quick programing note before we go. two cnn town halls coming up. nikki haley in iowa sunday 8:00 p.m. and a week from tonight, dana bash moderates a town hall with former vice president mike pence, expected to launch his 2024 presidential campaign that day. that town hall starts 9:00 p.m. only here on cnn. news continues. cnn "prime time" with abbey phillips starts now. and thank you, anderson. good evening, everyone. i'm abbey phillip. a busy night tonight. we are watching capitol hill where the house is set to vote

on the bipartisan deal to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending so the nation averts a default next week. president biden and speaker mccarthy are defending the agreement as some of their parties are also railing against it. we'll bring you the results of that vote as soon as it happens. but first, to a cnn exclusive tonight. reporting the federal prosecutors have donald trump on tape in his own words acknowledging that he took a sensitive national security document with him when he left the white house. that is what multiple sources tell cnn. and i'll speak with one of the former president's attorneys in just a moment. but we are told that trump's comments in the 2021 recording suggest that he knew that he kept classified material and wanted to share it, but understood his limitations post presidency. in other words, he knew that this was likely false when he said it. >> by the way, they become automatically declassified when i took them. >> and the same goes for this.

>> if you're the president of the united states, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified. even by thinking about it. >> the incident is so serious that the special counsel investigating trump has now questioned the joint chiefs chairman, general mark milley about it. sources tell cnn that the tape is of a meeting between trump and people without a security clearance. it did not take place at mar-a-lago as well, where the other classified documents were found, but instead they were at trump's golf club in bedminster, new jersey. let me first bring in one of the journalists who broke this story, cnn's kaitlan collins. so kaitlan, a huge scoop here. what does this all tell us about what donald trump knew about the status, the classification status of these documents? >> yeah, it's really significant reporting from our team. it was team effort on this. and i think the biggest takeaway from it, and likely the biggest concern for trump's legal team and trump's allies is the fact

that it shows that he understood that he had retained classified information long after he left office, but also had an acknowledgment that he could not declassify things in this post presidency period, as you have noted that he has claimed many times, as this investigation has gone on and as he has been asked questions about this. that has been the main defenses we heard from the former president and his legal team about this, which is why they've said that they don't believe he is facing any legal trouble in this investigation. now it seems that that has changed potentially here, because we do have sources telling us that they believe this is an important piece of evidence that jack smith's team now has thisser in hands. and the way this all got started is at a meeting in the summer of 2021. trump is at bedminster. not mar-a-lago, where the raid happened, where the search warrant was executed for those documents. but he is angry about the story that had been published in "the new yorker" talking about general milley's concerns that

trump may take military action in the waning days of his presidency as he was disputing the results of the election. trump is angry about that. and what he is indicating to the people he is speaking to in this recorded audio that he has information that could undermine what milley is saying, indicating that it is classified information, and says something on the tape to the effect of if i could show you this, it would undermine these arguments. but making clear he doesn't believe he can show it to them. and i think that's a key part of story. >> yeah, it very much is. the other part is this really gives us one of the first indications of what else might be here. it's not just letters from kim jong-un. what do we know based on your reporting about the military significance of the document that we're talking about? >> right. and that's kind of been the dispute, was it classified, not classified. this ask a plan about potentially striking iran. the u.s. says a lot of plans from the pentagon, backup plans, things in case of emergency. and that's what we're told that

this was that he was referencing, trying to say essentially that it was something that general milley had prepared for him. obviously milley is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. we're told this is actually not a document that was produced by milley, but it's something that was clearly at the heart of a national security issue. and the fact that milley has now spoken to investigators in this situation, which i am told happened recently, also speaks to the significance of the way that jack smith and his team are treating this. because milley would be one of the highest ranking, if not maybe the highest ranking national security official that we know has gone and spoken to investigators here. this episode has generated a lot of interest. the other thing we're told is the people who were in the room did not have national security clearances and an ability to be able to see what this information was. i want to note one other caveat, abby, that is really important, we don't know for sure that it was the actual document that he had in his hand. you can hear, we're told on the recording, rustling of papers.

we haven't confirmed that it's actually the document he was holding. but he was referencing a document that showed that, that he made clear he could not show to the people in the room. >> very significant reporting. kaitlan, thank you for that. and please stand by. we now turn to one of the attorneys representing the former president in this investigation, jim trust cies here. thank you for joining us. you heard all of that from kaitlan. were you aware of the existence of this tape prior to the report? >> this is really missing the whole story here. you guys teased it by saying what great reporting it, what great journalism. i'm sure you're happen to have people talking to you. this is a leak campaign. >> i understand what you're saying. i'm just wondering, did you know that this tape existed? >> i am not going to try a case based on the government leaks. but we need to recognize the significance of the moment, which is doj and fbi, or some combination of them are engaging in a leak campaign. this actually started three days after the raid on mar-a-lago with an unprecedented press

