tonight a former president is facing federal charges, as former president trump announced rlier tonight he has been indicted when it comes to the special counsel jack smith's documents investigation. justice correspondent evan perez is following all this closely, all of this breaking news. evan, i know so far we have not heard from the justice department. we have heard from the former president, not only in several posts, but also nay video. what else are you learning about these charges? >>al well, kaitlan, i'm astonished really that the justice department really didn't seem to learn anything from last august, when the fbi conducted a search of mar-a-lago. and they said nothing for three days, allowing the former president to sort of set the narrative to frankly, you know, spin falsehoods about what happened during the search, calling the fbi thugs, making all kinds of claims about what occurred at mar-a-lago that day. it wasn't until, you know, threats were being made against

fbi agents that the attorney general was finally persuaded by people around him to finally go out and say something. so, one of the things that i know certainly was being discussed at the justice department in recent weeks was if jack smith brought an indictment, how to handle this, in order to avoid a repeat of what happened last august. and so i'm kind of astonished, frankly, that we're sitting here. they've notified the former president, knowing that he is going to go public and set the narrative about exactly what this is. and we have no facts from the justice department to say what is true and what isn't. we don't know whether jack smith is going to speak tomorrow. we don't know whether the attorney general, anyone, is going to speak before tuesday's court appearance for the former president. and there's one reason why. look, i respect mr. pal tore ri, but we don't know -- we have no way of knowing what he's saying about the documents, about whether those schedules, whether that's included in these charges. so, that's one of the things that i think -- again, i find myself just being, like, truly

astonished that the justice department is handling it this way because they know, you know, the person they're dealing, the former president, is unlike any other defendant in the history of the united states. >> it allows him to control the narrative. and obviously, you know, the justice department may be doing that for their investigative purposes and not wanting to ruin their case. but it is allowing him -- it does have a very odd similarity to what we saw happen back in august, when we saw -- >> and the mueller investigation, right, the end of the mueller investigation. >> and the mueller investigation as well. >> exactly. >> so, what do you expect if they don't say anything, if we hear nothing from jack smith and his team? i know a lot of them were in miami today. reporters outside the courthouse saw them. is there a chance we don't see him until tuesday, when the former president shows up? >> the attorney general merrick garland really has a strict rule about, we speak through our court documents.

so, at some point, perhaps tomorrow morning, we might see the prosecutors going to the judge and ask him, ask the judge, to unseal the indictment so that the public can read this. again, this is a matter of great public interest. of course we never had a former president indicted before. the fact that they've notified him about his indictment and they've told him when to show up in court, and yet they have not told the public what exactly are the facts of this indictment, what the former president is accused of. you know, it's incredible to believe that they would not at least try to do that tomorrow. and certainly not wait until tuesday. >> and what's the sense of what tuesday actually looks like then if once former president shows up, he has his legal team with him -- which i should note, i heard earlier today that he's in new jersey right now. he didn't have a lot of his attorneys with him, maybe none of them. i was told they were still spread out all over the place. it's not clear they knew this

indictment was going to happen as we believe it did today. what would tuesday look like since it's not washington, d.c. where this is happening. >> it is not. >> it's florida. >> right. that's one of the concerns, the security folks, the law enforcement folks, kaitlan, were not told in advance. they knew that jack smith obviously was holding this very tight. and they were not going to be told until after the former president was notified. so, at this hour, we know that the secret service is trying to get its resources together. they're going to have a meeting with the former president's team to arrange for how he gets down to florida, how he gets down to that courthouse. the u.s. marshals, of course, are in charge of securing that building, securing the judges. the fbi is involved in the overall security situation. all of that work is now ongoing. none of that stuff was done ahead of time because, again, there was the concern of the information leaking. so, what we know is that on tuesday, we expect there to be a

pretty robust security cordon around that federal court in downtown miami. we expect that the former president will be brought in. there's a secure way to bring him into that building. and then he'll be read -- he'll learn the charges. it's possible we may see them unsealed before then. but, again, that's -- all of that is now being worked out by justice department security officials, the fbi, the marshals, and the secret service to make sure -- and the miami-dade police department -- to make sure that the former president can get in there safely, securely. the judges, the -- you know, everybody in that court can be protected ahead of time. >> yeah. we saw what that looked like when he was indicted in new york. evan perez, thank you. also want to go to bedminster now, where the former president is. he is not in florida, where we're talking about what that case is going to look like on tuesday. what are you hearing from those around the former president about his reaction to being

