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. and that has been the main defenses that we have heard from the former president and his legal team about this. which is why they've said 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 a source that tells us that they believe this is important piece of inference that jack smith's team now has in their hands. and the way this all got started was at a meeting in the summer of 2021. trump is that bedminster. so not mar-a-lago where the rate happens. where the search warrant was executed for those documents. but he is angry about the story. it has been published in the new yorker, talking about general milley's concerns that trump may take military action in his waning days of his presidency as he was disputing the results of the election. trump is angry about that, and what he has indicated to the people that he is speaking to in this recorded audio is that he has information that could undermine what milley is saying. you know, indicating that it is classified information. and says something on the tape

to the effect of, you know, if i can show you this if you undermine these arguments. but making clear that he doesn't believe he can show it to them. and i think that is a key part of the story. >> it's very much is. the other part is that this really gives us one of the first indications of what else might be here. it is not just letters from kim jong-un, what do we know based on your reporting about the military significance of the documents that we are talking about. >> right, that has kind of been the dispute over was a classified, was not classified. this is a plan that we are told was essentially about potentially striking a run. obviously the u.s. is a lot of plans for the pentagon, backup pans, in case of emergency. and that is what we are told this was. that he was referencing. trying to say, essentially, but it was something that general

milley had prepared for him. obviously milley is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. we are told actually that this was not a document that was produced by milley. but it is something that was clearly at the heart of a national security issue. and the fact that has now spoken to investigators in this situation, which i am told happened recently. it also speaks to the significance of the way that jack smith and his team are shooting. this because really would be one of the highest ranking if not maybe the highest ranking national security official that we know it is speaking to investigators. here so this episode is generating a lot of interest. and i should note, the other thing we are told is that people who were in the room did not have national security clearances in an ability to be able to see with this information was. i want to know one of their caveats that is really important. which is that we don't know for sure that it was the actual document that he had in his hand.

you could hear we are told in a recording rustling of papers. we haven't confirmed that it is actually the document that he was holding. but he was referencing a document that showed that. that he made clear that he could not show to the people in the room. >> very significant reporting, kaitlan, thank you for that. please stand by, we now turn to one of the attorneys representing the former president in this investigation. jim trusty is here with us. jim, thank you for joining us. you heard all of that reporting from kaitlan. but i want to ask you, were you aware of the existence of the state prior to this report? >> this is really missing the real story here. i mean, you guys teased it by saying what great reporting, is what great journalism it is. i'm sure you're happy to have people talking to you. but this is a leak campaign. >> i understand what you are saying. >> just one second. >> i'm just wondering, did you know that this tape existed, and other others?

>> i am not going to try a case based on the governments leaks. but we need to just recognize the significance of the moment. which is the doj and the fbi or some combination of them are engaging in a leak campaign. how this actually started three days after that 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 correct you. the mar-a-lago raid was publicized by your client. >> abby, abby. >> former president trump tweeted out that it was happening while it was happening. >> it was a highly publicized moment when dozens of fbi agents hit the president biden 's political opposition with a raid. but the point, what i was pointing to, and the common thread here, that we need to recognize. three days later for the first time in the history of prosecution, i've been in front of justice for the new 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 seen the

affidavit. this is consistent. this is leaking evidence and 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 am not going to dignified the doj leak. what i will tell you is this. >> it doesn't look you don't want to address the substance. >> it also be nice if you let me answer. let me just try to answer. because i am trying to be responsible. but i am not going to bite on a leak campaign and try the case in the media. what i will tell you is that there is no doubt that 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

committee and chief to declassify. it does not have to go through some sort of bureaucratic process to be declassified. >> but wouldn't be very easy to simply prove that he declassified them? because even though he does not have to go through a process, he does have to decide that it is been done. did he tell anyone? >> yes. >> and can you prove ied this document that we are referring to? >> we are not going to try the case lead by leak. what i can tell you is the leaks that come out, some of them are objectively false, some of them lack of context. >> this is very significant. if you are saying that he declassified the documents, you should be able to say whether this document had been declassified. >> i am 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 these documents? >> well if i'm in a quarter of law, then i will defend my client of any too. but let me take this point very

clear. if you have the authority to declassify, you are not acquitted to any bureaucratic process. >> could you tell by the way? >> it exactly like the -- >> hoodie? tell >> 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 pardon attorney or the attorney general makes a recommendation. the bureaucratic process. that is not the constitutional part of it. you have the authority as president to do it. so if somebody walks in and says part injections, and he was treated horribly by racists, you can pardon him without the application process. same thing goes with the classified -- >> i am not disputing that. like with the pardon process, you would need to tell someone in the bureaucracy that you have done. it's ugly detail that he --

