everything that they say needs to be kept secret. but, will it be page after page of ridden blanca word actions? how will we know? we don't know. until we see it. that is 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 need to keep their search warrant secret because, quote, the integrity of the ongoing investigation might be compromised and evidence might be destroyed. there are some more really intriguing clues and one of those documents. more on that in just a moment. but you have 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 is a source tells cnn, donations to trump's political action committee topped 1

million dollars a day for at least two days following the fbi search. and he's continue to send out dozens of emails and text 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 order he took from the oval office. they say, this is nonsense. >> he had a standing order, there's the would've been looking for. that the 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. >> 18 former top trump officials several -- one senior official calls it, and i am quoting here, bs. that is not my word. another senior official called it total nonsense. former chief of staff john kelly said, another quote,

nothing approaching in order that foolish was ever given. look, you cannot just declassified documents by magic. there are procedures, there are rules. agencies like the cia, and i, would have to be notified. broke a twisted. all of this, beyond the unprecedented search of a former presidents home, the 11 sets of classified documents that the fbi found their, some more top secret aside, all of that is for one reason. he took classified documents. another quote, the former president resisted -- it's not there is, it's mine, several advisers said mr. trump told him. there is a lot to discuss. i want to bring in senior justice correspondent evan perez and analysts at le honing. good evening. there is a possibility that we could see a heavily redacted version of the affidavit. i want to get to that. the judge also unsealed other

documents today that sharpen the focus on trump as a possible subject of a criminal investigation. tell us more, please. >> that is right, don. look, the previous documents listed the crimes that the justice department was investigating and why they believe they needed to do this sort. what we saw today was a document one of the documents that the justice department that the judge unsealed today list, specifically, with the prosecutor says they are looking at. that is woeful retention of national defense information. that is a significant freezing. people i have talked to tonight said, look, this tells us and little more about what the prosecutors are looking at. look, it was a little obvious that obviously the former president and possibly other people have some legal exposure here.

what this tells us is that it sharpens to focus on the former president himself and the possibility that he is the person that they're looking for and at. it really does sharpen the focus on him and his role in all 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. it looks like prosecutors are saying willfully retain them in violation of this law. >> legally, let's talk about this, elie, as our legal expert. the national defense information, what could that mean? put it in context with the former presidents actions when it comes to these classified documents. is that significant, willful retention of national information? >> it is significant new information. we already knew this number from last week that the dj was looking at. we have this number 20 701. there are 6 or 7 supports.

this information, willful retention of national defense information, that tells us we're more specifically they're looking at and more logo. -- you had to hold on to information but willful is the important part. willful means you did it knowingly and intentionally, meaning he knew that there was national defensive permission, and he knew that withholding or removing it would put u.s. national security at risk. >> but do we know if we are talking about him or someone else? >> that is a good point. it is not necessarily double trump. when you fill out a search warrant, you did not say it. it does not appear the dj said here that this next person committed a crime. i had to show the judge, with the aj did here, we believe x crime was committed, could be done with trump, can be others, could be some assortment of people. >> prosecutors also argue that there are good reasons to keep things secret. another quote here, because the integrity of the ongoing investigation might be compromised, and evidence might be destroyed. how does that sound to you? >> to some extent, it is standard language. you said that is a reason why you don't want to out-the

mastication. this is why it would be interesting to see the full affidavit, but do they have specific information in this case to think that the evidence that was being stored in more legault, these documents are being moved on to short. >> everyone is so confident that, oh no, -- i'm not saying you, just you in general, that we never see the affidavit, because they're choosing not to release it. this is so unprecedented because it's a former president that we actually get to see the affidavit? >> i was a little surprised that the judge let the door open. that said, i'm still fairly confident that the end result after the reduction process happens is going to beat that we see very little of that. >> could we see the redacted version, and the judge -- this gives to many clues, even with production? >> the jets can go either way. dj can give a redacted version that is all redacted, and the jets is, not acceptable. i will release the halting or more of it.

the judge is giving the dj a chance to come to him first and say, make me an offer. show me where i can put it out there so we can get american people, the media something. >> when it comes to possibly releasing the productive urgent on the affidavit, it sounds like a judge in florida is leaning towards more transparency here. >> he is. i think elie is pointing to the fact that this is a very unusual situation. this is the former president, and he just this department itself has moved to do the unusual thing of unsealing the search warrant, citing the public interest. they've opened that door, and i think with the lawyers today, including the ones from media and cnn, we're making the point of, look, there are things we understand just departments to keep sealed, but this judge basically said, look, i have seen this document, i know what's in it, and he's tied to just a department that there is stuff here that can be released.

