Takeaways: Trump indicted in special counsel Jack Smith's 2020 election probe

One of the most chilling exchanges captured in the indictment is a back-and-forth between deputy Trump White House counsel Patrick Philbin and Co-Conspirator 4, who appears to be Jeffrey Clark, a former top Justice Department official in the Trump administration.

According to the indictment, on Jan. 3, 2021, Philbin allegedly attempted to discourage Clark from trying to take on the role of acting attorney general, and reiterated that “there had not been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that if the Defendant [Trump] remained in office nonetheless, there would be 'riots in every major city in the United States.'" The indictment alleges that Philbin responded, “That’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”  

The Insurrection Act is a law that allows the president to deploy the military domestically and use it to quash rebellions and enforce the law. In other words, what Clark was allegedly proposing as the solution to a mass uprising on behalf of democracy was military suppression. This obviously never came to fruition, but it captures the scope of authoritarian thinking that was flowing in the White House in those final days of Trump’s term.

On Feb. 13, 2021, 43 Republican senators voted against impeaching Trump for his actions during and around the Jan. 6 attack. Addressing his colleagues and the watching public, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell sought to justify voting against impeachment while also believing that “Trump’s actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty.” To untangle this logical pretzel, he found a technicality: Trump had already left office, so impeachment was not the proper remedy. But McConnell argued that Trump could — indeed, should — be held to account:

Now Trump is closer than ever to being found liable for “everything he did while he was in office.” If McConnell is a man of his word, he will stand up for the special counsel’s investigation and demand that the criminal justice system he extolled be allowed to take its course. Somehow, I suspect he won’t.

Chris Hayes speaking on MSNBC moments ago:

If Trump's 2020 election scheme wasn’t a crime, then nothing is a crime. We watched Trump do it on television. We knew what he was doing. If that is not a crime, then nothing is a crime. So that part of it I find really important and gratifying. There’s a kind of ballast to it. Of course this was corrupt. Of course this was fraud. Of course it was a conspiracy to defraud the United States. We all saw him engage in the conspiracy to defraud the United States.

This is in the canon of American events: Jan. 6 and its aftermath. And the reason is that for 159 years after the cannons fire on Fort Sumter, there is an unbroken chain of peaceful transfer of power. And not only that, the core story of the American experiment is a fight within itself to be true to the radical promise of democracy.

That is why President Lincoln said at the battlefield at Gettysburg that the question before the nation is whether a nation of, by and for the people can long endure. It is a test of whether the thing can last. And that’s in a category in itself in American history, the Civil War and the death and misery. But this is the gravest political crime since secession.

These comments have been slightly edited for length and clarity.

The new indictment of former president Donald Trump overlaps in many areas with the findings of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Ca.), who served on the committee, wrote for MSNBC Daily about how Jack Smith's investigation confirmed the importance of the committee's work:

In 2022, our select committee faced an ever-ticking clock as the 117th congressional session came to a close. At the time, I knew what we were doing was important, but until recently, I didn’t understand the true gravity of our work in terms of holding the former president legally accountable.

Last month, The Washington Post reported that for more than a year after the Jan. 6 attack, Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI resisted opening a probe into Trump and other instigators of the plot. While federal agents charged hundreds of foot soldiers, Justice officials “continued to have conflicting views” on pursuing the plotters.

According to the Post, experts say the select committee’s work embarrassed the Justice Department into investigating Trump. 

Read more from Rep. Lofgren here:

As we know from Trump’s classified documents case and Judge Aileen Cannon, which judge gets assigned to preside over a prosecution is both a crapshoot and incredibly important. Trial judges have vast discretion over matters large and small.

So what do we know about Tanya Chutkan, the Barack Obama appointee who’s set to oversee Trump’s second federal case, for his attempt to overthrow the 2020 election?

For one thing, she has experience with Jan. 6 cases.

