tonight" starts right now. >> i watched you today and i could not believe you had so much energy in the afternoon. how is that possible? lots of coffee? what are you doing? >> it's caffeine. and i'm enjoying it, don. that's what's happening. you're seeing my ebullience. i'm enjoying my job. >> you wait for these 30 seconds between us and that's why ire all excited about it. isn't that correct? >> that is correct, don. and that's all you'll give me. that's as close as i can get to you because of the restraining order. >> you weren't supposed to talk about that. that's why you're in a separate room. see, we're not together actually. thanks, always yin. i'll see you tomorrow. bye. this is "don lemon tonight." and we've got some serious things to talk about. what we're learning from court documents tells us more about the fbi's search of mar-a-lago and what it may mean for the former president. and there may be even more to come. the stage is set nor what could be the public release of a redacted version of the affidavit for that search.

a judge in florida saying there are portions that could be unsealed and giving the doj a week to explain everything that they say needs to be kept secret. but will it be page after page of black redactions? how will we know? we don't know until we see it. that as a justice department lawyer says the affidavit contains, and i quote here, "substantial grand jury information" and warns releasing it could have a chilling effect on witnesses. but the judge did release several never-before-seen documents today including the motion where prosecutors argue that they needed to keep their search warrant secret because "the integrity of the ongoing investigation might be compromised and evidence might be destroyed." there are some more really intriguing clues in one of those documents. more on that in just a moment. but you've got to wonder just how much the former president actually wants the full affidavit to be released. because his lawyer sitting right there in court today didn't say

a word. that as a source tells cnn donations to trump's political action committee topped a million dollars a day for at least two days following the fbi's search. and he's continued to send out dozens of e-mails and texts to supporters. and then there's our cnn exclusive tonight. 18 top trump administration officials saying the claim from the former president and his allies that he had a so-called standing order to declassify any document he took from the oval office, well, they say this is nonsense. >> he had a standing order. there's the word i've been looking for. that documents removed from the oval office and taken to the residence were deemed to be declassified the moment he removed them. >> donald trump issued sweeping declassification orders on multiple occasions. >> hmm. 18 former top trump officials, several laughed. one senior administration official calling it, and i'm quoting here, bullmentshit.

it's not my word. it's theirs. another senior official calling it total nonsense. former chief of staff john kelly saying, another quote, "nothing approaching an order that foolish was ever given." >> there are procedures. rules. agencies like the cia, nsa, the defense department would have to be notified. don't get it twisted. all of this, the unprecedented search of a former president's home, the 11 sets of classified documents the fbi found there, some marked top secret sci, all of that is for one reason. he took classified documents. "the new york times" reporting another quote, the former president repeatedly resisted entreaties from his advisers. "it's not theirs, it's mine," several advisers say mr. trump told them. so there's a lot to discuss and i want to bring in cnn's senior justice correspondent evan perez and senior legal analyst elie hoenig. good evening, gentlemen.

lots to discuss. there's a possibility we could see a heavily redacted version of the affidavit. i just want to get to that. but the judge also unsealed other documents today that shaernd the focus on trump as a possible subject of a criminal investigation. tell us more, please. >> that's right, don. look, the previous documents listed the crimes that the justice department was investigating and why they believe they needed to do the search warrant. what we saw today was a document, one of the documents that the justice -- that the judge unsealed today lists specifically what the prosecutor says they're looking at. and that is willful retention of national defense information. that's a significant phrasing. people i talked to tonight said look, this tells us a little more about what the prosecutors are looking at.

and look, it was a little obvious obviously that the former president and possibly other people are -- have some legal exposure here. what this tells us is it really does, it sharpens the focus on the former president himself and the possibility that he, you know, is the person here they're looking for. they're looking at. it really does sharpen the focus on him and his role in all of this because obviously at one point he had the authority to have these documents but once he left office he no longer had that authority and he -- it looks like prosecutors are saying willfully retained them in violation of this law. >> all right. legally, let's talk about this, elie, as our legal expert here. willful retention of national defense information. what could that mean? and put it into context with the form err why president's actions when it comes to these classified documents. is that significant, willful retention of flgs defense information? >> it's significant new information. so we already knew from last week the statute number that doj

