you got donald trump who is controversial and then you got this judge merchan who, chuck, to answer that question, he seems to be the grown-up in the room. >> jurors don't miss the fact that the judge is sitting up on

a bench, a little bit higher than everyone else, and you stand when he or she walks into the room and you stand when he or she walks out of the room and that people address the judge as your honor, it is clear, andrea, who is in charge. i don't think any juror, any jury, in any jurisdiction, misses that. and, by the way, it is also the judge who tells them when they can go to lunch, so, you know, think they're also grateful for that. >> does he do the instructions any different because he's a former president? >> no, not at all. to your other question, how do jury instructions help perhaps determine the outcome of the case? it is something that catherine alluded to. if the judge gives the jurors an option to find mr. trump guilty of misdemeanors, then perhaps they find him guilty of a misdemeanor and not a felony. vice versa, if he takes that option off the table, it is either a felony or nothing. there are all different

combinations of verdicts. you can be guilty on some charges, and not guilty on others. you could have a partial verdict, they return decisions on some counts, and hang on others. you could acquit. you can convict. and so a lot of this, not all of it, but a lot of it will turn as catherine said on precisely how the judge instructs the jury. >> a lot of it is so unpredictable, though. we have looked at the jury and try to figure out who might be thinking what, you do a version of profiling in your head, what does this person look like, where have i encountered a person like this before and what have they told me? i think that's futile. i know it is futile. you said it is futile to me, a number of times. i heard again somebody saying that the jury was very much on the side of michael cohen and i thought of you. >> yeah, you can never tell. i always said i convince myself that one juror was looking at me

in a certain way and hated me. what will happen, depending how long they deliberate, you'll see a note come out, and then you're, like, they're focused on that, and then you're, like, oh, that's a good thing, they're focused on that. if they're deliberating and a note comes out for a particular question, we might get a sense. that could be one juror wants to have a question asked. >> usually a sense of where it is going depending on the length of a deliberation, a shorter deliberation in our experience has delivered a guilty verdict in the past court cases we followed. >> o.j. simpson was very quick and it was an acquittal. it is very hard to determine. >> do they have a relationship now? there is something about being in the trenches with someone. >> yeah. >> and they have been having lunch together. and nobody else can understand what they're going through. it is not surprising to me that andrea was the person on her jury who everybody turned to. come on, it is andrea mitchell. >> but it was a woman's case.

and it was very heavily -- >> i don't want to get -- if we're in a jury room, we're going to listen to what andrea has to say, having said that, i've often heard it is the jury foreman who generally is the most influential. is that true and have relationships developed by now that might disprove that? >> well, you have to understand one thing. they are prohibited from talking about the case at this point. >> but they give a sense of each other. >> unless they're sitting in object silence, they're talking to each other about everything but the case. and do relationships form? sure. they're casual and they're congenial and people talk about where they live and where they grew up and family and college and things like that or whatever strikes them, you know, the knicks losing in the playoffs to the pacers. >> oh, knife to the heart, chuck. >> how does the foreman get chosen? >> in new york, it is the first

person. it is just juror number one. >> it is automatic. >> often they're like, me? that person is the one who sends out the notes, that's the person who announces the verdict. >> i imagine that -- >> it depends on the type of lawyer. the lawyers who are milquetoast, lawyers taking over because i'm a lawyer. others may be offended by that because they're all supposed to be equal. it is unclear. >> i'm with catherine. i think it is hazardous to ascribe certain traits to certain people based on what they do for a living or what they look like during trial, whether they're attentive or inattentive. i might have my eyes closed and be listening to everything. someone else might be taking notes that turn out just to be scribbles and doodles. >> some people do sketches, like, court sketches while sitting here at this desk. >> it is impossible to figure out -- >> are you calling me out? >> me? no, i want to go to lisa rubin, i'm told you've been nodding as

we're having this conversation about the jury. >> reporter: yeah, i was thinking about it, an experience i had with a jury not so long ago myself. i was on a criminal case, chris, in 2017 and 2018, where one of the jurors was reading a book during every break and every side bar that is called "the subtle art of not giving a f word". and i have to tell you, on our side, the defense side, we were mesmerized by this book, which the juror ostentatiously displayed like this during every break, trying to determine what is -- what signal is this juror trying to send to us? and the answer was no signal at all. it was a book that happened to be interesting to him or her. the jury convicted my client. i was also thinking about the e. jean carroll jury and the most recent case, when robbie kaplan who is e. jean carroll's lead lawyer was summing up her case, there were a number of jurors who wouldn't look at her and

