just about at the top of the hour, the end of another historic day and another historic first for donald trump. mere weeks after becoming the first former president charged on state felony offenses, he's now also the first to be charged with the federal kind, specifically 37 counts connected to retaining, mishandling, moving, concealing government documents, some of them highly classified. >> the indictment also details allegations of two occasions he shared highly sensitive material with people not cleared to see it. he's also accused of hiding documents from his own attorneys and conspiring to obstruct government efforts to get them back. just a short time ago we got our first read on how long the government expects it will take to make its case in court against donald trump according to a court document filed along with the document, the estimate that jack smith, the special counsel's team is making, is 21 business days. that's about a month. that does not include how long

the defense might want to make their case. all in all a stunning document at the end of the a stunning day. joining us with much more insight right now, evan perez. evan, what stands out to you the most in this indictment? >> well, i think the thing that stands out the most, jake, is the fact that, you know, prosecutors portray the former president as someone who's just reckless in his handling of the nation's most closely guarded secrets, things that require special handling. and you know, we were talking about top secret documents, things that are special access programs that require special handling of those documents. you can only read it in certain specific rooms that are protected from spies. we know that these were documents that had to do with the u.s. defense capabilities, nuclear capabilities of the united states as well as foreign countries.

some of the vulnerabilities of the united states and of its allies, you know, from foreign attack and of course some of the vulnerabilities that we have, should we get attacked by other countries. so, these are the things that certainly should never be stored in the white and gold ball room of mar-a-lago, which is one of the places that the former president was storing these things, the storage room, his bedroom, a bathroom and a shower. one of the ironies there of course was he was putting these things in a shower. he was obsessed, if you remember back in 2016, with the fact that hillary clinton had a server in her bathtub. >> and there are specific interactions detailed in the indictment that involve the former president. tell us about those. >> yeah. i think the one that stands out really is the fact that his current attorney, evan corcoran, records contemporaneously some interactions that he has with the former president, in which he says that the former

president says things like this. well, look, isn't it better if there are no documents? this is after they get a subpoena from the federal government demanding that he return these documents. he's trying to get evan corcoran to lie to the fbi, according to prosecutors. he's trying to say to him, why can't you just pretend like none of this happened and also just take it back to your hotel room and pick out the classified documents and pretend done of those are there. >> what more can you tell us about this walt nauta, the former president's aide, who was also indicted today? >> right. he is facing six counts for concealment and for obstruction. he was the former president's bodyman. you saw him a lot, especially at the white house. and then he moved to mar-a-lago. he was very close to the former president, trusted him, clearly to move some of these boxes. according to prosecutors, he is responsible -- he's the one that is seen on some of the surveillance video moving boxes

out before one of the searches happens and then moving things back. we know that one of the pictures that you see there, jake, in the indictment is one that walt nauta took, according to prosecutors. he enters the storage room, he finds some of the boxes have spilled, and the photograph depicts a document, a secret document, that is classified as secret, that shows the military capabilities of a foreign country, something that the intelligence community spends a lot of resources to try to collect. so, that becomes count number eight in this indictment, jake. >> yeah. and the place where all these documents were kept should have resembled fort knox. instead it looked like chuck e. cheese. evan, thanks very much. turning now to kara. live at the miami courthouse, where donald trump will surrender to authorities on tuesday. kara, you have some details about the kinds of threats the

fbi is looking for around the trial and how they're going about looking into them. >> yeah. so, law enforcement sources tell us that fbi agents in the domestic terrorism squads around the country are looking for any possible threats through chat rooms, through other mechanisms that these things pop up, you know, surrounding the arraignment on tuesday. this is something that the fbi does on a routine basis, but obviously trump has a lot of supporters. he also has people who might come and protest. trump, as you'll remember before his arraignment in new york, he was calling for protests. so, the fbi is looking for any possible threat that could arrive on tuesday. we also know from law enforcement sources this morning they conducted an assessment of this federal courthouse as well as the surrounding area looking for any possible threats and what we are told is they have not come up with any credible threats. but all of this will continue over the next several days leading up to tuesday. we don't see any enhanced