>> we are not trying our case leak by leak. >> let me ask you, that you signed a letter to congress saying that this was all just the result of a rush to pack job. essentially. you said when president trump left office there was little time to prepare, the white house staffers, gsa, administration employees, they quickly packed everything up in boxes and shipped them to florida. but it seems that this tape indicates that at least trump knew specifically that he had this specific document? >> what the letter is designed to do, as much as you want me to try to leak that in the press. the letter was designed to tell congress that we have a very politicized national archive archivist that is going after one president only that they

broke their own internal rules in doing this. and that ultimately what needs to be fixed is the general system of death nazification. what we need is more attention to the process of transition, there was no science to the transition with when president trump left. >> that being said. >> just people hurrying around. >> i think it is contradictory to say that we didn't know what was in the boxes when trump knew what was in the box. the other part of this is that we are 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. and so if he wants to declassify them, if he wants to personalize them, under the presidential records act that is his right, and that doesn't lead to criminal investigations. >> be that as this may, i think the record needs to show that you won't even say whether this

document was declassified. in fact, there is a tape that your client has said, that the document is still classified. so you can make that argument, but only if you are also trying to establish that this document is declassified? >> i am not going to sit here and dignified leaks that are incomplete, that are unfair, and that are dishonest. this is a lead campaign. and you guys have the access to somebody from the doj or the fbi, they are touting the official line they want you to proceed because they want to legitimize something that was never criminal. and for no other president has there ever been a document retention issue that has been treated as a criminal investigation. >> 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 it is really fascinating about the leak, the doj is trying to justify this persecution of current administration's leading opposition by saying, oh my god, he had these sensitive materials that he should not

have had. and then they leak to you vivid details of a document that they say is classified? i mean, you know, they can't have their case cake and eat it too. >> these are not vivid details. 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 is the one doing the describing. >> you just did a piece with caitlin that basically vouched for saying that these are the details that we are hearing. whether it is his description or actually seeing the document. what i am telling you is that i am not trying the case in the media. i am not going to sit here and adjust the document as if it is right or if it's as if that audiotape exists. whereas if it is not something that is really wrong. this is persecutor toria just.

as i've been around the doj for 27 years. i have never seen a leak campaign like this. >> were any documents that former president trump took with him to any of his properties, did they contain any of them sensitive military plans? >> i am not trying my case in the press. so he would have the right to possess them if they did. but i am not going to address that. >> he would have the right, would he have the right to possess them if they were classified documents? >> yes. >> because the presidential records act actually says that those documents belong to the federal government. >> the presidential records act says that 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. >> let me read -- >> -- >> let me just read the relevant statute for the audience. the united states salt reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of presidential records. >> presidential records. >> yeah. >> see here's the thing, but we built into the systems that there are years of conversation, typically years of conversation about whether or not certain documents are personal or presidential. okay? obama 2019, he wrote a letter, his foundation wrote a letter, general saying we have thousands of classified documents. we'll get them to you

eventually. >> that is not what happened. >> sure it is. >> i'll show you the letter. -- >> retained control over all of this. >> norah announced -- >> are retrained control over all those documents that you are describing including the facilities that they were kept in. that has been fact checked. >> norad has given an official politicized statement saying that we had legal custody. they didn't have physical custody. >> they controlled the physical space of the document. >> i would be a lot of foundation red letter -- >> i don't want to get bogged down in other presidents. i am talking about -- >> you have just misstated something i want to fix. >> i am talking about your client here. >> i am talking about dual systems of justice. when you have a president who has thousands of documents and they say don't worry, we have legal custody. no wonder the letter saying -- >> what you are describing is according to -- a mischaracterization of what is going on. what i am asking you is 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 then can you then say -- >> i am not gonna try the case -- >> if you blanket declassified those documents, you should be able to very easily say, this document that he's referring to on this tape was declassified can you say that? >> i am not trying my case based on leaks that you want to celebrate. >> but do you see the logic? you see the logic of what i'm saying? >> i see the reality of what