almost staring down the barrel of the courtroom rather than give her their attention. and i remember thinking to myself, this is a bad sign, they're not engaged with her, not engaged with the case. when alina habba came up by comparison, the entire jury was wrapped. they couldn't take their eyes off of her. and yet none of that had anything to do with the ultimate verdict in that case, which was to find that e. jean carroll was entitled to $8.3 million as i recall. so, i agree with chuck and catherine, trying to read juror behavior is an exercise in total futility that doesn't mean that lawyers don't do it, particularly because it is a stress release during trials like this. but trying to understand what these jurors are thinking is just useless for all of us as curious as we all are about what they must be thinking right now. >> i'm just wondering also to you members of the bar here, how realistic is it to assume when

judge merchan says don't discuss it and we'll be back next week, they'll go through wednesday, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday, monday, memorial day and never talking about this case, to children, partners, spouses? that's impossible. >> do you want to talk about the four hours of coverage we did? >> yes. >> i stopped talking about it. i stopped talking about it. >> you can't talk to anyone else outside your sphere, but you're not supposed to talk to your family. chuck, is it realistic to think they'll go through all memorial day and not talk to a husband, wife, partner? >> this is a great question about human nature and a great question about this particular jury. some people will strictly abide by the judge's decisions. others will probably go home and google up the trial and read things they shouldn't read. people are people. katie and andrea, your answers to one another just now about what you do when you go home,

you don't talk about work, and you do. these jurors -- >> and you're the one whose spouse is an anchorman and journalist. >> i say go read "the new york times" or watch my show back. i'm not rehashing it all. >> i turn on msnbc. >> you have a dozen different people and perhaps they're doing a dozen different things. my sense, however, is that most really truly try to abide by the judge's destructions because i think most jurors take the service very seriously. >> there is, in this case, my ring is hitting the table, sorry, it is not just any case, it is a trial of a former president. i can't imagine that they don't go back and say, you know, something about donald trump and his manner or what it was like to be in that room. how could you not? >> i don't know how you could not, other than to say if i were on the jury, i would not. different people -- >> chuck is a rule follower. >> i'm a rule follower. >> i don't know.

chuck and i robbed a lot of banks over the years. >> i want to bring in criminal defense attorney danny cevallos. look, this charging conference that is going to come up, what do you expect out of it? >> i expect it is going to be a significant event. there has been a lot of talk of, hey, the defense closes, we'll get into closing arguments, i think the charging conference is going to take a long time. especially in a case like this. this is not like a robbery, this is not a gun case, where it is easy to wrap your mind around the legal concept. even in cases like that, charging conferences can take a while, because the lawyers have very disparate views about what the jury instructions should be. and a lo lot of times there is book of jury instructions and the defense is arguing for a change of those instructions that favors the defense and they're probably not going to win. but, in a case like this, where you have these kind of novel applications of the law, i think there is going to be some hotly contested language, just like

lisa pointed out, i think one of the huge pieces of definition that we need to get to is what is to cause someone to make a false entry and then also i wouldn't be surprised if you see a lot of debate about the intent to defraud includes an intent to do a bunch of other things that it lists in the statute, does that mean that how much intent does that mean? you start getting into strange philosophical areas of my intent to defraud includes another intent, does it have to be the entire intent? even if it is 1% of your intent included intent to cause or conceal another crime, i think that suffices. that's probably what we're going to see argued out during the charging conference. i can't express just how critical jury instructions are. they're the whole case. when you look at appeals, the majority of appeals in criminal cases have to do with jury instructions or complaints about jury instructions. they're often your best shot on

appeal. so, jury instructions are critical. they're quietly important because, you know why? on tv and in movies, they don't have a scene, a charging conference scene. it is not exciting, it is not sexy, but it is quietly one of the most important events, far more important in my view than opening statements or closing arguments or summation. charging conferences, the jury instructions that the jury gets, they believe those. they take them as gospel. they don't take as gospel necessarily opening statements or closing arguments. but the jury instructions, those come from the judge and, in fact, most attorneys in their closing will incorporate the jury instructions that they like, because it shows a kind of in their view a solidarity with the judge. remember what the judge tells you, because it is exactly what i'm telling you, and keep this particular instruction in mind. most of the time, the prosecution, they take them, put them on a power point, stick it right up there on the screen. >> lisa rubin, thank you, chuck

