>> just making sure all the papers are in there -- >> the process when ash -- in front of the grand jury. you will maintain custody of it from her? >> yes, sir. >> this is for you. does the certification go with madame clerk? >> make way.

>> thank you, sherif. good luck the rest of the evening. that's it. was it all you hoped it would be? >> [ laughter ] >> didn't get a good look. >> you want me to leave? you have had a long day. these folks can't go until you all go. i know we have talked about leaving the equipment here. don't leave it here, because you won't want to be her tomorrow. you are welcome to be here if you don't have a role 22 for what's going on tomorrow. >> did we find anything?

>> it has to be a group decision. they can come and collect. >> you are watching a feed from the courthouse in fulton county, georgia. that is judge robert mcburney on the bench who just told all of the reporters in that room that, quote, you need to leave. he said he meant it in a nice way. what has just happened and we will get some expert advice on this in just a moment, but under georgia state law, when a grand jury hands-down an indictment, it goes immediately to the presiding judge who has been overseeing the work of the grand jury. in this case, that is judge mcburney.

the judge then has the option with what he is going to do with the indictment that has been handed off to him. in this case, he read it silently to himself and seems to have flipped through it. all we can tell was that it was printed on letter-size white paper and seemed to be about that thick and had a few different to it in terms of the way it was divided. he did not provide any information. about what the charges are and who the defendants are or indeed about the content of the indictment. what is going to happen from here on out? we know the basics under georgia state law, but we don't know exactly how it will play out this evening. this is the clerk holding what we believe are the indictments that i just described in her left hand here. it is very unusual that this is happening after 9:00 p.m. it usually closes for regular

business at 5:00 p.m. the grand jury that was considering the matter today meets on mondays and tuesdays. that raised the prospect that the grand jury proceeding might continue through until tomorrow , but they have apparently pushed through and asked the grand jury to take their vote, which has resulted in the delivery of those and what we believe are indictments to the judge, they were than effectively certified by the judge. i think that's the right way to describe it, then getting back to the clerk. we will be keeping our eyes on what's happening inside of the courthouse. the reason why i say we don't know exactly how it will play out is because we know under georgia state law, there is no question but that this indictment or these indictments will be unsealed. we expect there to be a delay between the process that we just saw and we the public being allowed to see the

document. i can't tell you exactly how long it's going to be and i also can tell you if we will be getting it from the docket, meaning that we will have online access to it as an official court document or whether we will be receiving it in form of a press release from the district attorney's office. we have expected over the course of today -- again, expectations are never promises. we have expected over the course of the day that if indeed an indictment was handed up, we would see judge mcburney in the courtroom and we didn't know how much you would describe from the document. we expected sooner rather than later to get access to the text of the document and we expected a news conference, effectively a press conference from the district attorney. he will be with us tonight, as we are all watching to see if those things happen. joining me from outside the courthouse is our own katie fang, nbc legal contributor

host of the katie fang show and former florida state prosecutor and has extensive felony trial experience. can you tell me if i said anything wrong and if you can add anything to our understanding in terms of what we witnessed? >> reporter: to give you real- time update, that unsealed indictment that was delivered to judge mcburney has not been delivered to the clerk's office at that point in time, copies are going to be provided and we are not sure exactly when, but if we get a copy, we will provided immediately. there was a very important question that i want to bring to viewers that was asked by judge mcburney to the clerk as she was providing them the 10 indictments to judge mcburney. he asked, have you maintained custody of these documents up until now? thereby, indicating that if there were any concern that there had been any tampering with those documents

in any way, then it can obviously be an issue. of course, the clerk said no and we would note that as people were walking in, people being from the clerk's office, there was a gentleman with a phone and he was video recording this as they were walking in. providing more corroboration that nothing happened from when the jury for person signed off on that bill and got it to the clerk's office to be stamped in and delivered to judge mcburney. >> there are 10 indictments is reporting. we believe the grand jury's work is done. 10 is the total number of indictments and they are not expected to keep working and continue building on additional charges on any additional defendants? >> reporter: that's correct. our reporting from a photograph taken of the cover page is that it is 10 indictments and the language is exact. it says that there were zero for the number 10 was handwritten into a blank line