you are doing. >> if you are saying they are all declassified -- 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 am telling you is when the doj and the fbi are in a leak campaign where they are 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 am not going to respond to that. i am not going to justify their behavior by acting as if it is actual fact. >> let me ask you for a second, kaitlan collins is here and wants to ask a couple of questions. >> first, i just want to say that 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, which was that you referenced the fact that trump was still president when he left office. he left washington, i think he had about an hour left in his presidency. are you saying that it was in that power 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 a little 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 they left the white house, what happens throughout history, through modern history is that if you take documents and archivists think they are entitled to it they start negotiating. and that is what he did. he was telling them things like, hey, just ask if you want anything more. he gave them 15 boxes in january of 2022. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> thank you, anderson, good >> after some back and forth. but just to be clear you are making the argument right now that by the time he was on the

ground in florida, after he left washington, that that constitutional authority under the constitution to be classified. if you want to take stuck with him and say, anything i think with me is classified. anything i read nate's 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. >> if this was declassified, jim, then why are we told that he is on this tape basically telling the people in the room that he can share it with them? >> you were told by doj or fbi or whoever filtered that to you, anything they can think of to justify -- >> no, but, jim -- >> no, caitlin, i am telling you, this is, they had rumors out yesterday, there will be

one every day. they had rumors yesterday characterizing the theoretical testimony of evan corcoran. it was completely false. this is a campaign -- >> this is not relevant to this reporting. >> sure it, is it calls into question whether any of the league based reporting is legitimate. and this is, whether you or not you got it through some third hand person, this is league based reporting. i am not second guessing you for running the story. but what i am telling you is that it is factually inaccurate and i am not going to treat it like it is gossip. >> you are saying the story is wrong? >> i am saying -- >> you just said it was factually inaccurate? >> earlier it sounds like you are confirming. >> i am not confirming, it i am just telling you that we are

not going to respond to leaks. they want to try to keep this case in the media. they want to justify the singular treatment of president trump compared to any other president in history or i guess we are not allowed to go to back to 2018 when thousands of classified documents were kept in the former furniture store. but this is a president who specifically told the doj, hey, if you want more just come and ask for it. they said to put a lot on the door. he did within two days. and then they dropped off all communications. they dropped off because the prosecutor on the case that time even before the subpoena, according to the washington post, was obsessed with doing a raid on mar-a-lago. >> they have been trying to get the documents back for quite some time. >> they got 15 boxes in january of 2022. >> right, but that raises the question of why there was still so many left there when they did show up to execute that search warrant. but jim, when it comes to this document specifically, at the heart of this reporting, how did this document wind up in bedminster. >> yeah, i know i am getting boring for your ratings, but i am not gonna try the case that is being set up by leaks that i don't believe are accurate. >> has the documents been returned to the national archives? >> same answer. >> okay, so you are not prepared to say tonight whether the documents have been returned to the national archives or declassified, abby? >> jim, one other development that is happening in the last couple of days, the washington post reporting that 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 have seen boxes that were at mar-a-lago, at different junctures. and look through them. including all the ones that are over at the national archives. these boxes have a random assortment of materials in them. i mean, we are talking golf shoes, score cards, pictures of celine dion. newspapers. so the president had every right to, even if he specifically said i want to look something he would be allowed to do that. so i am not going to try to case based on leaks, but i will tell you that the leaks that they are selecting are not giving context to the reality. the legal reality of this case. >> well we invited you here to provide some clarity, and i honestly, in this conversation i have heard a lot about the leaks, i have heard a lot about the prosecutors. but i really have not heard any explanations for your clients alleged behavior. and i think that is the disconnect here. >> sure. >> you also won't even say whether the document we are talking about is classified or not. i mean, if you are listening to this, most people would come away from it saying that you can't have it both ways.

