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... 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. >> and good evening -- what has never happened before has just happened tonight. for the first time ever, former president of the united states has been indicted by a federal grand jury. donald john trump, charged, according to a source familiar with a metal, with seven counts in the special -- special addiction addition of 360 -- >> i am kaitlan collins -- former president preempted any

justice department announcement of the charges against him, in a series of post on his social media network. in one, just a few moments ago, he wrote quote, i have been summoned to appear at the federal courthouse in miami, on tuesday at three pm. he goes on to say, he never thought it was possible that such a thing like this could happen, and then drifts into boasting about how he won all the votes of the presidential election, which we know is not true. he also wrote in all caps, quote i am an innocent man. >> kaitlan collins joining us now, our senior just correspondent evan perez. evan, what do we know about the seven counts? >> what we don't know the details of exactly what the seven counts are anderson. we know that the former president was on notice. he knew that he was being investigated for a couple of particular statutes. one is 793, the espionage act. that's the willful retention -- of national defense information. we know he was also notified that he was under investigation for 2071, which is a concealment of these documents, government documents, depriving

them from being in the federal govern officials. but of course, obstruction of justice. the question is, what other charges is possible. we know that there are seven charges, and again, the fact is that this has never happened before. and, this is something that the jack smith, the prosecutors in that office have waited for some time before making this decision. everything, including the target matter the former president received only recently, had to go through merrick garland. merrick garland, the attorney general, would have had to review this, and decide whether to allow it to go forward. so, the idea that this indictment, we don't know exactly when it was return, returned -- if it was returned today. certainly, the former president says he was notified this evening, it tells us that the justice department had certainly gotten to the stage very recently. and that they knew, they had enough evidence, they believe they had enough evidence to bring this to a jury. >> and, evan, also just talk

about this being in florida? the change of venue? >> yeah, actually, anderson, this is one of the fascinating things for us. we've been following this, we've seen dozens of witnesses go to the federal courthouse, here in washington, and we brought before the grand jury here, that was hearing witnesses again in testimony with regards to this and the january six investigation. and it's only recently that we understand that this grand jury in miami, started hearing testimony. what we heard from trump lawyers, including on our air, was that they believe there was an issue with the venue. we were told that this was something they raised with the justice department, that they believed it would be improper to bring this case in washington, because any possible crimes, any accusations against a former president happened in the southern district of florida, which is of course where mar-a-lago is located. it appears, anderson, that the justice department officials eventually got to that point. they clearly were at some point thought it would be better to

do here in washington, but then change their mind, and decided that miami is the place to bring these charges. again, we don't know the exact details of these charges. but clearly, that's why this sudden change of venue. and now we expect the former president to appear on tuesday, for his first appearance before a magistrate. in miami. >> yeah, he said three pm, and evan will, check back in with you over the next two. ours i'm joined bound by our political and legal analyst, new york times maggie haberman, former presidential advisor david axelrod, and attorney elie honig and republican strategist david irvine. -- >> because we have been hearing the drip drip of this case for so. long his team was prepared for this to happen this week. didn't have information that it was going to. seven counts is a lot, we don't know exactly what all the charges are yet we're, good to see what the complaint is. we don't won't know until

personally isn't sealed. but it is a lot of unknowns, but it's not as if this is not a good development. and it was one of she was hoping to avoid. >> elie honig, from a legal perspective, what you think the seven counts are. what do we know based on what's been presented thus far? >> the best indicator we have so far is the search warrant affidavit for mar-a-lago. and when the justice department went to a judge, they said we had probable cause to believe that three different crimes were committed. willful retention or mishandling of defense information, that's part of the espionage act. destruction, or concealment of government documents. and then third, obstruction of justice. now, federal prosecutors can break this out any way they want. it's possible we see multiple counts of some of those. it's possible we see any combination of those that has up to seven. it could be that we see other counts. because what you put in your search warrant affidavit may not have to do b would you need -- and >> anderson >> the bigger picture, even without seeing any specifics of this indictment. i think it's clear that donald trump is in for the fight of

his life. this is a man who has been sued, deposed, taken to fit, the fifth impeached twice, tried in the senate, investigated by congress. even indicted by the state authorities here in manhattan. but being indicted by the justice department is different. this is a whole different ball game, the doj has way more resources. the conduct here is going to be, i think it's safe to say, more significant than what he was indicted for in manhattan. and the consequences, if he is convicted, are going to be much more severe than what he is looking at in manhattan. >> what about, there was an espionage charge, as a possibility. >> yeah that is one of the crimes that was listed, and that relates to mishandling of defense information. not necessarily classified information. i should note, this also, one of the statues that was listed in a church warrant application, destruction and concealment of government documents, says on the face of the law, if a person's can convicted of of of this crime, quest disqualified from home federal office. now big thing we need to know here, that may not be constitutional.