Read more about her background below:

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump’s campaign and related groups raised many millions of dollars with appeals trumpeting the lie that the election was stolen via massive voter fraud. Those lies, which helped light the powder keg that erupted into a violent insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, are an illustration of so much of what is wrong with our political system right now.

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump’s campaign and related groups raised many millions of dollars with appeals trumpeting the lie that the election was stolen via massive voter fraud. Those lies, which helped light the powder keg that erupted into a violent insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, are an illustration of so much of what is wrong with our political system right now.

Read more below:

There’s a great passage in the indictment where prosecutors highlight one of the former president’s close campaign advisers describing frustration over the Trump legal team’s terrible record in advancing lawsuits alleging vote rigging or impropriety:

A few things to note here: It illustrates how Trump’s inner circle was getting clear pushback from senior operatives on the idea of pushing bogus claims about the election. It shows how even MAGA diehards who were willing to side with Trump until the end of his term were demoralized by his relentless stream of his lies. And yeah, it’s also just funny.

Rachel Maddow speaking on MSNBC moments ago:

If the allegations in this indictment are proven beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury convicts him of these crimes, history is not going to ask: “Wow, how did America get to the point where they indicted a former president?” History is instead going to ask: “How did America get to the point where such a person could be elected to the presidency of the United States?” ...

This is a grave day and a serious one for our country. … Aug. 1, 2023, is the date on which a former president, and the leading presidential candidate of the Republican Party, was indicted in federal court, accused of leading multiple criminal conspiracies to try to hold power by force after he was voted out of office by the people.

These comments have been slightly edited for length and clarity.

The indictment of former President Donald Trump on Tuesday for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection and plot to interfere with Joe Biden’s installation as president is a critical step in the preservation of America’s rule of law. But, with the likelihood that none of the charges against Trump will be decided before the November 2024 election, it also risks creating a virtual mosh pit of criminal cases.

The societal benefits of prosecuting all aspects of the illegal efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election are obvious. Wrongdoing is exposed, alleged criminal acts can be evaluated in our judicial system, innocent people can be exonerated, and guilty defendants held liable.

But such a sweeping case creates logistical gridlock. Each defendant may have separate counsel, which can multiply the number of motions and pretrial proceedings. The scheduling and logistics of a massive trial are challenging. Delay is inevitable.

Read more below:

This indictment is as important as it is historic. The principles of prosecution set out that the government charges those who break our society’s laws for several reasons: to vindicate the rights of the victim; to protect others in the community who would otherwise be subjected to the continued crimes of the offender; and to hold accountable those who choose to violate the laws that represent the considered values of the citizenry, as embodied in the criminal statutes enacted by the peoples’ duly elected representatives.

Another important principle, though one generally associated more directly with sentencing a criminal defendant, is deterring others from committing the same or similar crimes. This last factor — what the law calls “general deterrence” — is perhaps the most important vis-à-vis Trump’s crimes regarding Jan. 6 and the 2020 election.

Read more below:

With every indictment, former Vice President Mike Pence seems to be getting bolder in criticizing Trump.

After Trump’s first indictment, in his hush money case, Pence rushed to his defense, condemning the indictment as an “outrage.”

After the former president’s second indictment, in his classified documents case, Pence struck a more ambivalent tone, initially saying he was “deeply troubled to see this indictment,” but that he was waiting to see “the facts.” A few days later, he grew more critical, saying the indictment contained “very serious allegations. And I can’t defend what is alleged.” 

This time he’s sounding more critical with his preliminary comments. In a statement, he said: “Today’s indictment serves as an important reminder: anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.” 

He also described Trump’s legal woes as a political distraction from President Joe Biden: “As Americans, his candidacy means less attention paid to Joe Biden’s disastrous economic policies afflicting millions across the United States and to the pattern of corruption with Hunter.” (You can read the rest of the statement here.)

Today’s charges are more personal for Pence than before — it makes sense that he might be more inclined to take such a stand after Trump threw him under the bus for refusing to participate in his attempt to overturn the election.

