happened that -- this is going to be a continuation of that from the same people who started that back then. and, i mean -- it is mind-blowing to think about. this guy is going to be on trial for his life. these things carry actual jail time possibilities. and this trial -- got a georgia thing hanging out there, the new york thing, january 6th -- at what point does he start to wonder, running for president, isn't my best defense? or is my worst nightmare when it comes to keep myself out of jail? he's an elderly guy. you don't want to go to jail at that age, or at any age, really. >> -- raises questions about what he would do in this situation. because it is very likely that he is going to be facing -- he is facing multiple indictments. facing two -- it could be three, it could be for. >> yeah. it's a pandora's box with this guy. and i think the fulton county d.a. has given enough of an indication to the courts that there is an indictment imminent

in that jurisdiction. look, i think -- again, this is a really sad day for this country in terms of any former president being indicted for anything. but as i stop -- and ask, and i see this assault on our democracy, whether it takes the form of january 6th or the voter suppression that we are seeing in jurisdictions around the country, or the commitment that even presidential candidates on the republican side, like ron desantis have made about the kinds of people they would appoint as fbi director and the department of justice -- i take solace in the fact that the rule of law persists that even a former president of the united states can finally be held accountable for some of the crimes he has -- >> thank you all, very much. ♪ ♪ ♪

and we are back with more on our breaking news tonight, the federal indictment of donald trump, i'm dana bash. >> and i'm erin burnett. -- for the special counsel, jack smith. seven counts, we understand, are the charges. we do know, from a source, one of them is conspiracy, and it comes down, of course, as he is the republican front-runner by a long shot, let's just be honest, right now. early polling -- but right now he is the front runner by quite a bit in the race for the white house. and that is the reality, the political situation. you simply can't deny. it so, let's go to evan perez, our senior justice correspondent and our chief cnn law enforcement and intelligence analyst, john miller. evan, this was not unexpected. i will start. there it was not unexpected. but the timing was unexpected. right? so much so -- from your reporting, right -- that the u.s. secret service, the u.s. marshals, they did not though that this was happening they. we're not in place. it was trump and self who is

the first to put it out there. >> that's right. that's right, erin. the justice department -- the components of the justice department, the law enforcement components, we really want to make sure that they have the assets. they want to make sure that they have done the threat assessments before the former president is brought down to the courthouse there in miami. now, there was some preparations that were being done behind the scenes. but they didn't know if this was going to happen, when it was going to happen, and they finally got that notification after the former president had already gone on his social media platform to say that he had been notified of the indictment. and so, it gives you a sense of how tightly held this information was, and jack smith, the special counsel, who has been operating independently, that even within the justice department, the components that are in charge of some of the security issues, which is -- the u.s. marshals are going to help secure that courthouse, the secret service, of course it is going to be responsible

for bringing him to miami and getting him to that place, to that courthouse. all of that didn't really get going until shortly after the former president put out that post on social media. and so what's happening now, as we speak, is that the secret service marshals, everybody, is now getting themselves ready and they are going to send additional people down there. because they don't know what this is going to look like by the time tuesday comes. >> yeah. >> certainly, security is going to be a big concern. >> yeah, john miller, it is a big concern. i -- for their timing. >> sure. >> but it sort of feels that way, right? with something that you know is this significant and this big to basically allow it to come out and allow it on his terms and his way, it seems a bit surprising. >> well, they are following the law. the grand jury investigation is secret under rule 60 in the federal code. it is not uncommon for the

prosecutors to share with the defense lawyers that your client -- that this is going to go to a vote tomorrow -- okay, your client was indicted. we will see you tuesday at 3:00. so, i think this came out the other way. but, for now, the charges are still sealed. we might see them if they are unsealed. but we might not see them until the appearance. it really depends on how the justice department and the court proceeds them. >> and, john, i know you have one important thing that you are looking for, just in terms of the classification itself. what do you mean by that? >> well, when you look at the documents, here is something that we really have not talked about, and we've been talking about this for months, which is, the president of the united states doesn't have a top secret clearance. yet, they are the chief classification officer of the united states. they can classify or declassify by virtue of the office. the important point there, erin,