rosenberg, catherine christian sticking around for us. up next, the biden administration on the offense moments ago, vice president harris going after former president trump for that recent social media post. and at the same time, president biden hitting the campaign trail, what he is touting to voters involving veterans. we'll explain both after a short break. ng veterans. we'll explain both after a short break. boring is the unsung catalyst for bold. what straps bold to a rocket and hurtles it into space? boring does. boring makes vacations happen, early retirements possible, and startups start up. because it's smart, dependable, and steady. all words you want from your bank. for nearly 160 years, pnc bank has been brilliantly boring so you can be happily fulfilled... which is pretty un-boring if you think about it. breathing claritin clear is like... [♪♪] feeling the breeze instead of feeling congested. [♪♪] fast relief of allergies with nasal congestion, so you can breathe better. claritin plus decongestant.

live claritin clear®.

(ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network.

(ella) we now get more control of production, efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon.

and they're all coming? those who are still with us, yes. grandpa! what's this? your wings. light 'em up! gentlemen, it's a beautiful... ...day to fly.

just moments ago, vice president kamala harris went after former president trump for sharing a video that referenced creating a unified reich in his second term. that post has since been deleted. she made the remarks while delivering a keynote address in philadelphia before a major group of union workers who are helping get out the vote for november. nbc's gabe gutierrez is at the white house for us. what did the president have to say, gabe? >> reporter: this is the vice president's fourth visit to pennsylvania so far this year. her 14th since taking office. while addressing union workers there, she slammed that social media post from the former president, now the trump campaign has been saying that it was an accidental post, that it was a staffer that shared it without looking at those words, but the vice president took the campaign to task. take a listen. >> just yesterday, the former president of the united states who praises dictators, who said

they were very fine people on both sides in charlottesville, let's not forget, took to social media and highlighted language from nazi germany, highlighted language from nazi germany. this kind of rhetoric is unsurprising coming from the former president and it is appalling and we got to tell him who we are. >> reporter: now, her comments come after we have been hearing from campaign officials and also officials here at the white house calling that type of language abhorrent and this comes as the biden campaign is really trying to court voters in battleground pennsylvania, speaking in front of those union workers who have pledged a voter drive from $200 million, union wide, and this is the union that just elected its first black

president, vice president harris, there to try and court those rural voters, and as you see that union represens roughly 2 million healthcare sector and property service workers, a massive union. this comes as the biden campaign trying to focus on topics such as reproductive rights and also student loan debt. two topics that the vice president had talked about in philadelphia before. as you just saw, now with that social media post yesterday, we have been hearing the biden campaign trying to seize on that and we expect the president biden himself to address that social media post more directly later today, chris. >> and i'll pick it up there, thank you, gabe gutierrez at the white house. president biden also criticizing former president trump's social media post saying it is wrong as he left vfw in new hampshire. he'll be speaking at an event there shortly, marking a milestone in one of his big legislative accomplishments, the

p.a.c.t. act, which has helped veterans who were exposed to burn pits and other toxins to get access, benefits and care. this is a deeply personal issue for the president. joining us now is nbc news white house correspondent mike memoli, who is live for us in nashua, peter baker, chief white house correspondent for "the new york times," and nbc news senior political editor mark murray. mike memoli, first, talk to me about the burn pits. i did all these stories with jon stewart and others for the 9/11 survivors who had also been exposed in the burn pit legislation also helped them in part. but tell us about the announcement today, the significance of this legislation to president biden and, of course, his son beau. >> well, andrea, as you lay out, the president has signed hundreds of bills since he's been president over the last three plus years, there might not be a single piece of legislation that sass personally important to him as the p.a.c.t. act. we are prepared next week to