that's never been challenged in court, i think is a good chance that would not hold up in the court. also, i think it's unlikely, we don't know whether this case will be tried, before the election and. even if it is, nothing is final until the appeal is over. that will not happen until after the election. >> and david irvine, you know the former president quite well. his statement on his social media, it paints a picture of how he's going to betray this. >> obviously. we saw this kind of play out and add that the rules are coming for me, that the pan cain campaign is -- i'm standing between you and, them right? that the justice department has been weaponized, the fbi's been weaponized. one of the points, i think, that makes a tougher here, it is espionage act charge, right? >> and we don't know if that is one of the -- >> well, i don't know if it's one of the seven counts, but based upon the search warrant, the espionage act. when you paint yourself and you are a patriot, and you are the president of the united states,

i can't imagine a worse phrase to be used with the president of the united states and the espionage act. when you hear it, it just makes you sick to your stomach. and so, i think people will viscerally react to it, differently than anything else he has been charged with so far. conspiracy, obstruction. i think those things the president can make go away. and the people who follow the president won't pay that much attention to it. when you push someone and say, the president is alleged to a violated the espionage act, that just hits differently. and i think it's going to be tougher -- >> -- >> go ahead, maggie. >> i still think of obstruction and other charges that -- are still going to be problematic for him. maybe not in the republican primary. >> legally. >> but i think once you get to a general election is the front running nominee, that he appears to be right now, if that holds, of what happened last time he was indicted happens again, and it basically is a political buoy, he still faces a problem explaining this in the general. now, he will then use that as a

political cudgel against joe biden. there's no question about that. >> but if you are standing as a republican on the debate stage -- if you are being asked tomorrow, and you are mike pence, and you are -- could we still support him in a general election? i think the answers will be completely different. that's just my take on. it >> it may be. the one thing that all trump has probably really taught us in the last eight years or so, his humility. -- i haven't lived inside his head like maggie has. but it seems to me there's always been this interplay between his decision to run again, and the possibility that he was going to be indicted, so that he could actually weaponize his campaign against these indictments. and i think that's what we are going to see, just as we did here in new york. it's going to say -- as you say -- they are coming after us, they are trying to take our voice away. and no president has ever faced this before. they're not doing it to biden, they are not -- notwithstanding the fact that

there's no real relationship between the two cases here. so i think it's tbd. and i tell you, though, not to question the courage of those republican candidates. but i think they're going to wait and see how people react to this. and trump, he's meeting with his political advisers, and not just his lawyers tonight. he's gonna run a full-fledged campaign to try to use his supporters as his shield and his sword. >> charges -- >> that gets to what david was saying about his decision to run, that this may have been a part of that calculus. >> oh yeah, i don't think it's the only thing, i think if part of it is that he didn't -- have events at his clubs and so forth. but it's absolutely the case that he believed that this is, this is something that he could use, a political campaign could be to say this case is political, that everything is political. >> we are getting information

in dribs and drabs. i want to go to kristen holmes right now. kristen? >> -- at least one of them is related to a conspiracy charge. now, we don't know exactly what that means. but this is something that we believe the department of justice was trying to prove. we know they had brought in a number of lower level aides -- trying to prove this conspiracy theory that there had been a larger -- obstruction of justice. again, are we very clear? we don't know exactly what this conspiracy charges. all we know so far is that there are seven charges, and that one of, them at least is, relating to conspiracy. and we also know that the department of justice had brought in multiple sources trying to prove this point of conspiracy, trying to -- these lower level horses, essentially, from these lawyers, that i have talked to, trump lawyers, trying to prove that trump had a obstructed these lower level employees in some

way, which would make for a possible conspiracy charge. again, we do not have details on this. all we know is that there are seven charges, and that at least one is relayed it gets very to conspiracy. anderson -- >> all right, kristen, we will obviously come back to you. elie honig? >> -- all a conspiracy means legally is an agreement between two people to violate the law. the meeting of the minds. and so what we now, based on kristen holmes reporting, is that there is who is not donald trump acting alone. there were others in on it with him, who knew that this was criminal. and, i think it's fair to speculate that when we see this indictment, that donald trump will be cast as the head of the conspiracy. it's impossible -- >> so, multiple actors in the conspiracy have to be aware that the activity is illegal. >> yes. because, let's say donald trump told an unwitting person, move that box. and that person did not know anything about that, that's not a conspiracy. that's a crime by donald trump, not the guy moving the box. if they both knew, and had a meeting of the mind, this is illegal and we are doing, it that is a conspiracy.

i also want to underscore, the fact that this is being charged in florida is enormously significant. legally, i think it's the right move by doj. because they are going to avoid the messy question about venue. unquestionably, this crime happened in florida. had a charged in d.c., they would've had a major legal problem on their head. but getting to the political point that david and maggie were making, dial trump got 5.4% of the vote in d.c. in 2020. he's enormously unpopular there. he would've had a very unfavorable jury pool. in florida, he won in 2020. he's going to have -- that make a very big difference. >> that's a point that i bunch of lawyers have made to me, close to him. >> i want to go back to d.c. and kaitlan collins. kaitlan? >> yes, anderson. and now back with this is our senior legal justice correspondent evan perez, with new information on security at the courthouse in miami, which is where we have expected these charges. what do you know? >> that's right, kaitlan collins. we know that the justice department is scrambling to move resources, security

resources, law enforcement resources, ahead of the former president making his first appearance there in miami on tuesday. just to sort of back this up a little bit, the fact is that jack smith has run a very tight shift, ship. very little has come out from the special counsel's office. walled off even from other parts of the justice department. so, it wasn't until after this indictment was handed out it. wasn't until after the former president was notified, that the law enforcement folks were told okay. now you have to get ready to deal with the security situation, a potential security situation in miami. and so now we know that for example the secret service -- they need at least a couple of days to make sure that they do an assessment and to make sure they are safe to bring the former president to that courthouse in miami. so, a number of resources are now being rushed in the air over the weekend, again, in time, ahead of this tuesday