in front of the word indictments, then in terms of no true bills, meaning there was no votes to vote charges the rule, it said zero. to reiterate, 10 indictments were returned and there were no true bills, meaning the evidence that was put in forth by the district attorney in the courts of investigation to the members of the grand jury that they voted on the charges that were involved in and. me be clear. we do not know the names of the defendants or defendant and we do not know the nature of the charges. it will come when we get our hands on these indictments. it's important that we noted in the coverage we had so far that this was an incredibly expedient process that we anticipated being at least a two day process and we all thought that it was going to be the day that we got those indictments returned, so the fact that we saw it done today could be a measure of the value or quality of the evidence being presented by the d.a.. when i don't wear grand jury's in my career, it really hinged

on the presentation of evidence and ultimately the standard is probable cause. was there probable cause met? was it provided in the nature of the evidence to the members of the grand jury? to re-emphasize, it is an issue in the state of georgia and you have 23 grand jurors, 16 of those must be present through the entirety of the present enough evidence, but only takes 12 of those 23 grand jurors to boat a charge through. >> let me make sure that i understand what you mean by the no true bill of what you just explained. this is based on reporting that shows the cover page of what was brought into the judge, then delivered to the court's office. 10 indictments, then zero in front of no true bill. is plain english interpretation of that is that the prosecutors asked the grand jury to return 10 indictments? they said yes to all 10 and

there were no indictments that the prosecutors asked for that the grand jury refused. >> that is the interpretation of what we saw on that cover page. there was no indication that there were, for example, the presentation of evidence to support 20 indictments and only 10 were returned. it was 10 indictments and the zero no true bills, which means that they sat through and it is very interesting. a day -- not even an entire day. there was a flurry of activity and we have witnesses roaming the gannett. georgia state rep who also ran against brad raffensperger for georgia secretary of state. we also had a guy but the last name of sterling. we have brought sterling who showed up today. i could be wrong, so don't hold me to that. gabriel sterling.

it was a long period of time and we actually had jeff duncan, former lieutenant governor of georgia who was also in for an extended period of time. what is noteworthy is that one witnessed by george sheedy who stumbled upon a meeting of the fake electors who shoot them out of the room and said this is an education meeting. he was literally sitting next to jeff duncan waiting to testify and after a period of time, the d.a. came up to him the office came up to him and advised him that his testimony wasn't needed. whatever evidence he was going to provide to the grand jury was deemed to not be necessary. there is not a requisite or minimal number of witnesses that are required to present evidence to the grand jury. in this instance, we don't know the total number at the end of the day that appeared, but whatever it was, it was enough per a probable call standard for 10 indictments to be returned.

>> i'm going to ask the control room to put up on screen the photo that you have been describing in terms of the front page of the indictment. it says, certification of the grand jury indictments returned in open court. i hereby certify that on august 14, 2023 after the indictments have been presented to the grand jury and session had been adjourned for the day, said indictments were returned in open court as required by law and present for said returns were assistant district attorney there is a name, deputy sheriff, then a name and deputy clerk. there were 10 indictments presented to the court and of those indictments, zero 10 billed by the grand jury. this, the 14th day of august 2023. can i ask you admittedly a dumb question, which is, does 10 indictments maintained defendants? >> reporter: 10 indictments could be multiple co-defendants

in each indictment and we don't know. i will give an update in real time to you and our viewers. the clerk's office advising that worst-case scenario, it could take three hours before the court documents are released. at this point, we are still going to be on a wait and see stage. to your question, as well, what we are going to see on each indictment is a identification on the left side of the first page, recitation of the charges as they are set forth on the right side of the first page and below each of the defendants and if there are multiple, you will see charges that apply to each one, but also critically important, the names of the grand jurors will be included in each of those, meaning each of those 23 grand jurors who sat in service, their names will be publicly available. those not present for the vote and presentment of the evidence will be crossed out. it is a remarkably startling different

experience in georgia state court. we also saw the procession of -- that's what i'm going to college. the procession of bringing the grand jury to the clerk's office and to the judge for purposes of having an unsealed. with court rooms that have tv access, we have actually witnessed american history in progress. >> let me ask you, with the life update you just gave with the clerk's office advising that it may take three hours for them to process these indictments for public release, is that the only means by which we might see this indictment? is it possible that the district attorney's office as opposed to the clerk's office might themselves release it or a version of it as a press document? >> reporter: it's my understanding that there should be some type of announcement by the d.a. in this case, but i would

reasonably anticipate that the answer would be no, because i think that it would feed into a false narrative. there is some type of rush to judgment in some way and i think that if i were to read them myself, it would be the rate for the clerk's office to be able to show those documents and make them public for all of us to be able to read. >> is it clear to you at all or do you have a smart supposition as to what is happening after 9:00 p.m.? as far as i understand, this is a grand jury that has been meeting on monday and tuesday. those of the two on which they meet today. this is monday night. why press to get this done over the course of a single day until late in the evening rather than knock off at dinnertime.