mark the 9th anniversary of the death of beau biden and the president spoke about he thought it was during his service that he may have developed the cancer that ultimately took his life. we expect as the president comes out very shortly, he's being introduced right now, he with will mark a significant milestone. more than 800,000 have begun to receive benefits. new hampshire is a state with a significant veteran and senior population where those benefits are particularly important. but it would not be a surprise if we do hear the president refer again to his son's service. this say bipartisan bill, but a bipartisan bill that did take a significant lift as you mentioned, jon stewart among those who lent their star power to try to get this bill over the finish line and now as you hear "hail to the chief," president biden coming up to speak about this as we speak. >> mike, thank you very much. we'll let you get into that

speech, so we'll take good-bye to you here. peter baker, talk to us more about the announcement of this legislation today and what they hope they're getting out of this, not just, you know, for the people who are affected, but politically as well, since we're in an election year. >> we are in an election year, of course. you're right. this is a split screen of the biden campaign wants. they want to see the president of the united states announcing tangible results and policies that he has put in place while you see his opponent, the former president of the united states in court on trial for falsifying documents in order to cover up hush money paid to a porn star for an affair that she says that they had. and that's a split screen they like. they want to make the case that biden is about get things done. he has been frustrated he has not gotten the credit he thinks he deserves, not just this burn pit legislation, but the infrastructure legislation, the improvements in the economy,

legislation to help build semiconductor plants, to fight climate change and so forth. all of these get washed away in the mix these days and polarized moment where we're not focused as much on what congress and the president are actually doing, but on our tribal differences overall kinds of different things, wedge issues and cultural issues and trump. i think this is their effort to try to define this president as somebody who gets things done as opposed to the candidate challenging him who doesn't. >> i wonder what your thought is on the comments that we just heard, peter, from the vice president. i don't know if we're going to hear any veterans groups are ones who may have some response officially if not personally to the idea of using the word reich, just world war ii alone, when it was over 400,000 american military, i think 420,000 including civilians who

died. >> trump has gotten away with saying and doing things that otherwise would have, you know, knocked down any other candidate, would have been unacceptable for any other candidate, for some reason has not bothered many voters. so, for biden, the trick here is not changing people's minds who are going to vote for trump. the trick is bringing back those biden voters who voted for him in 2020, but disappointed and aren't supporting him right now because of his age, inflation, frustrations over immigration or what have you. he's trying to remind them, look who the other side is, the other side is somebody who says he wants to be a dictator for a day, who says he plays word games over the reich and things like that. that's the contrast that they're trying to set here. >> and, mark murray, let's talk about nashua, new hampshire, the importance of that. the president is going off to boston for a fund-raising event,

according to a lot of new reporting, pretty healthy cash edge right now over donald trump. break down the numbers for us, we also have seen a lot of reporting that hedge fund guys and a lot of wealthy -- billionaires who have previously been almost never trumpers were coming back to the fold, "the wall street journal" has been cataloging a lot of that. he may be able to raise a lot of money very quickly and catch up, try to catch up. >> yeah, there are two clear takeaways from the fec filings that we were able to get before the midnight deadline last night. number one, biden, the democrats have maintained their overall fund-raising advantage bolstered by the power of incumbency. but also donald trump the republicans are starting to catch up. when you look at the campaign fund-raising numbers, the biden campaign raising $24 million versus $9 million for the trump

campaign. when you add the campaigns, plus the overall dnc or rnc, the democrats have a substantial cash on hand advantage, 146 million to $88 million for trump and the republican party. but here's where things are actually starting to get a little bit better for republicans. we see the rnc raise substantially more money in the past month than they did in the one before. and when you end up having the total unified fund-raising arm, the campaigns, the parties, all the other affiliated arms, the trump and the republicans ended up saying they came out with $76 million versus team biden's $51 million. while we haven't been able to confirm the numbers through the overall fec filings, no one is disputing those figures, andrea. >> mark what about the small donors, the small individual donors that are the most likely of voters. where do the candidates stand

among those types of donors? >> so, the biden campaign has been putting a whole lot into their army of small donors. and obviously, you know, a lot of the big fund-raising events like the one that president biden will be hitting tonight in boston comes from a real -- big heavy hitters who write checks sometimes as close to a million dollars or so that get divvied out many different ways, you're absolutely right, the campaigns do emphasize the small donors, those are the people who give 10, 20, $100 every month and you can continue to go back to them. it is worth noting that some of the big events like the one in boston tonight that when people end up writing that $1 million check which goes every which way, you can't go back to them. you're right. it is the small donors that are going to matter as we get closer and closer to the general election. >> mark murray, peter baker, mike memoli, thank you very much. coming up next, new developments in another major legal case for former president