was looking at and we just had this number, 2701, but the thing is there are six or seven subparts. so this information, willful retention of national defense information, that tells us where more specifically within that law is looking. part of it is obvious, retention of national defense information. you have to hold on to information. but willful is the really important part. because willful means you did it knowingly and you did it intentionally. meaning he knew that there was national defense information and he knew that withholding it or removing it would put u.s. national security at risk. ? but do we know if they're talking about him or someone else? >> that's a really good point. it's not necessarily donald trump. when you fill out a search warrant you typically don't say, and it doesn't appear doj said here, we think x person com michted a crime. all you have to show a judge and it looks like what the doj showed, we believe x crime was committed. could be donald trump, could be others, could be some assortment of people. >> prosecutors also argue there's good reason to keep things secret. another quote here, it says, "because the integrity of the ongoing investigation might be

compromised and evidence might be destroyed." how does that sound to you? >> well, to some extent it's standard language. you always cite that as a reason why you don't want to out your investigation. but the question is, and this is why it will be really interesting to see the full affidavit, perhaps we will, at some point, but do they have specific information in this case to think that the evidence that was being stored in mar-a-lago, these documents were being removed or destroyed? >> everyone was so confident that oh, no, it's never going to -- and i'm not saying you but in general, that we're never going to see this affidavit. because it's usually not released. is there something -- is this so unprecedented and so unusual because it's a former president that we might actually get to see the affidavit? >> yeah, i was a little surprised -- >> a redacted version possibly. >> yeah, i was a element surprised the judge left the door open. that said, i am still fairly confident that the end result after this redaction process happens is going to be that we see very little of that. >> could he see the redacted version, the judge see the redacted version and say okay, this gives too many clues even with the redactions? >> yeah, the judge could go

either way. doj may give hum a redacted version that's all black redaction and the judge may say not acceptable, i'm releasing the whole thing or i'm releasing more of it. but the judge is giving doj a chance to come to him first and say make me an offer, show me what you think i can put out there so we can give the american people, the media something. >> evan, when it comes to possibly releasing a redacted version of the affidavit, it sounds like the judge in florida is leaning towards more transparency here. >> he is. and look, i think elie is pointing to the fact that obviously this is a very unusual situation, this is a former president, and the justice department itself has moved to do the unusual thing of unsealing the search warrant, citing the public interest. right? they've opened that door. and i think what the lawyers today, including the ones represent k the media, including cnn, were pmaking the point of look, we understand there are things the justice department

needs to keep sealed, but -- and this judge basically said, i've seen this document, i know what's in it, and he's telling the justice department there is stuff here that can be released. does it go as far as we all would love it? probably not. but i think more is better. as much as possible is better than what we have right now. >> when you say we all would love it, i mean, look, if it does impede the investigation -- >> none of us wants that, right? we don't want to get in the way of the investigation. that's never our goal here as journalists. but i think we all understand that this is an incredibly tenuous situation. we know that there's a lot of disinformation that's coming from one side of this story. so give us more information so we can at least understand better what's happening. i think more is better. >> elie, when the attorney general merrick garland came out to say his department had filed a motion to make the warrant and the receipt public, saying that there was substantial public interest, did that inadvertently make it harder to keep the

affidavit secret? >> that's interesting because i think merrick garland's calculation last week when he said let's give these documents was yeah, let's try to satiate the public interest. but the documents that merrick garland agreed to release last week that we've now seen, it's six pages. it's largely checklists, lists that say box o'documents. it doesn't give us a lot of detail. this affidavit is completely different. we haven't seen it, but i've done a bunch of these, don. these are 50, 70, 100-page documents. this will be a narrative point by-point explanation from doj, here's our probable cause. it won't name witnesses by name, but it will refer to witnesses in a way that they could probably be identified. >> any attorney, any investigator, any lawyer worth their salt will probably be able to read between the lines of redacted parts and figure out exactly what's going on, correct? >> we're all going to certainly try. and i think that's the problem for doj right now. how do you expose part of this document, which lays out your investigation, but not some other part of it? >> evan, trump's team had multiple opportunities to say

something in court in a filing or in person. but they didn't say anything. >> no. they've been saying everything on cable and on twitter and in other venues. they've not done -- they had someone there, as you said, christina bobb, who was one of the people at the search, she was there when the fbi was searching. and look, you've seen them say in some of these appearances on various networks, they've said that they want to know who these witnesses were, they want to know who dropped the dime on the former president. and i get it. that's -- obviously anybody would want that. that is not something that the judge is going to allow. right? but the problem is as elie's pointing out, it depends on how you do these redactions. we have seen redacted versions of these documents and, you know, have been able to figure things out. we probably -- even in the unredacted versions, right, don? there wouldn't be names of witnesses. but it will say, you know, person a or person 1a or