>> reporter: i was speaking to a number of people sitting through the waiting of a verdict and i equated this experience to verdict watch. when we have the journey take a case into the jury room and we will be waiting for them to come back, oftentimes when you reach the end of business hours, a judgment asks the jury, do you want to stay later? in this instance, the sting later part of the grand jury was completely within the control of the grand jurors. if they want to, i'm sure they would have been able to go home. i do not think there would have been any pressure put on them by the d.a.s office to stay. to the contrary, i think it would be naove to ignore the political client that we are currently operating under. there has been a politicized event that has happened with the former president that has been a target of the investigation where there has been intimidation of witnesses. i think it would be naove to suggest that it did not come

into play in some way for the d.a.s office to make sure that this was done as efficiently and competently as possible. if the jurors in this case do not want to stay, you would have seen has gone before now. obviously, it is done. it was done quickly today and we should have our hands on the copies of those indictments very soon. >> katie fang outside the courthouse. that was a lie and it was really important information. i really appreciate you being there for us. we will be back over the course of the evening. thank you. joining me here at the table are alex wagner, lawrence o'donnell and it's good to be with all of you. let me recount what we have just seen happen in the courtroom. as if we didn't need a starker and more specific reminder that this is state court and not federal court. there were cameras as judge mcburney received from the district attorney's,

representatives of the prosecutors and representatives of the district attorney's office what we now believe to be 10 indictments that have been handed out by the grand jury in fulton county georgia, which has been considering efforts to falsify the election results in the state of georgia and falsely proclaimed donald trump to have won that state when in fact he lost. 10 indictments handed up and judge mcburney, process them briefly to the clerk's office and handed them to somebody else who took them to the clerk's office. the clerk's office has advised that it may be sometime within the next three hours that they process the indictment for public release. the way things work in georgia state law is that it would be very unusual to have what we call sealed indictments, which is something we don't see for a long flow of this process. in short order and presumably tonight and by midnight, you will see the content of those 10 indictments.

i will go to all of you on this. 10 indictments does not mean 10 defendants. it doesn't mean 10 felonies. it doesn't mean 10 counts. it just means 10 things. >> that looks like dozens of pages that we saw there. it is a mystery as we sit here. we have educated guesses, but why guess now since we are going to get our hands on it so soon? >> it's amazing -- opened her up , the investigation in progress 2021. the world heard trump commit some of what he may be charged for in january 2021. so much of the evidence is public facing and i think in the wake of the federal indictment, i think there is a big mystery in terms of what we are waiting for. how much more did she learn? cnn reported yesterday on the trump campaigns dirty hands in the dirty business of hacking into voting machines. we know she developed that

evidence. i think in the coming moments or hours, we will learn how much further she got than what we all know. >> presumably, we will not have unnamed co-conspirators. there will be names named and the georgia story has a long tail, unlike the federal indictment. the fact that trump was sending letters to brad raffensperger in september of 2021 tells you that there is more to the story. even the coffee county stuff, there is still that he was trying to get done well into the biden presidency that will be revealed in the indictment. >> let me ask you specifically. the zero no true bills, the language is so true -- weird. it's like an old west and i'm the martial billing language.

what does that mean, as katie was explaining? the prosecutors asked the grand jury for 10 indictments and the grand jury said yes all 10? >> it means the prosecutors got everything they wanted. if they got nine out of 10 or eight out of 10, but could still be a lot of progress. it means they did not lose any of the presentations for indictments. i totally agree. this is like law school. it is so often that you spent a long time trying to understand something and you are like, both of those words are code words? you just means that and you are like, okay. it did remind me of something else. i'm sure some of our viewers felt the same way, because we lived there a couple of arraignments in american history . three arraignments of former president in one year. before that, there were zero for all presidents. it is not a great record. what we kept seeing was court sketches in new york, brief photo taking everyone out of the room.