does it go as far as we would all love it? probably not, but i think more is better. as much as possible is better than what we have now. >> we all would love it. look, if it doesn't impede the investigation -- >> none of us wants that. we don't want to get in the way of it, that is never our goal here, as journalists, but i think we all understand. that this is an incredibly tenuous situation. we know that there is a lot of this information coming from one side of this story. give us more information so that we can at least understand better what is happening. i think more is better. >> elie, when the attorney general merrick garland came out and said that his department has filed a motion to make the warmth and receive public, saying there was substantial public interest, that inadvertently make it harder to keep the affidavit secret? >> that is interesting, because i think mark crowds calculation last week when he said let's give these documents was, yeah, let's try to satiate the public

interest. but the back the markdown agreed to release last week, it is 6 pages. it is largely checklists, list that same box of documents. it does not give us a lot of details. this affidavit is different. we have not seen it, but i have done a bunch of these. these are 50, 70, 100 documents. this would be a narrative, point by point explanation by the doj. here is our probable cause. it will not name witnesses by names, but were 4 witnesses by the way that they can be identified. >> any investigator, any lawyer worth assault will probably be able to read between the lines of the redacted parts of what is going on, right? >> we will try, and i think that is the problem for the doj now. how do you expose part of the statement, which lays out your investigation but not some of the part of it? >> evan, trump's team had multiple opportunities to say something in court in a filing or in person. but they did not say anything. >> no, they have been saying everything on cable and on twitter and other venues.

they had someone there, as you said -- she was there when the fbi was searching. look, you have 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 which opted time on the former president. i get it. obviously, anybody would want that. that is not something that the judge is going to allow. the problem is, as elise pointing out, it depends on how you do the reductions. we have seen productively xin's of these documents, and you know, have been able to figure things out. even in the unredacted version, right, don, there would not be names of witnesses, but it will say, person a or person won a or something like that. >> it was a person one a saw whatever -- >> they will give enough clues to figured out.

i don't think anybody wants, because you put those people in danger. 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 a graded testify against trump, that trump's company. why do you say this is a win for trump? >> it is a win for donald trump because it means that he is not going to be charged criminally in the a case. it is a lose lose for everybody else as guilty pleas often are. prosecutors, they get a conviction of allen weisselberg. they get a testimony against the trump organization, which is fine, but nobody goes to joe for. that >> nobody -- you can testify against the trump organization. >> this is why the whole thing is a fiction, because when you prosecute a corporation, it is just paper. it's a corporation is funky, the only penalty is a fine. nobody goes to joe. you have to prosecute and individual to send an individual to jail. the only person who has been prosecuted criminally by the

manhattan diego exum with this is allen weisselberg. from weisselberg putting view, he mitigates his exposure. he could have a longer sense if you want to trial and lost. he locked in a lower sentence for himself. from donald trump's point of view, he's probably not happy that weisselberg will testify against his organization. but if i am advising people to, i would say the big ticket is you, donald trump, and you are not safe from criminal charges in this case. >> considering his sentencing of 15 years, would you see like, 1. 5 million dollar fine? >> it was a 15-year max, now he is looking at a practical matter behind bars. >> basically, he got off easy. >> he did. >> thank you very much. thank you, evan. thank you very much, elie, as well. up next, a cnn exclusive. they say it is ludicrous, ridiculous and i quote here, bs. that is where 18 top trump officials say that he claims he had a standing order to declassify any documents you took from the office. irst and only 24-hour steroid free spray.

while other allergy sprays take hours astepro starts working in 30 minutes. so you can... astepro and go. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today.