conference. you've never seen in the history of prosecution an attorney general doing that. >> jim, i just have to. >> we're on the same line. >> i have to correct you, the mar-a-lago was publicized by your client. former president trump tweeted out it was happening when it was happening. >> it was a highly publicized moment when dozens of fbi agents hit president biden's political opposition with a raid. but the point, what i was pointing to, and the common thread here we need to recognize is three days later, for the first time in the history of prosecution -- i've been in criminal justice 32 years. a prosecutor, the attorney general stands up and says i want to announce that we did this raid. and i want to be selectively transparent. i want to leak out some parts of the warrant. but nine months later we haven't the affidavit. this is consistent. this is leaking evidence in a campaign to justify the unjustifiable. >> all right. a point taken about how you feel about the information being in the public. but the substance of it, these tapes would indicate that former

president trump knew that the documents that he had were classified. does that not make his statements about blanket declassification and some statements by his representatives, wouldn't that make those lies? >> i'm not going dignify the doj leak. what i will tell you is this. >> i mean it does sound like you don't want to address the substance. >> well, it would be nice if you let me answer. i am trying to be responsive. but i'm not going to bite on a leak campaign and try the case in the media. what i will tell you is there is no doubt as commander in chief -- and when the president left washington, d.c. from mar-a-lago, he was actually still president. when he left for mar-a-lago with boxes of documents that other people packed for him that he brought, he was the commander in chief. there is no doubt that he has the constitutional authority as commander in chief to declassify. it does not have to go through some sort of bureaucratic process to be declassified. >> but wouldn't it be very easy to simply prove that he declassified them?

because even though he doesn't have to go through a process, he does have to decide that it's been done. did he tell anyone? >> yes, yeah. >> and can you prove it? >> yeah. >> did he declassify this document that we're referring to? >> we're not going to try the case leak by leak. what i can tell you is the leaks that come out, some of them are abjectly false. >> be thank you is very significant. >> it sure is. >> if you are saying he declassified the documents you should be able to say whether this document had been declassified. >> i'm not trying my case for cnn. >> so you won't say? >> of course not. >> and will you say in the court of law that he declassified this document? >> well, if i'm in a court of law, i'll defend my client as i need to. but let me make this point very clear. if you have the authority to declassify, you're not wedded to any bureaucratic process. >> and who did he tell by the way? who did he tell? >> well, let me finish the thought so your viewers understand where i'm going. if you have a pardon, it might be something where you go through the patterned attorney, where the attorney general makes a recommendation. a bureaucratic process. that's not the constitutional part of it.

you the authority as the president to do it. so if somebody walks in and says pardon jack johnson, he was treated horribly by racists, you can pardon him without the application process. same thing goes with declassification. you don't have to go through a process. >> i'm not disputing that. but like with the pardon process you would need to tell someone in the bureaucracy that you've done it. >> right. >> so who did he tell? >> we are not trying our case leak by leak. >> so let me ask you this. you signed a letter to congress saying that was all just the result of a rushed pack job. you said when president trump left office, there was little time to prepare. the white house staffers, the gsa employees quickly packed everything up in boxes and shipped them to florida. but it seems this tape indicates at least trump knew specifically he had this specific document. >> what the letter is designed to do, as much as you want me to try the leak in the press, the letter is designed to tell congress that we have a very politicized national archivist that is going after one president only, that they broke

their own internal rules in doing this, and ultimately, what needs to be fixed is the general system of declassification. what we need is more attention to the process of transition. there was no science to the transition when president trump left, people hurrying around. >> that being said, i think it's contradictory to say we didn't know what was in the boxes when trump knew what was in the box. the other part of this is we're talking about a conversation that happened at the bedminster club. so is it your understanding that documents went from mar-a-lago to bedminster after he left the presidency? >> the president under the presidential records act has unfettered authority to do what he wants with documents that he has taken from the white house while president. so if he wants to declassify them, if he wants to personalize them under the presidential record act, that is his right. and that didn't lead to criminal investigations. it never has before, and it probably never will again. >> i think the record needs to show that you won't even say whether this document was

reclassified. and in fact there is a tape that your client has said that the document is still classified. you can make that argument, but only if you are also trying to establish that this document is declassified. >> no. i am not going to sit here and dignify leaks that are incomplete, that are unfair, and that are dishonest. this is a leak campaign. and you guys have the access to somebody from doj or fbi. you're touting the official line that they want you to pursue, because they want to legitimize something that was never criminal. and for no other president has there ever been a document retention issue that's been treated as a criminal investigation. >> why, why would former president trump have a document that seems to pertain to military plans regarding a very significant u.s. adversary, have them in his possession and be discussing them with people who don't have an appropriate clearance, whether he declassified them or not? why would he do that? >> you know what's really

fascinating about the leak is doj is trying to justify this persecution of the current administration's leading opposition by saying oh my god, he had these sensitive materials that he shouldn't have had, and then they leak to you guys vivid details of a document that they say is classified. you know, they can't have their cake and eat it tire, to be fair, these are not -- to be fair, these are not vivid details of the document. trump is on the video describing the contents of this document to people, biographers of his former chief of staff. so he's the one doing the describing. >> you just did a piece with kaitlan that basically vouched for saying these are the details we're hearing. whether it's his scription or actually seeing the document. what i'm telling you is i'm not trying the case in the media. i'm not going to sit here and address the document as if it's right or if the video exists, or if it's something really wrong. this is pros cutetorial justice.