indicted? >> kaitlan, i talked to some of trump's advisers and people who are with him tonight and they said, the president and his team are, quote, very jacked up right now, and they're feeling emboldened by the indictment. they're saying he maintains to keep the same line he's been saying for the past several days, that he thinks this is a political witch hunt, that he's done nothing wrong, and that all of these investigations are very political. now, even though donald trump's team is saying they think he's emboldened by this, they're feeling ready to fight back. we do know that some of his other advisers do think that they have some reservations about this, and they do worry about what a federal indictment could mean for donald trump in the long term. and a lot of them are wondering how this could politically affect him. they know that he saw a boost in the polls and some favorability from his base after the indictment by the manhattan district attorney earlier this year. they're thinking that's going to happen again. they're feeling good about a lot of the allies from people on capitol hill and republicans on

twitter, you know, defending him and pushing back against this indictment. but again, i do think there's a good portion of his team as well that is worried about what this indictment could mean. i know you know this, kaitlan. as we've been covering this, donald trump's moods do change. this is how he's feeling right now. that doesn't mean that as this news sinks in and in the coming days that he might start to get a little bit more concerned about this. >> alaina, thank you. he is making history to become the first former president to face federal charges. anderson, back to you in new york. >> thanks very much. joining us now, someone who witnessed more than a little of history, carl bernstein, and his watergate counterpart, john dean. carl, what do you make of what we have heard so far? >> that this is a very serious matter that the attorney general of the united states has let go forward. merrick garland is a very careful man, and i think that we're going to see once we see the indictment, what this is

about. and if it is not a great narrative that tells something about donald trump and his recklessness, which this case is partly about, playing fast and loose with national security, if that is not demonstrated very quickly, then this can work to the former president's advantage. but i think we need to presume that jack smith has got his ducks in a row. this is going to be a very long process. and more than that, we need to see this in the context of who donald trump is, that once again, there is going to be a story told here. we already know from maggie haberman's reporting and others that this is about donald trump flouting the law, thinking he's above the law. it's about what bob woodward and i have written about, talked about on this air for seven years now in donald trump. and so when the story is told, then we are going to have legal

analysis. and gradually we're going to also find out, what do members, republican members of the senate of the united states, who are predisposed to not republican members, who are predisposed to not liking trump and holding him in contempt, what are they going to think about this if it is a solid case? and we know how members of the house might react to this. >> yeah. >> and how the people we've been talking about, his followers, are going to react. but how is the established republican party, are they going to go along with something that is demonstrated in this indictment that may be a terrible, terrible story? and we'll find out. >> carl, i want to bring in john dean. john, i mean, maggie haberman's reporting, conspiracy to obstruct, false statements, willful restengs of defense information, the seven counts, each is different. how serious is this do you think for the former president? and i'm wondering what you think

about the justice department at this point not filling in any of the question marks about what actually has been charged and allowing it all to be announced by the former president. >> anderson, you took that right out of my head. that's been my concern for the last hour because special counsels regularly announce indictments. john durham did have several indictments. so, i don't get it that they're letting trump really frame the whole -- all the issues and explain what's going on and lay these out to piecemeal where we are, what, an hour-plus now into this thing. we really have no idea other than what's leaked is in this indictment. i think maggie's got good sources, so hopefully she's correct. and that would cover pretty much the entire waterfront of what we know has been investigated. as i say, the -- your first question is the one that is most troubling, that justice isn't really running the show here and putting out what they've done

and why they've done it. >> john dean, carl bernstein, i appreciate it. carl bernstein just mentioned congressional reaction. i want to go to manu raju who is on capitol hill. manu, what are you hearing there? >> reporter: right now is almost a repeat of what happened earlier this year when donald trump became the first president who was indicted in the new york case involving those hush money payments. instantly in that situation, trump's staunchest allies rushed to his defense. we're seeing this right now in the aftermath of news of trump being the first president ever indicted on federal charges, his staunchest supporters issuing statement after statement, attacking the justice department, saying that joe biden is getting a pass for the allegations against him but the justice department is being weaponized against donald trump. we have not, though, heard from some of the top members of congress, including the speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy, who i'm told is expected to comment tonight.

he did comment against the new york prosecution as well. it's uncertain how the republicans plan to go after the case here as well. but some of them have called for defunding the fbi and dismantling the fbi. that's the words coming from some of trump's closest supporters such as andy biggs, a congressman from arizona, someone who sits on the house judiciary committee. there has also been some notable silence, toorks anderson, from mitch mcconnell, someone who has not been a fan of donald trump, someone who is publicly neutral in this race, and someone who has kcriticized donald trump fo his role in january 6th. also the number two senate republican, john thune, silence from him as well. thune has supported one of his rivals in the race, tim scott. and we're seeing this down the line, a number of republicans on the senate side staying quiet on this right now. and they have the liberty of doing that because right now congress is gone until next week, both the house and the senate side. so, only if members want to