is that at the stroke of 12, when they start to not be president, at the end of their term, all of that disappears. they are not authorized to possess classified information. you can't erase what is in their memory. but it is the current president who decides whether or not former presidents can get classified briefings or updates on things involving foreign travel. so, in the trump case, there's been a lot of over complicated conversations about whether he could have had them, should have had them. once you leave office, all presidential records -- classified or unclassified -- except for personal records, or the property of the government and the national archives. classified records, of course, takes that up several levels. and once you left office, his clearance by right of being president disappeared that day. >> erin -- we'll quick -- >> i think john is raising a really, really important point, and a fascinating issue, i,

think that may have affected, silently, why we have this case being brought in miami, instead of washington, we we see with us being brought -- for months and months and months. the former president, remember, left washington hours before the new president took office, at noon, on january 20th. and that's a key thing. i think you have heard trump lawyers on our air point out that, when he left washington, he was still president. so, they are saying -- or what they are trying to -- i think, what they are building up to, just to say when they go to court, is that, well, at the former president still authorized to have this stuff when he left to go to mar-a-lago. that is one reason why they raised the issue of venue -- >> wow -- >> -- why this case needed to be brought, not in washington and -- we'll, why it's being brought in miami. in the end, when the former president left -- biden took office -- he was just mad. >> yeah? >> --

in the end, it may have made a difference in why the charges being brought in miami, instead of washington. >> which is just unbelievable, right? when you think about the chance of that. because, as you point out, i guess all these things are tied together. he -- early because he did not acknowledge that he lost. so, remember he gave that speech at the hangar, and then, of course, every other president is there for the hang of. so it doesn't -- >> right, he's playing -- against gloria and that whole thing -- >> oh, i remember. i remember it well. all right, thank you both very much. dana? >> erin, thank you. and back with me here in washington, laura coates, carrie card arrow, andrew mccabe, and paula reid joins the table as well. paula, what are you hearing? >> -- it's unclear if we will -- trump legal team and even the legal team was a little surprised that the -- to inform the trump legal team, and you knew that was going to -- truth social. but without any plan to share

any facts of their own. i was told it was a little bit surprising that they have -- investigated permission, that they hadn't tried to put together even a press release, or anything. they are, like look, this is interesting. we are getting at least 24 hours to flood the zone with our version of facts. again, that's a choice by the special counsel. i am also told that, after we get through the process, that -- on tuesday, they do intend, not surprisingly, to file a motion to dismiss. they are really going to lean into these arguments that they are making about prosecutorial misconduct that -- they haven't presented a lot of solid evidence for that. they also may make argument that this whole investigation was conducted in washington d.c., even though the case will be brought down in florida. because they will try to argue that the prosecutors want to go before more favorable judges up here in d.c., but particularly on all of these privileged fights. so, if that's what we can expect -- but it sort of interesting to get some insight into how they are thinking about all this choreography, with the prosecutors. again, it's unclear when we are going to see this indictment,

or if and when we are getting from jack smith. >> that's really interesting. what do you make of that, and the? >> -- >> about the initial -- about even the fact that the trump team was even surprised, and about the sort of mechanics over tonight. >> i think it's consistent with what we've seen from the jack smith team from the very beginning. i don't know jack smith personally. but i've been watching this story develop very closely, as everybody else has. and the one thing that we have seen is that he does not talk about what he is doing. we learn about things coincidentally. there has been numerous motions and arguments before the judges here in d.c. that were conducted in a secret, sealed basis, things that we did not learn about until maybe the judge released some sort of order memorializing what happened. there's many subpoenas that went out there that we did learn about until witnesses went and -- we knew nothing about this infamous audio recording until last week. and that was revealed and grand jury testimony a few months ago.

so, i think it's absolutely consistent that they were quiet about this development. and i think it also suggests that they may likely be just as quiet over the next few days. i think that jacks mitt may rely on kind of normal order and wait until the indictment is presented, officially, at the arraignment, to the defendant, and then it is traditionally unsealed. and that may be the first time we hear from them. >> i am uncomfortable with the notion that anyone would anticipate someone as a special counsel, that when trump says jump, he is supposed to say how high. he's supposed to run an effective and respectful investigation that is supposed to protect the rights of the defendant. one reason we do not disclose all the information in the parliament of justice is we do not want people to have a unfair system. it's already a great amount of weight to have the united states -- ahead of your name. >> and then he was saying, during the break, that one of the reasons --