we had that expression that this is what democracy looks like. tonight, this is what "looks like and it is called "for a reason. some of the stuff i can argue needs to be reformed. some of these traditions are good. >> some. i am worried about the fact that the identities are theoretically going to be --. >> we are supposed to have laws that deal with that. some societies where everyone who does everything has to be hidden, because it is lawless. we have seen far less insurrection, protests and crime since accountability. as those have strong -- yes, you want safety, but the press is in there. the judges in there. the chain of custody, which sounds like one of those terms. if somebody comes along and says, how do we know that it

went from here to there? it's all there on more than one camera with more than one independent outlet. this is what "looks like. the defendants have rights. this is what i thought is a good thing that we have seen. in our federal system, you can't get a camera in the supreme court, even when they are deciding on life and death of somebody's rights. you can't get a camera into a coronal trial where somebody could end up being executed. that is integrated. this is open court. >> when it comes to the trial on these charges and indictments that produce charges that go to trial, it will be up to the judge as to whether or not there was a camera for the entire trial. the strong presumption in georgia is that there will be. >> this is his nightmare. he wants to be the only arbiter of truth and reality among his very vibrant healthy political supporter. this is not what he wants. he wants to be the only one telling them what is and isn't. >> his biggest nightmare in controllability. there is no theoretical trump control over this case at any stage.

if you are someone who believes that trump can win again, then theoretically he can grab control of the two federal prosecutions. not this. it will live in the state of georgia no matter who is the next president. the governor doesn't have pardon power. this is beyond his reach in every way and it may be if there is an element of this, the very first indictment that carries anything resembling a mandatory minimum sentence. we have experts in georgia who can clarify, because it's not clear to me that the mandatory minimum requires a minimum of confinement. it might be something that is serviceable through probation. donald trump knows all about this and his lawyers have told him that in georgia has a mandatory minimum. we haven't seen that in any of your indictments and this may be one we really get our hands on it, the most comprehensive description of criminal conduct

with the most people, including directed from the oval office. it is certainly on a scale with a january 6 indictment. >> in terms of how this works, the mandatory minimum question and other pets about the grantor's names, there is one thing we can advance our knowledge of this right the second and that is by bringing into this conversation, our friend glenn who is a former district attorney in georgia, we are desperate for your expertise. thank you for making time to be here tonight. >> i'm excited to be here. thank you for having me. >> if anybody has blown it already, and if what we have been describing is as we have described to our viewers or if there is anything else that we should know in terms of making sense of this for people who have been watching at home.

>> there are a couple of things that stood out for me. i recall the clip of folks first coming into the courtroom . the documents, as i recall, were handled by the sheriff's office. usually in georgia after the grand jury makes the decision, all of the documentation is with away. the d.a.s office doesn't get to see it. it is taking to the judge to be read in open court. this is what an open courtroom -- open trial looks like. many of us prosecutors don't get to see this, because we are back at our offices and waiting for the official documents when they come from the clerk. again, the sheriff's office delivered the paperwork and indictments to the judge. the judge turned them over to the clerk and had them in her custody the whole time.

this and when people wondered what the d.a.s office is doing, i think they are waiting to see themselves. certainly, the fact that there were zero -- the number of nobels. i know there was a discussion. what it means is that the case would have been dismissed. the fact that there are zero means that all of the charges and defendants that the district attorney and her team put the word, the jury decided that there was sufficient probable cause for all of the charges and defendants to move forward. we will be waiting to see who is on the list and what the charges are. >> let me ask you a few of those further logistical questions. the clerk's office is advising that it may be three hours before they are able to process the indictments for release to the public. can you explain to us -- is it

always the office that releases that enters the d.a.s office itself have the possibility or prospect of releasing that themselves? should we expect when the documents are released, as alex wagner was talking about. should we expect that the grantor's names will be in those documents? obviously, there are safety concerns with potential taxing of everybody anywhere near any of the trump -related cases. >> in georgia, all of the names that actually heard evidence are listed on the indictment. those not present that day or for that case usually are just a strike through their name. if this proceeds the way it would normally, then all of the grand jury's names who heard evidence would become public as the case moves forward. now, that does present security concern, so that may be one of the things that either judge