security measures that are obvious to us today. but there still are several days before they can put that into place. jake? >> kara, as you know, two of donald trump's attorneys abruptly resigned this morning. who do we think is going to represent donald trump in court? >> yes. i mean, this is a surprise move to the attorneys that had led him through this investigation, resigned this morning. now trump has said that he has hired a new york former prosecutor by the name of todd blanche. he also retained blanche to represent him in the case related to the hush money payments. he's a former prosecutor. he is someone who is well regarded in new york. he knows his ways in and around these court issues and these allegations. he is someone that trump has brought on, and he's expected to be here in court on tuesday. trump is also exploring hiring another attorney, someone who is based in florida, to help work on this case. and he is talking to several attorneys, sources tell our colleagues, and working to potentially have someone else in place by tuesday. jake? >> all right, kara scannell, thanks so much.

anderson? joining us now is chris sununu, who decided not to seek the nomination out of concern for the crowded field. would benefit the former president. he met today, a rebuke and tempered said saying his hoped his old boss would not face charges. did you, by the way, talk to vice president pence about this indictment today? >> a little bit. i spoke to him kind of very shortly after it was all released. i haven't even read it myself. so, a couple of glancing comments. but i haven't dove into it, so the conversation was how to win new hampshire. >> what is your reaction after having read the indictment? >> well, look, i think there's a couple problems here that folks are glossing over. the average american saw boxes sitting in donald trump's mar-a-lago. they saw boxes behind biden's corvette. and the average is going, what's the difference? why do you charge one and not the other? i'm not saying there's not more validity in terms of the

conduct. and i think governor christie brought that up very clearly. the conduct, what was going on, and intention behind what was going on with those documents with the former president. but the burden of proof right now is on the department of justice. there's a cloud of politicalization around that group. they made some enormous errors. they have to come out and be clear not just about what they are charging the former president with but how it differs. how does it differ from the emails of hillary clinton? how does it differ? because without doing that, it's kind of like the boy who cried wolf, right? they've made a bunch of mistakes here before. folks are going to think that it's political. this is really serious stuff without a doubt. and he has to be held to bear. i'm a little surprised the other candidates running against him for president are not more aggressive about calling out for what it is. it's a huge problem. and mostly it's a huge problem for the republican party. once again, the former president is just a terrible message bearer for the republican party, and it's scaring independents away. >> does it surprise you that nikki haley or tim scott or others haven't been vocally vocal about this?

>> yes, yes. >> why? >> you're down 40 points in the polls. i don't know. >> i mean, why are you surprised? >> they're running against him. when you're running in a race, you're trying to beat the guy ahead of you. you're trying to knock him down. the rap sheet is a mile long, you would think they would be more aggressive. i get it. they're trying to focus on the problems around the doj. there are real problems. that place needs an overhaul, no question. we could do hours on that. but let's focus on the facts at hand. you're running against a guy with 37 indictments against him. you almost look like you're defending him at this point. those are not -- does not look like a serious candidate that's willing to take him on over the next six months to knock his poll fun numbers down. you want to run for president and beat the guy or you don't. >> i wonder what you think. we have not heard as much as we heard yesterday from folks in the house, republicans in the house, in support of the former president.

congressman adam kinzinger earlier today was saying that maybe people are laying low, seeing if somebody comes up with a line that everybody can kind of glom on to use to defend the former president. what do you think they are going to -- what do you think their response is going to be? >> well, look, i think -- i give them credit. they're looking at the facts. they're keeping their powder dry. because they're realizing, this is actually quite serious stuff. it's easy to say, oh, there's a double standard. and maybe there is. but, again, the burden of proof on the department of justice is to show that there isn't. that is a paramount issue here. otherwise they're going to get killed in the court of public opinion. they're looking at the facts, looking at the reality of what the indictment is. and it's obviously very severe. based on the conversations that were said, this isn't hearsay. these are the presidents words. not to let the documents out. and as governor christie brought up on your show a little bit