>> were any documents that former president trump took with him to any of his properties, did any of them contain sensitive military plans? >> i'm not trying my case in the press. so he would have the right to possess them if he did, but i'm not going to address that. >> he would have -- would he have the right to possess them if they were classified documents? >> yes. >> because the presidential records act actually says that those records belong to the federal government. >> the presidential records act says once there is a determination of whether something is a presidential record, then it goes to the archivist. all the discretion in the world is with the president himself when he makes that first call. if they can sue civilly. that's what the litigation says. >> let me just read the relevant statute for the audience. the united states shall reserve and maintain complete ownership, possession and control of presidential records. >> presidential records. see, here is the thing. what we've built into the system is there are years of conversation, typically years of conversation about whether or not certain documents are

personal or presidential, okay. obama 2018 wrote a letter. his foundation wrote a letter to nara saying we have thousands of classified documents. we'll get them to you eventually. >> but that is not what happened. >> sure it is. i'll show you what happened. >> nara retained control over all of those documents that you're describing, including the facilities that they were kept in. no. >> that's been fact-checked. i keep repeating, they nara has given an official statement saying we had legal custody. they didn't have physical custody. >> they controlled the facility that the documents were in. >> why would the obama foundation write a letter -- >> i don't want the get bogged down -- >> in the details. >> in other presidents. >> but you just misstated something i want to fix. >> i'm talk about your client here. i'm talk about your client. you're making -- >> i'm talking about dual systems of justice. when you a president who has thousands of documents, and nara says don't worry we have legal custody. no would write a letter we'll

return this eventually. >> what you're describing is a mischaracterization of what is going on. what i'm asking you, when it comes to your client, you will not say what he has said, which is that he blanket declassified all of those documents. did he do that? >> yes. >> well, can you, then say -- >> i'm not going to try the case. >> if he blanket declassified those documents, you should be very easily to say this document he is referring to on this tape has been declassified. you say that? >> i am not trying my case based on leaks that you want to celebrate. >> but you see the logic of what i'm trying to say. >> i see the reality of what you're doing. >> if you're saying they're all declassified but you don't want to say -- >> can i finish my thought instead of you celebrating your moment? >> i'm just trying to get to the bottom of it. >> i know. but what i'm telling you is when doj and fbi are on a leak campaign, where they're selectively taking half truths and mistruths, complete

falsehoods, and putting them out there to kaitlan collins and you guys to dangle out here on tv, i'm not going to respond toe that i'm not going justify their behavior by acting if it's actual fact. >> let me pause for just a second. kaitlan collins is here and wants to ask a couple of questions. >> first, i want to say this is not the result of a leak. this is the result of good reporting from our team on this, jim. but i want to ask about something you just said to abby. you referenced the fact that trump was still president when he left office. he left washington, he had an hour left in his presidency. are you saying it was in that hour that he declassified the documents that were taken with him? >> your timing is a little bit off. he landed in mar-a-lago and was at his residence while still president. it was little bit after that that biden was sworn in. so he had the absolute authority to take every one of those documents, any document he wants with him when he left the white house. what happens throughout history,

through modern history is if you take documents and archives thinks they're entitled to it, they start negotiating. and that's what they did. he was telling them things like hey, just ask if you want anything more. he gave them 15 boxes in january of 2022. >> after some back and forth. but just to be clear, you're making the argument right now that by the time he was on the ground in florida, after he left washington, that that is when he declassified all of these documents that he took with him? >> no, no, no. i'm saying the documents he brought with him are effectively declassified and personalized under the presidential record act. we're talking about constitutional authority under the constitution to declassify. if he wants to take stuff with him and say anything i take with me is declassified, if he wants to say anything i read at night is declassified, that was absolutely his right as president. and the presidential records act makes it clear that we don't even care about classified information. it is a statutory scheme that deals with presidential or personal only. >> jim, if this was

declassified, then why are we told he is on this tape basically telling the people in the room that he can't share it with them? >> you are told by doj or fbi or whoever filtered that to you anything they can think of to justify the persecution. >> no, but jim -- >> kaitlan, i'm telling you. they had rumors out yesterday. there is going to be one every day. they had rumors out yesterday characterizing the theoretical testimony of evan corcoran. it was completely false. >> that's not relevant to this reporting. >> sure it is. it calls into question whether any of their leak-based reporting is legitimate. and whether or not you got it through some third hand person, this is leak-based reporting. i'm not second-guessing you for running the story. but what i'm telling you is it's factually inaccurate, and i'm not going to treat it like it's gospel. >> you're saying the story is wrong? you just said it's factually inaccurate. earlier it sounded like you were confirming it. i want to be clear. >> i'm not confirming it. i'm telling you, we're not going to respond the leaks. they want to try this case in the media.