mcburney or the d.a. asks to not be released to the public, but certainly any defendant that is named is entitled to know who pass judgment and which grand jurors pass judgment on the evidence at this early stage. >> what can you tell us about possible mandatory minimums on charges in georgia? >> the rico statute and we have talked a lot about it. it does have a mandatory five year minimum and a maximum of 20 years. the maximum fine is up to $25,000, but it depends -- it gets a little technical if you are talking about financial gain that may have resulted from maintaining this enterprise. my understanding is that in five years, it could be served on probation and it does not have to be in confinement. it is a mandatory minimum that must be imposed by a judge if a

predatory or trial generally jury ultimately defines it guilty. >> i saw a minimum in a previous case where the actual confinement was three years. it was less than five and the rest of it was probation. even with this mandatory minimum, it might not necessarily demand confinement for a convicted defendant? >> that's correct. that would be up to the judge after -- we are getting several steps ahead of ourselves. if there is a conviction, then after hearing all of the evidence, the judge would have the opportunity to decide after hearing from both sides. the prosecution is going to make a recommendation for the sentence. the defense team will argue mitigating circumstances and the judge will ultimately make a decision and he or she could decide that the five years could be split. a certain time of confinement and probation

could all be confinement were all probation. it really depends on what the judges -- what the judge thinks is the appropriate sentence based on facts that he or she hears during the trial. >> with your experience, what do you think is happening right now in that building? what are we waiting for? how long might we wait? >> i think we will be waiting close to the full three hours. when you think about 10 different indictments, it's my best guess that it's not 10 separate individuals. there may be co-defendants in each indictment. the clerk has got to parse through all of that and there may be some overlap of defendants. they may be named or named in different indictments. those are all of the things that will need to be parsed through, so the clerk can do what she needs to do in terms of getting charges clear. it is

most likely that all indictments would go to the same judge. i can't imagine that it would be a circumstance where each indictment would be put on the wheel for a different judge would be assigned. i'm assuming they would all be handled together. the d.a.s team is probably back in the office. these are sensitive moments. i can imagine there would be a sense of relief to have gotten through this milestone after over two years. certainly, a sense of accomplishment as you think about the fact that there were zero dismissals or no bills, but also a recognition that this is the pause point. they may take that time and get ready for the next step, because as it becomes public, who is charged and what those charges are, the d.a.s office

is going to be faced with various motions and maybe similar to what we have seen before. they are going to get geared up and ready for trial, which will be its own very lengthy process. i would imagine mixed emotions of this being a short breather. we are proud of what we have accomplished, but the citizens and residents of fulton county deserve our best and we need to gear up and be ready to go. >> thank you for your invaluable expertise as a former district attorney and neighboring. we really appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. now, back to rachel who has a special guest. >> thank you, dolores. through her 2016 campaign for president, hillary clinton wants americans about this particular choice as the

republican presidential nominee about what specifically he planned to do to our democracy. he went on to win the election in 2016 and now here we are with a multiply indicted former president trump and democracy that frankly has not looked this fragile in will more than a century. all over the country, people are wondering what hillary is thinking watching things unfold in georgia. she is the former democratic presidential nominee and she has a new essay out in the atlantic on the well-being of americans and our democracy. it is called the weaponization of loneliness. matted secretary, fancy meeting you here. >> i can't believe this. this is not the circumstances in which i expected to be talking to you. >> nor me, rachel. it's always good to talk to you. honestly, i didn't think it would be under the circumstances , yet another set of

indictments. >> this is becoming a skill set , like in the news business. i've covered olympics or campaign, but now it's those of us who have covered four indictments. i don't know if that's it or if donald trump is among those indicted, but all expectations are that he will be. do you feel satisfaction in that? you warned the country that he was going to try to and democracy. most of the country to believe you. >> it's hard to believe. i don't feel satisfaction, but i feel grprofound sadness that we have a former president who has been indicted for so many charges that went right to the heart of whether or not our democracy would survive. we don't know yet what the charges coming out of georgia, but if you stop and think about what the public evidence is and

you talk about some of that for the last hour, he set out to defraud the u.s. and citizens of our nation. he used tactics of harassment, intimidation, made threats. he and his allies went after state officials, local officials responsible for conducting elections. now, we know they went into voting machines in order to determine whether or not those voting machines had somehow been breached when they were the ones actually doing the breaching. there is a great deal and we are waiting to see what the indictments say, because the investigation has been very thorough. i don't know that anybody should be satisfied. this is a terrible moment for our country to have a former president accused of these terribly important crimes. the