when you see things differently, you can be the difference. -how are you? -good. capella university sees education differently. our flexpath learning format lets you set deadlines and earn your nursing degree on your schedule. ♪ my name is austin james. as a musician living with diabetes, fingersticks can be a real challenge. that's why i use the freestyle libre 2 system. with a painless, one-second scan i know my glucose numbers without fingersticks. now i'm managing my diabetes better and i've lowered my a1c from 8.2 to 6.7. take the mystery out of managing your diabetes and lower your a1c. now you know. try it for free at freestylelibre.us

why hide your skin if dupixent has your moderate-to-severe eczema, or atopic dermatitis under control? hide my skin? not me. because dupixent targets a root cause of eczema, it helps heal your skin from within, keeping you one step ahead of it. hide my skin? not me. and for kids ages 6 months and up that means clearer skin, and noticeably less itch. with dupixent, you can change how their skin looks and feels. and that's the kind of change you notice. hide my skin? not me. serious allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. tell your doctor about new or worsening eye problems such as eye pain or vision changes, including blurred vision, joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines without talking to your doctor. when you help heal

your skin from within, you can show more with less eczema. talk to your child's eczema specialist about dupixent, a breakthrough eczema treatment.

now to a cnn exclusive. it team former top trump officials telling cnn that the former presidents claims of a standing order because of the classifiable documents he took out of the office is ludicrous, ridiculous and bs. i will have to say it again. joining me now, cnn special correspondent, jamie gangel and cnn political comment, david axelrod. hello to both of you. thank you for joining. jamie, you spoke to the 18 top trump officials. the coldest ending ordered patently false and some even left at the idea. >> they laughed at it, they scoffed at it, and they did call bs. don, these are former white house officials, national security intelligence, justice

department. this includes donald trump's chief of staff. many of these people served in positions where they would either be excluded in the declassification process or, at the very least, aware of such orders. 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 taken up to the white house residence. the trump administration, you cannot always get people to go on the record. a lot of people on the record. we will talk to john kelly, who told me, get ready, quote, nothing approaching an order that foolish is ever given. i cannot imagine anyone that wanted the white house after me that would have simply shook their shoulders and a lot that order to go forward without dying in the ditch trying to stop it.

i also spoke to another chief of staff, mick will vinny. he flatly dismissed the idea and told me, quote, he was not aware of any such general standing order. former national security adviser, john bolton, called it, quote, a complete fiction. but as we say, don, wait, there is more. a former homeland security adviser to vice president mike pence at the 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, bs. in fact a couple of them did, don. >> it is great reporting. we kind of knew that, especially the last part. jamie, the president has

declassification powers. there is still a process, right? that you had to go through, what are you sources telling you about this would be a rule like this. would it possibly have undocumented if he did enact this sweeping rule, should've been documented? >> david axelrod will be able to tell you better than i am but yes. a president has broad powers to declassify but there is a process. it is a very complicated process. one source said to me, show me the presidents signature. lots of agencies get involved in this. it is not something that can be semi idea and dame said. he can't just wave a magic wand, and he certainly cannot do it after the fact, when he is not president anymore. >> she invoked your name, david x-rayed. you worked at the white house and know how this is supposed to go. have you ever seen anything like this? >> no, and i don't think anybody that worked in any way as seen anything like it. the idea that a president could look in the mirror and ordained

that documents, top secret documents are no longer secretive, throw in his bag with a snow globe and other souvenirs and haul off to his home, after he leaves office and store them in his basement, is absurd on the face of it. there is a reason that there is a very assiduous kind of classification process or declassification process because there are national security implications to documents that are highly classified. 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. these discussions go on all the time. the idea that the president can do it -- down, this goes to the larger issue about donald trump. he believed, and he said when he was president, you may remember this, that is power was absolute, and that the rules do not applied him.

that's the theme that runs through so many of the things that we are dealing with right now, from his denial of the election to january 6 to this. it is dangerous for a democracy. we are a nation of laws, not men. for a president to arrogant to himself these authorities is very dangerous. >> i had john sale on last night, attorney john sale, and i talked about getting season legal representation. david, he's a former assistant watergate prosecutor who declined to prosecute trump. this is what he said about trump's potential legal defense. >> the interplay between the different statutes, the documents that we were seized, neither side knows what they have. the fbi agents, they did not sit there studying and reviewing them. there are very serious privileged issues.