But another likely factor is that the entire Republican presidential field is starting to realize that Trump is not just crushing his competition — his grip on the race is growing stronger. At this point, Pence likely realizes he has nothing to lose in trying, for once, to go for the jugular.

Much like its candidate, Donald Trump’s team has perfected the art of sheltering in audacity. In a statement earlier Tuesday, the Trump campaign said, “the lawlessness of these persecutions of President Trump and his supporters is reminiscent of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.”

Anti-Defamation League President Jonathan Greenblatt was less than impressed: 

Trump tried to basically take away people’s right to vote and install himself wrongfully as president of the United States. And we have somewhere around 20% or maybe a little less of America that is going to believe Trump no matter what he says.

And so, as we cover this trial and as we go forward, I think we all need to be really mindful that there are a lot of people out there that we need to not assume they know what all the facts are. I would say to everybody right now, assign this indictment to your book club. Ask your children to read it. Ask your next-door neighbor to read it with you. 

Go out of your way because there’s a huge number of Americans that are persuadable that Trump did do these things. They know he’s not a moral man.

I thought it was great that Jack Smith started this indictment by saying you don’t get indicted for lying. You get indicted for conspiring to stop the function of government in counting fairly the votes of the American people and certifying those votes. That’s what this indictment is all about. 

And we need to stay focused on that and realize that right now in America it’s a jump ball. This guy could be in charge again. And how frightening is that once you’ve read this indictment?

From Claire McCaskill's appearance on "The ReidOut with Joy Reid." It has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, a federally certified badass who’s been honored for his actions defending the Capitol on Jan. 6, has issued a statement about today’s indictment through his lawyer. 

“As we get closer to the proverbial finish line, I can only reflect on how long this fight has been,” Dunn said. “I would be lying if I did not acknowledge my numbness with the news of the indictment today of a former president of the United States.”

Dunn was similarly thoughtful in my conversation with him last week. “Indictments are only a part of the way to justice,” he told me. Dunn compared the looming charges to a mile marker on a highway — a symbol that tells you you’re en route to your destination. 

Waiting for justice has “cost me my peace,” Dunn noted, echoing a tweet he’d posted earlier that morning. But, he said, “I’ve got to put this on layaway, because it’s too important to let it go.”

Fellow Capitol riot veteran and DC Metro police officer Michael Fanone has also issued a statement following the indictment. 

Not enough attention is given to American Christians who aren’t supportive of the self-centered prevaricator and would-be power grabber that is Trump. 

That seems to be why “Faithful America,” a Twitter account that bills itself as the “largest online community of grassroots Christians acting for love and social justice,” a group that says it’s “challenging Christian nationalism’s hijacking of the Gospel for power,” welcomed Tuesday’s indictment news and called out those Christians who’ve made Trump their false god.

“In attempting to overturn the will of the people in the 2020 election,” the group tweeted on behalf of Episcopal priest, the Rev. Nathan Empsall Tuesday evening, “Trump not only incited a deadly insurrection & threatened the rights of all American voters, but also violated the morals and ethics of our Christian faith that he frequently but falsely claims to protect.”

He continued: “In Scripture, the Hebrew prophets repeatedly warned oppressive kings that if they put narcissistic desires ahead of the needs of their people, the corrupt rulers would fall from grace and face punishment. The message was clear: The people come first, & no one is above the law.”

Significantly, the thread of tweets warned readers that there “will be attempts in the coming days by Christian-nationalist MAGA leaders… to defend Trump and blasphemously paint him as a Christ-like martyr.”

That’s a rather easy prophecy to make since Trump supporters have already been doing that.

It is the most significant legal case of our lifetimes. It is one of — if not the most — significant case in United States history. It is up there with Dred Scott. It is up there with Brown v. Board of Education.

Because this goes to the essential question of who we are as a people. Do we let someone — the president — act in this way? 