only satisfaction may be that the system is working. all of the efforts by donald trump, allies and enablers to try to silence the truth and try to undermine democracy have been brought into the light. justice is being pursued. >> one of the things we have learned by living it in the past few years is that democracy needs the trust of the people. the system of democracy at his heart is the idea that people are deciding how we are governed. if we no longer believe that our will is effectuated through the system and bad actors tell us falsely that every election is stolen and that the only way an election is trustworthy is that if they come out on top of it. it tells you something not just about that person or moment,

but it may be wounds us as a democracy in a way that's hard to repair. what do you think about how we get better after the wounds have been inflicted on us? >> i think the truth matters and having these cases be brought in professional manners and we will see how they unfold. obviously, there are trials, they will be critically important. the article you mentioned that i published about the weaponization of loneliness really does in my view point to the larger cultural concerns. the undermining of teeth in ourselves, respect for our institutions, rule of law. all of that has been deliberately within our body politic. there were trends before.

we have seen how people become more isolated, less community- oriented, less pacific reminded , then we see how social media and technology has accelerated a lot of the trends. the deliberate effort to divide americans and lie to americans about what was going on in front of their own eyes. what happened on january 6, don't believe what you saw, but believe what i tell you. those are all the hallmarks of authoritarian dictatorial kinds of leaders. this attack on the elections was the most important step in a long line of efforts undertaken to undermine our trust and believe in a functioning democracy and our commitment to one person one vote. our commitment to carry on

elections, so that people would be enabled to vote and not obstructed. everything that we have worked on to try to make this a more perfect union has been in the target of the anti-democratic forces, unfortunately led by a demagogue in the white house. >> when we were watching them speaking a moment ago about the mandatory minimum prison sentence in georgia for a rico conviction and noted that maybe we are getting ahead of ourselves. i saw you chuckle. clearly, we are getting ahead of ourselves when we think about potential sanctions as a result of any of these trials. there are these things getting the trial, the question of conviction, sentencing, but then there is at the end of that road, the prospect of the prohibitive favorite for the republican presidential nomination of being in prison.

do we have an interest in him not going to prison, so that we can still call ourselves the country where politicians don't get locked up? >> that will be a much debated issue throughout the country over the next months, because holding him accountable can happen in a number of ways. prison obviously is one of them, but there are other approaches that can be taken. one of the important comments that came out of this long day in georgia was by the former lieutenant governor when he said, this is a pivot point. publican party needs to move away. quit being part of a cult is what he meant. you follow someone who lies to you, undermines the legitimate processes of government. move away from him politically and trying to get back to politics in the sense that we used to

think we had it, despite all of the human frailties that accompanied it. you have parties that would sanction and hold accountable their own members. i was on the impeachment inquiry staff. you can't make up my life. back in 1974 when the impeachment by the house judiciary committee was voted on, four republicans voted to impeach president nixon, then the members of the senate leading republican senators was barry goldwater, howard baker and hugh scott went to see president nixon and said, this was a bipartisan vote. you need to resign. that is almost impossible to imagine today because of what has happened and what they have allowed to happen to themselves. i hope that we won't have accountability just for donald trump and if there are others

named in the indictments along with him for their behavior, but we will also have accountability for political party that has thrown in with all of the lies and divisiveness and lack of any conscience about what was being done to the country. >> in terms of getting out of this and coming out of this crisis stronger for having confronted very dark prospects in terms of what this means, it does feel like the republican party as a whole is not ready to make that turn. i'm thinking about ron desantis as the guy who is running second to donald trump in the primary right now. he is promising that there shouldn't be an independent department of justice. >> he is promising anything to try to get attention. it's kind of pathetic. >> he has also removed two elected prosecutors in florida

who were chosen and elected and who he stepped in and removed. georgia republicans have given themselves the power to remove elected prosecutors, as well ahead of making this decision. that law will go into effect about seven or eight weeks from now, which will give them that opportunity. it feels like the idea of law enforcement being used as a tool of partisan politics is something that with whatever justification the republican party is really embracing and ready to run with with or without trump. >> that is yet to be determined, rachel. that is yet to be determined. it is possible that there are many in the republican party that have signed on to that approach to politics that undermining of democracy and undermining the rule of law. the shadow of trump looms so large over all of them. it is hard to know once he's