there is attorney client privilege. there is executive privilege. there is the privilege of eric holder asserted, delivered a process privilege. all of that has to be sorted out. i think i must mention a minute ago, there is no evidence based upon what is reported that the president, former president, specifically knew what was there. >> so, if trump is pushing this standing order when there are reasonable legal arguments that he can make, is it at his own expense? >> i don't understand that. what do you mean is it that is an expense? >> is he negating -- if he is saying -- if he's pushing the line about standing order, isn't it is he negating his own defense here? >> we will see. -- >> huge on sale set and that that there are legal arguments -- he thought there were legal arguments to be made. >> yes, i mean, but what we

have learned before is that the arguments that donald trump makes in public are not necessarily the arguments that he makes in court. i am old enough to remember when donald trump said, people who take the fifth are by definition guilty, and he did it like 440 times a week ago. i don't know that what they argue in court is necessarily this. it will be very hard for them to argue this in court because it is so completely out of -- illogical. if there is no paper stream and no recognition on the part of anyone -- you can't say alone in a room and say, i hereby the classify everything that goes into my box here that i am taking home with me. that's not the process. >> you can say that but it does not necessarily make it so. >> right, so, one thing we have

seen is that donald trump makes different arguments public then he makes in courtrooms when he is under pressure of law. i suspect that if this ever becomes a case, that they will make a difference of arguments. perhaps the argument is more akin towards as sale is suggesting. there maybe -- we don't know what these documents are. there may be some that fit none of the descriptions that he is talking about. those are the ones that are problematic for trump. >> jimmy, a quick one for you. he's also claiming that authorities could look at the documents that they asked. we know that is not true because they did ask for his people signing a document saying that there is no more classified documents left a mar-a-lago. also saying that the documents were planted. what did your sources say? >> this is ridiculous. this is donald trump throwing

these things out there for the base. we heard today kaitlan collins reported that in today's, he raced something like 1 million dollars i think statements like that are about the fundraising that we are seeing and about communicating with his base. if you speak -- look, we did not speak to one source or 5 source. we spoke to a team people who were very senior, who know what is going on. they said, it's simply not the case. we certainly know from the archives, to your point don, that they asked, over and over again, and then the og asked over and over again. >> yeah, thank you jimmy, thank you david, appreciate it. a stark warning from a doj lawyer. he said that that's against the fbi are so serious, releasing any additional information about more like a search could endanger investigators. endanger investigators. discover is accepted at 99% of places in the u.s.

["only wanna be with you" by hootie & the blowfish] did i tell you i bought our car from carvana? yeah, ma. it was so easy! i found the perfect car, under budget too! and i get seven days to love it or my money back... i love it! i thought online meant no one to help me, but susan from carvana had all the answers. she didn't try to upsell me. not once, because they're not salespeople! what are you...? guess who just checked in on me? mom... susan from carvana! [laughs] we'll drive you happy at carvana. hybrid work is here. it's there. it's everywhere. but for someone to be able to work from here, there has to be someone here making sure everything is safe. secure. consistent. so log in from here. or here. assured that someone is here ready to fix anything. anytime. anywhere. even here.

that's because nobody... and i mean nobody... makes hybrid work, work better. why do nearly one million businesses choose stamps.com to mail and ship? no more trips to the post office

no more paying full price for postage and great rates from usps and ups mail letters ship packages anytime anywhere for less a lot less get our special tv offer a 4-week trial plus postage and a digital scale go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again it's time for the biggest sale of the year, on the sleep number 360 smart bed. snoring? it can gently raise your partner's head to help. 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.

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

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 already investigating unprecedented numbers of threats against the bureau following the search in mar-a-lago earlier this month. among them, last week's attack on the fbi cincinnati field office ended with an armed suspect shot and killed with a standoff with the police. foreign morale want to bring in cnn counterterrorism, phil mudd. how are you? >> prosecutors have until next thursday closed reductions, but the doj saying there are still risks to the fbi, even with reductions. how much danger can 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 is 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 saying that election was stolen, i think the danger is looking forward when you have a seat that is planted among the american population. and among politicians who will go to congress and say, we don't trust the government. i think personally i should not say, this but i think the government is overstating the threat from the release of this document, assuming that the government mixed productions there are substantial. i think they're going to get the document, don. >> what do you mean, gut the document? >> this is interesting. i was watching the media today and it's sort of in my mind. i think the media got it wrong. they're suggesting both sides got something out of it. that is, information about the raid might be revealed that that is something the republicans want to see, but that the department of justice would have to say something, clearly, the department of justice does not 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 redacted, let me tell you, as someone who's done that, which are going to do, what is the minimum we could give back to the judge, maybe 15, 20% of the document where he says, man, you really got -- gutted this, but you left out it would help american people understand the process. the department of justice is going to get the document and try to do it in a way that the judge says it's okay and we are going to get a leave it to beaver document, not a sex in the city document. it's going to be much more boring than we anticipate, don't. >> do i really want you to explain that? >> come on, leave it to beaver. just to be clear, i was born in 1961. i never actually saw leave it to beaver. i did see sex in the city. how much do i need to explain to you, don? >> as someone who watches leave it to beaver reruns all the