respond, they will. they're not going to be approached from the hallways because they're gone from the capitol right now. we do expect the speaker of the house to issue a statement sometime soon, likely in defense of the president. and on the democratic side, senate majority leader chuck schumer has not weighed in yet, neither has hakeem jeffries, as some democrats have pushed back on the republican attacks and probed about the charges. >> it is fascinating to hear republicans talking about defunding the fbi, defunding the department of justice. >> yeah. and that is coming from some of the rank and file members. that is not yet coming from any of the members of the republican leadership. but some of the members have said that, defund the fbi, dismandell the fbi, some other members in the rank and file pushing that. that's an issue that the republicans leaders, if they're not embracing that, they'll have to listen to, especially if they have to get the votes when it comes to passing legislation, passing bills to fund the government, in efforts to tie up the floor of the house, as we have seen happen on the floor of

the house just this week. there is some leverage for some of those members. that is not rhetoric that the republican leadership wants to embrace. they want to broadly attack the justice department as being weaponized against former president donald trump. but of course anderson, no one has seen any of the charges. no one knows the merits of the investigation. they are just merely attacking the department based on public reports and based on donald trump's own social media posts, without knowing any of the evidence here. but, again, that's a lot like what happened in the new york case as well. a lot of members quick to react without seeing the evidence first. >> manu raju, appreciate it. back now with our panel. we're also joined by former deputy assistant attorney general elliott williams. elliott, we haven't heard from you. we just have the graphic up about "the new york times" reporting, willful defense information are among the counts. >> so, a few things. one, obviously, it was said earlier, conspiracy is a big deal because there you would have found some agreement to

violate the law by multiple people. there will be individuals other than the former president who was involved in some sort of criminal scheme there. and that's obviously quite significant when we step back and talk about it. something we haven't talked about is judges and what might happen when this gets in front of a judge. now, look, there are i believe a little more than two dozen federal judges that sit on the southern district of florida in miami, fort pierce, fort lauderdale, and west palm beach. we don't know which judge will get this. i would assume that barring someone extreme, it is in the interest of any federal judge that hears this case to make it not about a political campaign and try to stick to the facts in the law. now, look, that's probably the worst possible outcome for former president trump. but i think that's far more likely than not, even for -- and i think people like to regard the art of judging in terms of who the presidents were that put people on the bench. but even trump judges could

potentially handle this manner in a fair and reasonable and responsible way. i think it's far more likely if you get someone who would than someone who wouldn't. >> it's interesting. there are three different really lanes here. there is the court of law, which you guys are familiar with. there's a court of public opinion. then there's the maga court. and we have heard already donald trump say that this is a witch hunt. this is them going after him for no reason. speaking with several republicans across the country, as i'm sure david has as well. they have no confidence in the fbi. they think the fbi is only doing this because donald trump is running for president again. and they say that this is overreach by the fbi. even speaking with -- he is having big rallies in north carolina and georgia this weekend, speaking with one of the big georgia organizers. they say that they have had more interest since this has come out as a result of this. this is emboldening donald trump's base because they look at him as a victim, as a martyr, for overreach of the fbi. and you have to look at this

from the standpoint of this may potentially help donald trump. and then you also look at his challengers for the gop nomination. we've even heard from ron desantis, who thinks this is weaponization of the fbi, as well as nikki haley. there are other challengers, obviously chris christie, asa hutchinson. if he has done the crime, he should do the time. there is a stark contrast between what we're seeing and the legal challenges and what donald trump and his base are willing to look at. >> it is amazing, you know, last night to have heard former vice president mike pence going after democrats saying that they want to defund police. and tonight to be hearing from members -- republicans members of congress talking literally about defunding the fbi. >> well, it's through the looking glass. and i think this is the negative and dangerous impact of the trump effect on american life. and it goes to what david was talking about earlier. to teach a whole generation of

young conservatives that the fbi, which, you know, obviously as a progressive, i have my criticisms. you go back to dr. king. but these are the best law enforcement agents in the world. they've been given some of the toughest assignments. they keep us safe every day. and to say that these people are somehow have been hypnotized -- they've been hypnotized -- and now they're just zombies coming after donald trump for no reason. the idea that people accept that shows you that we are in real trouble. my concern about it is simply this, tuesday you're going to have the opportunity for our court system to do its job. and it could be a circus because already on truth social, he's giving out the date, the time, the place. he may as well be organizing another january 6th next week. and it is very, very dangerous what he's doing. >> van, to your point. if only we lived in a world where everybody would universally recognize the truth,

that in order to get a search warrant for agents to enter your home, facts and evidence have to be presented to a federal judge who would sign off on it. in order for an indictment to be brought, there has to be probable cause found that you are linked to the commission of a crime. these are basic facts and not -- sorry, go ahead. >> i was going to say, we were talking about this during the break briefly. so, what is it about america -- what is it about americans that we're willing to believe this, willing to accept it? so many americans. not a fringe number. it's not a small group. when trump ran against biden in '20, 74 million people voted for the guy, right? so, i'm guessing that the number may have decreased some between now and then, but there's still a massive amount of americans that are not toothless rubs living in a hut someplace. these are your neighbors, your friends, people you go to church with. they love this guy. what is it? what a

