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.

ten years ago, i invented the ring video doorbell for moments like that. and ring security cameras for moments like this. [ring floodlight cam siren sounds] [bear growls] and ring alarm with professional monitoring. ten years of reinventing home security, and tens of millions of safer homes. protect your home, the way i do. learn more at ring.com ♪ shelves. shelves that know what taste buds want. shelves smart enough to see, sense, react, restock.

♪ so caramel swirl is always there for the taking. i got into debt in college, and no matter how much i paid, it followed me everywhere. so i consolidated it into a low-rate personal loan from sofi. get a personal loan with low low fixed rates, and borrow up to $100k. sofi get your money right. i got tai last december. i've spent almost every minute with her since. when i first brought her home, she was eating little brown pieces in a bag and it was just what kind of came recommended. i just always thought, “dog food is dog food” i didn't really piece together that dogs eat food. as soon as we brought the farmer's dog in, her skin was better, she was more active, high-quality poops. if i can invest in her health and be proactive, i think it's worth it. see the benefits of fresh food at betterforthem.com

tonight, a former president is facing federal charges for the first time in u.s. history as former president trump announced earlier tonight that he has been indicted when it comes to the special counsel jack smith's documents investigation. cnn's justice correspondent evan perez is following all of this closely, all this breaking news. evan, i know so far we have not heard from the justice

department, we have heard from the former president, not only in several, post but a video. what also you learning about these charges? >> well, caitlin, i am astonished really that the justice department really didn't seem to learn anything from last august when, you know, the fbi conducted a search of mar-a-lago, and they said nothing for three days, allowing the former president to set the narrative to frankly, spin falsehoods about what happened during the search, calling the fbi thugs, making all kinds of claims about what occurred at mar-a-lago that day. and, it wasn't until threats were made on two fbi agents that the attorney general was persuaded by people around him to finally go and say something. so, one of the things that i know certainly was being discussed at the justice department for weeks, was if jack smith brought an indictment, how to handle this in order to avoid a repeat of what happened last august? so i'm kind of astonished,

right, quite frankly, that we are sitting here. they have notified the former president knowing that he is going to go public, and set the narrative of what this is. we have no facts from the justice department to say what is true, and what isn't. we do not know whether jack smith will speak tomorrow, we don't know that the attorney general or anyone is going to speak before tuesday's quarter periods for the former president. it is one reason why, look, i respect mr. parlatore, but we don't, know we have no way of knowing whether what he is saying about the documents, whether those schedules, whether that is included in these charges. so that is one of the things that i, think again, i find myself just truly astonished that the justice department is handling it this way, because they know the person they are dealing with. the former president is unlike any other defendant in the history of the united states. >> it allows him to control the narrative, and obviously, the justice department may be doing that for their investigative purposes, and not wanting to

ruin their case, but, it is allowing him, it does have an odd similarly to what we still have been back in august when we -- >> and the mueller investigation. >> in the mueller investigation as well. yeah, so what do you expect if they don't say anything, if we don't hear anything from jack smith and his team? i know a lot of them were in miami today, reporters outside that courthouse, is their chance we don't hear from them until tuesday when the former president shows up there as he has let everyone know he will be there three pm? >> will the attorney general merrick garland, he really has this strict rule about, we speak through our court documents. so at some point, perhaps tomorrow morning, we might see the prosecutors go to the judge and ask him, ask the judge to unseal the indictment so that we can -- the public can read this. this is a matter of great public interest, of course. we've never had a former president indicted before. the fact that they have notified him about his

indictment, and they have told him when you show up in court, and yet they have not told the public what exactly are facts in this indictment, what the former president is accused of, you know, it is incredible to believe that they would not at least try to do that tomorrow, and certainly not wait until tuesday. >> what's the sense of what tuesday actually looks like then? once the former president shows, up he has his legal team with him. i should note, i heard earlier today, he's in new jersey right now. he did not have a lot of his attorneys with him. maybe none of them. i was told they were still spread out all over the place. not exactly clear that they knew this indictment was going to happen, as we believe it did today. what would tuesday look like? since it's not washington, d. c. , where this is happening. >> it's not. it's for. i think that's one of the concerns, the security folks and law enforcement folks, caitlin, we're not told in advance. they knew that jack smith, obviously, was holding this very tight. they were not gonna be told until after the former president was notified. at this hour, we know that the

secret service is trying to get its resources together. they're going to have a meeting. with the former presidents team, to arrange for how he gets down to florida. how we get down to that courthouse, the u. s. marshals are in charge of securing that building, security and judges, the fbi is involved in the overall security situation. all of that work is now ongoing. none of that stuff was done ahead of time, because, again, there was the concern of the information leaking. , so, what we know on tuesday, we expect there to be a pretty robust security cordon around that federal court. downtown miami. we expect that the former president will be brought in, there's a secure way to bring him into that building. and then he'll be -- hiller the charges, it's possible we may see them unsealed before them. again, that's all of that is now being worked out by justice department security officials.