they want to justify the singular treatment of president trump compared to any other president in history. i guess we're not allowed to go back to 2018 when thousands of declassified documents were kept in a furniture story. this is a president who specifically told doj if you want more, come and ask for it. they said put a lock on the door. he did within two days. and then he dropped off all communications. they dropped off because the prosecutor on the case at this time, even before the surngs according to "the washington post," was obsessed with doing a raid on mar-a-lago. >> they had been trying to get the documents back for quite some time. >> and they got 15 boxes in january of 2022. >> well, right. but that raises the question why there were still so many left there when they did show up to execute that search warrant. jim, when it comes to this this document specifically, the heart of this reporting, how did this document wind up at bedminster? >> i know i'm getting boring for your ratings, but i am not going to try the case. it's being set up by leaks that i don't believe are accurate.

>> how did -- has the document been returned to the national archives? >> same answer. >> because solso you're not prey tonight, national archives or declassified. abby? >> one other development, "the washington post" reporting some workers at mar-a-lago had moved boxes of documents the day before the fbi arrived at mar-a-lago. why were those documents moved? >> well, again, the leak campaign continues. what i will tell you is that the boxes -- and i've seen boxes that were at mar-a-lago at different junctures and looked through them, including all the ones that are over at the national archives. these boxes have a random assortment of materials in them. we're talking golf shoes, score cards, pictures of celine dion, newspapers. oso the president had every right, even if he specifically said i want to look at something, he would be allowed to do that. again, i'm not going to try the

case based on leaks, but i will tell you the leaks that they're selecting are not giving context to the reality, the legal reality of this case. >> we invite you'd here to provide some clarity. and i honestly, in this conversation, i've heard a lot about the leaks. i've heard a lot about the prosecutors. but i really haven't heard any explanations for your client's alleged behavior. and i think that's the disconnect here. >> sure. >> you won't even say whether the document we're talking about is classified or not. >> right. >> you're listening to this, most people would come away from it saying you can't have it both ways. you can't say they were all declassified and not say that this document that we're talking about -- >> i actually think your viewers are smart enough to realize that i'm taking a stance on principle that no matter how feverishly you want to pursue the story that was leaked to you, i'm not going to dignify it by treating it as its fact. we're not going try the case on cnn. >> you also asked recently for attorney general merrick garland to give you all a meeting.

have you heard back from him? >> we're in the process. there is communications going back and forth. and i'll tell you that this is -- we're at a historic precipice right now. if we can have a sitting president unleash doj to criminal size a civil or administrative dispute with this competition, we sure as hell better have a conversation with the attorney general. let me just finish. the reason why it should be the attorney general is because we have seen firsthand outrageous misconduct. and it's all about ends justifying the means. but prosecutorial misconduct has infected this case. and we need to get to it the attorney general directly. i don't trust the people beneath to filter it up to him in an honest way. so we need to have that audience. it's still percolating. >> you mean you're hearing from people below him? >> we're dealing with it. but we need to be -- before we makes any important decisions, he needs to recognize just how far afield this case has gotten. and, again, there is specific instances that we're happy to talk to him about. we didn't want the air all the

dirty laundry publicly right away. but he needs to step up. somebody at doj needs to have a conscience and recognize, including the leak campaign. by the way, you're seeing any leaks on rob herr's investigation in delaware? what a contrast that we're having to fight off the leaks and there ain't a word out of delaware. >> you can take up the leaks with doj. we're going the report what we know. we're going do ask you what we know. >> i may or may not answer. that's the reality of it. >> i think the audience heard that loud and clear tonight. jim trusty, thank you very much. >> thank you. and you are looking live now at the house floor, where house members are holding a crucial vote to raise america's debt ceiling, to avert the first ever u.s. default. cnn's melanie dzanona. melanie, the house has the votes now to pass this? >> they have the votes to pass it. they haven't called it just yet. it is very clear they are going to have the votes to get this over the finish line, which is a big victory for president biden,

speaker mccarthy, and also a huge sigh of relief, abby, because it was not guaranteed this was going to happen. it was not a forgone conclusion, and it was a very rocky road to get here. it took weeks of intense negotiations. there was multiple breakdowns along the way. and there is even a last-minute revolt among the rank and file members, particularly among conservatives, because not everyone got what they wanted in this deal, which is usually what happens in these big sort of bipartisan deals. democrats were particularly concerned about the stricter work requirements for food stamp recipients. republicans were worried about the debt ceiling hike lasting for two years and not doing enough to cut spending. so in the end, it took a coalition of members in the middle. but it is really important for mccarthy in terms of the margins here, because he needed at least a majority of his own members to not only get this bill over the finish line, but also to protect his speakership. and it looks like he was able to get that number. they were hoping privately to get around 150 republican votes on their side of the aisle.