is it about it? is he just reflecting american culture? back in the day you hear rappers say, i'm just telling you what i hear on the streets in my neighborhoods. is trump out there doing that now? is he reflecting the community he lives in and sees? >> this has been unfolding for a very long time. this is not something new. this is the project he's been working on. and he was building on things that went before him. and social media has helped contribute to it, the whole modern media environment where people get one side of a story and take it as gospel. and there are a whole bunch of people in this country -- >> but the distrust. >> -- who believe in this narrative that the institutions of this country are corrupt and rigged against them. >> just because of donald trump though? >> no, no. i think that these are memes that have been, you know -- i mean, this is a really, really deep and complex question. but it goes to the misplaced incentives in media and politics that drive people into these

holes. >> he's pumping people's pain. that's what he's doing. people have been left behind. people have been screwed over. the system doesn't help everybody. that's true. but that's not what's happening here. that's not what's happening here. any other american that stole a bunch of federal documents and lied about it would also be going to court. there's no two-tiered thing happening to him except it took two years for him to get in trouble. so, he's pumping people's pain. i think the problem we have at the political level is we forget there are people hurting and uncertain every day. they have not gotten an -- people come along and take advantage. but it is disgusting what he's doing. it's disgusting. he is being treated better than any american in similar circumstances would be treated period, point blank, there's no doubt about that. and he acts like he's being treated worse. >> i want to go back to kaitlan in d.c. kaitlan? >> anderson, joining our panel

now is jamie gangel. jamie, i know you've been watching this all since trump himself announced it. what are you seeing? >> so, i've been talking to two groups of people, former justice department officials who have been in roles very similar to this. and how they look at it. also political sources within the republican party. the former justice department officials who are really familiar with how all of this works point out not only that this is historic, unprecedented, now the second time the former president is being indicted, first new york, now -- but they said to me, in many ways, this is anticlimactic because former president trump has been doing this in plain sight. one former justice department source said to me, he's been daring merrick garland and the

special counsel, in fact, to indict him, by saying all of these things and claiming that it's -- that they're his. but i think the other point politically is, as we've all been discussing this evening, how this is going to play out over the next year. when could this come to trial? and while we have seen that donald trump politically has seen teflon thus far, we're just beginning to hear about these charges. we're just beginning to find out about the evidence. maybe some of these, you know, his base is going to stick with him forever no matter what, if he goes out and shoots someone, as he said, on fifth avenue. but i think that there are republicans out there who really want to know what is in this evidence. and they're not convinced yet that it won't hurt him.

>> can i jump in on that point? because it came up in the conversations and the sources as well, about views of trump's constant attacks on institutions. in this case, let's focus on the fbi. bill -- is one of the best pollsters in the business. he just released this study looking at the polarization of american politics and what's at the roots of it. do you have a favorable positive view of a bunch of institutions. july 1995, republicans, positive view of the fbi, 52%, yes. september 2020, republicans, do you have a positive view of the fbi, 18%. 18%. it's not all trump. to david axelrod's point in 2013 -- it was 52% positive view of the fbi in 1995. waco, eroding trust of institutions is part of american politics any way. 18% a little more than a year ago. and trump knows that and trump

plays to it. and it's cynically effective with his base. and that's why you see the jim jordans and the ted cruzs and the stefaniks attacking the fbi. the republican party when i started doing this a long time ago was the party of law and order. the republican party is now attack law and order because they make the case that they're out to get him. number one, it's effective with donald trump's base. this helps donald trump. as upside-down as that may seem. in the current political debate he's in, can i be the nominee to try to get my old job, this helps him. we know that for a fact. it also points to the conversation you were having with evan earlier, bringing a case against a former president is a high bar for anyone anyway. the climate that donald trump has put on steroids among republicans raises the bar even more. >> it's always interesting when you talk about the law and order party, but there is a law and order office, and that's the

president of the united states, the head of the executive branch. the org chart will tell everyone, that's their entire job. so, you've got the optics already there. what's also interesting is the reason we have jack smith, the special counsel, is for the concerns that are being raised, that you would have somebody that obviously is the purported front runner. even if he were not, he's running against the person who has appointed the attorney general to the united states of america. so, jack smith's very role was called on my people to have somebody to remove even the slightest hint of impropriety. now that that's there, the idea of the talking points -- but i'll say i don't think it's a bad thing that we have yet to hear from the department of justice. number one, it's a great thing that a lot of us are in the dark because that's how grand juries are supposed to operate. that's how you know the system is not the tarring and feathering in the public square. but the second point, it's a good thing we don't have all this information from the doj because their role, as every

prosecutor in any trial will know, we love the rebuttal. we love the closing argument, the final word. and everything he lays out will be a part of the court of public opinion notion of, is that all you have? well, here is the truth. if you've got that, that's a good position to be in for a jury that's ahead. >> and also they could still be interviewing witnesses. >> absolutely. >> we don't really know the. the january 6th investigation is happening as well. we will get back to breaking this down, as we are learning more about these charges. and we'll be joined shortlity jim trusty. we're going to take a break first on this history making night. to see the possibilities all around you. hey. thanks. ♪ thank you for coming together. with capella university's game-changing flexpath format, take courses on your own terms and apply the skills you learn right away. imagine your future differently with capella university.