time, i don't think it's boring, by the way. trump is said to be considering whether to release surveillance footage from the mar-a-lago search. we already saw the release of a copy of the unredacted warrant, which included names of fbi agents. wouldn't releasing this video just add fuel to the fire? >> this story i think it's under reported. let's put a few pieces together. liz cheney, do you see how much she lost by? unprecedented. she lost by almost 40 points. my point is the american people are saying, not only are they angry, but they're saying we don't like the january six commission. we think your overriding would happen in january six. you fast forward to what republicans said at the time of the raid. they're saying defund the fbi. some are saying, that's paul gosar, destroy the fbi. there is a backdrop. it 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 president, the former president is talking about

releasing video. i assume it's because he wants to show that they raided his house in such a way that was inappropriate. dangerous, don. >> let me just -- it's not the american people. it's republicans and wyoming we are talking about. 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 not legitimate, that's a number of people who continue to support the president. that is a large percentage of the population. >> it's not the full american people who do that. i think most people think the election -- >> it's enough to be concerning, if you're walking into an fbi office and weather -- someone will come in with an ar-15 the next day. >> i agree with you on that, but if you're equating it to what happened to liz cheney on tuesday, and that's -- as my grandmother would say, that's a horse of a different color. since we are going to old school references, leave it to beaver and such, cnn's josh campbell spoke with the fbi

agents about the threats they're facing. some are carrying additional weapons. they're carrying additional ammunition. you're talking about the fbi. now they're saying he loud -- leaves home early so he can time to circle around and scan for the feds. you said you've talked to a couple of people. what are you hearing? >> i, mean i'm personally -- when i go to a restaurant i have to look around. i was talking to my girlfriend about this about an hour ago. i look around and say i've been out for 12 years. i am on tv shows once in a while. you have to look around and say, is there anybody should be concerned about, but if somebody approaches you in an airport, my first question is where are their hands, and how agitated are they? if you're an fbi employer, remember that's a public institution. you have to go to court and deal with citizens on things like cybersecurity. fbi agents every day or going out to companies across american 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.

if you want to tell me that -- there's 35,000 fbi enforcement. -- in a public institution, is it more worried about their personal safety than they were two weeks ago? not nuts. if i were on 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 we do about it? >> i can't disagree with you on that. thank you, sir. eddie haskell. >> thank you, leave it to beaver. >> thanks. it wasn't long ago that republicans were favored to take back the senate, that mitch mcconnell is now sounding a lot less sure about how the midterms will shake out. >> all of a sudden -- extremely close senate. either our side up slightly or their side up slightly. didn't know what to do. seeing my daughter have a heart attack, it shook me.

aspirin helps reduce the chance of another heart attack by 31%. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

a is for awareness, because knowing that your chronic kidney disease in type 2 diabetes could progress to dialysis is important. b is for belief that there may be more you can do. just remember that k is for kidneys and kerendia. for adults living with ckd in type 2 diabetes, kerendia is proven to reduce the risk of kidney failure, which can lead to dialysis. kerendia is a once-daily tablet that treats ckd differently than type 2 diabetes medications to help slow the progression of kidney damage and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks. do not take kerendia if you have problems with your adrenal glands or take certain medications called cyp3a4 inhibitors. kerendia can cause hyperkalemia, which is high potassium levels in your blood. ask your doctor before taking products containing potassium. kerendia can also cause low blood pressure and low sodium levels. so now that you know your abcs, remember, k is for kidneys,

and if you need help slowing kidney damage, ask your doctor about kerendia.

it may be hard to believe, the court records show some people charged in the january 6th riot and the violent area deadly insurrection, not only stained on the capital that american democracy itself, have tried to make a buck off of it. tom foreman explains. >> who would have thought one of the darkest days of american democracy would produce such a silver lining for some? he had court documents showing 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 ask can lie in a criminal defence lawyer, former assistant u.s. attorney. >> there is nothing against a lot about it. as long as they're not getting the money by lying about what's happening. you are allowed to fund-raise to defend yourself. you're even allowed to make money by talking about some crime you've committed.