something like that. >> it will say person 1a saw whatever take the -- >> and they give enough clues that we could figure it out. which i don't think anybody wants because you'll put those people in danger. >> yeah. elie, let's talk about the trump organization's former cfo allen weisselberg pleading guilty to his role in the 15-year tax fraud scheme. he's agreed to testify against trump, trump's company. but you say y-- why do you say this is a win for trump? >> it's a win for trump because he's not going to be charged criminally in the manhattan d.a. case. it's sort of a lose-lose for everybody else. as guilty pleas often are. for prosecutors they get a conviction of allen weisselberg. they get his testimony against the trump organization, which is fine, but nobody goes to jail for that. >> nobody from the organization -- he can testify against the trump organization. >> and this is why this whole thing is a fiction. because when you prosecute a corporation it's just paper. and if the corporation is found guilty the only penalty is a fine. nobody goes to jail. you have to prosecute an

individual to send an individual to jail. and the only person who's been prosecuted criminally by the manhattan d.a. in connection with this is allen weisselberg. from weisselberg's point of view he mitigates his potential exposure. he could have had a much longer sentence if he went to trial and lost. now he's sort of locked in a lower sentence for himself. but from twonld v donald trump's point of view he's probably not happy that weisselberg's going to testify against his organization. but boy, if i'm advising donald trump i would say the big ticket is you, donald trump, and you are now safe from criminal charges in this case. >> and consider his sentence for 15 years. what does he get, a $1.5 million fine? >> it was a 15-year max. now he's looki ing as a practic matter about three months behind bars and a fine. >> basically he got off easy. >> he did. yeah. >> thanks, evan. thank you very much elie as well. up next, a cnn exclusive. they say it is ludicrous, ridiculous, and i quote here, bullshit. that's what 18 top trump officials say about his claims that he had a standing order to declassify any documents he took from the oval office.

♪ ♪ ♪ "shake your ththang" by salt n pepa [ "back to life" by soul ii soul ] what if you could change your surroundings with the touch of a finger? now you can. biometric id... inside the innovative, new c-class.

this is the sound of better breathing. fasenra is an add-on treatment for asthma driven by eosinophils. it helps prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, and lower use of oral steroids. fasenra is not a rescue medication or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. ask your doctor about fasenra. vo: hi. we're zerowater. and we believe everyone deserves the purest tasting water. that's why we strive for zero. you see, to some it means nothing. but to us, it means everything. here, take a look. this meter showing triple zeros means our five-stage filter did its job. and that virtually all dissolved solids, or tds,

have been removed. and all that's left is the purest tasting water. let's compare. a two-stage brita filter stops here. but our five-stage filter doesn't quit. zero water. we strive for zero.

now to a cnn exclusive. 18 former top trump officials telling cnn the former president's claims of a standing

order to declassify all documents he took out of the oval office are ludicrous, ridiculous, and b.s. i don't have to say it again, do i? joining me now, cnn special correspondent jamie gangel and cnn senior political commentator david axelrod. hello to both of you. thanks for joining. jamie, you spoke to these 18 top trump officials. they're calling this standing order patently false. and some even laughed at the idea of it. >> they laughed at it. they scoffed at it. and they did call b.s. don, these were former white house officials, national security, intelligence, justice department. this includes donald trump's former chiefs of staff. many of these people served in positions where they would either be included in the declassification process or at the very least aware of such orders. and each and every one of these 18 people dismissed, flatly

dismissed the claim that trump had some standing order to declassify documents that left the oval office and were taken up to the white house residence. and you know, the trump administration, you can't always get people to go on the record. but a lot of of these people, even went on the record. we're going to start with former wh white house chief of staff john kelly who told me, get ready, "nothing approaching an order that foolish was ever given and i can't imagine anyone that worked at the white house after me that would have simply shrugged their shoulders and allowed that order to go forward without dying in the ditch trying to stop it." >> wow. >> i also spoke to another chief of staff, mistake mulvaney. he flatly dismissed the idea and told me, quote, he was not aware of any such general standing order. and former national security adviser john bolton called it,