i will be a travel influencer... hey, i thought you were on vacation? it's too expensive. use priceline, they've got deals no one else has. what about work? i got yo oking great you guys! ♪ priceli ♪ tv: try tide power pods with 85% more tide in every pod. who needs that much more tide? (crashing sound) he does. mom: we're having triplets. no, what does that mean? it means you're gonna need more tide. -see? -baby: ah. more likes? more tide. the more adorable? more tide. everyone's gonna need more tide. ♪ you're gonna need- more tide. it's a mess out there. that's why there's 85% more tide in every power pod. i see irritated gums and weak enamel. sensodyne sensitivity gum & enamel relieves sensitivity, helps restore gum health, and rehardens enamel. i'm a big advocate of recommending things that i know work.

the chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that... ...i need a breakthrough card... like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas... ...a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours.

trying vapes to quit smoking might feel like progress, but with 3x more nicotine than a pack of cigarettes - vapes increase cravings - trapping you in an endless craving loop. nicorette reduces cravings until they're gone for good. annika. i found the bomb. ok johann. there should be a blue wire and a yellow wire. cut the blue one. they're both blue!

visionworks. see the difference. . the former president indicted, according to him and other sources confirming it to cnn tonight. joining us now is one of his attorneys, jim trusty. this is his first interview since news of the indictment broke just a few hours ago. my first question, do you have a copy of this indictment? >> no, we haven't been provided with the indictment yet. what we have right now is essentially a summons, which is a replacement for a warrant, right? normally indictments are accompanied by a warrant. here we've received a summons from the department of justice asking us to be at the courthouse tuesday at 3:00. >> and does it say how many charges there are against your client? >> again, it doesn't perfectly

mirror an indictment, but it does have some language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be. not 100% clear that all of those are separate charges. but they basically break out from an espionage act charge, which is ludicrous under the facts of this case. and i can certainly explain it. and several obstruction-based-type charged and then false statement charges, which are, actually, again, kind of a crazy stretch just from the facts as we know it. so, there's a lot to pick at from the defense side. but that appears to be the charges and appears to be something we'll get off the ground on tuesday. >> so, you're confirming it is seven charges. you said there's an espionage act charge. is there one on the willful retention of documents? >> yeah, we're talking 18-usc-793 and 18-usc-1512 -- it's great television to cite these numbers. it breaks down to the obstruction charge, and false

statement. >> is there a conspiracy charge in here? >> i believe so. i don't have it in front of me right now. again, this is not biblically accurate because i'm not looking at a charging document. i'm looking at a summary sheet. there's language in there that might actually be reflecting a single count in stead of two, but i think there was a conspiracy count as well. >> that means there could be other indictments. have you been told if anyone else was indicted here? >> we weren't advised of anyone else being indicted. i have a theory that maybe some of the outrageous misconduct has affected the equation in some of the case, a potential target. but bottom line is right now all we know about is our client. >> what's your theory? >> well, over the last 24 hours, it's become public that members of the department of justice, led by jay bratt, who was a pivotal figure in this investigation -- this is the guy who wanted to do a raid before they even had a subpoena out.

he apparently in his presence with doj extorted a very well respected, very intelligent lawyer from washington, d.c. saying essentially if you want this judgeship that's on joe biden's desk, you have to flip your guy to cooperate against the president of the united states. that should be a headline across the world. >> do you have evidence of that? i know that's been something that republican allies and trump have been saying. but do you have evidence that that happened? >> yeah, this is -- this is no political talker. this is something that was reported at the time by the attorney. it has been basically sworn to by him. he's written a letter that's been submitted to a u.s. district court judge confirming it happened. and i think it'll be really interesting to find out whether doj, whether the five people that sat in the room and watched that extortion have threads of text messages or emails where they comment about that. so, we're going to want some discovery about just how far-ranging this criminal activity was by the prosecutor. and think of the irony.