ago, he had every chance to bring them back. he had every chance to return them. he chose not. this is purely self-inflicted on his part. but, again, i think the department of justice has a lot of work to do to get their messaging straight and understand that, again, it just -- it's going to look like there's a double standard, and the burden of proof is on them, not on the other side. >> traditionally the department of justice is low to kind of engage in that way about an upcoming case. >> but they have to. see? they've made so many mistakes that they now are -- it's now upon them that they have to acknowledge that, a, their mistakes were made, that politics have been involved in their department, and they have to take it on themselves that there may have been the double standard in the past but we're not doing that going forward. and they have to explain it. you and i have been reading this indictment today. you've been reporting on it for a couple hours. the average american right now might listen to this story for 90 seconds to two minutes. a lot of the lead just has to be

not just what the details of the 37 charges are but really the hows and whys of this but not that. why are they going after trump but not clinton. why are they going after trump but not biden? i'm not saying it's not legitimate, but you have to be able to show that in order to build that level of confidence with the american people, given it's so unprecedented. they handled the taking of the file terribly at mar-a-lago. they did a terrible job there. they took files, they left people in the dark, days went by, weeks went by, we didn't get any information. no one knew why they had taken this unprecedented step. they have to be much more clear and transparent about the hows and whys and really answer the questions of the american people. >> house speaker kevin mccarthy spoke out against the indictment today. i just want to play some of what

he said. >> this is going to disrupt this nation because it goes to the core of equal justice for all, which is not being seen today. and we are not going to stand for it. >> when he talks about equal justice, there's certainly a number of people who look at that and think, well, this -- the former president has actually gotten more lenient treatment than just about anybody else would have who had these documents in their possession. >> based on what? is he being treated more lenient than joe biden, who had boxes sitting behind his corvette? the average american doesn't get that. >> but that's not the same comparison. as you know, joe biden is not trying to hide those documents, has not been moving boxes around, avoiding a subpoena. >> well, look, i don't want to get into the weeds, but joe biden had those documents and they knew about it. no one went to his house for over 80 days. the public wasn't notified until two months after that. i'm just saying, i understand there's two very different situations. these are the details that have

to be really -- that really need to lead the story to get that vote of confidence among the american people. kevin mccarthy is absolutely right. this is going to be massively disruptive. this is going to be the story of the presidential election for the next few weeks. the down side is the other candidates aren't going to have the opportunity to lean on inflation and mental health issues and all these things that really plague the country that the government can provide opportunity to for our citizens. it's going to be a huge distraction. i'm not saying it's not valid. they have to go forward. but so far how they're going forward is not being supertransparent and acknowledging the questions and issues not just amongst republicans but independents and the american people. you've got to prove the lack of a double standard. >> do you want the department of justice -- like jack smith to go on cable news and talk about this -- i mean isn't his job to prove this in a courtroom rather than the court of public opinion? >> yeah, yeah, i do. of course. they have to acknowledge they've screwed up so badly publicly on previous things that somebody has to go and look and say, here's the issue. here's why we didn't go after clinton.

here's why we're going after trump based on this. here's why we haven't done anything with joe biden and his files. here's where we found other files. they have to talk about it all because otherwise it looks like you're just going after one and not the other. i just think that not acknowledging that is allowing this giant vacuuming of questioning to permeate here. and that's going to put doubt no matter what the verdict may be. there's going to be a huge bunch of trump supporters that no matter what the verdict is, they're never going to buy into it no matter what. there's also a good swath of the american people who really want to know, what is the story here? how are we holding folks accountable? is there a double standard? do we have an even sense of justice? the department of justice has made huge mistakes. they have to own that. they have to own that before and during taking these unprecedented steps so folks understand why such unprecedented steps are justified. >> i guess i just don't understand, what does it mean the department of justice has to own that. you can have -- two things can be true. they can have made mistakes in

the past and in this case play everything by the book, no? >> that's absolutely true. and that's what we hope happens, right? it's okay -- look, they made mistakes. that happened. let's make sure that we're going forward. you have to earn back a lot of the trust. so, whether it's talking about some of the other cases, some of the issues, how this one differs -- if they do it just in the courtroom, that's fine legally. but it's going to allow this doubt to permeate. and i think all the other candidates need to be talking about that. i think everyone needs to acknowledge that it's okay to acknowledge mistakes in the past. you can't just ignore them. by acknowledging, them you're building public trust. transparency is what is building that trust. and all the candidates running for president have to acknowledge it. >> isn't it a responsible leader, whether it's on the left or right, would not put out a statement saying that joe biden is prosecuting his political opponent? i mean, do you believe that joe biden is prosecuting? which is what we heard from many republicans in the house, including speaker mccarthy.