may be the reason that the indictment is sealed is to protect the defendant -- >> that is the reason. because you do not want to have a jury population or a pool having the information, making assumptions. because, although you have a burden of proof as a prosecutor, beyond a reasonable doubt -- obviously, grand jury is a probable cause standard -- he still want to respect the weight of the hammer that is the department of justice -- it is a system that is going to benefit those with the vast resources of the government more than would individual defendant. but, also, keep in mind this. we are hearing a lot about classification of the documents, and whether he declassify them, whether he did not. whether it's the magic wand or otherwise -- the espionage act actually predates the classification system that we have as a part of our government. it's not actually an element of the crime that they have to show, that's a document with actually classified at that juncture. so, one of the -- >> -- have to show? >> they have to show there was

the unlawful retention of a document where someone had subpoena power or otherwise a lawful authority to have a return to them. that you are no longer a little full custodian of that record and, when told, that or you knew that, you had to return. that that could also be somebody who had the clearance to do so, and was careless in a way that it was displayed as well. there are all sorts of guardrails you put in place for that reason. but the idea of the classification specifically -- they need not prove that in this case. but, obviously, it's going to be a consideration. >> i think one way to think about the way that the special counsel's office is handling the public aspect of this, is that they are currently operating according to the default. so, the default -- the normal way -- as andrew said, the normal order of the way that this would work is exactly how it is playing out. what is different is the way that the former president handles these types of situations and he'team being on television the night before when he has not even seen -- the day of the announcement -- when he has not even seen the actual indictment.

yeah, that's unusual. the way that the former president publicly announced the physical search at his residence -- which, by the way, we never need to know about at that time. the only reason the public and the media ended up knowing about it was because the announcement, and when the justice department went and made a motion to unseal that, so they could show actually what was going on. that similar situation could happen in this -- tomorrow is a new day. it's going to be a long day. and there is a possibility that the justice department could then change, based on the behavior of the former president and the trump legal team. by the current situation is the way that it normally would occur in a normal case. >> right. this is anything but normal for 1 million reasons, not the least of which is a former president and a current president -- candidate for president of the united states. erin? >> all right, dana. i'm going to bring in now nick ackerman, former watergate special prosecutor, into this

conversation. so, nick, you bring with us the historical perspective of when the country went through the gut wrenching process of watergate. from what we understand so far tonight, as this is starting to come, out within the the most to you right now? >> i think that the fact that the president -- the former president -- has been indicted. we were not able to do that with richard nixon because president ford pardoning richard nixon. that is really the -- that stands out here. if we had been able to indict richard nixon back in 1974 and tried him for conspiracy to obstruct justice, this would not be quite the big deal it has become with both the indictment in new york, and now this indictment in miami. >> it's interesting. it raises a lot of questions, as this goes ahead. and when you bring that president, right? pardoned by forward, obviously, had been his vice president -- but there will be real questions, as we reach the end of this process here. this time -- but thus far, when you look at

what we know to be in their, and not in there -- and we don't fully know everything. but we know that there is some sort of a conspiracy charge. we obviously know there is obstruction. we do not see at this point dissemination. >> that's right. but i think the real key issue there, i'm looking for, when that indictment hits my desk is, do they allege the motive? why is it that donald trump stole those records in the first place? and why did he go to great lengths to obstruct the government in actually giving those documents back? i mean, we have some hints out there. but we don't know until we see the indictment. we know that jack smith subpoenaed the trump organization for records related to seven countries that, presumably, the trump organization does business in. now, does that mean that donald trump was using those documents, holding on to them to actually facilitate his business?

we know that, in his private safe, in his office, they found documents relating to the commutation of the sentence of roger stone, who is convicted for basically covering up for donald trump. and documents relating to the president of france, macron. now, what was he doing with those documents? why did he hold on to those documents? you can rest assured that he was not using those documents to add information to his christmas card list the following december. there are a lot of unanswered questions here. sometimes, an indictment -- a criminal indictment -- will provide you with information on the motive. sometimes it won't. keep in mind that motive is not an element of any of these crimes. but it is an important part in terms of how significant the case is. it goes to many of the issues that have been raised before by scott jennings in terms of how the republicans and the public

view this case. so, that is what i think we've got to be looking at. and it may turn out, in the end, that we are not going to really learn what that motive was until we get a bill of particulars, or until we actually get to trial. >> all right. nick akerman, thank you very much. it is so crucial, as you say, though, when you talk about basic instruction obstruction dana, you -- or did you not do it? but in the court of public opinion, which is where this is going to be tried for many, many, months, if he was doing it because he wanted to get more money from saudi arabia, if they are able to somehow tie a bow they are, and make an argument, that sort of thing may be very significant in the court of public opinion. -- >> that's exactly right. when you are talking about the short term, the court of public opinion that he cares most about, of course, our republican primary voters. and that is why you are seeing him jump on this. you are seeing him fund-raise. and you are also seeing what the base is by ron desantis and kevin mccarthy and the