the fbi, the marshals, and the secret service, to make sure in the miami-dade police department, to make sure the former president can get in there safely. securely. the judges, everybody in that court can be protected ahead of time. >> yeah, we saw what that look like when he was indicted in new york. evan perez, thank you. also want to go to bedminster, where the former president's, he's not in florida were just talking about that case going to look like on tuesday. elena, what are you hearing from those around the former president about his reaction to being indicted? >> right, caitlin, i talked to some of trump's advisers, and people who are with him tonight. they said that the president and his team are, quote, very jacked up right now. they're feeling emboldened by the indictment. they're also saying, he maintains to keep the same line he's been saying over the past several days. he thinks this is a political win tried. he's done nothing wrong. all of these investigations are

very political. now, even though donald trump's team is saying they think that he's emboldened by this, they're feeling ready to fight back. we do know that some of his other advisers do think that they have some reservations about this. they do worry about what a federal indictment could mean for donald trump. in the long term. a lot of them are wondering how this puck can politically affect, him you know that he saw a boost in the polls, some favor ability from his base after the indictment by the manhattan district attorney. earlier this year, they're thinking that that's going to happen again. they're feeling good about a lot of the allies from people on capitol hill, and republicans on twitter. defending him. and pushing back against this indictment. but, again, i do think is a good portion of his team as well that is worried about what this indictment could mean.

i know you know this, caitlin, as we've been covering this, donald trump's moods to change. this is how he's feeling right now. that doesn't mean, as this news sinks in, and in the coming days, he may start to get a little bit more concerned about this. >> yeah, elena, thank you. he is making its history to become the first former president to face federal charges. anderson, back to you in new york. >> kaitlan, thanks very much. someone who's witnessed more than a lot -- of their of bernstein, also his watergate counterpart, cnn contributor and former nixon white house counsel, john dean. carl, what do you make of what we've heard so far? >> that this is a very serious matter that the attorney general of the united states has let go forward. merrick garland is a very careful man. and i think that we are going to see, once we see the indictment, what this is about. if it is not a great narrative, that tells something about donald trump and his recklessness, which this case is partly about, playing fast and loose with national security. if that is not demonstrated very quickly, then this can work to the president, former president's advantage. i think what we need to presume that jacks mitt has got his ducks in a row. this is going to be a very long process.

and more than that, we need to see this in the context of who donald trump is. that once again, there's going to be a story told here, we already know from maggie haberman's reporting, and others, that this is about donald trump flouting the law. thinking he's above the law. it's about what bob woodward and i have written about, talked about on this air, for seven years now with donald trump. so, when the story is told, then we're gonna have legal analysis and gradually, we're gonna also find out what do members, republican members of the senate of the united states, who are predisposed to non---republican members who are predisposed to not liking trump, and holding him in contempt, what are they gonna think about this, if it is a solid case? and we know how members of the house might react to this. and how the people we've been talking about, his followers,

are going to react. how is the established republican party, are they gonna go along with something that is demonstrated, in this indictment, that may be a terrible, terrible story. and we'll find out. >> carl, i want to bring in john dean. john, maggie haberman's reporting, conspiracy to obstruct, false statements, willful retention of defense information. that the seven counts are each different. how serious is this do you think for the former president? i'm wondering, what do you think about the justice department, at this point, not filling in any of the question marks about what actually has been charged in allowing it all to be announced by the former president? >> anderson, you took that right out of my head. that's my concern for the last hour. special counsel regularly announce indictments. john durham did, i had several diamonds. i don't get it. they're letting trump really frame all the issues, and explain what's going on. and these out, piecemeal, for,

what an hour plus now into this thing? we really have no idea, other than what leaked, what's in this indictment. i think maggie's got good sources, hopefully, she's correct. that would put cover pretty much the entire waterfront of what we know has been investigated. as i say, your first question is the one that is most troubling. justice isn't really running the show here, putting out what they've done and what they've done it. >> john dean, carl bernstein, i appreciate it. carl bernstein just mentioned congressional reaction for that i wanna go to cnn's manu raju, who's on capitol hill. manu, what are you hearing there. >> right now, it's almost a repeat of what happened earlier this year when donald trump became the first president who

is indicted -- in the new york case involving those hush money payments. instantly, in that situation, trump's staunchest allies rushed to his defense. we're seeing this right now in the aftermath of news of trump being the first ever -- president ever indicted on federal child charges. his staunchest supporters coming out on twitter, issuing statement after statement, packing the justice department saying, joe biden is getting a pass from the allegations against him. but the justice department being working but nice to get donald trump. we're seeing that from one member after another. we have not heard from some of the top members of congress, including the speaker of the house, kevin mccarthy. who i am told is expected to come in tonight. he did comment against the new york prosecution as well, in republicans in the house went after that prosecutor. it's uncertain how the republicans plan to go after the case here as well. some of them have called for defunding the fbi. dismantling the fbi. that's what the words coming from some of trump's closest supporters, such as andy biggs,