do you believe that joe biden is prosecuting donald trump to hurt him in the race? >> joe biden's department of justice is prosecuting the former president, who's running against him. look, that's just a fact, right? now, whether you like the tone of that statement and why it's being said and how it's being drummed up by the other side doesn't matter. those are the facts. so, it's very easy. i guess that's my point. it's so easy to make a statement like that, where the average american goes, yeah, looks like that's happening. so, get out in front of it. explain -- you have to acknowledge those types of things and not just say, well, it's a, b, and c in the courtroom and as long as we win in the courtroom, it's okay. they've won the courtroom before and people don't buy it. his poll numbers didn't move, right? so, again, you're just going to allow this guy to be more quote, unquote victimized, he's going to play the victim card again. his poll numbers go up. he's raising money off of it as we speak. folks have to acknowledge that. the department of justice has a huge burden of proof on their shoulders.

they can do it but they have to look at the whole picture to build that level of confidence with the american people. you have to get the american people on board. if this was unprecedented, another case, we've done a bunch of times, not a big deal. but the fact it's never been done, we've never seen anything like it, they have to be unprecedented in their approach. >> governor sununu, appreciate your time. thanks so much. >> you bet. >> back now, margaret hoover, republican consultant on "firing line." consultant. margaret, what do you make of the governor's comments? >> my head is exploding because you know what we need from the republicans right now, anderson? we need leadership. we need leadership from republicans who say it's not up to the department of justice. actually it takes the republicans to explain the difference to the american people that there is a fundamental difference between the department of justice indictment that says the former president of the united states put nuclear programs, potential vulnerabilities of the united states and its allies to military attack and plans for possible retaliation and response to a foreign attack.

the safety of the united states military, human sources continue viability and sensitive -- nothing like that was in joe biden's garage. nothing like that was in hillary clinton's 30,000 emails. it is up to republicans to explain this to republicans that this is not apples and apples. there are fundamental material differences between the content of these email cases, not the least of which joe biden admitted that he found them on accident. he didn't spend 18 months moving them around the country evading justice. this is not the media's fault. we're telling it right now. you guys are telling it right now. we're trying to unpack it for the audience. there are fundamental differences. and the leadership of the republican party -- people like chris sununu, who by the way, represents the more sane wing of the republican party right now, it is on people like him and chris christie and larry hogan

and charlie baker, the folks who have stood up to the extreme party, blue state republicans, that can speak broadly to independents and to a broad swath of americans to explain what is going on. >> i was crawling out of my skin during that entire interview because chris sununu is, as margaret said, one of the normal guys. and i'm going to tell you exactly what he was doing. he tried to put this on the doj to say they have to go out and be politicians. if they were politicians, they would be going after them for being political. secondarily, he was trying to have his cake and eat it too. on the one hand, he's acknowledging, yeah, this is bad. but he's trying to assuage the base by saying this is a political message and people don't trust justice. absolutely kevin mccarthy was right. kevin mccarthy was right in what he said? really? it was one of the more disappointing interviews i've seen with chris sununu and i like him. i don't understand where he's coming for.

>> with respect to the justice department itself, that entire premise was false. joe biden has not been cleared. let's remember the doj appointed a special counsel, who is still doing his work on joe biden. and that special counsel, robert hur, is a former trump appointee. so, actually trump and biden being given the exact same process. they both had special counsels appointed. one has come back and we're waiting on the other. >> he makes this 80-day point, which is a talking point you hear from a lot of republicans. >> the 80 days that how long biden was given before doj went in? the point is doj waited 80 days before going in to get documents from biden. if you look at this indictment, the amount of patience and latitude that they gave donald trump, starting with the archives, donald trump in this indictment strings out the archives for nearly a year. they're negotiating. they're begging. they're pleading. then doj takes over. same thing, negotiating, can we work this out. serve a subpoena, the nice way.