>> melanie, i'm going interrupt you quickly. as you're speaking, they just got the votes to pass the debt ceiling moments ago. as you were just saying, a major victory for speaker kevin mccarthy. became speaker bay squeaker, but now has shown he has the ability to get at least a majority of his caucus on board. that was a big question. a lot of people really frankly underestimated kevin mccarthy's ability to rally his conference. and as i was saying, the reason why that number of how many republicans supported the bill was so important is because during that speaker's race that you mentioned, he made a promise to his members that he could not put bills on the floor that did not have the majority of the majority's support. and some conservative had threaten to try to remove him as speaker if he violated that pledge tonight. he did not. we'll see if that's enough to sort of cool the outrage from conservatives. they said they're going to take a look at the vote tonight and have potential discussions. but as of right now, all eyes are turning on the senate, where mitch mcconnell and chuck

schumer want to take up this bill as soon as tomorrow. but they do need cooperation from their members in order to move quickly. it does look like they're going to get that cooperation, as long as they offer some amendment votes, which are likely to fail in exchange for their cooperation. the bottom line, congress is on the verge of averting a crisis. but they only had a few days to spare. >> yeah, a few hurdles left. but really significant moment tonight. especially for people who have 401(k)s, waiting for social security checks. this is going to be a critically important few days. melanie zanona, thank you very much. and coming up next for us, we will discuss this and the interview that we just had right here on cnn about the trump investigation. a very busy night. stay with us. using the services you want in the clouds of your choice. with flexible multi-cloud services that enable digital innovation and enenterprise control, vmware helps you innovate and grgrow.

power e*trade's easy-to-use tools, like dynamic charting and risk-reward analysis help make trading feel effortless. and its customizable scans with social sentiment help you find and unlock opportunities in the market. e*trade from morgan stanley. with powerful, easy-to-use tools, power e*trade makes complex trading easier. react to fast-moving markets with dynamic charting and a futures ladder that lets you place, flatten, or reverse orders so you won't miss an opportunity. e*trade from morgan stanley

you just heard donald trump's attorney jim trusty on that reporting that the special counsel has a recording of donald trump discussing that he had in his possession a classified report from the pentagon. i'm joined now by cnn's senior political analyst gloria borger, host of "the assignment." audie cornish, former trump campaign adviser, jason osborne, and former prosecutor shan wu. so shann, start with you. what did you make of trusty's explanation for all of this? >> i think as you pointed out in the interview, there was no explanation. he was trying to make the distinction he didn't want to make an explanation because he didn't want to try his case in

the press. but from a prosecutor's standpoint in the criminal justice system, he really wasn't giving any examples. there was a lot of noise he made about prosecutorial misconduct. seems to be related to what he is claiming are leaks, but he doesn't give any examples of it. and i found particularly silly, actually was the point about the press conference is he has never seen a press conference like that. prosecutors give press conferences every day. and of course it's selective information. it's not a gender reveal party. >> as i told him, his client publicized the existence of the search. >> right. >> and doj simply said it happened, and we're going to talk about it in court. >> right. >> that's what was said. but i mean, if you are donald trump, are you going hang your hat on that kind of defense? >> thank goodness i'm not, right? i think first and foremost, as we were sitting there watching that interview, i was sitting there wanting to beat my fist against the tv and just say all he had to say was we don't know

what document you're talking about because we have not heard this recording and leave it at that, as opposed here and sitting and arguing with you back and forth about trying the case on cnn. i mean, i do feel like it was little bit unfair from not you, but on his side for them to sit here and argue about something they haven't seen and they don't know about, right? >> well, that's assuming that they don't nobody it, right. >> they don't know what document is referred to in this audio recording. >> they may not know. but he wouldn't say even that. >> well, i think a the thing th is missing is this sort of notion about how you declassify not with a wand, but the process. and the question is if indeed the former president did declassify these documents, as they say, where is it memorialized? where -- when and where were the agencies notified that these documents were going to be declassified? we at cnn have done an awful lot of reporting about the fact that

you cannot just wave that wand and declassify documents en masse, even if you are president of the united states. we've interviewed dozens and dozens of people who are familiar with the process that even a president of the united states has to go through. he has to let someone know and memorialize it, that he intends to do that. >> because, of course, the documents exist, not just in his possession, but they exist in the federal bureaucracy. >> exactly. >> if they've been declassified, you would think it would be actually really toes prove that. >> but there is two layers of conversation going on here, right. there is him trying to draw you into a battle so that the discussion becomes about the network, the leak campaign, the prosecution, all kinds of things that are not what have we actually argued in court. that what have we actually said in court filings to the special master, et cetera, about our evidence for the president's declassification of this document or that document. there is actually a legal kind

of trail of what their arguments have been, and it hasn't been what he told you. so i think part of it is what we're going to see over the next year, right, is this kind of spin-up over the people doing the investigation and not ever actually answering the allegations themselves. >> in fact, the lawyers have been very reluctant to specifically state in court how documents were declassified. and they haven't done that. so there is probably a reason that they have not done that. >> the reason probably is they don't know, right? >> in his defense, he never said they were going to wave a wand. he just said he was thinking about it. >> we don't know what his defense, right? that's the point. >> i do wonder, i do wonder, this reporting seems quite significant for a number of reasons. one, because we're talking about a very specific document that is of national security concern. but the other is that it pertains to what trump himself has said on tape. how significanting from a legal perspective is this if you are a special counsel, jack smith?