cortical parents by the former president. kaitlan collins? >> evan, that's what sticks out to me, that we should remind people. trump is the one who announced this news, similar to the way he announced when the search warrant was executed in mar-a-lago, also when he said he was going to be indicted in that hush money case in new york. he publicly broadcast much of this information and now he's letting everyone know that this is happening, they specific, time is specific place. and so i imagine that has to do with a lot of the security as well, because there's a question of whether or not his supporters will show up. >> absolutely, kaitlan collins. everybody has learned from what happened on january 6th that the former president does have a hold on a particular set of his base. and nobody wants to make the mistake of not being ready for a situation, should it entail. nobody's saying, of course, that is going to be violence. but if you are law enforcement and you saw what happened on january 6th and you saw how unprepared everybody was for january 6th, and the fact that the former president -- you know, he uses --

you can see some of the language he is using on his truth social posts, some of the language he's using, as we speak. he's posting a video about this event. those are the things that law enforcement folks are worrying about, again, trying to make sure that he gets in there safely, making sure that there's safety for -- of course -- the prosecutors and the judge is down there in miami. for months law enforcement towards getting ready for a possible indictment in washington. it's much easier to do here. there's a lot more resources here. and everybody knows exactly what to do. what was going to be more complicated was an indictment in miami. and so that's one reason why you see everybody scrambling, even at this hour, trying to make sure that the proper resources are down there ahead of this tuesday court hearing by the former president. >> yeah, we heard the trump legal team weighs bracing for. this but they seem to be caught off guard even by this timing

today. i know you will keep tracking this. i want to go to cnn's kara scannell. she's actually live outside that courthouse in miami that evan was referencing there. kara scannell, what does -- he had in fact that he has been told he has been indicted here? >> yeah, kaitlan collins. it is very quiet. here there's just only really a handful of media that were still in place when trump made that posting. all day, it was pretty quiet. we did see some of the key prosecutors who were on the special counsel team working on the documents. and we saw one of them going out to get lunch. we saw one of them going back into the cafeteria to get some snacks, some chips and cookies. and then we also had heard at the end of the, day after everyone had gone, that there were a bunch of pizza boxes back in the grand jury room. but we weren't sure if a grand jury had met or even that they had voted. but it has been a relatively tranquil scene here today. you know, of course, if you remember back in new york, after trump was indicted on the state charges, by the manhattan

district attorney's office, it was a similar. thing the indictment came down on a thursday. he was arraigned following tuesday. that gave everyone the time to get into the following place. you can imagine, this scene here would, become quite busy, not only the media descending, but also potentially some trump supporters, some members of the public, as evan was just explaining. they will have to get the security parameter in place here. and trump being at mar-a-lago, as you well know -- i mean, they are used to having him transporting him around. but this is certainly of a different magnitude and dimension, a first time a former president is facing federal charges. there was this run through, in new york. we saw how that work. what's unclear here is how they will handle it internally. will they shut down the courthouse like this essentially did in new york, freezing the building, freezing the floor that the president was willing to be on, and then creating a pretty rigorous system of who would be able to get into the courtroom to witness this because there are no cameras in court and there are no cameras in federal court -- so, the public won't get a glimpse of this and it remains

to be seen how they are going to figure out the logistics of having this arraignment take place here on tuesday. kaitlan collins? >> remarkable to see a second indictment in just a short period of time. thank you, kara scannell. more perspective now -- joining me is our senior political correspondent abby philip, our senior political affairs correspondent paula reid, chief national correspondent john king, and also washington post contributing columnist george conway, who has long predicted this moment would come to pass. but it's historic. >> -- >> face federal charges -- before >> it's absolutely -- this is one of the most -- most significant historically -- most historical -- i mean, important -- criminal case since the aaron burr case at the beginning of the 19th century when he -- this is stunning to see. it is breathtaking to see. but it's not surprising at all. the fact of the matter is -- and all trump is going to argue that he was mistreated and he is being singled out, and he is

being abused, which >> -- >> the fact of the matter is, he's got the benefit of the doubt. if you, or any of us, at this table, had been a government official at the white house, during the trump administration, and we took these documents oh, man we joked around the national archives and records administration for a year and a half plus, and then force the government to get to a search warrant, it wouldn't take a year and half of them to get the search warrant. they would have been knocking -- the fbi would've been at our doors within months. and the fact of the matter, is, if -- when the search warrant came out, we saw the affidavit. we saw a redacted affidavit that the fbi used to get the search warrant executed at mar-a-lago. and, the amount of information in there was absolutely stunning at the time. i mean, it was shocking at the time that the they had such a powerful case already. and simply by virtue the fact that as they found the storm, property in his office. and at his home. so, the fact of the matter is that he could have been

indicted months ago. again, if it was one of us, he would've been indicted months ago. he's gotten special treatment in his favor. and this is not a criticism of the justice department. it's a statement of fact, that the justice department has to be extra careful and extra cautious, and make sure that it has all its ducks in a row, before bringing a charge against the former president and presidential candidate -- but these charges could have been brought long ago. and the other point, on the venue -- there has been the suggestion that somehow this was a sudden change in venue. with fact of the matter is that, we knew, back in august, there was going to be a potential venue issue. and people were discussing it -- legal nerds were discussing, it not -- not -- >> -- >> not in the, cafes not in the coffee shops of america. but there was a real -- because so much of the illegal conduct that was described in the fbi affidavit took place at mar-a-lago, in palm beach