once again you've got prosecutors saying we're going after this guy because of obstruction. that's their theoretical distinction from delaware, while they literally obstructed justice. they literally tampered with the witness in fall of 2022. >> we don't have any evidence of what you're claiming there. >> other than sworn testimony, right? >> that's what you're saying. i'm taking you at your word on that. we don't have any evidence for ourselves, i just want to note for our audience. i want to get back to the indictment here because this is the breaking news tonight. how did you find out about this? did you hear from the special counsel, jack smith? did you get this summons that you're referencing? >> yaeah, we got an email from the guy who actually did the extortion. i think that was a cute little message from doj that they're not going to worry about their own dirty house. so, we got an email that basically had a summons, an invitation to work on the logistics. and we'll work on those logistics. there's a lot to figure out between the u.s. marshals and the u.s. secret service to make

this as smooth as possible, make it safe for the public, and make it efficient in the courthouse. that's all coming. it would be nice to have a copy of the indictment. but we don't have that quite yet. >> when do you expect that you'll get a copy of that indictment? >> sometime between now and tuesday afternoon. if they want to continue to play games, they'll give it to us at 3:01 p.m. tuesday. >> what was the former president's reaction when you told him that he had been indicted in this case? >> it's a combination of things. i mean, look, any time you advise a client that they've been indicted when they know it's just fundamentally wrong -- i know all attorneys go on the air and say, my client's innocent, and then after the trial, we're going to win the appeal. well, here, he is innocent. i mean, everything about this case is absolutely rotten. the misconduct that we've documented for an attorney general who hides behind jack smith. so, his reaction was personal but wasn't. you know, he thought about it, he said, this is just a sad day.

i can't believe i've been indicted. those are kind of my summary words of what he had to say. but at the same time, he immediately recognizes the historic nature of this. this is crossing the rubicon. you know, when we have a weaponized doj serving as the guard for the democratic party, for the incumbent administration, and the attorney general who is in charge of jack smith hides from meetings, hides from conversations, and just says says, go talk to jack, it is a crazy new world. >> jack smith is the special counsel. he acts independent. that's why he was appointed in this. but he was in that meeting that you were in on monday at the justice department, we are told. did he say anything to you in that meeting? was there any indication that these charges were coming? >> i'm not going to talk about the meeting. but to go back to your premise there, kaitlan, this is not an independent council statute. that changed. this is special counsel. they are still answerable to the attorney general. for whatever political reason -- maybe it's all about delaware wrrks apparently cases go to

die, everything that the attorney general should be doing in terms of transparency is not happening. that started with his impromptu press conference to announce the president's guilt. it's continued with the misconduct that we've documented. and it's not just the smoking gun that i've mentioned in terms of extortion. you've got tim parlatore there. he can tell you about the grand jury abuse he went through pretty directly. that's pretty solid evidence. and there's a bunch of other stories of mistreating, intimidating, browbeating witnesses, and gainsmanship -- >> i know those are your allegations, jim, and i know that's why you went to the justice department on monday to air your grievances about how this investigation has been conducted. but, again, this is historic. you're right. your client has been indicted. he's the first former president to face federal charges. what day did you get the target letter letting you know that he was indeed a target in this investigation? >> look, let me just put it to you this way, witnesses don't have raids at their houses,

okay? >> but when did you get the formal letter because that changes it? >> i'm not going to get into that. >> why not? >> the internal communication stuff is not something i'm comfortable throwing out because it's between the attorneys. >> you feel comfortable coming on and making these allegations -- you feel comfortable making these allegations about who's on the special counsel's team. why can't you say when they sent you the target letter? >> because i have no interest in reporting on those types of facts of communication. so, sorry. >> which legal team will be with trump when he shows up on tuesday? will he show up on tuesday? >> yeah, he's going to show up. he knows he's innocent. he knows this is garbage. he knows there's fundamental flaws with each one of the counts they're putting in this indictment. and he knows the whole process starting from the archive was a corrupt and politicized one. he's not shrinking from the fight. his disappointed that this is where we are as a country and this is where the department of justice is. but you're not going to see him hide in scotland. he's going to be ready to handle

this case and help his attorneys fight it. we'll see. it'll make some excitement to see who shows up to the table on tuesday, i guess. >> so, it's not clear which attorneys will be with him? is that what you're saying? so far it's been you, john rowley, lindsey halligan handling this. >> we'll see where it goes. >> so, you're leaving the door open that other attorneys could be joining. we'll see what that looks like. is it your understanding that this is happening only in florida, not in washington with the grand jury here any longer. >> that's a good question. it's kind of an interesting scenario as to why they would be in a garage in washington, d.c. for the better part of whatever, maybe ten months or more and then make this shift. i know that some of the colleagues from the department of justice had even published articles talking about some of the venue problems that they might have with some of these charges. but i think it might go back to the misconduct. i think there was so much that was wrong about how they conducted the investigation in d.c. that they might be going

down to florida to kind of sanitize the process, make it look to the florida grand jury like there's nothing to see here when they drag in vice presidents, violate attorney-client privilege, make four personal attorneys and seven secret service agents and a vice president testify. maybe they're trying to get away from the damage they did in d.c. but bottom line is, no sign of a second case or separate case. that would be kind of the ultimate overreach by these guys. >> you're referencing all the people that have gone in. a lot of people are people who worked for trump that you mentioned there. do you believe that florida is a more favorable venue, though, for your client here? >> yeah. look, you don't know the details of, you know, how the jury selection is going to play out. we don't even know 100% whether it will stay in miami as opposed to west palm. i think there's a likelihood the case could be venued specifically over there. there's a lot of kind of tactical considerations and thoughts that will go into that. but as a general rule, look,