they get a very impartial -- or non-complete response. and then only after they had no other options did they execute the search warrant. so, i think the facts are the opposite. >> and i think that jack smith in his presentation today and certainly these 49 pages were meant to send a very clear message, which is this is serious. this is not frivolous. these are national secrets. our national security was jeopardized. this is why we are doing what we are doing. the whole thing was constructed to explain to people why they had to act. but you're absolutely -- this is what so many republicans are doing now, including ron desantis, who said yesterday, well, you know, he didn't talk about trump, but he talked about the weaponization of the criminal justice -- of the justice system and so on. people are trying to touch a base with a base without fully committing. to trump, it's unbelievable that given the nature of this

complaint, of this indictment that governor sununu spent three quarters of his time in speaking with you assailing the justice department for hillary clinton and joe biden. and that is -- but that is the meme that is going on in conservative talk circles and in the president's circles and among his supporters. so, this notion, as stunning as this was today, the idea that they're going to walk away from him, i think is still a very open question. >> i think he kept saying in the interview, it's easy to say that, but it's irresponsible to say that. because to lead the voter to think that the department of justice should, in this indictment, talk about hillary clinton, talk about joe biden, that is not how cases work. this indictment is about donald trump. and so if there is an indictment that comes down on those people, so be it. and let the court, you know, do what they do there too. but it is so irresponsible for a governor in our country to go on

national television and put it on the department of justice to persuade the people in the court of public opinion. that's exactly the opposite of what the department of justice is. and for so long, for so long, our department of justice had a firewall between the white house as an institution. and it was like that so that we did not get to undermine our court system because we wanted everyone to be able to go in front of the court and have equal justice of the law. but under donald trump's administration, that firewall was torn down. and that is why people think that jack smith should go out. jack smith and merrick garland -- merrick garland was getting trashed on the left for so long because they don't think he was being assertive enough against donald trump. but he took his time, he stepped away from this case because he did think that every person, even the former president, deserves equal justice of the law. and today is what we got. it just may not be what he

wants. >> i just think there was a lack of context that chris sununu is wrapping this around, which is the justice department has problems and they need to explain this. we have heard donald trump's own former attorney general bill barr say, a, this is terrible, b, this is serious, c, this was unnecessary. if he had only complied with the law, not obstructed justice. and we've seen an investigation carried out by an fbi led by a director who was hand picked and appointed by donald trump to replace jim comey. and it seems like there's this kind of other world view that these people are operating in some vacuum. >> well, there is no universe in which you can defend the actions that are reflected in this indictment, which is why all of trump's supporters and apparently people who want to -- trump's supporters are talking about the justice department, talking about hillary clinton, because there isn't an answer to what this indictment lays out. >> to the point about the

justice department, to ashley's point about how prosecutors ought to be different. when jack smith spoke today, he was so boring -- and i mean that as the highest compliment. that's exactly what a prosecutor should do. the notion that a prosecutor should go out there and give some long comparative speech, here's what happened to hillary clinton a long time ago versus now, is ridiculous, and would undermine everything doj is about. jack smith defended his people, these are good people, non-political, and the facts will speak for himself. he looked like he was miserable. he was done in two and a half minutes. and i applaud him for doing it. >> he's not wrong that the fbi has made some mistakes. and the biggest mistake they made was in 2016 in the way they handled the hillary clinton case, which materially affected the election and probably elected donald trump. >> the most telling part about the fact that chris sununu spent 80% of the interview talking about something other than trump's indictment is that they're not even trying to defend trump. >> right. >> they're not even trying to say, yeah, make an argument in his defense.

they're deflecting. the whataboutism and hypocrisy argument is a deflection because they can't even defend what the former president has done. >> and i'll tell you, what you saw -- i'm just trying not to seeth about it because i expected so much better of him. he's not running. i don't know what he's running for. what you saw from him, though, again, it's like that, like, hey guys to the concern group, i'm concerned too. to the base, it's like, still with you. what you saw in the argument he made is what you're going to see the quote, unquote reasonable republicans now make. they're going to say, yeah, it was bad. the doj needs to come out and convince people why a totally different department of justice years ago screwed up and therefore we have to mea culpa to do any justice whatsoever. >> i think he is right that the average american is only going to get a 90-second sound bite, which is why when you get a platform like this, you use it responsibly. and what he did tonight was irresponsible.