florida. and the constitution, the sixth amendment, provides a criminal amendment hit donald trump, the criminal defendant, he's entitled to the jury in the district and the state in which he committed the crime. >> you mentioned the justice department. we have not heard anything from them yet, paula? do you expect that we will? how does the special counsel's office handle? this >> yeah, reporting right now, kaitlan collins, is that we will not hear anything from special counsel jack smith or his office. and that -- is that is a deliberate choice. they must have known, when they, after the courtesy of informing him that he had been indicted, that standard. that's what you would do with most defendants. you knew that this was very likely to wind up on social media, which is exactly what has happen. but they are not going to offer any statements, any additional details, or unsealing indictments tonight. and, again, that is their choice. but we have to look at how this worked out. i would with pass special counsels in terms of letting other people craft unaired, if not just releasing the, evidence or the charges. and the justice department, the fbi, they have been under siege,

criticism about political bias from both sides of the aisle for the past seven or eight years, since the investigation of hillary clinton's use of a private email server server -- one of the reasons we have a special counselor's because the attorney general is trying to protect the integrity -- right? -- of the public's view of the justice department. so, tonight the fact that the justice department -- we are getting most of the breaking news, from the former president, who has just been indicted, that is something that history will ultimately judge. it's unclear, though, if this is the correct decision. >> although i, think we can probably say that, regardless of whether they said something or not, the accusations of bias would always be there. because this was the plan all along. trump and his allies had been trying to sow the seeds of this doubt about whether this case was significant or not. and notably, even the people who are running against him are sort of accepting this narrative that because he is a former president and because he is running for president again, that that ought to subject him to some kind of other standard -- and that is, i think, what will

be tested here once we actually know the details of it. the significance of the reporting that the u.s. and the rest of the team reported about that tape in which he is talking about a specific document -- we don't know whether that document is involved in this. we don't know whether that was. all but even if it were that alone, i think it really opens the door to a really serious set of issues about national security, about trump trying to utilize the documents in a way that -- in any kind of, wait frankly -- and not just peruse, them but to use them to prove a point about general mark milley. those are really serious issues, and the ones that cannot really be spun once we know the details. >> and it's national defense information. >> we have not heard one word publicly from the special counsel since he took this job, which, if you are talking about the gravity of the case, investigating a former president, the gravity of the issues, classified documents, potential national security secrets, you can understand -- that but if you study the lessons of the mueller report,

if you study the lessons of two, impeachments you also understand what donald trump is doing and what he is doing. what he's been doing for weeks and, weeks even before this moment, and he's putting -- on and he's put it on steroids. tonight he is telling his people, don't listen to this ma'am. the fbi is corrupt. a deep state is correct. they are after me again, trying to convince them, don't listen to them. because trump is smart. he is smart, he's cynical. but he's smart. because if -- when they laid out, if you read of malodorous -- there's did approve collusion? no. but it say a lot of really bad things about donald trump? yes, it did. but his people don't believe it because he poison the well beforehand and say, do not listen to anything these people. they say. -- i'm not a lawyer -- jack smith's biggest obstacle to -- we are never, never land. we have never had -- and the faraway front runner in the next election indicted on federal charges that are incredibly serious. this is not shoplifting. this is not stealing a car. this is not running a bad business. this is taking the most secret -- top secret -- documents when he begrudgingly left the white house, mad that he had to leave, after he tried to fight so that he wouldn't have to leave.

so, the biggest challenges in court, that the first words jack smith and his team do you say, first down paper when we see, it and then if they speak to this publicly, are going to be critical to determine whether or not donald trump's arguments gets outside of his base. if that's the only argument donald trump plans with his base, he may win the republican nomination out of it but he's a former president because the rest of america's top listening to him. and we will see what. happens >> yeah. within an hour he was already fundraising off of this. i want to get back to maggie haberman. maggie, i understand you are learning the details about these charges. we know there's about seven of them, i believe. what are you learning? >> gail, and we have been told through our reporting that there's seven counts, and that none of these counts is the same, that one of these is where willful retention of documents, one is conspiracy -- we says elie honig noted before -- and then another one is false statements. but there are others that we are not aware of. a lot is going to matter when this indictment is unsealed, when we get to look, at it when we get to see the criminal complaint, we will know much more. but this tracks with everything that you and i both know about

this investigation over the last however many months it's been, over a year. >> yeah, it has been over a year. but when it comes to these counts, even though the former president was bracing for this he is in new jersey right now, he's going to go to miami, right now, as he said himself on truth social on tuesday, for this. what is your reporting on how his mindset is. i know he's been making a lot of phone calls to republicans, asking them to attack jack smith and to be out there defending him more voice here forcefully than they are now. but what is your sense of how he is doing? this >> defiantly. and i think that's not a surprise and that's what we've seen him over and over again. he and his team have been preparing this for a while. he's been telling people for many days that he expected he was going to get a dead and frankly i think he thought it would happen -- before this meeting who's lawyers had with the doj on monday but, kaitlan collins, as you and i both know, sometimes he reacts a certain way initially and then as the event sinks in or the fact stinks in, his behavior changes. so, i'm not quite sure what this is going to look like and

we know he has two political events planned for saturday. there is a going to be pretty significant to watch. and then, obviously, whatever happens in miami on tuesday outside of the courtroom will be significant too. and as you do another press conference as he did at mar-a-lago after he was indicted in -- the >> yeah, he supposed to be in georgia, at the states republican convention over the. weekend we will see what that looks like. maggie haberman, thank you. i want to go to cnn's kristen holmes. now kristen holmes, we are waiting to see more about what exactly the charges look like. what are you learning about when they could be unsealed? >> right now i am told by members of the trump team that they do believe there is one conspiracy charge, that it is seven charges and they do not expect all the charges to be unsealed tonight. they are waiting to understand what exactly those charges are. now, obviously, maggie has a source that is telling her some of these charges. the trump people that i am speaking to do not know what these charges are, other than this potential conspiracy charge, which is one of the seven charges that they believe