trump, this time in fulton county, georgia. we'll dig into that. county, georgia. we'll dig into that. even a little blurry vision can distort things. and something serious may be behind those itchy eyes. up to 50% of people with graves' could develop a different condition called thyroid eye disease, which should be treated by a different doctor. see an expert. find a t-e-d eye specialist at isitted.com frizz. dryness. breakage. new dove 10-in-1 serum hair mask with peptide complex. fortifies hair bonds at a molecular level. helps reverse ten signs of damage in one minute. keep living. we'll keep repairing. have you ever considered getting a walk-in tub? well, look no further! keep living. safe step's best offer, just got better! now, when you purchase your brand new safe step walk-in tub, you'll receive a free shower package. yes, a free shower package!

and if you call today, you'll also receive 15% off your entire order. now you can enjoy the best of both worlds! the therapeutic benefits of a warm, soothing bath that can help increase mobility, relieve pain, boost energy, and even improve sleep! or, if you prefer, you can take a refreshing shower. all-in-one product! call now to receive a free shower package plus 15% off your brand new safe step walk-in tub.

>> tech: does your windshield have a crack? trust safelite. this customer had auto glass damage, but he was busy working from home... ...so he scheduled with safelite in just a few clicks. we came to his house... then we got to work. we replaced his windshield... ...and installed new wipers to protect his new glass. >> customer: looks great. thank you. >> tech: my pleasure. >> vo: we come to you for free. schedule now for free mobile service at safelite.com. ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ - it's apparent. not me. - yeah. nice going lou! nothing like a little confidence boost to help ease you back in to the dating scene. that includes having a smile you feel good about. fortunately, aspen dental specializes in dentures and implants made just for you. and with flexible financing, you don't need to sacrifice quality work for a price that fits your budget. at $0 down plus 0% interest if paid in full in 18 months. helping our patients put their best smile forward. it's one more way aspen dental is in your corner.

just a couple of moments ago, we saw former president trump leave trump tower to head back to court for the afternoon's proceedings. they're going to begin in about 30 minutes. meanwhile, in georgia, fulton county d.a. fani willis is in a fight to keep her job and control of the investigation into former president trump.

willis is looking for a big victory tonight in the democratic primary, despite the intense scrutiny she's faced for her past relationship with a former special prosecutor on the case, nathan wade. she said she will not back down despite republican efforts to undermine her. >> having prosecutors that are free from interference and are allowed to just look at cases, look at the facts, and if people broke the law to bring charges has to go on for us to live in a free society. the sad part, though, for all of them, miss maddow, is it doesn't matter how many times they attack me. i am not going to be broken. and i am going to still be standing here doing my job lawfully. >> back with us, danny cevallos, chuck rosenberg and catherine christian. we also have, by the way, everybody, the talk about the fake electors scheme in arizona.

first up to you, danny, fani willis is fighting for re-election. my question was why would she give an interview to anybody, i mean, we love that she gave it to rachel, given the circumstances she's in, why would she give an interview to anybody in a moment like this? >> you think about it, it was her essentially not giving an interview, but giving a speech that formed the basis for the defendants original motion to try and disqualify her as a prosecutor. they argued in that motion that what she did was a kind of forensic misconduct, which conjures up images of fingerprints and dna, it really means that it is something that based on her speech that she gave caused the case to be tainted and she should be disqualified. and now this case is before an appeals court and essentially one of the main arguments is that the trial court found that, yes, there was something wrong really with her testimony. there were issues, but they say that the judge failed to take the second step which was disqualify willis and in their view, simply giving her the

option to get rid of the entire d.a.'s office or just one guy wasn't enough. it is the kind of thing that needs to be remedied on appeal or else they argue it will taint the entire trial as to all defendants. so, it is probably not the best idea to be giving interviews if your extra judicial statements are the focus of that very appeal by defendants who are looking to throw you off the case. >> whatever you think, catherine, about what she did in terms of making public her relationship or not making public her relationship, she made a point last night, first of all, something she talked about on the stand, how this has up ended her life, how she's paying her mortgage for the house, she raised her children in and also has to live somewhere else for safety reasons. but, she talked about what is happening with the republican-controlled legislature in her state. she now has a lawyer, former governor barnes, because they now want to have a prosecutorial oversight committee and the point she made was 14 minorities