republicans, appealing, calling the department of justice weaponized and things of that nature. i want to bring in somebody who knows donald trump, who knows people in the trump world, who worked for then president donald trump. it's aromatic hughes, former deputy white house press secretary. thank you so much for coming on. you, again, as i mentioned, know the former president. you were around him on many different occasions up until january 6th. what is your sense of what is happening in bedminster right now? i >> think that wily him and his team are putting on a brave face, they definitely have to be panicking a little, given that no one wants to be indicted, not just once -- but this is the second time now being indicted. and i think that they know that this case is far more serious than the case with alvin bragg, where -- that one, we were talking about hush money payment to a porn

star, and the public was already largely aware of his affair with stormy daniels. whereas, this is a whole different level of the kinds of charges that he's facing. we are talking about violating the espionage act. but i do think that his team is going to try to spin this as a win. and the way that they are going to do that is they are going to rally the troops, get his most staunch supporters out there on tv, and flood the airwaves. and then, on top of that, you are going to see them fund-raise on this. just as they did after the mar-a-lago raid and the -- >> yeah, they are doing that right now. but again, you sort of make an important point about what is going on. the forward facing strategy, the political strategy, to be defiant and to try to use this as a political plus, which -- it still, as somebody who has covered politics for a long time, it kind of blows my mind in which this can be a political -- but it is. at least, in the short term, it appears this way.

but, behind the scenes, what actually happens in these moments with the former president, that is the kind of thing that you have witnessed. >> yes, exactly. definitely, working for him, it was always kind of crisis communications. there is always something popping up. but nothing, i feel like, of this level. >> of course. >> i feel that, while they are going to say that, while this is a win for him in the team, sure, in the short term, this might serve to help in a primary, and it will definitely harden his support among the base -- but i think this is going to serve as a for the reminder to independent voters, who he would need to win a general, that is too much baggage, too much drama, and that there are still other potential indictments looming. >> sarah matthews, thank you so much for joining us tonight, appreciate it. >> thank you. >> we will be back with much more in our breaking news tonight. donald trump indicted on seven counts on the special counsels classified documents probe. stay with us.

. on the top of the pile! oh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ if we want a more viable future for our kids, we need to find more sustainable ways of doing things. america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars in new technologies and creating plastic products that are more recyclable. durable. and dependable. our goal is a cleaner, healthier planet for generations to come. for a better tomorrow, we're focused on making plastics better today. will you pause it real quick? (mumbles) just sold the car to carvana. what? all i had to do was answer a couple questions

and got a real offer in seconds. then, they just picked up the car and paid me right on the spot. sell your car at carvana dot com today. he snores like an angry rhino. you've never heard an angry rhino. baby i hear one every night... every night. okay. i'll work on that. the queen sleep number c2 smart bed is now only $899. save $200. plus, 48-month financing on all beds. shop now only at sleep number. but now that i got the inspire implant, it's making me think of doing other things i've been putting off.

like removing that tattoo of your first wife's name. inspire. learn more and view important safety information at inspiresleep.com. somedays, i cover up because of my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now i feel free to bare my skin, thanks to skyrizi. ♪(uplifting music)♪ ♪nothing is everything♪ i'm celebrating my clearer skin... my way. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin, even at 5 years. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have

an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. thanks to clearer skin with skyrizi - this is my moment. there's nothing on my skin and that means everything! ♪nothing is everything♪ now's the time. ask your doctor about skyrizi, the #1 dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis. learn how abbvie could help you save. ahhh! icy hot pro starts working instantly. with two max-strength pain relievers, so you can rise from pain like a pro. icy hot pro. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> former president trump says that he's been summoned to appear at a miami federal khorasan tuesday afternoon after being indicted on seven counts and the special counsel's classified documents probe. joining me now is marcos the jimenez, a former attorney for the southern district of florida. thank you for joining me. i should note that you were a u.s. attorney during the bush administration. in recent years, you have been quite critical of former president donald trump. i was going to ask you questions specifically about the southern district in florida because that is where this is going to happen on tuesday. first and for most, we were talking here about the jury pool. you know a lot about the jury pool, because this is where you were a u.s. attorney. is there any indication that the kind of jury that will be pulled from their will be