he has been charged with or they have been told that he has been charged with and so that is something that they are watching closely right now. and as maggie, said that they have been preparing for this for many days. trump has been saying that he believes that he is going to be indicted. and i have talked to at least half a dozen people who have spoken to him in the last three days, who say that he is not agitated, that he is actually been remarkably calm, very different demeanor than what they saw with that manhattan indictment. now, this could likely be because he believed that he was going to be indicted multiple times during this campaign season, and the other one being in georgia, during that probe. he believes he will be indicted. there but right now, his team is trying to figure out what it is we -- we mention those two campaign events on. saturday there is no indication that that would be canceled. he is still scheduled to appear in georgia and north carolina. they believe that this could happen. they said that this was likely going to happen and they were still going to do those campaign events and so that is

something to watch. the other thing, is we talked about that speaking and trump and his team right now are weighing whether or not he wants to actually give remarks after his trip there, after his court appearance on tuesday. so, right now, this is all in the works, his team is figuring this out. again, even though they suspected this, they anticipated this, they are just now trying to work out the details as they learn about these charges and, realtime kaitlan collins. >> all right, kristen holmes. back to my panel now. paula, one of the things that stuck out to me as we reporting out what trump was doing at edmunds center bedminster is that one of aides the who -- was with him in bedminster. and, of course, what kristen holmes was talking about -- it also raises the question about what the legal team will look like on tuesday, who goes in with him for this -- appearance >> that's a great question because off the top of my head i believe one of his attorneys is -- >> -- >> -- >> lindsay howell again.

>> -- taking this week, one or two people barred in florida. but they will likely be looking -- and i know some folks who have even -- on the case down there thinking it would be interesting and one said hey could even be an adventure to join this case. they said, you have no idea. but, yeah, they will absolutely, likely, need to bring in additional council in florida, people with a kind of expertise in this matter who are barred down, there who know the judges. and it will be interesting to see because, as we know, he has had a little bit of difficulty retaining lawyers. there are a lot of law firms who won't take them on. they're worried their bills won't get paid -- in terms of reputational damage -- but there are some really interesting questions here but you really have to accrue, likely, one or two more lawyers because i don't think he has the team to bring this in. florida >> not -- only >> i made -- >> i knew -- >> not only does he have difficulty obtaining and retaining lawyers, but the lawyers that he has are mostly witnesses against. >> yes. >> -- >> --

they can't -- there's a lawyer advocacy rule that you cannot be an advocate when us in the same trial. >> -- >> these guys -- are >> absolutely. multiple lorries in this case have been -- >> -- it's also a very important political point because trump have -- he saying it's the same people who were after me, it's a witch hunt. it's biden. it's garland. it's george soros, it's anybody else. just like in the january 6th hearing, i think it's very important that we -- in the business follow the facts and the information, and the witnesses before the brand jury who, have done this including including senior officials in the trump white house. junior facials in the trump white house. his staff at mar-a-lago. these are people who worked for donald trump, who get checks from donald trump. who have been loyal to donald trump, you have eyes on donald trump, who donald trump asked to move documents, and so on and so forth. the witnesses before this grand jury are donald trump's people. he is saying -- >> and donald trump himself in, the audiotape -- >> he's the -- one >> donald trump standing as close to you as i am now,

saying, three times in 30 seconds, i took the documents. >> and not only -- that >> he constantly says that he's a victim and that he's under. attack he's innocent until proven. guilty as every right to make his case in. court and he has every right to get the best. lawyers about what he is saying publicly about what he knew about the classification rules, who is behind this, or simply lies. >> -- >> i think these people are going to -- and the other thing is what we know -- and donald trump. that affidavit was unsealed because donald trump asked for it to be. >> -- reporting -- >> correct -- but the reporting -- the reporting isn't coming from jack smith. the reporting is coming about from the fact that this investigation has been going on for so long, that you have all these witnesses and all these lawyers and all these witnesses who know what's going on in the investigation, and after a certain point, it pours out into the public domain, as it has over the past couple weeks. >> and this, has, obviously legal significance. we want to see what the baylor

range, menswear thing else looks like -- but this also just injected this into the 2024 race. we had three candidates announced they are running against donald trump this week. but now this is about to be the story. >> look, short term and long term, we always have to keep that in mind when it comes to -- >> i think in the near term >> -- trump and his legal troubles, of which there are many, have often been used as both a sword and shield for him. uses the fact that he is a candidate in order to try to make a case that he is being treated unfairly. and then he also uses the fact that he has been charged in the cases and indicted or under investigation, to raise money to rally support. but in the long, term this is going to be a negative. saying. this is a bad moment for the country, of course. but certainly for donald trump. and as you guys were talking about the -- attorneys it just strikes me as the fact that you know the crime fraud exception was found to be to meet that bar. and on top of that i don't know

that the doj would move a case or less optimal venue if they didn't think that they had a very strong case. so, it really just raises -- the trump team, they've been saying, well, you guys did all these things because you're cases a week. i don't think that's really what this evidence shows. >> yeah, and -- said they can avoid them trying to move the venue later on once this visit -- anderson back to you? >> thanks, caitlin. collins joining our panel now, van jones and alan stewart, from the left and right respectively. also former white house and whitewater independent counsel robert gray, who served as the counsel to former president in the first trump impeachment. before we go to conversation i, want to show you a clip taken from the longer post from the former president just, posted on truth social. >> it's called election interference. they're trying to destroy our reputation, so that they can win election. that's just as bad as any of the other things that have been done over the last number of years. i'm an innocent man.