were elected to office to serve as district attorney and suddenly they need an oversight committee to look at district attorneys because she says they want to tell us how to prosecute and who to prosecute. are you troubled by this, the legislature's actions? >> i'm troubled when politicians interfere in prosecutions because it is not supposed to be political. you're supposed to let the prosecutors do their job, and obviously if prosecutors overstep, hopefully they will themselves be subject to discipline. but if it is true that they're doing this because they're upset, that she's prosecuting donald trump, that's a problem. i don't know if that could be proven, she says that suddenly this happened. but it is always a problem when politicians sort of interfere, particularly in what prosecutors are doing. >> and here she is running in a primary contest. i think that she's out giving speeches, she's at rallies, if

you're going to have an elected prosecutor, the d.a., they got to campaign. so, there is an inherent conflict in that between being above the fray and being right in the middle of it. and it does seem like the state legislature's proposal is completely one sided. really aimed at her, at one person, for whatever lack of judgment she showed, that the judge on the case ruled that it could be cleaned up by his departure rather than by a wholesale startover. >> the irony of this, and she points this out again, only 14 of the 50 d.a.s in the state, she says, are minorities, but, but they have jurisdiction over very much the majority of voters, voters put them into office, voters said you're the ones we want to make these decisions about what gets prosecuted and what doesn't. >> yeah, and i go back to what catherine said, and i agree with

catherine, there is an inherent tension, i think, when a prosecutor is also a politician. but politicians should not generally interfere with prosecutions and there are other remedies. you saw one here, and chris, maybe some folks think it was inadequate when judge mcafee ordered that either nathan wade or fani willis step aside from the case and mr. wade did. and, you know, i think judge mcafee got it right. the defendants are challenging that. that's fine. that's their right. i imagine he'll be upheld, fwlut but there is that inherent tension. you know where you see that? where judges run for office. that doesn't happen in the federal system. you can say what you want about the federal system, that's where i come from, i'm biased, i think it is the ideal, but judges

running for office, you also have that inherent tension. >> of course, then you got the supreme court, another whole story. life, tenure and no review by people who arguably get political and have ethical -- >> i think that's a feature and not a bug of federal judicial appointments. i know there is a lot of folks that disagree with me, but i think the notion that you don't run for office, it is still a political process, but you don't run for office and then enjoy lifetime tenure i think is an advantage over >> judge aileen cannon, she's hearing more motions to dismiss, still has not set a trial date. still has not set a trial date. what's going on? >> so i have said this over and over. i don't think there's anything nefarious here. i happen to think she's bad at her job. and by the way, that's true of lots of people in lots of professions. you could have a plumber come to your house, katy, and he's bad at his job. you could be in an airplane that loses -- >> but i o'fire the plumber and

get somebody new in. >> that's the disadvantage of lifetime tenure. but you take the good with the bad. i think the problem here is she's a relatively new judge who's had relatively few cases and none, zero, of this level of complexity. and is not able to move her docket. but again, that could just be bad as opposed to nefarious. >> but you could argue a lot about some of those decisions she's come down with and the things that she's argued, you know, for hearings. to arizona. speaking of places where there's a lot of politics involved in jurisprudence. today in arizona 12 so-called fake electors including rudy giuliani pleaded not guilty on felony conspiracy, forgery and fraud charges. it all stems from the roles that they played in an effort to -- the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election but in that state, including submitting a document to congress falsely

declaring that donald trump had won arizona's 11 electoral votes. joining our legal experts, nbc's vaughn hillyard and native arizonan, who's been following all this for us. i know, vaughn, that nobody knows arizona as you do. you have followed every bit of it. and the fact that rudy giuliani was served his subpoena after apparently ducking it at his birthday party in palm beach is just one of the great crazy moments to say one of the moments in this case. >> you can't make this stuff up. >> exactly. >> vaughn? >> the 80th birthday party of rudy giuliani in palm beach, florida, to note at the home of one of kari lake's senior advisers in florida. so there's another little arizona twist to it. and just 48 hours later rudy giuliani appearing virtually for his arraignment. that took place just a matter of minutes ago. i think we have a little video of that virtual appearance. take a listen.