>> court records of people charged surveyed by the associated press and confirmed by cnn found a washington stateman who walked with the proud boys that day later helping his stat 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 sentenced to 60 days for trespassing that day has ties to an anti vax 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, and went online and raised more than 20,000 for his defense. prosecutors would like the court to be reimbursed. none of this money making 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. >> 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. we need to have our own attorneys on these cases. >> while some giggled at senator josh hawley, running from the fray he started selling coffee mugs on a different moment that day. laughing all the way to the bank. >> thank you for all the help with my fundraising. 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. 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 will break it down. that is next. discover sound that can truly move you in the 2022 grand wagoneer. awarded best driver appeal by j.d. power. your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

republicans in congress call them "entitlements." a "ponzi scheme." the women and men i served with in combat, we earned our benefits. just like people earned their social security and medicare benefits. but republicans in congress have a plan to end so-called "entitlements" in just five years. social security, medicare, even veterans benefits. go online and read the republican plan for yourself. joe biden is fighting to protect social security,

medicare and veterans benefits. call joe biden and tell him to keep fighting for our benefits.

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. the man for the monkeypox vaccine is high, so the administration is making an additional 1. 8 million doses available. it is also exhilarating the federal government vaccination dissolution timeline. it is launching a program to make more vaccines available to at risk communities, like lgbtq americans.

♪ 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.

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 d adjei erect to explain everything they say needs to be kept secret. 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 on the oval office. let's bring in now mr. norm eisen, who is the judiciary special counsel and trump's first impeachment trial. also, miked antonio, the author of truth about trump and chris whipple. how the white house chief of staff to fight every presidency. gentlemen, good evening. >> don -- >> before i ask you all this, how much of this are we going to see, if any of it, norm?

>> i think you will see quite a bit, don. you would have key details redacted, the name of witnesses, identifying information about the witnesses, of course, the classified information in there. but what we will get are the details that led the doj and then a federal magistrate judge -- >> even in the redacted? >> yes, even in the redacted. don, it would be even more tantalizing. you know how one pieces are hidden, there will be a guessing game. i think it will be a lot, and i think it will set off a firestorm, not a good one for trump. >> whoa, whoa, whoa, why do you say that? >> it is only half of the story. it is only the government half of the story. is he gonna then answer and make his public defence. is he going to give away -- or is he going to continue to litany of lies?

his credibility is so low. i think it will be bad for him. >> do you hear them? >> i think one of the key questions is we will learn a lot more once we see the productive in. but does it go beyond just the taking documents to more law go. not to minimize that, because we know that is a crime, even if the information is not classified. i think one of the big questions is, knowing trump, and knowing what is going on, it just seems to me that the notion that this president who had utter contempt for intelligence, classified or other wise, who never read the pdb, would suddenly hatch some scheme to spirit classified documents away, hide them in the monologue abasement and then somehow monetized them or black now a manual macron is far fetch. i think it may come down to trump is somebody who is a rule breaker.

this may be all about rule breaking. maybe the point here. he has been told he can take the stuff, he took it, it is a crime -- >> meaning that presidential daily briefing, which is what you are talking about. it makes perfect sense, what he is saying. why would he do it, we don't know. you are not excusing his behavior because he broke the rules. we said he is a rule breaker, he broke the rules. one of the great iron is here he hasn't been able to predict as norm suggested what happened, now that he's broken the rule, it is never existed in this context. he's always been a person who has set the rules ahead of time and understood them better than anyone else -- while i'm as good as a lawyer. i don't need that many lawyers. i know the law better than anyone. this person --

he would tell people he had a home run at a baseball game. he would say you didn't. he would say no, i did. because he could do anything, after the fact! >> he had a hole in one. >> many holes and one. he shot at 18. he cannot predict what's going to happen, but i do agree with chris that 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, because 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, is that he said, why did you want it back. it's mine. he doesn't understand that it's for the american people. he's never been able to separate himself from the office. he thinks the attorney general is actually -- his attorney, it's not, it's the attorney for the american people. norm, i wa t