i did nothing wrong. i'm innocent and, we will prove that very, very soundly, and hopefully very quickly. >> want to talk more about the possible charges. elie honig and maggie haberman, was reporting -- willful retention of defense information. >> so, a few really important indicators in maggie's reporting that she just gave us on. her first of all, maggie reported that there is a document retention charge. and that tells us that this is not all obstruction. there have been some question is there's only going to be an obstruction? case no, according to maggie's reporting, there is a document retention charge or charges, and separately as maggie just reported, there's an obstruction angle. so, it's not all about obstruction. it's documents, and obstruction. maggie also reported -- that none of the charges are the same. you can have in a federal indictment, multiple counts of the same crime. four counts of obstruction, et cetera. this tells us that there are, again, according to maggie's -- reporting private reporting. and then the last thing that maggie tells us that there's an

obstruction count, in a false statements count. meaning somebody in trump's camp for donald trump himself, knew about, or made or authorize the false statement, presumably either to archives or to doj. so, we're getting indicators from maggie and paul is reporting. >> robert ray? you are a former whitewater independent counsel, what do you make of what we've heard thus far? >> i think the venue was probably one that the department of justice felt that they were -- that could only have been brought in the southern district of florida. so i think that sort of the first significant thing. >> what widow -- is what would that be? >> probably the obstruction. things that happen to mar-a-lago, that only could've happened in mar-a-lago, but they are charging those things that happened in mar-a-lago. and if that's the group of men gravimen -- of a particular charge -- court appearance scheduled in miami, i think for administrative reasons, you could expect this case if it is centered around mar-a-lago, to be one that would draw from a

palm beach county jury pool, and a judge assigned to that particular -- >> why is that? >> because, again, that's where the alleged crime is alleged to have taken place. and you would expect, they are, for the case under the constitution, that the case is broad, and the district nearest to where the charge is located. and filed, and where the facts -- are so, infected hazelbury jury pool from that location. and that location happens to be palm beach county. >> well i think the jurisdiction as you, say, it's critical to this. this the jury pool is critical, the charges are critical, and as maggie has reported. seven charges, including conspiracy to obstruct obstruction of justice, false statements, this is not just

one charge of alleged witch hunt by prosecutors. this is quite serious. but here's the thing. we have a jury of law that is going after him, which is quite serious. but donald trump is trying to make this case, whether it's on truth social or with his people. i have a friend that met with him yesterday in bedminster. he is not worry about this whatsoever, he is relaxed, he is resolute, he is telling his people he has done nothing wrong, he is innocent. this is a witch hunt, and here's the thing. there's going to be two competing factions here. there is the court of law, which is right serious, and is going to come down heavy and hard on donald from the next few days. and then, what donald trump thinks he's going to get away with in the court of public opinion in the political spectrum, and his base and his supporters are going to support him. whatever he says, they are going to believe him, and they are doubling down, and he will be more emboldened with his base on this. but these are serious charges,

and when this comes down the heavy arm of the law is going to be swift. and firm. on donald trump. >> robert, just in terms -- >> it's not going to be so swift. >> -- the historic nature of. this is how do you see this? >> look, i will believe it when i see. it but i find it hard to imagine how there is going to be a trial of these charges, which is what one would ordinarily expect sometime next year which happens to be 2024 and an election cycle. the charges are serious enough and the evidence seems to be voluminous enough that i would think this would be a two or three-day trial. this is likely to be a two or three weeks or longer trial. and i cannot imagine, under the constitution, where the defendant is required and has the obligation to be president that has a right to be president that he's going to take the afforded 2 to 3 weeks to sit in a courtroom, trying this case in 2024, on top of which the manhattan d.a.'s

office cases another probably two or three-week trial. i just don't see how we are -- >> -- >> can i ask you a -- question >> former president -- >> -- >> i do agree with that analysis, actually. you have to think about this practically. we have a trial date in the manhattan case in late march, march 25th. that's going to -- have to build in some time to prep for this case. no way that i can see that this federal case gets tried before that and you would have to start in january. that's not going to be enough. time trump is going to fight this. he's going to bring motions. there's going to be voluminous discovery. so, now, we are saying, if -- mariupol, you can just have back-to-back trials. as robert said, you have a constitutional right to prepare your defense, to participate in your defense. so you, have to build an even more time. now, we are aware. are you from, now the summer of 2020, four and we are right upon conventions when we are months away from an actual

presidential election, i don't think a judge is going to the. from a prosecutor i don't want to try this case, consistent with doj policy. but also, as a strategic matter, inlet say, august, september -- >> can i just ask a question? what if donald trump were elected president? then what happens? >> -- >> this is gone. because, first of all, he would control the justice department and so if you are talking about this case -- he controls the justice department. he just dismisses the -- if it's still pending -- he dismisses the case. it's gone. >> couldn't he pardon himself? >> there's a debate about that. but if it's a pending case he just basically withdraws the authority of the united states behind the prosecution. and he has the absolute right to do that. >> the conversation we just heard is a conversation that lawyers had with donald trump months ago. >> i'm sure that is. right >> explains why he threw his hat in the ring -- this explains the whole deal. he has game this thing out.