From Neal Katyal’s appearance on “The ReidOut with Joy Reid” moments ago. It has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich is floating the possibility that Trump’s third indictment could finally be the one that hurts him significantly in the polls.

Rakich points out that part of the reason that Trump’s favorability may have fallen (ever so slightly) after the second indictment is because polling indicates that voters thought it was more serious than the first: They found charges related to mishandling classified documents to be more objectionable than accusations that he falsified business records to cover up hush money to a porn star. By that logic, Trump’s most recent charges may be even more likely to hurt him, with at least one YouGov/Yahoo News poll showing that voters rank an attempt to obstruct the certification of a presidential election as worse than mishandling classified documents.

But the problem is that the polling is mixed, with a poll by The Associated Press showing, as Rakich points out, that some voters think the classified documents case is more serious than the one about the 2020 election. Only future surveys can tell us which poll more truly captures the electorate’s opinion, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Jan. 6 case doesn’t break through uniquely.

That’s because it’s an issue that has been run through the polarization machine — both political parties and the different wings of the media ecosystem have analyzed the event in extraordinary detail for years now, and the right has grown bored of it and increasingly disinclined to consider Trump responsible for it. It’s also complex enough of an event that right-wing pundits have been able to generate evidence-free but persuasive false conspiracy theories about it. By contrast, the classified documents case was less well-known and polarized, and a pretty straightforward issue (Trump either had the documents or he didn’t, and there’s tape with him admitting he had them and shouldn’t have). 

The upshot of this is to say that while I might think these are the most grave charges Trump faces, many others might see it as yet another conspiracy.

The indictment alleges not only that Trump lied despite knowing he lost the election but that he exploited the violence on Jan. 6, 2021, to advance those lies. 

Indeed, there’s a section of the indictment titled, “The Defendant’s Exploitation of the Violence and Chaos at the Capitol.” Among other things, the indictment states that Trump “repeatedly refused to approve a message directing rioters to leave the Capitol, as urged by his most senior advisors”; that he and a co-conspirator “attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol by calling lawmakers to convince them, based on knowingly false claims of election fraud, to delay the certification”; and that he refused to withdraw any objections and allow the certification.

President Joe Biden is on vacation in Delaware right now and will probably have a hell of a string of text messages waiting on his phone in a few hours.

According to NBC News, Biden and first lady Jill Biden are seeing a screening of “Oppenheimer” while the rest of us process the news that Trump has been indicted yet again. There’s probably a metaphor in there about Biden choosing to watch an epic about a world-changing chain reaction that at the time had an entirely unknown potential fallout — but then again, that line of thinking feels like a bit of a dud.

(Also, yes, “Oppenheimer” is distributed by Universal Pictures, which like MSNBC is under parent company NBCUniversal, but I promise this isn’t synergy.)

The four charges that Smith has dropped against Trump are definitely serious, but there’s one angle of the former president’s scheming that’s missing from the indictment that the special counsel was reportedly pursuing. Trump’s campaign and associated PACs raked in millions of dollars in the aftermath of the election based on the lies that Smith lists out in detail. But while there was some speculation that he might charge Trump with wire fraud, any mention of fundraising is totally absent.

That doesn’t mean that others couldn’t still be charged on that front. Or, as we saw last week, a superseding indictment could come down the pipeline. But Smith’s team was reportedly working through the thorny issues around political speech that would have to be dealt with if those charges were brought, so it’s entirely possible he decided it just wasn’t worth it.

Former Washington, D.C., police officer Mike Fanone said of the indictment: “Donald Trump spent his entire lifetime f---ing around and he’s about to find out. I’d like to think that in some small way I played a part in all this.” 

It’s a juicy quote from an officer who was dragged down the steps of the Capitol, electroshocked and beaten with flagpoles on Jan. 6, and who has emerged as one of the most vociferous critics of the rioters. It’s also, incidentally, true. 