a congressman from arizona, someone who sits on the house judiciary committee, there has been some notable silence to, anderson, from senate republican leaders, mitch mcconnell. someone who has not been a fan of donald trump, someone who's publicly neutral in this race. someone who's criticized donald trump for his role in the aftermath of january 6th. mcconnell has not commented yet, it's unclear if you will. also, the number two senate republican, john -- silence from it as well. thune and supported one of his rivals in the, race tim scott. we're seeing this down the line. a number of republicans on the senate side, staying quiet on

this right now. they have the liberty of doing that, anderson, because right now, congress has gone until next week. both in the house in the senate side. only members want to respond, they will. they're not going to be approached in the hallways, they're all gone from the capital right now. we do expect the speaker of the house, to issue a statement, sometime soon. likely in defense of the president. and on the democratic side, the leadership to, quite. senate majority leader, chuck schumer, has not weighed in. neither is the house democratic leader, hakeem jeffries. as some democrats have pushed back on the republican attacks, and crude about the charges. >> it is fascinating, manu, to hear republicans talking about defunding the fbi. defunding the department of justice. >> yeah, that is coming from some of the rank and file members. that is not yet coming from any of the members of the republican leadership. some of those members have said that, defund the fbi, dismantle the fbi. that's the words from

congressman andy biggs, some other members of the rank-and-file pushing that. that's going to be an issue in which the republican leaders have been not embracing that, they have to listen to, it especially if any to get the votes when it comes time to passing legislation, passing bills. to fund the government. so, efforts to try to tie up the house -- we've seen here in the house, just this week, there is some leverage for some of those members. will they choose to use, that that is not the rhetoric that the republican leadership wants to embrace. instead, they want to more broadly attacked the justice department, as being weaponized against former president donald trump. of course, anderson, no one is seeing any of the charges, no one knows the merits of the investigation. they are just merely attacking the department, based on public reports, based on donald trump's own social media posts, without knowing any of the evidence here. again, it's a lot like what happened in the new york case as well. a lot of members quick to react, about seeing the evidence first. >> manu raju, appreciate it. back with our panel, we're also joined now by cnn legal analyst, and former deputy assistant attorney general, elliott williams. elliott, we haven't heard from you. we just had the graphic up, the new york times reporting, maggie haberman saying obstruct ups -- will for retention of defensive formation are among three of the count. >> right, so, a few things. one, as was that a little bit earlier, conspiracies is a big deal. there, you would've found some agreement to violate the law by multiple people. there will be individuals other than the former president who is involved in some sort of criminal scheme there. that's obviously quite significant, when you step back and talk about it. what we haven't talked about, judges. what might happened when this gets in front of a judge? look, there are, i believe, a

little more than two dozen federal judges that said on the southern district of florida. in miami, fort pierce, fort lauderdale and west palm beach. we don't quite know which judge will get this. now, i would assume that barring someone extreme, it is in the interest of any federal judge that hears this case to make it not about a political campaign. and try to stick to the facts in the law. what, that's probably the worst possible outcome for former president trump. but i think that's far more likely than not, even for, and i think people like to regard the art of judging, in terms of who the presidents were the people in the, bench even trump judges could potentially handle this matter. and after unreasonable responsible way. i think it's far more likely they get you get someone -- than someone who would. >> it's interesting, there are three different lanes here.

there's the court of law, which you guys are familiar with. there's a court of public opinion, then there's the mega court. and we've already heard donald trump say, this is a witch hunt. this is them going after him for no reason. speaking with several republicans across the country as, i'm sure david has as well, they have no confidence in the fbi. they think the fbi is only doing this because donald trump is running for president again. and they say that this is overreach by the fbi. even speaking with, he's having big rallies in north carolina and georgia this weekend, speaking with one of the big georgia organizers, they say they've had more interest since this has come out as a result of this. this is emboldening donald trump's base, they look at him as a victim, as a martyr, for

an overreach of the fbi. and you have to look at this from the standpoint of this may potentially help donald trump. and you also look at his challengers for the gop nomination. we've heard from ron desantis, who thinks this is weaponization of the fbi. as well as nikki haley. there are other challengers, obviously, chris christie, a sergeant, and says that he was done the crime, he should do the time. there's a stark contrast between what we're seeing and the legal challenges, and what donald trump and his base are willing to look at. >> it is amazing last night, to have heard former vice president, mike pence, going

after democrats, saying they want to defund police. tonight, to be hearing from republican members of congress talking literally about defunding the fbi. >> it's through the looking glass. i think this is the negative and dangerous impact of the trump effect on american life. it goes to what david was talking about earlier, to teach a whole generation of young conservatives that the fbi, which obviously, as a progressive i have my i've criticisms, you go back to dr. king, but these are the best law enforcement agents in the world. they've been given some of the toughest assignments. they keep us safe. every day. and to say that these people

are somehow have been hypnotized. and now they're just zombies, coming after donald trump for no reason. the idea that people accept that shows you that we are in real trouble. and my concern about it is simply this, tuesday you're going to have the opportunity for our court system to do its job. it could be a circus. already, on truth social, he's giving out the date, the time, the place. he may as well be organizing another january 6th next week. and it is very, very dangerous what he's doing. >> van, to your point. if only we lived in a world where people would, would universally recognized the truth that, in order to get a search warrant for agents to enter your home, facts and evidence have to be presented to a federal judge, who had signed off on. in order for the diamond to be brought, there has to be probable cause found that you are linked to the commission of a crime. these are basic facts. and not -- >> sorry, go ahead. i was gonna say, we talk about this during the break roughly. what is it about america, what is it about americans, that were willing to believe this? willing to accept it? that so many americans, not a french number, it's not a small group. remember, when trump ran against biden in 2020, he had 74 million people voting for the guy. and, so i'm guessing that number may have decreased some between now and then, but there's still a massive amount of americans.