>> i think it's really significant for a prosecutor, because there their threshold question isn't about could trump rebut this, could he explain he was misunderstanding something. their threshold is do they feel comfortable to go forward with charging. for them, how comfortable are they with his state of mind. this kind of evidence gets them a long way towards that comfort level, which for his team will be bad if they become comfortable with it. but as a prosecutor, that's what you're looking for. i want to feel comfortable with the idea that he knew what he was doing. >> and when you're talking about a defendant here who doesn't often text, he doesn't write things down, his words on video really count for quite a lot. everyone, stand by for me. and speaking of donald trump, his former vice president's about to take him on, and so is another one of his former closest allies. how will pence and chris christie shake up the 2024 race for the republican nomination? and yes waiting. the first remarks from speaker kevin mccarthy after the house easily passed the debt ceiling

bill with a big bipartisan majority. a major win for him. we'll have that next. my name is joshua florence, and one thing i learned being a firefighter is plan ahead. you don't know what you're getting into, but at the end of the day, yoknow you have a team behind you that can help you. not having to worry about the future makes it possible to make the present as best as it can be for everybody.

i think this is it guys? when the martins booked their vrbo vacation home, they really weren't looking for much: a patch of grass for bruno, a pool for first-timers, don't worry, i've got you. and time with each other. and when they needed support, someone was right there. i got you. because what's unique about a vrbo is you can reach a real person in about a minute. ♪

and savings this congress has ever voted for. it's not that we're just voting fob it, this is going to be law. $2.1 trillion. you've all covered this entire battle. you were there february 1 when i walked out after talking to the president. i was kind of hopeful, because

he told me in that meeting we would meet again. he sat next to me at the prayer breakfast the next morning. he told the entire crowd that we would meet again. but for 97 days he said no. people look at me and say why are you always an optimist? because i know as an american, tomorrow will be better than today. i had to be an optimist that every day i woke up and said maybe today the president would change his mind. maybe today he'd want to put the country first. maybe today he'd want to meet. but he never did. not until our entire conference passed the bill. the senate never did. it took no action. the democrats' plan was to do a discharge petition, to only raise the debt ceiling, and we'd have no savings. we take us further off the cliff. but when i finally got to meet with the president, we couldn't

talk about the entire budget. we couldn't talk about and look at places that we could have savings. we could only focus on 11% of the budget. but in that 11%, not only did we give you the greatest savings in american history, there is going to be people who are on welfare today that will no longer be on welfare. >> you've been listening to house speaker kevin mccarthy speaking just moments after the house successfully passed by a wide bipartisan margin a bill to avert a debt crisis here in the united states. gloria, you noted, as we were discussing just moments ago, more democrats than republicans voting for this bill in a republican-controlled house of representatives. >> right. and i think that's going to be a sore point for a bunch of democrats. the progressive caucus, which didn't like this bill, didn't ever take an official position on it, against it. but in the house you had the republican freedom caucus take a

position against it. and so the democrats held back a little because they vote for debt ceilings. they want to pay the bills. and there were republicans who voted for it, 149, and it sort of shows you how the conservative freedom caucus is an island in the republican party in the house right now. and i think that most republicans said we have to do this because we are now a party that has to show that it can govern in the house. >> and that didn't used to be the big concern when it came to debt ceiling fights, which we've had almost every two to three years for the last decade. >> when they voted for a two-year suspension of the conversation all together. i think highways interesting is hearing mccarthy there say he is about the negotiation and who came to the table and who didn't come to the table. he's not saying we held strong until we got this, this, and that. because he is trying to show that they are engaging, they are governing.

and i think the lesson of the last couple of years is if you take to it the limit on one of these fights you don't win with the public. they don't look at you and say oh, thanks for crashing the economy for a week. there is a kind of political penalty to doing it. and i think they're acknowledging. and they've learned that lesson. >> it is so interesting, because some of the polling recently had seemed to indicate that perhaps the public maybe wanted the spending cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling. but it seems like the deal that was cut indicates that, you know, the democrats kind of got slightly more of what they wanted out of this deal. republicans were a little bit more upset. what do you make of kevin mccarthy actually making this move and saying we got to cut a deal no matter what? >> well, i think first off, you can sit here and say, a month ago we were talking about the biden white house and the democrats had this position, a clean debt limit increase. so it is a huge win for kevin mccarthy today to accomplish what he did today. and the end vote total, i know

everybody is going to try to spin it on each side of it, but the fact of the matter is 50% plus one is a win. it doesn't matter who voted for it, who voted against it. if you won the vote you won the end of the day. keep in mind two of the people in this conversation, kevin mccarthy and garret graves, they have worked in congress since the '90s. they worked for kevin mccarthy worked for bill thomas, the first republican ways and means chair. garret graves worked for the first republican congressman and chair. they know how the system works. >> these are serious. >> they sat down and governed. >> i think you have to give mccarthy credit. he did get 149 republicans. he said he would get 150, or somebody suggested he would, and he worked with joe biden. >> he has done this a bunch, and he did it under president obama. >> his office of management and budget director who worked in house appropriations for a very long time.