anything she's going to get away with it. i would say to everybody who is watching -- this nobody's -- we don't know what's in it. republicans are jumping out there that this is all about joe biden. joe biden has nothing to do with this. it's a special prosecutor. this is not a porn star thing. is not robbing the piggy bank of your charity. this is a federal government talking about possible espionage, and a presidential candidate that has gamed this thing out to -- if that's what's happening here, we should take this very, very seriously. >> and i think people do -- it a lot of people in america. do but alison, myself, and others on the republican side, they are talking to -- and the ride or die trumpers, they -- don't trust any of this stuff, than. this is deep state coming after the president and so this is not going to matter, he's gonna have a big rally, a big rally on saturday -- georgia, north carolina. i promise when he shows up on tuesday it will look like a trump rally outside that

miami-dade. you remember the brooks brothers ride in 2000? that will look like a boy scout camp. >> this, to me, it's why constitutional conservatives need to stand up. at a certain point, people have to be clear. we have a system of laws. there is a reason for special prosecutor. listen -- if it's the normal thing, if it's handled in an inappropriate way -- they took a very long time to do this. i don't understand how you could be a patriot and at the same time, stand by while people are running into the ground, law enforcement running into the ground, our system -- >> but van jones, donald trump's whole political project has been to disqualify rules, laws, norms, and institutions. to disqualify the media, to disqualify the fbi, to disqualify the justice department for the express purpose of being able to make the case when these things come that this is a corrupt system and the question is, how much

take up will they have? i suspect among his base that is going to happen. minutes after this indictment was announced, jim jordan was already tweeting, this is a sad day for america. and we will see what happens tomorrow. i expect to see a lot of house republican sort of galvanized here, and attacking the justice department. >> look, this is potential espionage here. this is absolutely serious. we can all remember back before january 6th, steve bannon telling the world heck will break out on january 6th. i am not convinced the exact same thing is not going to happen when all of this becomes public, and all of these people who were at the capitol on january 6th will have -- breaking loose, whether it is in south florida, washington d. c. ten times more. >> i know it may not be sufficient for many but understand that the former president also has limits, the public does not seem to recognize that.

but he will obey process, he will appear at three pm. in a miami courthouse to answer the federal charges next week. he is not ignoring the process, he didn't ignore the process before the manhattan d. a. 's office. he has the right to dispute the merits of a prosecution, which he is fully going to do. it's going to take advantage of the political process? you bet. you would expect him to do so. i don't think the country is going to fall to pieces as a result of the fact that he is going to contest these charges. and it's also a reality that he is the leading presidential candidate on the republican side. he's likely to be the nominee. and he's likely to run for president in an environment where his poll numbers far surpassed everybody. so, in that context, i think we need to also sort of afford they are a bit of a timeout to say, how are we, as a country, going to get through this in 2024? okay. in the best interest of the country -- i'm not sure how we are going

to do that. but i think we all should be able, on both sides of this, to try to sort that out, talk about it and figured out. i don't -- know the answer to that question what it raises some serious questions and i think we all need to think about that. >> the only man here who doubted not indict the president and looked out for the best interest of the country -- >> we will rue the day. >> i hear you -- one of the interesting things, though, is that as the president tries a case outside the courtroom, he is already making arguments that his lawyers will not make inside of the courtroom, like what his ability to declassify documents were, you know, by fiat. >> right. david, you know, that is a factor, because i am sure the discussion on monday by his lawyers with the justice department was something along the lines, and elie honig will tell you this -- you understand that the justice department prosecutors will have to prove that donald trump did not have inherent authority

to declassify material. and that he was bound, not withstanding the fact that he is the commander-in-chief, to follow the procedure and he that he knew that, by violating the procedure violated the espionage act. let me tell you something, i think there is a lot of questions in just a little discussion there there is some questions as -- the president as commander-in-chief has some inherent authority that congress cannot disturb relative to classified information. >> i think it is an open question, and the justice department is now going to have to stand behind the position as an absolute, that a president does not have that authority. >> there will be, for sure, as david says, a disconnect between what we heard donald trump saying publicly, what we hear him say on truth social, and what his lawyers are saying in the courtroom. however, know that those statements that donald trump is making outside of the courtroom can be used against him in the courtroom. >> and they -- >> and he's already made statements, including in our town hall to kaitlan collins, that i assure you will be used against him.

>> -- >> part of what i think we should do -- if we want to deal with the political implications is, why? why did trump take the documents, why? why did he keep them? why? why is he lying about it? why? there is a potential serious national security issue here and that is something he's trying to desperately make sure that we don't talk about. >> -- that may well come out a trial. >> again, all the people jumping on the bandwagon, saying, this is deep state, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. you don't know what's coming. you don't know what this department of justice has found and discovered. there is no reason in the world to think that a special prosecutor would risk his career in all of the things we are talking about for nothing. there is something here, something is going on. this president took these documents and he lied about them, and hid them, and we need to find out why. >> that is my first reaction to hearing this was coming. van jones is right.

this is a legitimate point and the first thing that my head went around like okay, there's seven counts, and there's an indictment. is -- was there harm to the united states? as an american, i would like to know the answer. that is a relevant question not only for the criminal justice process, which is what you are suggesting, it is also a relevant question for the best interest of the country, and the republic. you are right about that, and i am not going to speculate, i do not know. but is the first question on my mind when i saw this, okay, what are we doing here? if we are about something that is serious, and there is harm to the country, that is one thing. if it was all the rest of the atmospherics -- the bottom line is, it's a documents case. the president of the united states has all of that information in his head. what are you going to do? take it out of his head? really, if that's all this is about is a bunch of misplaced documents, that is not really a reason to bring a prosecution. >> there is a reason to bring a prosecution if it involves harm of the united states. >> accepting everything you say, van, i would you say to that 60