you can't say they were all declassified and not say that this document that we are talking about is. >> i actually think your viewers are smart enough to realize that i am taking a stand on principle that no matter how feverishly you want to pursue the story that was leaked to you, i am not going to dignify it by treating it as a fact. we are not going to 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 are in the process, there is communications going back and forth. and i will tell you, this is, we are at a historic precipice right now. if we can have a sitting president unleashed doj to formalize a civil or mistreat of dispute with his competition. we sure is better have a conversation with the attorney general. let me just finish. the reason why it should be an attorney general is because we have seen firsthand outrageous misconduct and it is all about and justifying the means. but prosecutorial misconduct has affected this case, and we need to get it to 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 is still percolating but we need -- >> you are hearing from people below him? >> we are dealing with, it but we need to be, before he makes any important decisions, he needs to recognize just how far afield this case has gotten. and again, there is specific incidents that we are happy to talk to him about. we don't want to err overland run publicly right away. but he needs to step up. somebody at the doj needs to have a conscience and recognize, you know, that this, is including the lead campaign. by the way, are you seeing any leaks on rob hearst investigation in delaware? what a study in contrast that we are sitting here having a fight of these leaks, and there ain't a word out of delaware. >> look, you can take up the leaks with the doj, we are gonna reports what we know. >> sure. >> we are gonna ask you about what we know. we appreciate you coming. on >> i may or may not answer. that's just the reality of it. >> i think the audience heard that loud and clear tonight.

thank you very much. >> thank you. >> and you are looking live now at the house floor where members from -- holding a vote to raise america's debt ceiling to average the first ever potential u.s. default, cnn's melanie zanona is on capitol hill with the very latest. melanie the house has now voted to pass this. >> yeah they have the votes to pass this, they haven't called just yet but it is very clear that they are going to have the votes to get this over the finish line. which is a big victory for president biden. for speaker mccarthy. and for also a huge side of the leak, abby. because it was not guaranteed that this was going to happen. it is not a foregone conclusion. and it was a very rocky road to get here. it took weeks of intense negotiations, there were multiple breakdowns along the way. and then 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 who are particularly concerned about the stricter work ornaments for food stamp recipients and republicans who were worried about this 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 did at least a majority of his own members to not only get the spill over the finish line but also to protect his speakership. and it looks like he was able to get that number. they were hoping highly to get around 150 republicans -- on their side of the aisle and this -- >> i mean interview really quickly, as you are speaking, they just got the votes to pass the debt ceiling moments ago. as you are just saying a major victory for speaker kevin mccarthy. became speaker by a squeaker. but now has shown that 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 was because during that speakership that you mentioned he made a promise to his members that he would not put fills on the floor that did not have the majority of

the majority's supporters. and some conservatives threatened to try to remove from a speaker as he violated its pledge tonight. he did, not we will see if that is enough, enough to coolio to age from conservatives. they say they are gonna take a look at the vote tonight and then have potential discussions. but as of right now, all eyes are doing 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. but they do need cooperation from their members in order to move quickly. it does look like they are gonna get that cooperation as long as they offer some amendments votes which are likely to fail in exchange for their cooperation. so the bottom line here, abby, congress is on the verge of avoiding a crisis. but they only had a few days to spare. >> yeah, a few hurdles left. but a really significant moment tonight. especially for people who have 401k's, waiting for social security checks. this is going to be a critically important few days. melanie zanona, thank you very much. coming up next for, us we will

discuss this, and the interview we just had on cnn about the trump investigation. a very busy night, stay with us. us. and it comes with at&t best deals on all of them. this one looks nice. that's a house favorite and it's served with your choice of plans. thank you. there's gotta be a catch. no catch and no trade-in required either. ooh. oh. how do you know all of this? i come here a lot. love the service. at at&t, new and existing customers can choose any google pixel, with our choice of plans, and always get our best deal. ♪ here's how tommy lost 30 lbs on noom weight. i'm tom. noom helped him use psychology to lose weight. the mindful aspect made me feel more conscious about what i was eating and why i was eating it. it's actually working. lose weight and make it last with noom weight.

you founded your kayak company because you love the ocean- not spreadsheets. 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 as someone living with type 2 diabetes, i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk

...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes.

go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds. >> you just heard anna thompson attorney jim trusty on that reporting that the special counsel had a recording of donald trump's discussion that he had in his possession a classified report from the pentagon. i'm joined now by cnn's senior

analyst, host of the assignment, former trump campaign advisor jason osborne, and former federal prosecutor chan wu. so shannon, i'll start with you. what did you make of the explanation for what? >> so, as you pointed out, there was no explanation. he was trying to make a distinction that he didn't want to give explanation because he didn't want to try his case in the press, but from a prosecutor standpoint, the criminal justice system, he really wasn't giving any examples. there was a lot of noise he made about misconduct, seems to be related to what he has been claiming for weeks, but he doesn't give any examples of it. and i found particularly silly actually, was his point about the press conference, saying that he's never seen a press conference like that. prosecutors gave press commences every day and of course it's selective information, it's not a gender reveal party. i mean, -- >> as i told him, his clients publicized the existence of the