that are not rooms, some toothless rooms living in some hot someplace. this is your neighbors, your friends, people you go to church with. they love this guy. what is, it what is it about him? didn't exist before donald trump? is he just reflecting american culture? back in the day, you hear upper say, i'm just telling you what i hear in the street in my neighborhood. that's what i'm wrapping about. so, is trump out there doing that now? is he reflecting what the community lives in and sees? >> listen, this has been unfolding for a very long time. this is not something to. this is the project that he's been working on, he was building on things that went before him in, social media helped contribute to it, the whole modern media environment people get one side of a story. and take it as gospel. there are a whole bunch of people in this country who believe this narrative that institutions of our country are corrupt and rigged against them. >> they don't believe it just

because of donald trump. >> no, i think that these are memes that have been, you, know this is a really, really deep and complex question. it goes to the misplace incentives in media and politics that drive people into these holes. >> he's pumping peoples pain. that's what he's doing. people have been left behind. people have been screwed over. the system doesn't help everybody, that's true. that's not what's happening here. that's not what's happening here. any other american that stole a bunch of federal documents and lied about, it would also be going to court. there is no two tier thing happening to him, except that it took two years from to get in trouble. so, he's pumping peoples pain. i think the problem that we have, at the early political level, we forget there are people out there that are hurting in uncertain every day. they have not gotten a good explanation for they have had a

good race, and that type of stuff. we leave the door open, we just defend the system as it is, people come along and take advantage. it is a disgusting what he's doing. it's disgusting. he is being treated better than any american in civil circumstances would be treated, period, point blank. no doubt about. that is accolades being treated worse. >> i wanna go back to caitlin dc, caitlin? >> anderson, joining our panel now is cnn special correspondent jamie -- i know you've been watching this all since trump himself announced it, what are you seeing? >> i've been talking to two groups of people, former justice department officials who've been in brawls very similar to this. and how they look at it, also political sources in the republican party. the former justice department officials, who are really familiar with how all of this works, point out not only that this is historic, unprecedented,

now the second time the former president is being indicted first, new york, now. they said to me, in many ways, this is antique climatic, because former president trump has been doing this in plain sight. one of the former justice department store said to me, he's been daring merrick garland and the special counsel. in fact, to indict him. by saying all of these things. and claiming that it's -- there his. i think the other point, politically, as we've all been discussing this evening, how this is going to play out. over the next year. when could this come to trial? well we have seen that donald trump politically has seemed teflon thus far. , we're just beginning to hear about these charges. we're just beginning to find out about the evidence. maybe some of these, his base, it's gonna stick with him forever. no matter what, if he goes out and should someone, as he said

on fifth avenue. but i think that there are republicans out there who really want to know what is in this evidence. and they're not convinced yet that it will hurt him. >> can i jump in on that point? it came up in the conversation, and if there was having as well. about views of trump's constant attacks and institutions. in this case, let's focus on the fbi. -- one of the best republican pollsters in the business, he just released this 30 slide steady, looking at the polarization in american politics. and what's at the root of it. this is one of the. this is from nbc polling. but ask the question, you have a favorable positive view of a bunch of institutions? july 1995, republicans, to have a positive view of the fbi? 52% yes. september, 2022, republicans,

give a positive view of the fbi? 18%. 18%. it's not all trump, to david axelrod's point, in 2013, 52% yes, positive view of the fbi in 1995. in 2013, it was 41%. waco, general lack of eroding trust in institutions, part of american politics anyway. it's coming down some, 41% in 2013, 18%. a little more than a year ago. trump knows that. trump placed to. it's cynically, effective. with his base, that's why you see the jim jordans on the ted cruz's, and the -- people in senior leadership positions, the republican party, attacking the fbi. the republican party, when i started doing this a long time, ago was the party of law and order. the republican party is now attack. long order. because they make the case that they're out to get him. which, number one, is affected with donald trump's base. this helps donald trump, as upside down is that may seem, in the current political debate, can i be your next republican nominee for president? can i be the nominee to try and get my old job, this helps him.