quote, a complete fiction. but as we say, don, wait. there's more. olivia troye, former homeland security adviser to vice president mike pence at that time, called it ludicrous. another former senior intelligence official laughed and said it was ridiculous. and a very senior trump administration official called it, quote, bullshit. in fact, a couple of them did, don. >> it's great reporting. but i mean, we kind of knew, right? especially the last part. jamie, the president has declassification powers. but there's still a process, right? that you have to go through. what are your sources telling you about whether a sweeping rule like this would have possibly even been documented. i mean, it should have been if he did enact this sweeping rule. it should have been documented. >> so david axelrod will be able to tell you boater than i but yes, a president has broad powers to declassify but there

is a process. and it's a very complicated process. one source said to me show me the president's signature. lots of agencies get involved in this. it's not something that can be some idea in donald trump's head. he can't just wave a magic wand. and he certainly can't do it after the fact when he's not president anymore. >> she invoked your name, dachd axelrod. you worked in the white house. you know how this is supposed to go. have you seen anything like it? >> no. and i don't think anybody who's ever worked in any white house has seen anything like it. i mean, the whied that a president could look in the mirror and ordain that documents -- top secret documents are no longer secret, throw it in his bag with his snow globes and other souvenirs and haul it off to his home after he leaves office and store them in his basement is absurd on the face of it. and there's a reason there's a very assiduous kind of

classification process, or declassification process, because there are national security implications to documents that are highly classified. now, there are cases of overclassification, and there are cases in which something that should have been classified at one point should no longer be classified. you know, that is -- so these things go -- these discussions go on all the time. but the idea that a president can by fiat do it -- but don, this goes to the larger issue about donald trump. he believed and he said when he was president, you remember this, that his power was absolute and that he -- that the rules don't apply to him. and that runs -- that's the theme that runs through so many of the things we're dealing with right now, from his denial of the election to january 6th, to this, and it's dangerous for a democracy. we are a nation of laws, not men. and for a president to arrogate

to himself these authorities is very, very dangerous. >> i had john sail on last night, attorney john sail, and i talked to him about trump's difficulty in getting seasoned legal representation, david. sale is a former assistant special watergate prosecutor who declined to represent trump. this is what he said about trump's potential legal defense. listen to this. >> the interplay between the different statutes, the documents that were seized, neither side knows what they have. the fbi agents, they didn't sit there studying and reviewing them. and there are some very serious privilege issues. i mean, there's attorney-client privilege. there is executive privilege. there's a privilege that eric holder asserted called the deliberative process privilege. and all that has to be sorted out. and i think i mentioned a minute ago, there's no evidence based upon what's reported that the president, former president, specifically knew what was there. >> so david, if trump is pushing

this standing order line when there are reasonable legal arguments that he can make, is it at his own expense? >> i don't understand, don. what do you mean is it at his own expense? >> is he negating -- if he's saying, you know, hey, if he's pushing this line about i have a standing order, is he sort of negating his own defense here? >> well, we'll see -- you know -- >> you heard john sale said in that that there were legal arguments, he thought that there were legal arguments to be made in defense of the -- >> yes. i mean, but what we've learned before is that the arguments that donald trump makes in public aren't necessarily the arguments that he makes in court. i'm old enough to remember when donald trump said that people who take the fifth are by definition guilty. and he did it like 440 times a week ago. so i don't know that what they would argue in court is

necessarily this. and it's going to be very hard for them to argue this in court because it is so completely out of -- illogical. and if there's no paper stream and no recollection on the part of anyone, you can't just sort of sit alone in a room and say i hereby declassify everything that goes into my box here that i'm taking home with me. that's not the process. >> you can say that but -- >> i don't think -- >> it doesn't necessarily make it so. >> right. >> right. so one thing we've seen is that donald trump makes different arguments in public than he makes in courtrooms when he's under the, you know, pressuring of law. and so i suspect that if this ever becomes a case that they will make a different set of arguments, perhaps the arguments more akin to what sale is

suggesting. but there may be -- we don't know what these documents are. there may be some that fit none of the descriptions that he's talking about and those are the ones that are problematic over trump. >> hey, jamie, i just have a very quick one for you. he's also claiming the authorities could have gotten the documents if they asked. we know that's not true because they did ask for them. his people signed a documents saying that there were no more classified documents left at mar-a-lago. and also saying that the documents are planted. what did your sources say to you? >> the people -- this is ridiculous. this is donald trump throwing these things out there for the base. we heard today, kaitlan collins reported that in two days he raised something like a million dollars. i think statements like that are about the fund-raising that we're seeing and about communicating with his base. if you speak -- look, we didn't speak to one source or five sources or six. we spoke to 18 people who were

very senior who know what's going on. and they said it's simply not the case. and we certainly know from the archives, to your point, don, that they asked over and over and over again. and then doj asked over and over and over again. >> yeah. thank you, jamie. thank you, david. i appreciate it. a stark warning from a doj lawyer. he says that the threats against the fbi are so serious releasing any additional information about the mar-a-lago search could endanger investigators. without dyes or r perfume .lls the towel washed with downy is softer, and gentler on your skin. try downy free & gentle.