off the scene one way or another politically or because of accountability arising out of the various indictments he faces, whether or not backbone will all of a sudden be regrown and whether conscience will once again be part of the republican party. we don't know, but we hope, because it would be for the good of the country that it were to happen. if it doesn't, the only way we can possibly contest it and defeat it is through the rule of law as we are seeing with these prosecutors at the federal and state level. also, through elections. we have to defeat those who want to organize divisiveness and undermine democratic values and institutions. frankly, that should be nonpartisan. people should all be saying

what the never trumpers and former republicans who are now out to beating the drums to say , you cannot support him and you cannot support the people who support his attitude towards our country. >> on the issue of healing and getting better as a country, reading your article, i feel like i get the diagnosis. we talk about how things essentially diagnosed this problem of loneliness being a health problem in the country and you describe it as a real political problem. i get in a fundamental way this idea about atomized disconnect populations only primed for extremism, which is what makes us formidable to the call of strongmen or leadership. it makes us susceptible to any number of mature democracies around the world. what i don't get is the prescription for how to fix that and whether that is a

prescription that should come from people who want to be political leaders or who we want to cure as a culture. what is the way out of it? >> i think it's cultural, political and economic. we have to do a better job of finding ways for people to work together again on community projects and work together through existing organizations, whether it be civic or religious. look at the outpouring of help for people in maui. that kind of volunteer effort that is so american and so much at the core of who we are when we are at our best, but i also think we have to do a better job of trying to stand up against the divisiveness and constant stream of lies and falsehoods that come out of not just politicians, but also social media and other sources

of information. there is enough work for all of us to do. it's not just political, but everybody saying, this is too precious, valuable and too important to allow it to continue to be fragmented the way it has been. rebuilding that trust and community is no easy task. i don't anybody would argue with how difficult it would be. there are ways of doing it. i don't think joe biden gets credit enough for trying to model responsible leadership. just getting up every day, doing the job and the legislative accomplishments that came out of his first year and a half were amazing and rebuilding our infrastructure. we are once again investing in clean energy, advanced manufacturing and so much more. we are trying to from a legislative perspective under

his leadership to put back into place some of the things that give people a sense of security and confidence. optimism about the future. what more can a leader do? when you think about it, we have democratic governors who are making school lunch for you. that is a big deal, because we have a lot of kids who don't get adequate nutrition and we have republican governors who are lowering the age of employment, so that 13 and 14- year-olds can be put to work. that is in a nutshell kind of where we are and why wouldn't we want to join hands and support families. instead of just ripping away every social support. this has to happen at all levels of politics, government, but more broadly as society, as well.

>> has had the lowest unemployment since world war ii. the lowest levels of poverty's and lowest level of people uninsured in terms of health insurance ever in the history of the country. he said a lot of things about him in terms of the kind of leadership he is idling. his approval ratings aren't strong and his prospects for re- election are at best. what you see as the disconnect? >> i think it's true that a lot of people don't even know what he has done. they don't get their news from msnbc, but they get it from social media, if they get any news at all. they don't have the kind of information that would give confidence in terms of what the government is doing. we have this bizarre situation

where bridges are built and roads are being fixed and people who didn't vote for money and how our citizens supposed to make up their minds? we have a splintered information ecosystem, which really works to the disadvantage for someone who is not a performer in a political theater sense, but as a producer in a political sense. how long can you talk about infrastructure? it gets boring. let's talk about donald trump or one of these other people who do nothing but give us negative messages, because that is so much more exciting. at the end of the day, how people get information is the basis on which they make decisions in democracy and we have a very difficult time breaking through that. i have a lot of sympathy for what the white house goes through every day trying to get the people, so they know what has been done.