courts throughout the allegations that the last election was fraudulent, and yet two thirds of republican voters still believe that the last election was illegitimate so, you cannot underestimate the power of this man to command his base, and i think that he's going to try to invoke all of it to navigate his way through this legal securities. and >> i want to go back to kaitlan collins in washington. kaitlan collins? >> anderson, two new guess joint -- cnn anchor and former prosecutor, laura coates, and tim parlatore former attorney for form president trump. you are his attorney not that long ago. you also said not long ago you didn't think that he was going to be indicted in this case, and now he has been. what do you think changed? >> i never thought that there should be an indictment, and obviously there is a possibility of it, and i am very interested to see what is in it. to see what the theory is. this is the kind of thing where obviously they've been investigating for a long time. they have a lot of evidence

that they could show to a jury, but then there is the other side of it, so i am really curious to see how it goes, i am also curious to see how a lot of the more recent revelations of prosecutorial misconduct play into it. when they were talking about how this could be used to rile up the base, unfortunately the prosecutors assigned to this team are given a lot of red meat on that. point. >> we've seen a lot of allegations, we haven't heard a lot of substance on that, i should note on that. we will have a trump attorney join us a little bit. so we will ask him about that. but when it comes to what maggie haberman is reporting, about how some of these charges are conspiracy to obstruct willful retention of documents, false statements, what do you make of those of those indeed the charges when it gets unsealed? >> ultimately, this comes down to it is a document retention case, and an allegation of an obstruction. and so those two things --

prosecutors will take that and they will put it in multiple different ways. you have conspiracy to obstruct, obstruct. conspiracy to retain documents, retention of documents. and then they could split things up, perhaps different counts for the documents that are in the storage room, versus in the office, things like that. so the number of counts itself does not necessarily mean as much as what is the substance of those counts. like what is the range of conduct that is alleged? >> if it is conspiracy, do you expect other people either have been indicted or will be indicted? >> that will be interesting to see. we have only considered up until now that there are certain individuals who have employees who could be part of an obstruction count. but as far as a larger document retention codefendants, that is not something that i've seen yet. but certainly something i would be interested to see. >> -- and i want to hear what laura

has to ask you about this as well -- have criticize you the current legal team is. do you think that the current legal team he has right now is prepared to handle this documents investigation out of florida? >> when you say that the current legal team, jim trusty, lindsay halogen halligan -- and i do you think they are capable of handling this. jim and john are both very, experienced attorneys, they both spent a lot of years at doj. so i think that they would be capable of handling this. yes. >> i want to be clear that when we are talking about these as document retention,'s that nobody is being dismissive of the gravity that is involved. when i hear the phrase document retention that you heard -- panel -- about this being something relegated to a minor thing. these are current laws on the books involving the presidential records act, involving congressional, legislative initiatives to say, we as a society do not want documents that are classified or of national security interest, or otherwise, or defense information to be out and about, detained, retained,

released, disclosed, in some way. so when you are talking about the document retention aspect of it, do you think that people see it as minimized based on the fact that they are documents, and the information itself -- yes, it's in trump's head. but if you disclose the information, there is validity and gravitas about what that means for our national security, and our way of legislative life. don't you think? >> no, absolutely. it's not to minimize, by calling it documentary tension. it's really going to come down to what is in those documents. classification is not something that is part of the elements here, it is whether it constitutes national defense information. meaning the contents of this document, if disclosed, would be damaging to the national security of the united states. -- to the enemy. so really, it is definitely going to come down to which documents were we talking about, what are the severity of these, and simply being classified is not going to be enough. for example, one potential

document here is daily schedules. the one saying that tomorrow we will fly to afghanistan to have thanksgiving dinner with the troops. that was highly classified at the time because you do not want the taliban to know that the biggest, juiciest target in the world is about to fly over. but as soon as he walks into the dining hall and there are all of the cameras, there it is no longer classified. and so, i believe one of the documents, potentially at play here, would be that schedule. so if that is what we are talking about, a lot of those types of documents, then it does become the much less severe case. >> i would be surprised, as i am sure you would be, to have the special counsel emphasize and focus on something as we are talking about relative, minor consequence. but really, in the long run, lawyer to lawyer, thinking about this, the fact that the information is no longer lawfully and the lawful possession of a person who is no longer the president, that carries a great deal of weight. whether we want to discuss it, i don't know if it is on the

documents nor do you fully, but i know that there has been a lot of talking points that have been raised about what jack smith may be looking at in the actual substantive documents. the fact that they no longer belong to him, that is significant and of itself. and his refusal to return them. >> the issue, by the way, i separate out when we talk about the refusal, i separate out the first year where they are talking with nara, a year and a half, versus when the subpoena gets involved. because those are two different -- how did they get down there to begin with. which is a legitimate question, and the reason that we were able to discern is is upon the change of administration, the

national archives ordinarily runs a facility where the president is moving to, and then they move all of the boxes from the white house directly to that facility, where they remain under national archives control. they are locked, they are secured, there is a guard there. they have this in the building, they have a skiff in the building -- so, if we are any reason, there is any classified documents, they put them in the scif. and if, for any reason now nara chooses -- >> -- on the audiotape at the center of this. -- everyone standby, because we do have much more ahead on this historic night, including one of the former presidents current attorneys that tim just referenced there. jim trusty will join us, it will be his first interview since the news of the indictment of his client, the former president, broke. you inspired the lexus es to be, well ... more you. so thank you. we hope you like your work. (♪ ♪)

humpty dumpty does it with a great fall. wonderful pistachios. get crackin' 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.