nurse mariyam sabo knows a moment this pure demands a lotion this pure. gold bond pure moisture lotion 24-hour hydration no parabens, dyes, or fragrances gold bond champion your skin meet leon the third... leon the second... and leon... the first of them all. three generations, who all bank differently with chase. leon's saving up for his first set of wheels... nice try. really? this leon's paying for his paint job on the spot... and this leon, as a chase private client,

he's in the south of france, taking out cash with no atm fees. that's because this family of leons has chase. actually, it's león. ooh la la! one bank for now. for later. for life. chase. make more of what's yours. ♪ this... is the planning effect. this is how it feels to know you have a wealth plan that covers everything that's important to you. this is what it's like to have a dedicated fidelity advisor looking at your full financial picture. making sure you have the right balance of risk and reward. and helping you plan for future generations. this is "the planning effect" from fidelity.

millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network and most recommended wireless carrier.

that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get $450 off any new purchase of an eligible samsung device with xfinity mobile. or add a line to your plan today at xfinitymobile.com a justice department lawyer

warning that releasing the affidavit used for the fbi's search warrant of mar-a-lago could threaten the safety of agents. this as the agency is always investigating an unprecedented number of threats against the bureau following its search of mar-a-lago earlier this month. among them last week's attack on the fbi's cincinnati field office. that attack ended with an armed suspect shot and killed following a standoff with police. for more i want to bring in now cnn counterterrorism analyst phillip mudd. phil, good to see you. how are you doing? >> great. >> so listen, prosecutors have until next thursday i believe to propose redactions, but the doj lawyer saying that there are still risks to the fbi even with redactions. how much danger could unsealing this affidavit pose to the agents involved? >> i don't think the affidavit itself is the danger. the danger itself is not what happened at mar-a-lago. the danger is looking forward and saying if you have further events, for example, an

indictment of the president or someone who's in his inner circle, if you have further events, for example, 2024 when republicans including those who might be elected in the next election cycle say that election was stolen, i think the danger is looking forward where you have a seed that's planted among the american population and among politicians who will go to congress who say we don't trust the government. personally i shouldn't say this. i think the government is overstating the threat from the release of this document, assuming that the government makes redaction that's are substantial. and i think they're going to gut the document, don. >> what do you mean gut the document? >> well, this is interesting. i was watching the media today and sort of in my mind having a mental game with the media. i think the media got it wrong. they're suggesting both sides got something out of this, that is, information about the raid might be revealed, that's something that maybe republicans would want to see, but that the department of justice would have

to say something. clearly department of justice doesn't want to say anything. let me change that narrative for just a moment. if you get that document back at the department of justice from the judge and the judge says redact it, let me tell you as r as someone who's done that what you're going to do. what's the minimum we can give back to the judge, maybe 15%, 20% of the document, where he says man, you really gutted this but you left in a few things that help the american people understand this process. the department of justice is going to gut the document and try to do it in a way that the judge says that's okay. i think we're going to get a "leave it to beaver" document, not a "sex and the city" document. it's going to be much more boring than we anticipate, don. >> do i really want you to explain that? >> come on, "leave it to beaver." i guess that's in the 1950s. i was born just to be clear in 1961. i didn't actually see "leave it to beaver." but it's boring. "sex and the city," i did see that.