anything other than genuinely objective, either not for or against donald trump? it seems like a is a broad swath of community and society to pull from there. >> yes, thank you forever me. i agree with that. generally, i think the jurors in our district, and i suspect in most districts if not all, take their jobs seriously. when we pick a jury in a federal criminal case, you picked features that you think you want. which i find interesting about this case is that here, the prosecutors may not pick the jurors that normally he would pick in a federal criminal case. generally, federal prosecutors preserve conservative jurors, jurors who are extremely concerned about the law, but

they may have some questions in this case because conservative jurors may like donald trump. i think it will be an interesting dance, if you will, if this case ever gets to a jury. but to answer your question, our jurors are excellent, our judges are excellent, we have some at the best attorney in the district. it is not miami. miami's part at the southern district of florida, so i think we need to start thinking in terms of what the district is. the case was charged here because the defense was committed here. both the constitution and rules of criminal procedure, the state that the defendant must be charged in a district where the offense was committed. the southern district of florida, which includes mar-a-lago, where this offense really occurred, i suspect for the most part is where this

case has to be tried, and the department brought the charges here to eliminate, which has been noted by some of your other guests to eliminate any potential defense. >> as a former top prosecutor, federal prosecutor in the district in the past, what else are you looking at and four as we look ahead to what we will see untrue's day? >> well, on tuesday, it is going to be pretty perfunctory, even though it's the president at the united states. i do agree, despite my personal feelings in the past, i agree that this is a sad day for the country. you have a former president coming in, but the court will treat the president like any other. he will be informed of his charges. he will be asked if he has counsel. he will walk in with his counsel, and then that is his

initial appearance, then he will also be arraigned, where he will be asked to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges. he, of course, will plead not guilty, and then the terms of his release will be set. in this case, clearly, i don't expect that the judges will impose a bond. i think that they will require him to be released on his own recognizance and the fact that he's a former president, he will come back to court. despite the historic nature at the indictment, on tuesday, he will be treated like any other defendant that walks into the court that they. >> except that he will have secret service and, i would imagine, there will be a lot of security around that courthouse. >> yeah, so we're used to high profile cases down here. remember, we tried general --

down here which also involve the classified information. i was a young prosecutor in the office and that case and received sensitive compartment and permission, which is a high classification that is required for you to review evidence. that is what this case is about, classified information. we also had bush v. gore down here. it's also been involved in those cases. we are ready to handle this. the judges in the court are ready to handle it. i can tell you from personal experience that every federal judge in the court is committed to the rule of law, is an excellent judge and as tried lots of cases and will give the president a very fair trial when it comes to the. >> fascinating, thank you so much for your perspective, we appreciate it. we will be checking back with you.

marcus the menace, aaron? >> dana, there was a lot in that conversation, but can i start here, elliott, that he brought up, when they had high profile cases in southern florida, bush v. gore came up. without that, we would not have you. you would never have been born. and then emanuel -- who you have been taunting at the table here. none of you have seen it out there, because it was in secret. we were much -- >> donald trump would not be the first former head of state to be tried in a by a my federal court. we did say -- >> you set it. >> i want to go with my federal prosecutor brother who just made that point. >> ryan, one of the things that you have been talking about, and i think it's important because he talked about a system there within in south florida, how it works. the judge is crucial here, and it seems to be a sort of choose your own adventure, how does that happen?

>> it's a metaphor that is put in that is a spin a wheel essentially, will randomly select the judge, so they judge could be, we could see aileen cannon and dinners, and that was the federal district court judge to intervene in the case in such an extraordinary way, that was so far into everybody the legal community and she was overturned astoundingly by a 30 panel of the court of appeals, or pumpkin judges. she could get the case. the hr judge as enormous discussion. >> if she gets the kids skip into, that just stance? >> i could imagine that there would be an argument to recuse, because she demonstrated such a level of bias and that proceeding, but that is also a hard argument. >> but this is amazing. we are talking about, okay, this is what you get, you could get her, and this is how it goes. talk about an unbelievable development, not just legally but politically. >> oh, yeah, i have been