washington, d.c., look at the numbers politically, you look at how the bench has treated things like the crime fraud exception being this incredibly rare thing that came to life here, vice presidents having no executive privilege. you know, i have to think that the culture in anywhere in southern florida is probably more favorable to this particular client than washington, d.c. would be. >> what does tuesday look like? does he -- i know he's in new jersey right now. i was told a lot of the attorneys aren't there in new jersey with him. walk me through what tuesday looks like. does he go straight to the courthouse? do we expect him to be arrested? what are your expectations? >> yeah, well, i don't want to get crazy specific. look, i think secret service would not be thrilled with me for that. so, you really can't telegraph -- >> well, your client posted on social media that it was happening at 3:00 p.m. on tuesday. >> right. i'm not -- we're not hiding the court appearance, kaitlan. i'm talking about where does he

come from, what time does he show up? that kind of stuff needs to be close hold between the marshals and secret service. in terms of the hearing itself, it should be a fairly routine hearing. we have to have some conversations with doj to see if they'll be remotely reasonable about things like conditions of release and setting a timetable. but, look, the hearing itself is actually a pretty typical thing. it's just an atypical prosecution and atypical defendant. but on the logistics side, we'll work that out. the one thing you did mention an arrest. there's not going to be an arrest. this is coming in on a summons. that was appropriate. this is not somebody who's going to flee. this is not somebody that poses a danger to the community, which are the factors you would normally consider when you're talking about release. so, again, no arrest, no warrant, none of that kind of nonsense. but we'll go through the bureaucratic process we have to on tuesday. >> he announced this publicly. was that against your advice? >> well, even if it was, i would not get into that.

i mean, look, doj has leaked stuff every day of the week in this case. you and i kind of butted heads on that maybe about a week ago. >> because i told you it was based on reporting. >> i'm shocked that cnn said they had good reporting. you stunned me with that. >> we do have great reporting. >> "washington post" has probably run 25 stories about the same guy that doj tried to extort into cooperating. you can't tell me that's coming from us. that's coming from them. it was a leaked campaign. that's just one example of it. and, again, this is the new rule of anything goes when you're going after president trump. it started with probably seven years ago, but certainly the fbi culture of comey and the current administration going after their leading candidate in opposition, are writing new rules every step of the way. so, we'll be fighting that stuff left and right. you may not like to hear everything i like to say or you may say there's not enough evidence yet. but i'm evidence driven and

we're going to bear it out. >> i do believe me need to get evidence on those allegations you are making. thank you for coming on, your first interview since the former president was indicted earlier today. jim trusty, thank you for your time. >> all right. sure thing. >> back with the panel now, we are joined by carrie cordero, subject of these charges is right in your wheelhouse, of course, because you're a former assistant to the attorney general for national security. you hear jim talking there. they don't actually have their hands on this indictment. they have what he said was a summons, basically a summary of the charges. what did you make, though, of him saying espionage, mobile retention of documents, false statements, a conspiracy charge as well, i believe. >> right. so, one of the things that he pointed out that i think is probably worth unpacking a little bit for our viewers is his statement that i think he used the word ludicrous with respect to potential charges under the espionage act. and i think that can be a little bit misleading because when we hear espionage act, people think spies and things like that, working for a foreign

government. the statute that we refer to as the espionage act really is the statute that mishandling of classified information is prosecuted under. so, just because an individual is charged with one of the provisions of mishandling classified information or mishandling national defense information, that doesn't mean that they are engaged or being accused of being engaged in the act of espionage. it just means that they have mishandled this national defense information. and there's all sorts of definitions that go with it. but it can be a little bit misleading. the other provision with respect to -- there's other charges with respect to mishandling of classified information that could be less consequential under the charges of the espionage act. but those are really serious charges, and they tend to be charges that sometimes individuals who have leaked information or turned information over to people that shouldn't see it fall under that

section. >> well, the primary thing that stood out to me was the way in which little of his conversation dealt with the substance of the allegations and instead trying to divert the attention to what he's alleging to be prosecutorial misconduct. i think the word he was looking for was "discretion" in the way in which the department of justice looks at cases and decides whether or not there is an evidentiary foundation, whether this is corresponding statutes that will address the issues, allegations charged, and whether there is support enough for a grand jury. the fact that this took place in florida i think is quite telling because of course a lot of the conduct has occurred there. we're talking about the allegations of either moving documents, obstructing, the willful restengs. and keep in mind, willful, you're talking about the intent. it's not inadvertent. i think about it as a mom. your kid accidentally has something in your grocery cart. once the ding, ding, ding goes outside. you bring it back. you don't double down, triple