Trump has consistently displayed a disdain for norms and laws in a manner that follows naturally from a life of being born into money and constantly conning people to accumulate even more of it. This is the guy who says not paying taxes makes him smart. For so long, Trump has preferred taking the hit of a potential lawsuit over following the rules, and in the process, he may have developed the illusion that he was invincible.

Increasingly, though, he seems to realize that’s not the case.

The bench in D.C. is very strong and no one is stronger than Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan. So, this is an extremely good draw. It should be an extremely good draw for either side because she is a very solid and very well-respected jurist. 

Judge Chutkan started on the bench in D.C. in 2014. She was nominated by President Barack Obama and is I think widely respected. It’s hard for anyone to ever be prepared for a case of this magnitude but I think that this is one that is well within her skill set and experience. This is not somebody who is new to the federal bench and new to dealing with these issues. That has been the sort of knock on Judge Aileen Cannon in the classified documents case. That’s not the case with Judge Chutkan.

From Andrew Weissmann's appearance on "Deadline: White House" earlier today. It has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

In brief remarks to reporters, Attorney General Merrick Garland mostly reinforced his confidence in Jack Smith’s investigation.

The DOJ special counsel was appointed “in order to underline the department’s commitment to accountability and independence,” Garland said. “Mr. Smith and his team of experienced, principled career agents and prosecutors have followed the facts and the law wherever they lead. Any questions about this matter will have to be answered by the filings made in the courtroom.”

Trump can deny he paid hush money to an adult film actress to keep her from talking about an alleged affair she had with him (he denies the affair, too). He can deny that he illegally held onto classified documents after his presidency ended. But he can’t deny that there was an assault on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, or that before that happened that he preached to his supporters to “fight like hell.”

As sad as it is that we’re debating which indictment against the former president is the most significant, it’s worth pointing out that this one feels the most significant because it involves an alleged crime that was public. It doesn’t involve something we heard about — but something we saw. I don’t imagine that, to those with a sense of decency, any indictment against Trump matters more to them than this one.

Trump’s lawyers have had months to prepare a defense for today’s charges, and his allies have previewed a few of them. It’s striking then to note that Smith managed to knock down several of them in just one paragraph, towards the beginning of the indictment:

With that, Smith managed to pre-empt potential defenses based around the First Amendment’s right to free speech and Trump’s right to challenge the results of an election, and neatly does away with any hint that the pursuit beyond those rights was legal. It will be interesting then to see how Smith’s team counters the “I was just listening to my lawyers” gambit that Trump’s team is reportedly preparing to use, given that several of said lawyers are likely the co-conspirators listed in the indictment.

A crucial part of Smith’s indictment comes on page 8, regarding Trump’s claims about the 2020 election: “These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false. In fact, the Defendant was notified repeatedly that his claims were untrue.”

MSNBC’s Ari Melber called this passage the “core” of the charges moments ago. The indictment cites numerous instances where he allegedly made “knowingly false statements” even after those “best positioned to know the facts” in his inner circle told him he was lying. According to the indictment:

• Vice President Mike Pence “told the Defendant that he had seen no evidence of outcome-determinative fraud.”
• Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe “disabused the Defendant of the notion that the Intelligence Community’s findings regarding foreign interference would change the outcome of the election.”
• “Senior White House attorneys — selected by the defendant to provide him candid advice — informed the Defendant that there was no evidence of outcome-determinative election fraud.”
• Trump “insinuated that more than ten thousand dead voters had voted in Georgia” four days after Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger told him that was false.
• Trump “asserted that there had been 205,000 more votes than voters in Pennsylvania” after both Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his deputy Richard Donoghue told him that was false.
• On the eve of Jan. 6, Trump “approved and caused his campaign” to claim that Pence believed he could intervene in the certification of the electoral college. Only hours earlier, Pence had told him he couldn’t.

Many of these instances have been previously reported, but seeing them laid out back to back in a federal indictment is a remarkable catalog of the breadth of Trump’s deception.

As part of the broad scheme laid out in the indictment, federal prosecutors included (among many things) Trump’s infamous call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes. 

