Trump pleads not guilty in 2020 election arraignment: What happens next?

About two months ago, I spent hours, stripped of my computer and phone, waiting in the jury assembly room of the primary federal courthouse in Miami. But I wasn’t a juror. I was a member of the press corps hoping for a seat at Trump’s first, but not last, federal arraignment.

And once I got in, the most memorable moment was not his plea or even seeing the former president in person for the first time ever. It was watching him turn around before walking out through a non-public exit and with his lips pursed and eyes narrowed and slowly scan the gallery of media onlookers, federal marshals, and court personnel gathered to bear witness.

It was, in a word, chilling.

That memory was not at the forefront of my mind tonight until I started seeing reports of Trump’s arraignment before federal magistrate judge Moxila Upadhyaya in a packed Washington courtroom today. As Glenn Thrush of The New York Times noted in his pool report today, Trump again “lingered for a few moments as he was leaving and looked over his shoulder to survey the audience.”

What are we to make of Trump’s repeated staring at courtroom observers? One guess is that beyond the bombastic flyers accusing Biden of his own crimes, the all-caps social media posts and defiant interviews, Trump understands the gravity of the moment — and can’t help but look into the faces of those gathered to bear witness. Just maybe.

Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., has accused House Republicans of playing the role of Trump’s personal defense attorneys.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, has lived up to the claim.

After Trump’s indictment Tuesday, Jordan retweeted a conservative writer falsely accusing the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of interfering in the 2020 election.

Then, as the world awaited Trump’s arraignment today, the Jordan-led House Judiciary Committee tweeted out claims that an independent watchdog that tracks disinformation and hate speech online — the Center for Countering Digital Hate — had participated in a government censorship campaign during the 2020 election.

Both CISA and the CCDH were key in dispelling Trump’s false claims of election fraud after his loss to Joe Biden. And undermining their legitimacy now appears to be a Republican priority. (You can read a little more about the right’s crusade against disinfo experts here and here.)

In Trump’s latest indictment, prosecutors try to show that he knew his claims of election fraud were false. As one piece of evidence, the indictment notes that senior officials at CISA — including former Director Chris Krebs, whom Trump ultimately fired — made multiple public declarations that the election results could be trusted. 

With Jordan’s latest attack on CCDH, hopefully you’re seeing how the right’s fight against disinfo experts serves Trump’s legal defense. By painting them as decidedly anti-conservative — or, at minimum, noncredible — the GOP is essentially offering excuses for Trump’s behavior.

The latest sign that Mike Pence has decided he’s willing to take a stand against his former boss: his campaign is apparently selling “too honest” merchandise in the wake of Trump’s latest indictment.

The phrase is a reference to an allegation in the 2020 election indictment that when Pence told Trump he lacked the authority to reject electoral votes under the Constitution, Trump responded, “You’re too honest.”

But given the GOP base’s comfort with Trump’s mendacity, I’m going to go ahead and wager that this slogan isn’t going to lead to Pence skyrocketing in the polls.

Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who responded to the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, said watching Trump's arraignment today from an overflow courtroom was "emotional" and "intense."

"At one point, I looked down and my watch was going off, Dunn told Rachel Maddow. "I looked at my heart rate — it was over 100 beats per minute."

"He's doubled down," he added, referring to Trump. "He's shown no remorse. I have no words for him. I'll let the special counsel do the talking and hopefully a guilty verdict is returned."

As Andrew Weissmann noted on the air, one of the things that stood out from Trump’s latest arraignment was the focus on the trial date. It seems like the Washington court is prepared to move the case forward. 

With that, it’s worth remembering that trials don’t need to take place in the order in which the charges come down.

Trump’s hush money trial on state charges in New York is currently set for March, and his federal classified documents trial is scheduled for May. One or both of those could change, but today’s case doesn’t need to wait on them to play out just because it’s the most recent indictment.

In fact, it could be the first trial.

In Trump's first federal arraignment in Miami in June, Smith notably stared down the former president for most of the proceeding. Perhaps aware of these reports, Smith apparently avoided a reprise today in Washington.

"As Mr. Trump walked in," NBC News' Ken Dilanian told Rachel Maddow moments ago, "I noticed that Jack Smith did not look in his direction. ... He probably was the only person not looking at Mr. Trump at that time.

Apparently, Trump is getting quite comfortable being arraigned.

"I've been in the courtroom for all three of these arraignments now and I'm struck by in a strange way how much more comfortable Donald Trump is getting in these scenarios."

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this week, 45% of Republicans surveyed said they would not vote for Trump for president next year if he were “convicted of a felony crime by a jury,” while over 35% said they still would.

That’s a remarkable finding — and one that should probably be taken with a big ol' grain of salt. 

Among the instructions reportedly given to Trump at his arraignment was not to tamper with the jury in this case. You’d think that should go without saying, but with Trump it might be worth making crystal clear. 

It calls to mind the civil case he lost this year to writer E. Jean Carroll, where the judge took the rare step of making the jury anonymous. Indeed, Judge Lewis Kaplan in the Southern District of New York observed that such juries had previously been used in cases when “the risk of tampering with or violent retaliation against jurors by criminal defendants or their confederates was palpable, most often in terrorism and organized crime cases.”

In his March opinion, Kaplan rounded up some of Trump’s anti-social conduct to date, including, among other things, his actions leading to the Jan. 6 insurrection and his criticism of the special grand jury foreperson in Georgia. 

With Trump effectively trashing his prospective jury pool in Washington before he even stepped foot in court, it’s a reasonable instruction to give.

Two things stood out to me as unusual. It is not usual for the magistrate judge to have talked to the assigned district judge to find out what the next date is. What is unusual is to be so focused on the trial date.

That to me is, for people who are thinking that she is not focused on whether this can go to trial before the general election, that is the issue. And it’s also clear that Trump attorney John Lauro knows that and that is the reason he started saying," I need to know about the volume of discovery." Because it’s going to be a little eye-popping. There is going to be a huge amount and the government is going to have to deal with that issue, and that is going to be the fight.

The second thing is that the standard condition that a judge usually emphasizes is that you have to show up at each court appearance. That is the most important thing. That is what bail is for — so that you’ll show up in court. 

But I heard that the standard condition and most important thing is "do not commit a crime’’ followed up by "do not tamper with a juror." My first reaction was, I was a prosecutor for 21 years and I was a defense lawyer for five years, and I’ve never heard that.

From Andrew Weissmann on MSNBC moments ago. His remarks have been slightly edited for length and clarity.