down, i'm taking it, no matter what. that's the equipment we're talking about here. and that's just for a toy, let alone national security document. and finally, when you look at the allegations of misconduct, i'm an alum with the department of justice, i take great umbrage with the notion of there being some ax to grind. but the grand jury is the one to make that ultimate call. and if it happened in a place where it would have been more sympathetic to the former president, that's telling of this notion of political witch hunt. >> it could actually be more favorable depending on what the jury looks like. we'll be right back. we've got to take a quick break. of course a lot of news coming in here tonight. also next, house speaker kevin mccarthy has just weighed in on all of this. what he said may not surprise you, but we'll tell you what it is when we come back.

lawlawmakers have been weigg in on the indictment of donald trump. now the top republican on the house has. manu raju has more. >> kevin mccarthy says, indeed, today is the dark day for the united states. it is unconscionable for a

president to indict the leading opponents facing him. he says i and every other american who believes in the rule of law stand with president trump against this grave injustice. house republicans will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable. so, suggesting they are going to use their power to do something, to look into this investigation. now, just a couple things to point out. he says president biden indicted donald trump. it wasn't president biden, it's a federal grand jury led by a special counsel. he said that joe biden kept classified documents for decades, trying to compare the two, but we know from what we heard about trump's own attorney on our air that this -- charges stem beyond just holding classified documents. and also, anderson, there is a divide within the top republican leaders, on the house side, mccarthy, steve scalise, rushing to trump's defense, attacking the justice department, even before seeing any of the facts and evidence. on the republican side in the senate, silent from mitch

mcconnell, the leading republican and the number two republican, john thune, yet to comment so mar. >> manu, thank you. back with our panel. should we be surprised to hear kevin mccarthy say that it's joe biden indicting donald trump? >> kevin mccarthy never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to be a real leader. that was disgusting. he knows and anybody who's got an 11th grade understanding of civics knows that the president of the united states doesn't indict people. that's done by the department of justice, in this case, a special counsel. this is what i'm talking about. misleading -- that's not leadership, that's misleadership. he should be ashamed of himself. >> yeah. you're right about leadership, but he also wants to stay the leader, and that's part of what's going on here. you know, the most outspoken members in his caucus have tied up his house in the last week, because they're mad at him, at what he did on the debt ceiling issue, and this is a way to express solidarity, and he needs

donald trump, frankly, to keep those guys on his reservation, so there's a lot of layers of this. but i do think it reflects his read of where the republican constituency is going to be on this question. and i, you know, we saw it last night with vice president pence, i mean, as scott jennings pointed out last night, i mean, trump almost had the guy killed, and he was defending him on this -- on this issue last night. so -- you know, i think that kevin mccarthy, he may not be a great leader, but he is a great weather vane, and this is the way the winds are blowing. >> there's the legal case and the political case. we are now in the political case. you've heard the president's attorney on here just earlier talking, and, you know, the case is going to be made out it's a weaponization of the doj, the prosecutor was, you know, they threatened this person's judgeship if they didn't do these things. that's what you're going to hear

from now until the election, for sure, right? and maybe, if there is a trial, ever, which i doubt you'll ever see in our lifetime, i don't think it's ever going to come. but you're going to continue to hear that. it's the politicization of this. both sides are going to go to their corners, and they're going to come back out, touch gloves and fight until election day. >> the reality is, we are going to have political back and forth, but part of the beauty, if i can say so, of our criminal justice system is, none of that should matter in the courtroom. we're going to have a jury of 12 civilians in florida deciding this case. and i also think that some of the things i'm going to be looking for when we see this indictment that are legally important may influence and shape the political debate. for example, of course, we need to see the specific charges. on the willful retention of documents charge, what did donald trump do with those documents? that may or may not be specified in the indictment. but if he did something with them, of inport, that's going to be -- >> i have to take a break, back with more in just a moment, we'll be right back.

visuals that inspire pride district-wide. ♪ faststsigns. make your statement. hey bud. wow. what's all this? hawaii was too expensive so i brought it here. you know with priceline you cp for less than all th. i made a horrible mistake. ♪ go to your happy price ♪ ♪ priceline ♪

rich, velvety coffee. cafe-quality espresso. one high-pressure system that can do both. brew to your heart's desire. with the l'or barista system. a masterpiece in taste

it is now every day you are addressing something no one has seen before. the great joy and great sorrow of watching the news or re reporting it. >> there is more of this tomorrow, anderson, and also more tonight, so, we'll turn things over to dana bash and erin burnett. ♪ good evening, everyone. i'm erin burnett. >> and i'm dana bash. our breaking news tonight, the federal indictment of donald trump. the first time in american history that a former president has faced federal charges. donald trump has been indicted in the classified document investigation and charged with seven counts. at least one will be a conspiracy c