Regarding that call, which took place four days before Jan. 6, the indictment reads: “[Trump] said that he needed to ‘find’ 11,780 votes, and insinuated that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded.”

Of course, this indictment comes as we await a charging announcement soon from Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Georgia. So this might not be the last time that we see this scene laid out in an indictment of Trump this month.

At first glance, it’s clear that the “fake electors” carry a lot of weight in this indictment.

It says Trump and co-conspirators committed crimes when they caused “the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors in favor of the Defendant.”

Sounds bad. Which brings me to something I stumbled upon on the interwebs yesterday. 

Surely, this is just a coincidence, right? 

On Monday, Georgia Republicans debuted a website Monday that they claim corrects the record on “lies” the press has told about Trump’s “fake elector” plot. They compare reputable reporting on the scheme to fictitious figures such as Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

“Rivaling the tales of Northwestern ape men and Scottish lake creatures in lurid sensationalism and outright falsity, The Atlanta Journal Constitution and their friends in the mainstream news media have written endlessly and breathlessly about the so-called ‘fake’ electors,” the website reads. “This website has been created by the Georgia Republican Party to set the record straight.”

Can you smell the right-wing desperation wafting from your screen? 

In recent weeks, news reports have suggested that the special counsel had been intensely focused on the “fake elector” scheme in the lead-up to today’s indictment.

I’m pretty sure a website isn’t going to throw him off. But points for creativity, I guess.

The special counsel’s remarks were similar to his brief yet powerful words at the press conference for Trump’s classified documents indictment that’s pending in Florida.

One of the common themes between them — in addition to framing Trump as a danger to the country in both cases — is that Smith said the government wants a speedy trial for 2020 election interference charges, too.

The question of when, if ever, this case and any other Trump cases go to trial as the 2024 election looms is one of the great questions hanging over all cases as Trump inevitably tries to delay them.

The special counsel is expected to announce the indictment (as he did for the initial classified documents indictment) any moment now.

In a brief statement to the press, Smith formally announced the indictment against Trump and encouraged "everyone to read it in full."

"Today an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding."

He went on: "The attack on our nation's Capitol on Jan. 6 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. ... It was fueled by lies."

Smith praised law enforcement officers for defending the Capitol on Jan. 6 and putting "their lives on the line" to defend the people inside. "They defended the very institution and principles that define the United States," he said.

Smith noted that the investigation "of other individuals" continues.

"In this case, my office will seek a speedy trial so that our evidence can be tested in court and judged by a jury of citizens," he said, adding that Trump "must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law."

Trump is expected to be arraigned in federal court in Washington on Aug. 3 at 4 p.m. ET before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya, NBC News reports.

Trump’s court appearances after indictment announcements are almost becoming a familiar routine at this point, but it will be no less of a historic spectacle seeing a former president charged for another set of crimes, and in this case, charges that accuse Trump of committing some of the most extraordinary attacks on democracy that a president could carry out.

The court appearances have also become a tangible source of political weakness for Trump as he keeps calling for counter-protests to attend them but they’re not really panning out; they have been strikingly small and tame.

Smith’s indictment refers to six “co-conspirators” who allegedly helped Trump. They’re not named in the document itself, but based on the descriptions and previous reporting, here’s my best guesses as to who they might be:

a. Co-Conspirator 1, [Rudy Giuliani,] an attorney who was willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that the Defendant’s 2020 re-election campaign attorneys would not.

b. Co-Conspirator 2, [John Eastman,] an attorney who devised and attempted to implement a strategy to leverage the Vice President’s ceremonial role overseeing the certification proceeding to obstruct the certification of the presidential election.

c. Co-Conspirator 3, [Sidney Powell,] an attorney whose unfounded claims of election fraud the Defendant privately acknowledged to others sounded “crazy.” Nonetheless, the Defendant embraced and publicly amplified Co-Conspirator 3’s disinformation.

d. Co-Conspirator 4, [Jeffrey Clark,] a Justice Department official who worked on civil matters and who, with the Defendant, attempted to use the Justice Department to open sham election crime investigations and influence state legislatures with knowingly false claims of election fraud.