lz grander sonson is also with us. he went through 15 rounds, and he said this will teach us how to govern. was he right? >> no. but he has to say it, right, and he has to present the image that this is their attempt to try to learn the lessons of the past and show it isn't just about saying no, but that we can say maybe, which is language for compromise. listen, as you mentioned earlier, we've had this conversation a lot over the past decade. and i tell you what disturbs me most about this conversation, it isn't whether or not it's a clean bill or a negative bill, it's whether or not you're going after poor people while trying to pass this bill. that's a reoccurring theme in these discussions. i think as we continue to have the discussions 2025 after the election, we're going to try to figure out what do we do with the debt ceiling. i'm afraid once again, poor people, people on welfare, people who need help are going to be the targets. and it will be good if we could actually have a discussion that lifts up the entire budget beyond just hurting poor people going forward.

>> i think another thing to keep in mind here, and congressman massey had a great point on this, this was a good exercise to get us to the point where we're actually going to look at every program in the form of the 13 appropriations bills. so once the 302-b allocations come out for the subcommittees, that's a cap on each subcommittee and the appropriations committee. >> what we've heard on this effort for a long time. and i have to say people always say that. they have not changed a lick in a decade. >> but now mccarthy has to deliver on that, right? >> i appreciate your optimism congress will start to govern, but we will see if that happens. everybody stand by for us. is yet another former trump aide planning to challenge him for the nomination in 2024? we will put that to former national security adviser john bolton himself in just a moment. plus, bolton's take on the tape where sources say that trump acknowledges that he held on to classified pentagon documents after leaving the white house. that's next.

♪ these are the people, who help you stay well. ♪ ♪ searching lower prices, ♪ ♪ and brands you love on the shelves. ♪ behind the countnter, or in the aisles, healthier's better when it happppens together. cvs pharmacy. healthier happens together.

tonight, russia's war is increasingly spilling into its own territory. shelling and drone strikes are ramping up. and in russian areas bordering ukraine, even the kremlin calling the situation in belgorod alarming. after numerous buildings including homes and a school came under attack, several people were injured and some 300 children were evacuated to areas farther inland. a drone also attacked an oil refinery further south, setting it ablaze. and this comes just a day after moscow faced several drone attacks, though ukraine has denied direct involvement in that. and the white house today reinforced this stance. >> we have been very clear with the ukrainians privately, we've

certainly been clear publicly, that we do not support takes inside russia. >> and joining me now is john bolton, former trump national security adviser and former u.s. ambassador the united nations. ambassador bolton, thank you for joining us tonight. >> glad to be with you. >> first of all, do you agree with the white house's stance there that ukraine should stay away from striking inside of russia? >> no. i think it's a mistake. that's not to say that ukraine should attack without restraint anywhere it can in the country. but it was invaded. it was an act of naked aggression by the russians. and the idea that you can only defend yourself against that kind of outrage by attacking positions in your own country i think is backwards. they are disavowing strikes. maybe they were done by nongovernmental organizations or something. i say more power to them. this is how you take the fight to russia itself. you harm supply lines for the russian forces inside ukraine.

you go after the morale of the russian people. i think they're entirely justified in doing it. >> what do you think these kinds of attacks are doing to vladimir putin's psyche? now that this war is in fact hitting closer to home? >> well, i'm that sure it affects putin that much. i think he takes it in stride. i think the real target is the russian people. we know in world war ii when beryl came under attack after the battle of britain and bombs were falling inside berlin, it did have an impact on the morale of the german people during that war. so i think that is part of it. to show that they can break through russian defenses. i think that's an important lesson to the russians as well. >> and these are the types of attacks go that the ukrainian people have been dealing with for months and months and months now. i want to turn, ambassador bolton, to another story on cnn's reporting. that federal prosecutors have

now an audio tape of former president trump acknowledging keeping classified documents, including one on a potential attack on iran. are you aware of what that document could be? >> well, i don't know what specific document he had. i wouldn't want to get into specifics of any number of documents, but simply to point out that one of the principal directorates of the chief of staff is to produce strategies and plans and policies for war. that is what the pentagon does. it fights wars. and good planning is a prerequisite to be ready in case the need arises. so they produce a lot of plans and strategies, and it is the right thing to do. that doesn't mean that they're going to go into operation tomorrow. >> what do you make of the fact that a document like that was allegedly in his possession at his bedminster resort after he left the presidency? should it be in that place and

shown to people without a proper clearance? >> well, if in fact it was some kind of plan, highly classified for an attack on iran, absolutely not. i have very little faith in donald trump's credibility. he could have had a rolled up carry-out menu in his hand, waving it around, saying it was an iran draft war plan. >> do you think these actions, if what donald trump was saying in this videotape is true, do you think that constitutes a violation of the espionage act? >> i think we have to learn more about it. i think this is very serious for the underlying problem of him having classified documents. his attorneys have tried to make it look like he was just a little bit careless and actually, his best defense was, i left the white house in such chaos on january 20th, 2021, i have no idea what we packed up.