we know that for a fact. also, in my view, to the point of the conversation you have with evan earlier, bring a case against former president, pretty high bar for any prosecutor anyway. the climate, the jack smith does this, and the skepticism about the federal government, about institutions. donald trump is put on steroids among republicans, raise the bar even more. >> it's always interesting when we talk about the law and order party, but there is a lawn order office, and that's the president of the united states. the head of the executive branch, we'll tell everyone under that follows that the fbi, the first person to enforce the law. that's their entire job. you've got the optics already there. it's already interesting, the reason we have jack smith, the special counsel, is for the concerns that are being raised. you would have somebody who obviously is the purported front runner, even if you are not, he's running against the person who has appointed the attorney general of the united states of america. jack smith's very roll was called on by people to have somebody to remove even the slightest hint of impropriety. now that's there, the idea of

the talking points. i'll say, i don't think it's a bad thing that we've yet to hear from the department of justice. number one, it's a great thing that a lot of us are in the dark, because that our grand juries are supposed to operate. that's all you know the system is not the tiring in feathering of the public square. the second point, it's a good thing that we don't have all this information, from the doj. their role, as every prosecutor in any trial will know, we love the rebuttal. we love the closing argument, the final word. and everything he lays out will be a part of the court of public opinion, the notion of, our heritage is ingrained in our skin. and even when we metamorphosize into our new evolved form, we carry that spirit with us. because you can take alfa romeo out of italy.

but you best believe, you can't take the italy out of an alfa romeo. ♪birds flyin' high, you know how i feel.♪ ♪breeze driftin' on by...♪ ♪...you know how i feel.♪ you don't have to take... [coughing] ...copd sitting down. ♪it's a new dawn,...♪ ♪...it's a new day,♪ it's time to make a stand. ♪and i'm feelin' good.♪ start a new day with trelegy. no once-daily copd... ...medicine has the power to treat copd... ...in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler,... ...trelegy makes breathing easier for a full 24 hours, improves lung function, and helps prevent future flare-ups.

trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler... ...for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating,... ...vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand, and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy... ...and save at trelegy.com. ♪ you got a minute? how about all weekend?

let's go. ahora! i'm a miami hotel. i'm looking for someone who loves art deco elegance, good times, and unexpected flavors. someone who likes it hot but knows how to keep their cool. a white-sand beach where you can see the sunrise? way better than whatever you were going to binge-watch this weekend. and you could be here in half the time. find me at hotels.com ♪inspiring music♪ ♪ start your day with nature made. the #1 pharmacist recommended vitamin and supplement brand. the former president indicted. that is according to him, and other sources confirming it to cnn tonight. joining us now, one of his attorneys. jim trusty, this is his first interview since news of the indictment broke just a few

hours ago. jim, thanks for joining us. my first question, do you have a copy of this indictment? >> no, we haven't been provided with the indictment yet. what we have right now, is essentially a summons, which is a replacement for a warrant. normally, indictments are accompanied by a warrant, where there is interest, here we received a summons. from the department of justice, asking us to be at the courthouse tuesday at 3:00. >> does it say how many charges there are against your client? >> again, it doesn't perfectly mirror an indictment, it does have some language in it that suggests what the seven charges would be. not 100 and clear that all of those are separate charges, but they basically break out from an espionage act charge, which is ludicrous under the facts of this case, and i can certainly explain it, and several obstruction based type charges, and then false statement charges, which are actually, again, kind of a trees crazy stretch from the fact that we know it. there's a lot to pick at from the defense side, that appears to be the charges and it appears to be something that will get off the ground on tuesday. >> okay, you're confirming it is seven charges, you said there is an espionage act

charge, is there one on the willful retention of documents? >> yeah, 18 usc seven 93. and then there several 18 usc 15 12, 15 19, great television to say these numbers. the bottom line, it breaks down to the retention charge, as you would call it, obstructions and false statement. >> is there a conspiracy charge in here? >> i believe, so i don't have it in front of me right now. again, this is not typically accurate. i'm not looking at a charging document, i'm looking at a summary sheet. there is language in there that might actually be reflecting a single count instead of two. i think there's a conspiracy count as well. >> that means there could be other indictments, have you been told that anyone else was indicted here? >> we weren't advised of anyone else being indicted. i have a theory that maybe some of the outrageous misconduct has affected the equation, in some other case. potential target.

. bottom line is, right now all we know is our client. >> what's your theory? >> well, over the last 24 hours, it's become public that members of the department of justice, led by jay brett, who's a pivotal figure in this investigation, this is the guy want to do a raid before they even had a subpoena out, he apparently, along with five other people in his presence from doj, extorted a very well respected, very intelligent lawyer from washington d.

c. . saying, essential, if you want this judge ship that's on joe biden's desk, you have to flip your guy to cooperate against the president of the united states. >> do you have evidence of that? is that been something that republican allies and trump have been saying, give evidence that that happened? >> yeah, this is no political talker, this is something that is reported at the time by the attorney. it has been basically sworn to buy, him he's written a letter that's been submitted to the u. s.