E. Co-Conspirator 5, [Kenneth Chesboro,] an attorney who assisted in devising and attempting to implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

f. Co-Conspirator 6, [Ginni Thomas,] a political consultant who helped implement a plan to submit fraudulent slates of presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding.

Note, we do not have confirmation on any of these names besides John Eastman. We also do not know whether any of the co-conspirators will face similar charges to those filed against Trump.

In a statement posted to social media, Florida governor and floundering Trump rival Ron DeSantis said that while he has not yet read the indictment, he has some thoughts about it.

"As President, I will end the weaponization of government, replace the FBI Director, and ensure a single standard of justice for all Americans," DeSantis said. He also added that he believes "we need to enact reforms so that Americans have the right to remove cases from Washington, DC to their home districts. Washington, DC is a 'swamp' and it is unfair to have to stand trial before a jury that is reflective of the swamp mentality."

One of the things that jumps out at me is, in addition to the co-conspirators listed, there is a mention of Mark Meadows. His not being in that list of co-conspirators I think is particularly interesting, certainly based on Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee.

From Lisa Rubin's appearance on "Deadline: White House" moments ago. It has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

Amid all the criminal cases and investigations, it’s easy to forget that there’s still a truckload of civil cases against Trump working their way through the courts. That includes a civil lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James that accuses the Trump Organization of more than 200 instances of fraud. We got a reminder of that suit’s threat to Trump’s business on Monday when James’ office said in a court filing that the “case is ready for trial.”

While the charges that Trump faces in the New York hush money case and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case are definitely serious, the civil suit from James could effectively end the Trump Organization as it currently exists. Among other things, the state is seeking to shut down the organization’s operations in New York and approximately $250 million in damages.

One thing that’s for certain: Trump is going to be spending a lot of time in courtrooms over the next year.

On obstruction, I think the thing that’s important for people to know is, that’s the least surprising charge. And the reason — and it fits like a glove — is that so many people who participated in the actual Jan. 6 insurrection have been charged with this.

To Donald Trump and his supporters, who might think that he is being singled out and this is a form of selective prosecution, for him not to be charged with this would actually be a form of selective nonprosecution. He is being charged just like everyone else for their roles and connection with what happened.

So, that charge is not surprising because it is exactly what everyone else who had participated in the events and it would make very little sense to me that you would charge foot soldiers for obstruction but somebody who is accused of being the leader of that obstruction would not be charged.

From Andrew Weissmann on "Deadline: White House" moments ago. It has been slightly edited for length and clarity.

Trump faces four counts in this new indictment: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights.

Click the link below to read the full 45-page indictment in Jack Smith's 2020 election interference probe.

As recently as yesterday, Trump predicted on his social media platform that he’d be indicted for a third time “any day now.”

To know anything about the Republican is to know his words are nearly always unreliable, but in this instance, his expectations were in line with reality.

NBC News reported moments ago:

Former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a federal grand jury investigating his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, the special counsel’s office announced Tuesday.

Read more:

A federal grand jury has voted to indict Trump in the special counsel’s investigation into 2020 election interference and Jan. 6, 2021.

The news comes roughly two weeks since the former president said he received a letter from Smith’s team notifying him he’s the target of the probe.

This marks Trump’s second federal indictment after being charged in June in Smith’s classified documents case. He was indicted on state charges in March as part of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into his hush money payment to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

The most telling part of Trump’s earlier Truth Social post predicting his own indictment is not that prediction — after all, he has predicted his own indictment before. It’s his claim about Smith’s motivations: “Why didn’t they do this 2.5 years ago? Why did they wait so long? Because they wanted to put it right in the middle of my campaign. Prosecutorial Misconduct!”