thinking about the macro political implications at this. every republican will see it this way. the current president at the united states is trying to throw in jail his chief rival for the white house, who used to work there. >> but it's a chance it does not see it that we're. chris christie does not see it that way. >> one republican. >> both of these guys are people with prosecutorial experience. >> basically, when i bring this up, when every republican will believe that, the real issue is what does this do to the trust of institutions? you cannot have a criminal justice system where half the country believes it is weaponized, biased, politically motivated, whatever you want to call it, so we're in the cycle now or that is becoming more true every day. there will be a republican president someday, and what the pressure be on time to continue that cycle? it's a very troubling to me. >> it's very troubling to the extent that you have a point, which people see it as

weaponized. >> who is responsible for that? >> it's not even that, mondaire. it's the reality that the knee don't have a system that works because the only way to trust is for people to not do their job. how do you function? >> i don't think the solution is to inoculate people who may be political actors from accountability simply because they were or are the leaders of their party or the president of the united states. i think the solution is for people to behave responsibly and not immediately say, especially people who know better, which is mostly any elected officials who weighed in on the republican side -- let me finish. let's wait to see what the evidence is, and see this adjudicated in a court of law. but we still believe in courts of law to fairly and impartially decide cases like this? >> if the implication is that people should act responsibly,

a republican i say today did hillary clinton act responsibly with her serve, did hunter biden act responsibly on a number of fronts? why is it that some democrats seem to act irresponsibly, but the wheels don't seem to turn the same? >> the republican fbi director declined to before with a recommendation that hillary clinton prosecuted, that is not equivalent to the situation that we're talking about now. >> i am just telling you how people will see it. the >> problem is because of rhetoric and false equivalency's, like the one that you do, it causes people to further believe that these agencies are up to get one particular party when, in fact, if there had been a democratic president who had the same kind of state of mind, who declined to produce documents to the fbi when he was subpoenaed to do so, that person would also be prosecuted. but donald trump and the situation is distinct from both joe biden and mike pence.

>> all right, thank you, all. much more to come. our breaking news coverage continues here. former president trump is now the front runner for 2024 race, in that day tonight on several counts and the special counsel's documents probe. if you think you, a child in your care, or another loved one

were harmed by endo or a related company, including par or ams, or their products including ranitidine, transvaginal mesh, or opioids like opana®, opana® er, or percocet®, your rights may be affected by deadlines in the endo bankruptcy. you may be entitled to payment as part of endo's bankruptcy, but you must file a claim by july 7, 2023. you may file a claim on behalf of yourself, a child in your care (including a child exposed to opioids in the womb), or a deceased or disabled relative. also, if you hold a claim or interest in endo, the deadline to object to the potential sale of endo's assets is july 7, 2023. for more information visit endoclaims.com with gold bond... you can age on your own terms. retinol overnight means... the smoothing benefits of retinol.

are now for your whole body. plus, fast-working crepe corrector diminishes wrinkled skin in just two days. gold bond. champion your skin. i'm adding downy unstopables to my wash. now i'll be smelling fresh all day long. (sniff) still fresh. still fresh! mmm, still fresh! get 6x longer-lasting freshness, plus odor protection with downy unstopables. i'm christine mahon. i'm retired from public health nursing and from the army reserve. my retirement funds allow me to enjoy what i love to do. as long as you can make an impact, why stop?

>> the white house declined to comment on the federal indictment of former president trump, so let's go to our cnn westcott correspondent jeremy diamond. what are you learning, declining to comment, even as they watch this as closely as everyone else's? >> they certainly are watching this, but listen, the white house did not get a heads up when jack smith was appointed as special counsel.

they did not get a heads up when a search warrant was executed at mar-a-lago, and they did not get a heads up tonight, as the indictment came down. instead, i am told by official that the president and white house learned about this like everybody else, do these news reports which initially came from the former president's social media account. the white house learned about it that way, and they are not commenting at this point. the closest we got to a comment as what the white house spokesman ian sam's told me that they were declining to comment and referring questions to the department of justice, which he noted, and this is notable, which conducts its criminal investigations independently. that was by choice because, essentially, the white house's strategy of not commenting on various indictments, whether it is this one or the ones that have been back in new york or any of the other criminal prosecutorial activities at the department of justice, they want to make sure that they maintain the independents at the justice department, that they don't give any credence to