search, and doj simply said it happened, and we are going to talk about it in court. that's what was set. but, if you are donald trump, are you going to hang your hat on that kind of defense? >> i'm not. right? but 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 say, all he had to say was we don't know what document you are talking about because we have not heard this recording, and leave it at that. as opposed to sitting here and arguing back and forth about trying the case on cnn. i do feel that it was a 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. >> that's assuming that they don't know about it. >> they don't know what document is being referred to in this audio recording, because -- >> they may not know, but he wouldn't say even that. >> i think the thing that was missing is the sort of a notion about how you would declassify not with a one, but the process. and the question is, if indeed the former president did declassify these documents, as they say, where is it memorialized? where, and when 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 one and declassify documents en masse, even if you are president of the united states. we have interviewed 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. >> the documents exist not just in his possession, but they exist in the federal bureaucracy. so if they've been declassified, you think that it would actually be very easy to prove that. >> but there are two layers of conversation going on here. 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? what have we actually said in court filings, et cetera, about our evidence for the presidents declassification of this document or that document? there is actually illegal kind of trail of what their arguments have been, it hasn't been what they told you. and so i think part of it is what we are going to see over the next year, is this kind of spin up over the people doing the investigation, and not ever actually answering the allegations themselves. >> the lawyers have been very reluctant to specifically state in court how documents were declassified. and, they haven't done that. so i think there is probably a reason that they have not done that. >> the reason is that they don't know.

in his defense, they never said they were going to wave a wand. he just said that he was thinking about it. >> we don't know what his defense is, right? >> i wonder, i do wonder. this reporting seems quite significant for a number of reasons. one because we are 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 significant from a legal perspective is this, if you are special counsel jack? >> i think it's a very significant for a prosecutor, because their threshold question really isn't about could trump rebut this, could you claim he was misunderstanding something? their threshold question is, do they feel comfortable to go forward with charging him. for them, this has really been about how comfortable are they with his state of mind? this kind of evidence gets them all way toward that comfort level, which for his team would

be bad. they be 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 we were 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 standby for me and speaking of donald trump, his former vice president is 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 we are waiting at the first remarks for speaker kevin mccarthy after the house easily passed the debt ceiling bill with a big bipartisan majority. a major win for him, we will have that next. hi, i'm norma, and i lost 53 pounds on golo. when i started golo, i expected to plateau like i had so many other times. i was surprised that sticking to the golo plan and taking release, the weight just kept coming off. (soft music)

every day, more dog people are deciding it's time for a fresh approach to pet food. developed with vets. made from real meat and veggies. portioned for your dog. and delivered right to your door. it's smarter, healthier pet food.

we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you

didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? what, we have a ton of mulch. >> for the first-time, we spend

so much time that we've done before. tonight we will made history because this is the biggest cut in savings this congress has ever voted for. it's not that we are just voting for it, this is going to be law. 2.1 trillion dollars. we've all covered this entire battle. you are there if i were a first when i walked out after talking to the president. that 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, and 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 would want to put the country first. maybe today he would 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 have no savings. we'd 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've 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. that -- >> we are listening to 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 waited for this bill. >> 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 up 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 bit because they vote for debt ceilings. they want to pay the bills, and there were republicans that 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. >> that didn't used to be the

big concern when it came to debt ceiling fights, which we've had almost every 23 years for the decades. >> exactly, when we voted for a two-year suspension of the conversation altogether. i think what's interesting is hearing mccarthy say, he is talking with the negotiations, who came to the table and who didn't come to the table. he is not saying we held strong until we got this and that, because he is trying to show that they are engaging. they are governing. and i think a lesson of the last couple years has been, if you take it to the limits on one of these fights, you don't win with the public. they don't look at you and say, oh, thanks for crushing the economy for a week. there is a kind of political penalty to doing it, and i think they are acknowledging it. and they've learned that lesson. >> it is so interesting because some of the polling recently