it's interesting. the documents are going to be boring. how much do i need to explain to you, don? >> as someone who watches "leave it to beaver" reruns all the time, i do not think it's boring , by the way. trump is considering whether to release the surveillance footage from the mar-a-lago search. we already saw the release of a copy of the unredacted warrant including names of fbi agents. wouldn't releasing this video just add fuel to the fire, no? >> this story i think is underreported. let's put a few pieces together. did you see how much liz cheney lost by? unprecedented almost. she lost by almost 40 points. my point is the american people are saying not only they're angry, they're saying we don't like the january 6th commission, you're overrating what happened on january 6th. you fast faforward to what republicans said at the time of the raid. they're saying defund the fbi. some are saying, paul gosar, destroy the fbi. so there's a backdrop that says people don't trust government. and republicans are willing to

say one of the most conservative institutions in government, the fbi, you should destroy it. now the former president is talking about releasing video. i assume that's because he wants to show that they raided his house in such a way that was inappropriate, dangerous, don. that's really dangerous. >> let me just tweak what you said. it's not the american people. it's republicans in wyoming if you're talking about liz cheney. that's not the same thing. >> yeah. but if you look at the number of people who think january 6th is illegitimate, the number of people who continue to support the president, that's a large percentage of the population, don. >> it's not the full american people -- i think most people that the election was legitimate. >> fair enough. it's enough to be concerned if you walk into an fbi office and you wonder whether someone's going to come there with an ar-15 the next day. >> yes. i agree with you on that. but if you're equating it to what happened to liz clen chene tuesday, as my grandmother would say, that's a horse of another color. so listen, since we're going to

old school references, you know, "leave it to beaver" and such. cnn's josh campbell spoke to fbi agents about the threats they're facing. some are carrying additional weapons. they're carrying additional ammunition. you're talking about the nba. another saying he now leaves home early so that he can have time to circle around and scan his field office for threats. you say that you've talked to a couple of people. what are you hearing? >> i even personally, when i go in a restaurant, i have to look around. i was talking to my girlfriend about this about an hour ago. look around and -- i've been out for 12 years but i am on tv shows once in a while. you have to look around and say is there anybody you should be concerned about? when someone approaches you in an aircraft, my first question is where are their hands and how agitated are they? if you're an fbi employee, remember, that's a public institution. you have to go to court. you have to deal with citizens on things like cybersecurity. fbi agents every day are going out to companies across america and cities talking to companies about cybersecurity.

you have to let witnesses and informants into an fbi office to talk to them. you have to drive to the office, and those offices in contrast to the cia facilities i worked in, those offices are public. so if you want to tell me that an fbi -- there's 35,000 fbi employees. that an fbi employee today in a public institution isn't more worried about their personal safety than they were two weeks ago, nuts. if i were in the inside, and i'm on the outside now, i would be very nervous, don. somebody is looking out as they did in cincinnati, saying i hate these people, what do i do about it. >> i can't disagree with you on that. thank you, sir. eddie haskell. appreciate it. >> thanks, don. "leave it to beaver." >> thanks. it wasn't long ago that republicans were favored to take back the senate. but mitch mcconnell is now sounding a lot less sure, i should say, about how the midterms will shake out. >> when all is said and done, we're likely to have an extremely close senate. either our side up slightly or

their side up slightly. roger ha. so does carvana's cucustomer advocate caitlin picking up his car at promptly 1010am. hi, are you roger? berglund. with the honda accord? yes i am. it's right over there. will i be getting? and he loves that caitlin pays him on the spot. yep, rog. it's the little things that drive you happy. we'll drive you happy at carvana.

are you feeling sluggish or weighed down? metamucil's new fiber plus collagen can help. when taken daily, it supports your health, starting with your digestive system. metamucil's plant-based fiber forms a gel to trap and remove the waste that weighs you down, helps lower cholesterol and promotes healthy blood sugar levels. while its collagen peptides help support your joint structures. so, start feeling lighter and more energetic by taking metamucil every day. try metamucil fiber gummies made with a prebiotic, plant-based fiber blend that helps promote digestive health. we're a different kind of dentistry. one who believes in doing anything it takes

to make dentistry work for your life. so we offer a complete exam and x-rays free to new patients without insurance - everyday. plus, patients get 20% off their treatment plan. we're on your corner and in your corner every step of the way. because your anything is our everything. aspen dental. anything to make you smile. book today at aspendental.com, walk in, or call 1-800-aspendental. large out-of-state corporations have set their sights on california.

they've written prop 27, to allow online sports betting. they tell us it will fund programs for the homeless. but read prop 27's fine print. 90% of profits go to out-of-state corporations, leaving almost nothing for the homeless. no real jobs are created here. but the promise between our state and our sovereign tribes would be broken forever. these out-of-state corporations don't care about california. but we do. stand with us. between two initiatives on sports betting. prop 27 generates hundreds of millions every year to permanently fund getting people off the streets a prop 26? not a dime to solve homelessness prop 27 has strong protections to prevent minors from betting. prop 26? no protections for minors. prop 27 helps every tribe, including disadvantaged tribes. prop 26? nothing for disadvantaged tribes vote yes on 27.