district court judge, refer confirming it happened. i think it will be really interesting to find out whether doj, whether the five people that sat in the room and watched that extortion have threads of text messages or emails where they comment about that. we're gonna want some discovery about just how far ranging this criminal activity was by prosecutors. think of the irony, once again, you've got prosecutors saying, we're going after this guy because of obstruction, that's their theoretical distinction from delaware, while they literally obstructed justice. they literally tampered with a witness in the fall of 2022. >> let's get back to the indictment here, we don't have any evidence of what you're claiming there, i know that the legal tape -- >> other than sworn testimony, right. >> that we are saying, i'm taken your door to that. we don't have any evidence of that ourselves, i just want to note for our audience. i want to get back to the indictment here, this is the breaking news tonight. from your own client, how did you find out about this? did you hear from the special counsel, jack smith? how did you get this summons that you're referencing? >> we are, we've got an email from the guy who actually did

the extortion. that was a cute little message from doj, they're not going to worry about their own dirty house. we got an email that basically had a summons, an invitation to have a call to work on some of the logistics. we'll work on those logistics, there's a lot to figure out between the u. s. marshals and the u. s. secret service to make this as smooth as possible, make it safe for the public. and make it efficient in the courthouse. that's all coming. it would be nice to actually have a copy of the indictment. we don't have that quite yet. we're gonna hold -- >> when you expect to get a copy of that indictment? >> sometime between now and tuesday afternoon. if they want to continue to play games, they'll give it to us at 301 pm. tuesday. . >> what was the former president's reaction when you told him that he had been indicted in this case? >> it's a combination of things. look, anytime you advise a client that they've been indicted when they know it's fundamentally wrong, i know all attorneys go on the air and say, my clients innocent. and then after the trial, we're gonna win the appeal. well, here he is innocent. everything about this case is absolutely rotten, the misconduct that we've documented from the attorney general, who hides behind jack smith. so, his reaction was personal, but it wasn't. he thought about it he said, that's just a sad day. i can't believe i've been indicted. those are my summary words of what he had to say. at the same time, he immediately recognize the historic nature of this. this is crossing the rubicon. when we have a weaponized doj serving as a praetorian guard for the democratic party, for the incumbent administration, and the attorney general, who is in charge of jack smith, hides from meetings, highs from conversations. and just says, go talk to jack.

that is a crazy, new world. >> jack smith is a special counsel, he acts independent, that's why he was appointed in this. but he was in that meeting that you were in on monday, the justice department, we were told, did he say anything to you in that meeting? was there any indication that these charges were coming? >> i'm not gonna talk about the meeting. but to go back to your premise there, kaitlan, this is not an independent counsel statute. that changed. this is special counsel. they're still answerable to the attorney general. now, for whatever political reasons, maybe it's all about delaware, or apparently cases go today, everything that the attorney general should be doing, in terms of transparency, is not happening. that started with his impromptu press conference to announce the president's guilt.

it continued with the misconduct that we've documented, it's not just the smoking gun that i've mentioned in terms of extortion. obviously, you've got tim parlatore there, he can tell you about the grand jury abuse. that he went through directly. that's pretty solid evidence. and there's a whole bunch of other stories of mistreating, intimidating, browbeating witnesses and gamesmanship. -- >> i know that your allegations, jim, i know that's why you went to the justice department on monday to air your grievances about how this investigation has been conducted, but again, this is historic. you're right. your client has been indicted, he's the first former president to face federal charges. what day did you get the target letter, letting you know that he was indeed a target in this investigation? >> look, i mean, a put it to you this way. witnesses don't have raids at their houses. okay? we've known he is a target for seven years. >> i'm not gonna get into the. >> why not? the >> internal communications stuff it's not something i'm comfortable throwing it. >> if your capital making these allegations. jim, if your compelling these allegations about who's on the special counsel's team, why can't you say when they sent to the target letter? >> because i have no interest in reporting on those types of

facts of communication. sorry. >> which lead ultimately with trump when he shows up on tuesday? will he show up on tuesday? >> yeah he, is gonna show up. look, he knows he's innocent. he knows this is garbage, he knows there's fundamental flaws with each one of the counts that they're putting in this indictment. he knows that the whole process, starting from the archive, was a corrupt and politicized one. he's not shrinking from the fight. he's disappointed that this is where we are as a country. this is where the department of justice is. but you're not gonna see him hide in scotland, he's gonna be ready to handle this case, and helps attorneys fight it. we'll see, it'll make some excitement to see who shows up to the table on tuesday i guess. >> it's not clear which attorneys will be with, him is that you're saying? so far, it's been due, john rally, lindsay haugen, handling this. >> yeah, we'll see where it all goes. >> okay, leaving door open to

other attorneys could be joining? we'll see what that looks like? is it your understanding that all this is now happening, only in florida, not in washington at the grand jury here any longer? >> yeah, that's a good question. look, it's kind of an interesting scenario, as the why they'd be in a grand jury in washington d. c. for the better part of whatever, maybe ten months or more. and then make this shift, i know that some of the colleagues from the department of justice had even published articles talking about some of the venue problems that they might have, with some of these charges. but i think it might go back to the misconduct. i think there was so much that was wrong about how they conducted the investigation in d. c. that they might be going down to florida to sanitize the process. make it look to the florida grand jury like there's nothing to see here. when they drag in vice presidents, violate attorney client privilege, make for personal attorneys in seven secret service agents in a vice president testify. maybe they're trying to get