had seem to indicate that perhaps the public wanted the spending cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling. but it seemed like the deal that was cut indicates that 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 have to cut a deal no matter what? >> i think first off, you can sit here and say a month ago we were talking about the biden white house and 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. in that the end vote, i know everyone is going to try to spin it on each side, 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 want it and of the day. you keep in mind that the two people in this conversation, kevin mccarthy and garrett graves, they have worked in

congress since the 90s. they worked for kevin mccarthy worked for bill thomas, garrett graves worked for -- from louisiana, the first energy and congress republican chair, they know how the system works. >> these are serious. >> and they sat down and they govern. >> i think you give mccarthy credit. he did get 149 republicans, he said he was going to get 150 or someone suggested that he wouldn't -- >> joe biden -- >> he's done this a bunch, and he didn't under president obama. >> -- office and mid intimates and budget who worked in appropriations for a long time. elsie granderson is also with us. when kevin mccarthy was going through the crucible to become speaker of the house, 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? he has to present the image that this is their attempt to try to learn the lessons of the

past and show that it is just about saying no, but that we can say maybe. which is language for compromise. listen. as you mentioned earlier, we have had this conversation a lot over the past decade. i will tell you what disturbs me most about this conversation, it isn't whether or not it is a clean or negative bill, it is whether or not you are going after poor people who are trying to pass this bill. that's a reoccurring theme in these discussions, and i think that as we continue to have these discussions, in 2025 up to the election, we will try to figure out what to do with the debt ceiling, and i'm afraid that once again, poor people, people on where fare who need help, are going to be the targets. and it would be good to have a discussion beyond just hurting poor people going forward. >> i think that one thing to keep in mind here, and congressman had a great point is that this was a good exercise to get us to the point where we are actually going to look at every point in the form of the 13 appropriations. so once the 302 allegations come out for the committees, that is a cap on its subcommittee and the appropriations committee. what i would like to look at --

>> i have to say, people always say that. it has not changed a lick in a decade. >> now mccarthy has deliver on it. >> i appreciate your optimism, but we will see if that happens. everybody, standby for us. is yet another former trump aide planning to challenge him for the nominations for 2024? we will put that out, back to former national security adviser john bolton in a moment. plus, bolton's take on the tape where trump acknowledges that he held on to classified pentagon documents after leaving the white house. that's next. dude, that's a foul! and now you're ready to settle the score. and if you don't have the right home insurance coverage, well you could end up paying for all this yourself. so get allstate. eva's about to learn her fear of missing out leads to overeating. i totally eat stuff to not miss out. and that's just a bit of psychology eva learned from noom weight. sign up now at noom.com when you have chronic kidney disease. there are places you'd like to be.

like here. and here. and here. not so much here. if you've been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections in women and men, and low blood sugar. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may lead to death. a rare life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. and don't take it if you are on dialysis. put yourself in the driver's seat. make an appointment to ask your doctor for farxiga for chronic kidney disease. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪far-xi-ga♪

what's considered normal for your cat is interesting. but if your cat isn't their quirky self lately, they may have pain from a common condition called osteoarthritis. now, there's solensia. solensia is a once-monthly injection to control your cat's oa pain. veterinary professionals administering solensia who are pregnant, trying to conceive, or breast feeding should take extreme care to avoid self-injection. self-injection could cause allergic reactions like anaphylaxis. ask your vet about solensia and help get your cat back to their normal.

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 belgrade 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. this comes just a day after moscow faced several drone attacks. though ukraine has denied direct involvement, the white house today reinforced the stance. >> we have been very clear. privately, we certainly have been clear publicly, that we do not support attacks inside russia. >> joining me now is john bolton, former national security adviser and former u.

s. ambassador to 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. i know the ukrainians are disarmed vowing some of these strikes, maybe they were done by non governmental organizations or something, but 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 too

vladimir putin psyche, now that this war is heading closer to home? >> i'm not sure it affects putin that much. i think he just takes it in stride, but i think the real target is the russian people. we know in world war ii that when berlin came under attack after the battle of britain, and bombs were falling inside berlin or near berlin, it did have an impact on the morale of the german people during that war. so i think that's part of it, and to show that they can break through russian defenses. i think that's an important lesson to the russians as well. >> these are the types of attacks that the ukrainian people obviously have been dealing with for months and months now. but i want to turn, ambassador bolton, to another story. cnn's reporting tonight that federal prosecutors have now an audiotape 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 director of the joint chiefs of staff, the j five, is to produce strategies and plans and policies for war. that's 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's the right thing to do. it doesn't mean that they are going to go into operation tomorrow. >> but what do you make of the fact that a document like that was allegedly in his possession at his bet monster resort after he left the presidency? should it be in that place and shown to people without a proper clearance? >> if in fact it was some kind of plan, highly classified for an attack on iran, absolutely