>> i'm been sued about 20 to 25 times by a very similar movement to this one, which is the let's see what we can do to destroy donald trump -- >> okay. give me just a moment -- >> i do -- >> sir -- >> i do consider this indictment a complete eliminate r embarrassment to the american legal system but i've shown no tendency not to comply. >> reporter: to note, rudy giuliani said to the judge that he does not currently have a lawyer representing him though he intends to find one and he will have to appear at the maricopa county court within the next 30 days. the judge ordering him to post a $10,000 bond. but he also must get fingerprinted and must go through the formal booking process, which includes a mug shot. i just got off the phone with our great friend and colleague alex tavet who is on the ground outside the maricopa court while we're here in lower manhattan. and he tells me the 11 vingz who

note nooid the court they intend to appear in person today did just that. all 11 of them pleading not guilty. john eastman, another defendant, he went to the court last week, pled not guilty. there are five others who still must go before this court. but their court dates are scheduled for next month. it is not clear how they intend to plead here at this time 37 but we are looking at those 18 defendants stemming from this arizona indictment going through the formal hearing process each of them but none of them so far pleading guilty. >> just quickly, rudy giuliani, was he disbarred as a result of all these other cases including shaye moss and ruby freeman? >> reporter: yes, he has gone through disbarment hearings. and this has been for rudy giuliani a difficult path here as he approaches the end of his career here, one that has been defiant if anyone were to go to listen to nif his radio shows he streams online, this is someone

who continues to propagate the 2020 election conspiracies and continues to deny no wrongdoing. and clearly as you heard from the judge there has every intention of continuing to the very end here to be defiant about the actions that he took following the 2020 election along with others to try to make donald trump the president of the united states. >> vaughn hillyard, chuck rosenberg, danny cevallos and catherine christian, thank you all so much. court expected to resume just about 15 minutes from now. they're going to have that critically important conversation about how the judge is going to charge the jury. don't go anywhere. our special coverage of the donald trump hush money trial continues right after this short break. (ella) fashion moves fast. setting trends is our business. we need to scale with customer demand... in real time. (jen) so we partner with verizon. their solution for us? a private 5g network. (ella) we now get more control of production,

efficiencies, and greater agility. (marquis) with a custom private 5g network. our customers get what they want, when they want it. (jen) now we're even smarter and ready for what's next. (vo) achieve enterprise intelligence. it's your vision, it's your verizon. ♪ limu emu... ♪ and doug. (bell ringing) limu, someone needs to customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. let's fly! (inaudible sounds) chief! doug. (inaudible sounds) ooooo ah. (elevator doors opening) (inaudible sounds) i thought you were right behind me. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, ♪ ♪ liberty. ♪

choosing a treatment for your chronic migraine - 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more - can be overwhelming. so, ask your doctor about botox®. botox® prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they even start. it's the #1 prescribed branded chronic migraine treatment. so far, more than 5 million botox® treatments have been given to over eight hundred and fifty thousand chronic migraine patients. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of

serious side effects. in a survey, 92% of current users said they wish they'd talked to their doctor and started botox® sooner. so, ask your doctor if botox® is right for you. learn how abbvie could help you save on botox®. i won't let my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis symptoms define me. emerge as you. with tremfya®, most people saw 90% clearer skin at 4 months and the majority stayed clearer, at 5 years. serious allergic reactions may occur. tremfya® may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms or if you had a vaccine or plan to. emerge as you. emerge tremfyant®. ask you doctor about tremfya®. ( ♪♪ ) a slow network is no network for business. ask you doctor about tremfya®. that's why more choose comcast business. and now we're introducing ultimate speed for business, our fastest plans yet. we're up to 12 times faster than verizon, at&t, and t-mobile. and existing customers could even get up to triple the

speeds at no additional cost. from the company with 99.9% network reliability and advanced cyber security, it's ultimate speed for ultimate business. and it's all from comcast business.

we are standing by for that hugely consequential moment in the donald trump hush money trial, one that could not only affect the verdict but also donald trump's chances of appeal if convicted. thanks for staying with us. i'm chris jansing alongside my colleagues andrea mitchell and katy tur. >> in just about 15 minutes the judge and the lawyers from both sides will meet to debate the jury instructions, which is when we could learn answers to very big questions. first, w