you can make your judgment one way or the other, but at least know what we are doing in your community to try to get us better prepared for the future. the united states is the best position country in the world for the future. to think that we have leaders and people in our own country who tear us down, undermine us, root against us and even sometimes rooting for our adversaries is just incredibly difficult to accept. we have a lot of work to do and i hope more people will be willing to take up the burden and try to deal with this sense of divisiveness, loneliness, fragmentation that really gives fertile ground for people like trump to unfortunately peddle their wares. >> let me ask you one last question on that point, because this is something that has been -- it feels like a huge political disconnect and i

don't make much sense. we have this weird spectacle during the women's world cup where former president trump with all of his problems took time out of his busy schedule and pending trials to root against the u.s. women's national team and single out individual players and call in the two-minute hate against them. he said last week and in an unscripted moment that would prefer to live in france than the united states. >> that can be arranged. >> i don't know if france were taken, maybe belarus. there is a sense where it is becoming increasingly overt and non-ironic thing. he just talks about how much he hates america and terrible america is. you say rooting for america's adversaries, i am thinking about him rooting against american athletes and international competition. >> there were a bunch of pushy women, rachel. let's not overlook the fact

that they were a women's team. a women's team who fought for equal pay and outspoken. they were proud and confident. exactly as knowing that people like trump hate. >> to be overtly anti-patriotic on the most surface level --. >> it's not surface to these people. this goes right to who they are and what they believe. it is the dog whistle on race, misogyny and everything you can think of that they are against. increasingly very vocally and publicly against. it is rooting against americans and among us, the millions of us who are different or who have different ideas. different political perspective . all of that. in its whole, it is rooting against america. that is why i am so bewildered

about, but also i watched it for seven years. all of the comments about american presidents, leadership , behavior contrasted unfortunately negatively with behavior from dictators. when you really look at the whole network of people organizations and money that support the kind of attitudes that trump and those like him express , it is so anti-american ski every way. that is what shocks me, because people walk around with flags on talking about how they support him or one of his wannabe followers. there is nothing american about rooting against our own team for undermining

the role of wall. going after people that do their best. you just go down the list and it's a long list, but at the core of it is a set of beliefs about americans who are entitled to rule. the rest of us is a pretty big group and those entitled to rule the believe that they have the right to raise, political perspective and all of that -- they know they are in contest with us and it's time we understood that there is no way forward except by winning and defeating these very anti-american political ideas and values. >> democracy wins or else. >> exactly. 2024 will be a critical moment

in whether or not that happens. >> former secretary of state, hillary clinton. i appreciate you being here tonight. i apologize it being in the middle of this news wreck. >> i never would have guessed it. >> more often, there is going to be an indictment. >> just tell me when i should shop the next time and we will see what these charges will be done. >> thank you. the new essay in the atlantic on called the representation of loneliness. strongman leadership and authoritarianism and whether or not we will remain susceptible to this sort of thing even though we think of ourselves as the kind of country with this can't happen. >> talk about one extraordinary voice to hear from on a night like tonight. contextualizing all of it for us in terms of the emotional gravity of the moment, political division, social upheaval and my friends

were really struck by this notion this moment and the american politics is division in one america versus another aunties that in everything from sports, trials and the way we frame our economic outlook that we are two countries. it feels like an existential battle for prima silly primacy, ultimately. i know you are taking notes, but that comment she made about the women's world cup team and how it's not just a soccer game. it is really about what kind of america deserves to win and what america would want to be part of what you heard in his criticisms of the american team was a rebuke of an america where women are empowered, paid equitably, their voices are present, if not dominant. ultimately, his vision of

america is a rebuttal to that kind of future. that is why it actually matters what he says. it is truly an existential cry for where we are headed as a country. >> i think what she did and what rachel did is articulate how it ties it all together. i think it is at the end of the show about all of these things happening in politics and we will get to what happened in the world cup. to the right, it's all the same. the right to rule. it is the entitled war against everybody else. interestingly and ominously, everyone else in the department of homeland security and possible target for domestic violence extremism and those inclined to violence, which trumps director said is the biggest threat to the homeland. what the two of them put on the table and i think we should all spend more time talking about it is that these are not several battles. on the right,

artists using the platform to stand up for lgbtq rights. it is athletes who stand up for equal pay for men and women. it is journalists of all stripes who think there is right to a free press. prosecutors who think that. and i think this idea, and i spent all my time, you know, not reading about the different mandatory minimums in state and federal law, reading about connection and community, as a bulwark against this rampant spread of political extremism, and it's tied to violence in this country. and maybe what she is putting on the table for us to mold and do something with is that community connection is going to become necessary to our national security. >> and the way she ended it with rachel was that final thought of, well, we have to win. that is certainly true. i mean, most politicians speaking that way. but the intersection and the unhealthy ck