not. but i have very little faith in donald trump's credibility. he could have had a rolled up menu in his hand waving it around saying it was an iran draft war plan. >> do you think that these actions, if what donald trump was saying in this video tape is true, do you think that this constitutes a violation of the espionage act? >> well, i think we would have to learn more about it. i think this is very serious though, 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 the 20th 2021, i have no idea what we packed up. so it wasn't an intense problem at all. but this is more of an indication that this is a document he wanted to keep. he had it, in strengthening, in bedminster not in mar-a-lago,

which means it travels around a lot. and being in his own voice, this is going to be a hard one to explain. >> just turning to 2024, the 2024 race which is now well underway, a former vice president by -- and chris christie, they will both launched their campaigns next week. but you, have you ruled out running for president? >> no, i haven't. it certainly is that the field is getting filled up. but i have a different view of how this is going to play out over the next several months. i think that we are right now in a very interesting two man race. trump versus desantis. and i think trump over the next 90 days let's say, is going to unload on desantis and desantis is going to have to answer back. i think that's one 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 going to be interesting, because he will be going directly after trump. and every time he makes a criticism of trump, the news media are going to ask ron desantis what he thinks of it. so i think that 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 here to do with trump and take that politically as soon as he can. >> all right, ambassador john bolton, thank you. we will be looking to see what decision you make on that front coming up. >> thank you very much. >> and as bolton mentioned, chris christie and mike pence are both joining the race next week in 2016 christie famously tangled with marco rubio, and in fact christie may have single-handedly ended rubio's shot at 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 just simply haven't. they 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 seconds speech that is exactly what -- >> see, mark, the thing is this. when you are president of the united states, when you're governor of a state, the 32nd speech where you talk about how great america is at the end of it doesn't solve one problem for one person. >> this notion that barack obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true. he knows exactly -- >> there it is, the memorize 25-second speech. there it is everybody. you know what the sheamus? the shame is that you would actually criticize somebody for showing up to work, plowing the streets, getting the trains on time, when you have never been responsible for anything in your entire life. >> all right. there he is, kamikaze kristie. is this a gift to maybe ron desantis? >> it's a gift for all of us. just that clip alone was insane. not quite sure he's going to make it through, but it's

entertaining. ron desantis is going to have his own issues because of his fight with disney. i don't see that going away anytime soon. i assume that the queer community will let that go away anytime soon. -- iran desantis has his very own problems he has to deal with that are going to be in addition to donald trump. >> chris christie is someone who's going to be important in this race for as long as he's lost, and who knows, i was talking to a senior advisor of his and i said what's christie's lane? we use that terminology all the time. and he said chris's lane is going right through trump. it is the only way that someone can win. so just watch out for chris christie, they don't think he'll destroy himself in the process but 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's other people are going to have to get out of the race in order for one person to really be the person to take on trump. and, maybe christy thinks that person is him. but the numbers prove otherwise. he's at what, 2%? >> but if you go back to 2008, which i think a lot of these campaigns are looking at, 2008, 2012, where the league changed several different times. and can we get back to that model? if 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 and get their message, the key to winning this is clearly organization. and i think ron desantis has an edge in iowa because he's got

the team that won iowa back in 2016. i think somebody in new hampshire, like chris christie or a nikki haley, or even in mike pence to a certain extent, could kind of squeak in there a little bit. i don't think that trump's hold on at the primary voters in those states, in the early states, is that strong that chris christie knocking trump down a little bit wouldn't allow somebody else to come in. >> that's a lot of if ands. a lot of. >> i have to be honest, that's a lot of if the. what's interesting about these two particular people getting in the race is that they both bear hugged donald trump for the last exum out of. years right until it was to his own detriment, right? mike pence potentially bodily. so are they going to get in the race and actually say something about him to him, are they going to try that out? >> kristie. well who >> who is that voter who criticized him, but now

really into the fact that you liked him and i'm into the fact that he decided not to be with him anymore. >> who is that? >> not anymore. but what i'm saying is nobody is stepping up to go after trump.