these notions and attacks that are coming from republicans that president biden somehow involved in this decision to convict the former president, that there is some type of politicization of the department of justice. the president spoke to us today about how you can convince americans that they can trust the independents at the just apartment? listen in. >> if you notice, i never once, not one single time suggested to the justice department about what they should do or not do, about bringing a charge or not bringing a charge. i am on us. >> erin, that was obviously earlier today before the indictment even came down, but it does speak to the broader point that president biden came into office following the former president, who had repeatedly sought to politicize the department of justice, what's not to interfere in the justice department's investigation and activities. they did try to set a tone early on but not getting involved and these kinds of

investigative matters by the department of justice. tomorrow, as president biden at the north carolina, there will be plenty of opportunities for reporters to shut questions about this to him. i suspect that he will ignore all of this. >> jeremy, thank you. dana? >> i want to bring back laura coats, carrie cordero and andrew mccabe. i want to discuss some of the specifics of what we believe is in this sealed indictment and go to an interview that kaitlan collins did with jim trusty, one of donald trump's lawyers. >> and does it say how many charges there are against your client? >> again, it is not perfectly near an indictment, but as language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be. not 100 percent clear that all of those are separate charges, but they break out from an espionage charge, which is ludicrous, under the facts that the case. i can certainly explain it. and several obstruction based

charges and phosphate charges, which are actually again a crazy stretch, just from the facts as we know it. there's a lot to pick at from the defense side, but that appears to be the chargers and it appears to be something that will get off the ground on tuesday. >> and, laura, i know that you're particularly interested in the false statement charges. >> i am because i want the public to understand that for statements could mean that you are the direct speaker of the statement, or that you can induce somebody to make a false statement to the authorities, what enforcement, and in this case, the doj. i am interested in learning more about the attorney evan corcoran who testified in front of the grand jury, who had the piercing of the attorney client privilege. we don't know who is the person who made the statement, or whether that is the nature of it, but it is not just that donald trump would have to have set it, if you do make a false statement, he could be found liable and guilty as a

principle speaker. >> i got to say, dana, i continued to be shocked that someone on the president's legal team is up talking about and that meant that he is not read the underlying facts about. we've been talking about the politics a little bit and the public messaging that is a fault, and we are talking about the legal case that will be brought, and those are two really different things. this former president is facing, if the weight that is being described, the potential charges that will be in this indictment, really serious federal crimes. this is not a political game. >> it is not a political game, but he is a political candidate. even if you are not a political candidate, that is the lens through which he sees this. >> he is, but his attorneys are not running for office. their sole function right now is to try to keep him out of trouble. i agree with you, carrie, they are skating onto a pond. they don't know if the ice is

the victim or millimeters thick. they have no idea really what is going -- what sort of facts to be alleged in the indictment, and they are making a lot statements about things, subjects that they might want to pace motions on later. there's been all kinds of kind of vague claims of prosecutorial misconduct and things like that. i think they are really taking on easily avoidable risk by maybe succeeding to the demands that they're very political focus. >> i was going to say, it might be very difficult when you are representing somebody, and they are just slipping here saying, get on television, go explain and defend me. >> but that misconduct part will be important, because you can speak and run your mouth with the court of public opinion, pose some point, the judge will be aware of comments made and want to detail the allegations they made, that they failed to do so, you can undermine your own credibility

before your actual case and the motion practice even begins. >> all right, we will look at what donald trump's indictment might mean for the 2024 race. we'll talk a little bit about. there's a lot more to digest and discuss on the. trump's challengers are reacting, that is next. with two max-strength pain relievers, so you can rise frfrom pain like a pro. icy hot pro. [announcer] carvana has hundreds of thousands of five star reviews and counting. to be honest, i thought it was almost too smooth, financing, every step. there were no surprises. ll, my monthly payment did come out lower than expected. financing my car with carvana was super smooth. [announcer] finance your next car witcarvana today.

my a1c was up here; now, it's down with rybelsus®. his a1c? it's down with rybelsus®. my doctor told me rybelsus® lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill

and that people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. i got to my a1c goal and lost some weight too. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. they'll be here in 5, we ready? - there's uh... - oh. left. left. i don't have it. i don't have it. - keep going. - we should've used behr. yeah. today let's paint. right now, get america's most trusted paint brand at a new low price starting at $28.98. behr. only at the home depot.

maisha: shared leadership has to do with... michael: acknowledging parents as equal partners. narrator: california's community schools. grant: community schools lift the voices of folks that have traditionally not been heard whether they're parents, students, community groups. john: it's shared decision-making with parents.