away from the damage they did in d. c. . bottom line, no sign of a second case or separate case, that would be the ultimate overreach by these guys. >> you're referencing all the people that have gone, in a lot of them are people who work for trump or work for him. that you mentioned there. do you believe that florida is a more favorable venue for your client here? >> yeah, look, you don't know the details of how the jury selection is gonna play out. we don't even know 100 percent whether it will stay in miami, as opposed to west palm. i think there's a look at the case could be venues specifically over there. there's a lot of tactical considerations and thoughts that will go into that. as a general rule, look,

washington, d. c. , a look at the numbers politically. like the crime fraud exception being this incredibly rare thing that came to life here vice president having no executive privilege. i have to think that the culture in anywhere in southern florida is probably more favorable to this particular client in washington, d. c. would be. >> what does tuesday look like? i know he's a new jersey right now, i was told a lot of the attorneys aren't there in new jersey with him. walk me through what tuesday looks like, does he go straight to the courthouse? do we expect him to be arrested? what are your expectations? >> yeah, i don't get crazy specific. look, i think secret service would not be thrilled with me for that. you really can't telegraph. -- >> your client social posted on social media that was happening at three pm on tuesday. >> right, we're not hiding the court appearance, kaitlan. i'm talking about where does he come, from what time does he show? up that kind of stuff needs to be close held between the marshals and secret service. in terms of the hearing itself, it should be a fairly routine hearing. we still have to iron out, have to have some conversations with doj to see if they'll be remotely reasonable about things like conditions of release, and setting a timetable. but, look at the hearing itself, it's actually pretty typical

thing. the typical atypical note on the drastic side, one thing you did mention interests there's not gonna be interest coming in a, summons that was appropriate. this is gonna be a flea, not only poses a danger to the community, which is the fact that you would normally consider. gonna be talk about release. again, no arrests, no warrant. none of that can kind of nazism. we'll go through the bureaucratic process we have two on tuesday. >> he announced publicly, was this against your advice? >> even if it, was i would not get into the the doj has leaked stuff every day of the week in this. you and i bought it on heads on this a week ago. >> i told you was because of -- >> of course. i'm shocked that cnn said they had good reporting. it's done with that. >> we do every reporting. >> look, washington post's run 25 stories about the same guy that doj tried to extort into cooperating. you can't tell me that's coming from. they're coming up lead campaign, that's just one example of it.

this is the new role of anything goes when you're going after president it started trump. with, probably seven years. go certainly when the but certainly the fbi culture of fbi culture of comey, and the current administration going comey coming after their leading after leading candidate in candidate and opposition. opposition, writing new rules every step of the way. already so, we'll be fighting that stuff left knew was never east of away and right. you may not like to hear everything i have to say, you may say there's not enough evidence yet. but i'm evidence driven. but i'm evidence driven, and we're gonna bear it out. yeah, i do believe we're gonna give evidence for those allegations. but we do appreciate you coming on, your first interview since the former president wasn't died earlier this day today. jim trusty, thank you for your time. >> all right, sure thing. back with the panel now, we are joined by cnn --'s the subject of these charges is right in your wheelhouse of course, because you are a former assistant to the attorney general for national security.

you hear jim talking, here they don't actually have their hands on this indictment, they have what he said was a summit, basically a summary of the charges. what do you make though of them saying espionage, willful retention of documents, false statements of conspiracy charge as well i believe. >> right, so one of the things that he pointed out that i think it is probably worth unpacking a little bit for our viewers, is his statement that, i think he said the word ludicrous with respect to potential charges under the espionage act. and i think that can be a little misleading, because when we hear espionage act, people think spies and things like that working for a foreign government. the statute that we referred to as the espionage act, really is the statute that mishandling of classified information is prosecuted under. so, just because an individual is charged with one of the provisions of mishandling classified information, or mishandling national defense information, that doesn't mean

that they are engaged or being accused of being engaged in the act of espionage. it just means that they have mishandled this national defense information. there's all sorts of definition that go with that, but it can be a little bit misleading. the other provision, with respect to, there is other charges with respect to mishandling classified information that could be less consequential, as the charges under the espionage act. but, those are really serious charges, and they tend to be charges that sometimes individuals who have leaked information, or of turn information over to people that shouldn't see it, fall under that section. >> -- >> well, the primary thing is that to me, the way in which little of his conversation, with the substance of the allegations, and instead trying to divert the attention to what he is alleging to be prosecutorial misconduct. i think the where he was looking for was discretion, and

the way in which the department of justice looks at cases, and decide whether or not there is evidentiary foundation, whether there is corresponding statutes that will actually address the allegations charged, and whether there is support enough for a grand jury. the fact that this took place in florida, i think it's quite telling. because of course, a lot of the conduct has occurred. there we are talking about the allegations of either moving documents, obstructing, the willful retention. and keep in mind that word willful, because we're talking about the. intent it's not inadvertent. i think about it as a mom. if your kid accidentally has something in a grocery cart, once the digging goes outside, you -- you bring it back. you don't doubled out, what triple down, quadrupled at and say i'm taking, it taking it from a bloody hands no matter what. that's equivalent that we're talking about here. and that just about way, let