Remember, this is a man who claimed he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.” But by Trump’s own logic, this indictment’s timing only matters politically if it might affect voters’ minds. Perhaps Trump has seen the polls showing that independents and moderates very much reject his lies about the 2020 election. Whatever the reason, not for the first time, Trump’s bluster has vanished in the face of legal realities.

Just in: The grand jury has returned a sealed indictment against an unnamed individual, NBC News reports. It's unclear who that individual is at this time.

The grand jury foreman is still at the courthouse and is entering the magistrate judge's courtroom, NBC News reports. This could be a sign that an indictment is imminent. (As always, things could always change.)

Trump fired off a Truth Social post moments ago suggesting he believes Smith's office will issue an indictment against him at "5:00 P.M."

Keep in mind: There's no confirmation from the special counsel's office at this point that news of an indictment is coming today.

It's no secret that former Trump White House special counsel Ty Cobb is less than impressed with his old boss. And last week's superseding indictment in the classified documents case has Cobb speaking out once again.

“This is such a tight case, the evidence is so overwhelming," Cobb said in an interview with CNN last week.

As Steve Benen wrote for MaddowBlog earlier today:

The attorney went on to say that, in the classified documents case, “this is Trump not just going behind the back of the prosecutors. This is Trump going behind the back of his own lawyers.”

This is the latest installment in a lengthy pattern in which Cobb has made little effort to hide his disdain for his former client. It was last fall, for example, when Cobb said Trump is a “deeply wounded narcissist” who acted in a “criminal” manner when he tried to overturn the 2020 election results.

Read more from Steve below:

If an indictment isn't happening today, it’s going to happen very soon. It seems very clear how much special counsel Jack Smith has done so quickly. As soon as he can bring the charges responsibly, I feel like he's going to do it.

If it happens today, the indictment gets spun out to a judge and we'll see who that judge is. The prosecutor and the defense would learn who the assigned judge is. That judge will decide when an initial appearance will be.

From Andrew Weissmann's appearance on "Chris Jansing Reports" moments ago. It has been slightly edited and condensed for clarity.

If an indictment related to federal election interference is handed down today, the focus on the actual named defendants will be white hot. But don’t take your eyes off the unnamed or the elusively described. Those who are alleged to have participated in and/or witnessed any of the charged conduct will remain critical, if not central, players in the legal drama that will unfold in Washington, D.C.

Trump's indictment in the classified documents case is illustrative here. Among the quotes from text exchanges, audio recordings, attorney notes and narrative recitations of meetings are a score of unnamed people who allegedly helped Trump, knowingly or unknowingly, squirrel away classified documents and/or were privy to their details, including because Trump allegedly showed or read those documents to them.

If and when Trump is indicted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the charging document will likely be chock full of some of the same: people who saw things or even joined in. Keep your eye on those folks. They and the evidence they have provided — coupled with Trump's own prolific mouth — may be Smith’s secret weapons (or his once-and-future targets).

Read more below:

In the target letter Trump apparently received last month, one of the three potential charges reportedly mentioned was conspiracy against rights.

As Jordan Rubin wrote for Deadline: Legal Blog last month:

If you’re wondering how that law has been applied, the Justice Department just used it to secure a recent conviction against a Trump supporter for election interference — in the 2016 election, that is. ...

That statute, Section 241 of Title 18 of the United States Code, prohibits conspiring “to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.”

The government secured the recent conviction under that law in March against Douglass Mackey.

Read more about Mackey's case below:

It's been roughly two weeks since Trump announced on Truth Social that he received a letter from Smith's team notifying him he's a target in the Justice Department's investigation into 2020 election interference.

By comparison, court records show Trump was sent a target letter in Smith's classified documents probe on May 19. He was indicted in that case nearly three weeks later on June 8.

Grand jurors began leaving the courthouse today around 2 p.m. ET. Interestingly, the foreperson remained behind, CNN reported. (The foreperson is the juror charged with overseeing the jury. They have an administrative role that includes, for example, signing indictments.)