it may be hard to believe, but court records show some people charged in the january 6th riot, violent and deadly insurrection that not only stained the u.s. capitol but american democracy itself, are trying to make a buck off of it. cnn's tom foreman explains now. >> reporter: who would have thought one of the darkest days of american democracy would produce such a silver lining for some? yet court documents show in case after case people charged in the january 6th attack trying to cash in, selling merchandise, hawking books, and fund-raising for legal and other expenses. is that okay? we asked ken white, a criminal defense lawyer and former assistant u.s. attorney. >> well, there's nothing against the law about it as long as they're not getting the money by lying about what's happening.

so you're allowed to fund-raise to defend yourself. you're even allowed to make money by talking about some crime you've committed. >> reporter: court records of people charged surveyed by the associated press and skofrmd by cnn found a washington state man who walked with the proud boys that day later helping his dad sell t-shirts, baseball caps, water bottles and decals lionizing the event. a rapper from virginia who was charged nonetheless putting out a new album with a picture of himself in the fray atop a police vehicle. a california doctor who was sentenced to 60 days for trespassing that day has ties to an anti-vaxx group that raised more than $400,000 claiming she was persecuted. the judge called that a disservice to the true victims. and there was the main man who relied on a public defender, then went online and raised more than 20,000 for his defense.

prosecutors would like the court to be reimbursed. again, none of this moneymaking is illegal. but -- >> what makes good public relations is very different than what makes good courtroom strategy. the smartest thing to do in court, which is almost always just to shut up. >> reporter: the gold rush goes beyond those charged. the patriot freedom project has been seeking to raise hundreds of thousands online in the name of helping defendants and their families. >> we need somebody to drop us $500,000 today. today, steve. because we need to have our own attorneys on these cases. >> reporter: and while some giggled at right-wing firebrand senator josh hawley running from the fray, he started selling coffee mugs of a different moment that day, laughing all the way to the bank. >> thank you for all the help with my fund-raising. it's been tremendous. >> we've had little success connecting with the people in these cases for further comment. but without doubt many who were charged have lost jobs and

savings and they could use the money. it's just a little odd to see them trying to find it back where their legal troubles began. don? >> tom foreman, thank you so much. races in the senate looking a lot closer than they were just a few months ago. we're going to break it down. that's next. ♪ ♪ "shake your thang" by salt n pepa i'm a performing artist. so a healthy diet is one of the most important things. i also feel the same way about my dog. we were feeding her dry, triangle shaped ingrients long as the yellow brick road. weidn't know how bad it was for her until we actually got the good food. we got her the farmer's dog sent in the mail. it was all fresh, when she started eating healthier, she started being more active and smiling more, running more, playing more. i want my dog to have a healthy and long life. the farmer's dog really helps that out. see the benefits of fresh food at betterforthem.com

this is the sound of better breathing. fasenra is an add-on treatment for asthma driven by eosinophils. it helps prevent asthma attacks, improve breathing, and lower use of oral steroids. fasenra is not a rescue medication or for other eosinophilic conditions. fasenra may cause allergic reactions. get help right away if you have swelling of your face, mouth and tongue, or trouble breathing. don't stop your asthma treatments unless your doctor tells you to. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection or your asthma worsens. headache and sore throat may occur. ask your doctor about fasenra.

it's time for the biggest sale of the year, on the sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable.

our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. all smart beds are on sale. save 50% on the sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. only for a limited time. ♪ does it get better than never getting lost? does it get better than not parallel parking yourself? ♪ alexa ask smartfeed to feed the dog. does it get better than feeding your dog from 50 miles away? yes... it does.

at buick we see a future that's even better. because the life enhancing innovations you've never even dreamed of? buick is dreaming of them every day. first on cnn, the biden administration announcing a series of new steps today to battle the spread of monkeypox. the cdc now saying more than 13,500 cases have been reported in the united states, demand for the monkeypox vaccine is high, so the administration is making an additional 1.8 million doses available. it's also celebrating the fellow federal government's vaccine distribution timeline, and is launching a program to make more vaccines available to at risk communities like lgbtq americans. >> we anticipate that with the gay pride events and the decadence in gay pride, in some of the southern states in

another states, that we will now, by prepositioning a considerable number of doses of vaccine, will be able to handle it and get our arms around it so we don't see further spread. >> cdc guidance states that monkeypox can spread to anyone through close contact, which is often skin to skin as of as well as intimate contact which includes sex, hugging, massaging and kissing. a judge unsealing some important documents on the mar-a-lago search and there could be more on the way. the latest on the investigation next.