alone national securities document. and finally, when you look at the allegations of misconduct. i'm anna lumen i of the department of justice, i take great umbrage to the notion of there being some ax to grind. but, the grand jury is the one that makes the ultimate call. and if it happened in a place where they were even more sympathetic to the president, that's telling about that notion of a political witch hunt. >> yeah he seemed to, say that actually could be will be more favorable depending of the jury looks. we'll be right back, we've got to take a quick quick break of course, >> also next, house speaker kevin mccarthy is just waiting about all. that's what he said may not surprise you, but we'll tell you what it is when we come back. the chase ink business premier card is made for people like sam who make...? ...everyday products... ...designed smarter. like a smart coffee grinder - that orders fresh beans for you. oh, genius! for more breakthroughs like that... ...i need a breakthrough card...

like ours! with 2.5% cash back on purchases of $5,000 or more... plus unlimited 2% cash back on all other purchases! and with greater spending potential, sam can keep making smart ideas... ...a brilliant reality! the ink business premier card from chase for business. make more of what's yours.

i see irritated gums and weak enamel. sensodyne sensitivity gum & enamel relieves sensitivity, helps restore gum health, and rehardens enamel. i'm a big advocate of recommending things that i know work.

bridgett is here. she has no clue that i'm here. she has no clue who's in the helmet. are you ready? -i'm ready! alright. xfinity rewards creates experiences big and small, and once-in-a-lifetime.

lawmakers of all stripes have been weighing in throughout the night on the indictment of donald. trump now, the top house republican has. we're going to cnn's manu raju with the reaction from kevin mccarthy. manu. >> yeah rushing to president trump's defense. saying in a statement, mccarthy this, saying today is indeed a dark day for the united states of america. it is unconscionable for president to mutate -- joe biden kept classified documents for decades. he goes on to say, i and every other american, believes in the rule of law, stand with president frump against this grave injustice. house republicans will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable. so, suggesting they're going to use their power in the house majority to do something.

if it's part of that and look into this investigation. now just a couple things to point out here anderson. he says president biden indicted donald trump. it wasn't present, biden was a federal grand jury led by a special counsel. he said that joe biden kept classified documents for decades, trying to compare the two. but we know from what we heard from trump's own attorney on air just a few minutes ago, that the least discharge dates beyond just holding classified documents dealing with obstruction and other issues as well. and also anderson, to point out to you, there has a divide within the top of republican leaders. on the house side, mccarthy steve scalise, the number two republican, rushing to trump's defense and packing the justice department even before seeing any of the facts. on the republican side the senate, silence for mitch mcconnell, the main one leading the, and the number two republican john thune, yet to comment so far. >> manu raju, thanks very much. back now with our panel. should we be surprised to hear

kevin mccarthy say that it's joe biden indicting donald trump? >> kevin mccarthy never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity to be a real leader. that was disgusting. he knows, and anybody who's got an 11th great understanding of civic snow, is that the president of the united states doesn't indict people. that's done by the department of justice, in this case by a special counsel. and this is what i'm talking about. misleading. that's not leadership, that's misleadership. he should be ashamed of himself. >> you're right about leadership. he also wants to stay the leader, and that's part of what's going on here. you know, the most outspoken members in his caucus have tied up his house in the last week. because they are mad at him at what he did on the debt ceiling issue. and, this is a way to express solidarity, and he needs donald trump frankly, to keep those guys on his reservations. so, there's a lot of layers of. this but i do think it reflects his read of where the republican constituency is. and to be on this question, and we saw it last night with vice president pence. i mean, as scott jennings pointed out last night, trump almost had the guy killed, and he was defending him on this, on this issue last night.

so, i think that kevin mccarthy, he may not be a great leader, but he is a great weather vane. and this is the way the winds are blowing. >> there's also, there is the legal case, as -- pointed out before. there is the political case. this is clearly an, hour into the political case now. we've heard the presidents attorney on here just earlier, talking to kaitlan. and, the case is going to be made, it's a weaponization of the doj, this prosecutor was, they threatened this persons judgeship of they didn't do these things. that's where we're gonna hear from now until the election, for sure. and maybe if there is a trial, ever, which i doubt you'll ever see in our lifetime, don't

think it's ever gonna come. but, you're gonna continue to hear that, that it's the politicization of. this both sides are gonna go to their corners, and they're gonna come back out, touch gloves, and fight from now until election day. >> the reality is, we are going to have political back and forth. part of the beauty, if i could say so, of our criminal justice system is, none of that should matter in the court. we're gonna have a jury of 12 civilians in florida, deciding this case. and i also think, some of the things i'm going to be looking for when we see this indictment that are legally important, may influence and shape the political debate. for example, of course we need to see the specific charges. on the willful retention of documents charge, what did donald trump do with those documents? that may or may not be specified in the indictment. but if he did something with them, of import, that's gonna make a. difference >> i've got to take a break, we'll be back with more in just a moment. we'll be right back. i don't know how long it's been there. long enough to produce eggs, it seems. it would appear that it has begun moving towards us! visionworks. see the difference.