this is more of an indication, this is a document he wanted to keep. he had it interestingly at bedminster, not mar-a-lago. which means it has traveled around. being in his own voice, this is a hard one to explain. >> just turning to 2024, the 2024 race now well underway. former vice president mike pence and chris christie, former new jersey governor, they'll both launch their campaigns next week. have you ruled out running for president? >> no, i haven't. certainly the field is getting filled up. i have a different view of how this will play out over the next several months. i think we're right now in a very interesting two-man race. trump versus desantis. i think trump over the next 90 days, let's say, will unload on desantis and desantis will have to answer him back. i think that's what a lot of the other candidates are waiting to see. who survives that encounter? maybe one does, maybe the other,

maybe both are wounded. i think chris christie's entry into the race is interesting. he will be going directly after trump. and every time he makes a criticism of trump, the news media will ask ron desantis what he thinks of it. so i think for desantis to avoid simply commenting for the next six months on what chris christie is doing, he has to have his own unique plan of action to deal with trump and to try to take him out politically as soon as he can. . >> all right. ambassador john bolton, thank you. we'll be looking to see what decision you make on that front coming up. >> thank you very much. as bolton mentioned, chris christie and former vice president mike pence are both joining the race next week. in 2016, chris christie famously tangled with marco rubio and christie may have single handedly ended rubio's shot for the nomination during a single debate in new hampshire.

>> you have not been involved in a consequential decision where you had to be held accountable. you simply haven't. i want the people at home to think about this. that's what washington, d.c. does. the drive-by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly -- [ cheers and applause ] see, marco, marco, the thing is this. when you're president of the united states, when you're governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how america is so great at the end of it doesn't solve one problem for one person. >> this thing that barack obama doesn't know -- >> there it is. the policemen rised 25-second speech. there it is. do you know what the shame is? the shame is that you would actually criticize somebody for showing up to work plowing the streets, getting the trains running back on time when you've never been responsible for that in your entire life. >> all right.

there he is. kamikaze chris christie. is this a gift to maybe ron desantis? >> certainly a gift for all of us. just that clip alone. i remember being there saying, this is fun. not quite sure if you'll make it through. ron desantis will have his own problem because of disney. i don't think it will go away any time soon. i don't think it will solely be about how he plays defense against donald trump. ron desantis has his very own problems he has to deal with that will be in addition to donald trump, not instead of donald trump. >> chris christie is someone who is kind of important in this race for as long as he lasts. and who knows? i was talking to a senior adviser. what is chris christie's lane? we use that terminology all the time. and he said his lane is going right through trump. it is the only way that someone can win. so watch out for chris christie.

they don't think he'll destroy himself in the process. it didn't work so well for him last time. >> i agree. >> i feel like he would have to, there has to be a decision made at some point that other people will have to get out of the race in order for one person to be the person to take on trump. maybe -- >> the numbers prove otherwise. he's at what, 2%? >> if you go back to 2008, which i think a lot of these campaigns are looking at. where the lead changed several times. can we get back tom model. chris christie getting in this race is trying to suck the oxygen out of the room and stop people talking about trump all the time and letting the other candidates get in there. the key to winning this is clearly iowa. ron desantis has the team that won iowa in 2016.

i think somebody in new hampshire like a chris christie or a nikki haley or even a mike pence to a certain extent could squeak in there. i don't think trump's hold on the primary voters in those states, the early states, is that strong that a chris christie knocking trump down a little bit wouldn't allow somebody else to come in. >> that's a lot of if-thens. i have to be honest. what is interesting about both these two particular people getting in the race, they both bear hugged donald trump for the last x amount of years right until it was to his own detriment. are they going to get in the race and actually say something about him, to him? are they going to at all try that out? >> christie will. >> who is that person who says i criticized him and i'm into that you liked him and now you're not

into him anymore. who is that? not anymore. what i'm saying -- what i'm saying is, nobody is stepping up to go after trump -- these are the two people uniquely positioned to do it. >> i live in texas surrounded by a lot of conservatives, as you would imagine myself conversations with texans specifically about their perception of mike pence, it is a masculinity thing. they feel like donald trump emasculated mike pence. >> and they blame mike pence? >> they blame mike pence for that. that means something. >> a great conversation. thank you all very much. a quick programming reminder for you. this summer nikki haley will be here. mike pence will be here next, wednesday, for a town hall of his own and you can catch that at 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on cnn. thank you for joining us. cnn tonight starts right now