californians have a choice between two initiatives on sports betting. prop 27 generates hundreds of millions every year to permanently fund getting people off the streets a prop 26? not a dime to solve homelessness prop 27 has strong protections to prevent minors from betting. prop 26? no protections for minors. prop 27 helps every tribe, including disadvantaged tribes. prop 26? nothing for disadvantaged tribes vote yes on 27.

a florida judge moving us one step closer to possibly seeing a redacted version of the mar-a-lago affidavit. judge bruce reinhart giving the doj a week to explain everything they say needs to be kept secret. and cnn exclusive reporting

tonight, 18 top trump administration officials demolishing the former presidents claim that he had a standing order to declassify documents he took from the oval office. let's bring in now mr. norm eisen who is house judiciary special counsel in trump's first impeachment trial, also cnn contributor michael d'antonio, the author of the truth about trump, and chris whipple, the author of the gatekeepers, how the white house chiefs of staff defined every presidency. gentlemen, good evening. so good to see all of you. so, okay, before i ask you all of this. how much of this are we going to see if any of it, norm? >> i think you're gonna see quite a bit, don. you have certain key details redacted, the names of witnesses, some identifying information about the witnesses. of course, the classified information that is in there, but what we're gonna get is the details that led doj and then a federal magistrate judge -- >> even in the redacted?

>> -- probable cause of crime, yes, even in the redacted. don, it'll be even more tantalizing. you know how when pieces are hidden? they'll be a guessing game? i think it's going to be a lot, and i think it's going to set off a firestorm, not a good one for trump. >> whoa, why do you say that? >> it's only half of the story. okay? it's only the government half's of the story. is he going to then answer and make his public defence? is he going to give away -- or is he going to continue with a litany of lies? his credibility is so low, so, i think gonna be bad for him. >> do you agree with him? >> well, i think one of the key questions is, you know, we're gonna learn a lot more once we see the redacted version. but does it go beyond just the taking documents to mar-a-lago? not to minimize that, because we know that a crime, even if the information is not classified. but i think one of the big questions, i just have, knowing

trump, and knowing what's going on it just seems to me, that the notion that this president, who had utter contempt for intelligence, classified or otherwise, who never even read the pdb, would suddenly hatch some scheme to spirit classified documents away, hide them in mar-a-lago basement, and then somehow monetize them or blackmail emmanuel macron, is pretty farfetched. so, i think it may come down to trump is somebody who, is a rule breaker. and this may be all about rule breaking may just be the point here. he was told he couldn't take this stuff, he took it, it's a crime, and we'll see if he's held accountable. >> the presidential daily briefing a talking about. listen, it makes perfect sense when he's saying. why would he do it? we don't know. but then still, you're not

excusing his behavior? >> not at all. >> he still broke the rules, you said he's a rule breaker, he broke the rules. >> well, he did break the rules. but one of the great ironies here is that he hasn't been able to predict, as norm suggested, what may happen now that he's broken the rules. because he's never existed in this context. he's always been a person who set the rules ahead of time, understood them better than anyone else. he would say, well i'm as good as a lawyer, i don't need so many lawyers, because i know the law better than anyone. he as a person was so great about his references, also the references to him being able to declassify things, is that he would tell people, i hit a home run in a baseball game. and then say, no you didn't, he'd say yes i did. because he can do anything, after the fact. right. many holes in one. he's like god, he shot an 18. it's just, he can't predict

what's going to happen. but i do agree with chris, this was not the idea that he's going to monetize it or use it to embarrass macron, i think the only thing he might have imagined is that he wanted to show his buddies, look what i got. this is the kind of stuff i saw all the time. beyond that, i'm not sure he had a plan. >> if the new york times reporting is right, it's he said, why did he won it back, this is mine. he doesn't stand understands for the american people. he's never been able to separate himself from the office, or he thinks that the attorney general is actually his attorney and it's, not at the attorney for the american people. norm, listen, i want to look at these terms, right. this is what we learn today from mar-a-lago, this is willful retention of national defence information, concealment of removal of government records and obstruction of a federal investigation. does this tell you anything about where the investigation is focused right now? >> it does. it gives us some additional information, and of course, these are