they're saying that these are the priorities that they want to see for their kids. wendy: it allows us to create the school that our students deserve. rafael: community schools are innovative, and they're working. narrator: california's community schools: reimagining public education. >> all right, the 2024 presidential candidates, republicans, are reacting tonight to the news of former president trump's indictment. ryan goodman, elie williams, scott jennings and mondaire williams are back with me. mondaire and scott, you've got

to tears of justice. desantis, weaponization. chris christie, we don't get news from trump's truth social, i will wait. make it clear that he will stick up for justice and asa hutchison, he's talking about donald trump's actions, it willful disregard of the constitution and rule of law. you see the split. >> a pretty good barometer where much that the republican party will come down, where was the trumps the opponents of come down is to defend him on this, just as they and mostly defended him on every legal happening in this case. i suspect that is going to continue to be the case as they all take the temperature of their supporters out there. i think a sergeant is going to be on an island. kristie being a former federal prosecutor, maybe he is in a different position. i think by and large, he will see republicans rallying around trump. by the way, can i say, listening to joe biden a minute ago saying that he does not

comment on federal investigations. he may not have commented on this one, but he has repeatedly commented on hunter biden, on january six, and haiti's not comment on this, i think that's important, but he has not been the paragon of virtue when it comes to commenting on the doj. >> mondaire, can i ask you one thing here, i want to say one more thing from asa hutchison, the former arkansas governor -- this reaffirmed the need for donald trump to respect the office and and the campaign. you get that from him. tim scott is talking about a two tiered justice system. to scott's point, you've got one, and chris christie, we'll see where he falls, but he thinks trump is no business running for office. okay, scott as a point. >> about what? >> about what you will see on the republican side. you are already seeing it. >> absolutely, i don't think any of us are surprised by the, asset as it is. i hope someone like a chris christie would get instruction for speaking the truth within

the republican party, but what stands out to me is that those two individuals that you've mentioned there are on an island of their own will not come close to getting the republican nomination. so query how much people care, who have a vote and who the ex nominee is going to be. >> it's unbelievable, until ecosystem, at least the special counsel, it's business as usual. they're not trying to make a political case, not that they should, but in a world or that is how it's going to be seen. >> that's right, a lot of the conversation tonight has been about the pure legal question to prosecutors have in front of them. it sounds like they have, speaking about the, a rock-solid case. they did not go to ambitiously with dissemination or something like that. the charges that we heard much the facts that we've seen alleged by the government and other court filings. i think this look strong, we'll see what the evidence provides. >> but by the book -- >> this whole pullback is a test of us as a nation, right?

it is a criminal case that may well be a perfectly virtuous criminal investigation, where the facts and lost support a conviction. that does not mean the public will support it, and i do think it is a test of who we are and if our vaunted justice system can work in a truly impartial way that the public can get behind? >> thanks to all. in, it is such an incredible test for the country, right, when you think about it. when you think about the seriousness would americans taking their jury duty, everyone on the jury will have a strong opinion about donald trump. they will be asked to without favor or fear applied the law. it is an incredible moment. >> it certainly is. look, there is a reason why when you have a sitting president, these things did not happen, and the fact that we have a former president that is now facing not one but -- had faced one indictment, now

facing a second, it is hard to wrap your mind around. thank you so much, erin. if i had to spend ten to midnight with anyone, it would definitely be. you >> thank you, you too, dana. thanks to all of you for watching. our coverage continues. if we want a more viable future for our kids, we need to find more sustainable ways of doing things. america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars in w technologies and creating plastic products that are more recyclab. durable. and dependable. our goal is a cleaner, healthier planet for generations to come. for a better tomorrow, we're focused on making plastics better today.

choosing a treatment for your chronic migraine - 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting 4 hours or more - can be overwhelming. so, ask your doctor about botox®. botox® prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine before they even start. it's the #1 prescribed branded chronic migraine treatment. so far, more than 5 million botox® treatments

have been given to over eight hundred and fifty thousand chronic migraine patients. effects of botox® may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. alert your doctor right away, as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. don't receive botox® if there's a skin infection. tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. in a survey, 92% of current users said they wish they'd talked to their doctor and started botox® sooner. so, ask your doctor if botox® is right for you. learn how abbvie could help you save on botox®. ♪ when you have chronic kidney disease...

there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. if you have chronic kidney disease, farxiga can help you keep living life. ♪ farxiga ♪ and 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. farxiga can help you keep living life. ask your doctor for farxiga for chronic kidney disease. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪ farxiga ♪ with gold bond...