i'm surprised -- i feel like tomorrow he'll announce that he's running for president. that is what it felt like. it felt like he was trying to get the 35% of trump voters that could get you over to the republican primary, that is who he was speaking to today. >> we've got to take a quick break. coming up next we'll get reaction from some of the former president's palm beach neighbors, also committee member -- jayapal, her take on the history made today. but the picture started changing when i started on vyvgart. vyvgart is for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis who are anti-achr antibody positive. in a clinical trial, vyvgart significantly improved most participants' ability to do daily activities when added to their current gmg treatment. most participants taking vyvgart also had less muscle weakness. and your vyvgart treatment schedule is designed just for you. in a clinical study, the most common side effects

included urinary and respiratory tract infections, and headache. vyvgart may increase the risk of infection. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections or symptoms of an infection. vyvgart can cause allergic reactions. i have gmg and this is how vyvgart works for me. [camera shutter] picture your life in motion. talk to your neurologist about vyvgart. 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. so, we're in norway - first trip together, and it's going pretty well. but on our way to tour this troll-themed town: we get into a dumb argument.

hard to stay mad when you're literally surrounded by trolls in a place called trollstigen, but we manage it. that's when our tour guide steps in. we hear his voice float out from behind a troll statue, saying: “don't fight, little ones. you're missing the view.” haven't missed a view since. one app over 300 thousand experiences you'll remember. do more with viator. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do.

indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire we know patients are more than their disease. that's why, at novo nordisk, we've spent a hundred years developing treatments to help unlock humanity's full potential. these are the greats: people living with, thriving with — not held back by — disease. they motivate us to fight diabetes and obesity, rare diseases and cardiovascular conditions, for generations to come. so, everyone can meet their moment. because your disease doesn't define you. so, what will? novo nordisk. driving change.

donald trump apparently went golfing today before the country learned the scope of the government's unprecedented criminal charges against him. florida congressman carlos gimenez posted this picture with the ex-president flashing a smile at his new jersey club. at mar-a-lago in florida, there are mixed reaction among voters to this indictment. randi kaye is live in palm beach county with that. what is the scene near mar-a-lago tonight? >> reporter: anderson, there's a few supporters here, perhaps a handful of supporters. they've been coming and going since the news broke, here to show their support for the former president. i spoke with them just a short time before coming on air and i talked with them about the indictment and what was revealed in the indictment and i showed them the pictures of the alleged documents in the bathroom and the shower and the ballroom here at mar-a-lago, and they just did not want to hear anything about it. they believed that those pictures are fake. they believe that if those documents were here at

mar-a-lago, they were planted. but the bottom line is they don't believe that any of the documents were actually classified and that the former president did not have any classified material, anderson, here at mar-a-lago. >> that's pretty clear. i know you talked to some voters in palm beach today. what was their reaction? >> reporter: yeah, we went over to the town of palm beach to talk to people. a lot of people did not want to speak on camera, including one woman who was ready to break out the champagne, she was so happy about the indictment. those who did speak to us on camera, anderson, were pretty split in how they feel about this indictment and how they feel about the former president. we spoke to two people who voted for the former president, and here's what they told me. >> i think it's political. >> oh, gosh, yes. and i think it's one-sided. one-sided, political, everything towards him and they're going to do whatever they can do get rid of him. >> do you think donald trump

should run for president or should he be kept out of the white house? >> i think probably he needs to not run. that's what i think. >> and why is that? >> not good for the party. not good for him. why do you think? >> not good for the party. >> i think that it is fair for a prosecutor to prosecute something that they feel is legitimate. i don't think it's fair for a prosecutor to go and prosecute someone or pursue someone for political reason. >> and randi, what did other people you talked to say? >> we spoke to a few people who had some pretty harsh words for the former president, anderson. one was a democrat. one was also an independent. here's what they had to say. >> what do you think about donald trump being indicted in the documents case? >> i think it's long overdue. >> why is that? >> it's obvious from what i read that those documents were

mishandled. i think some of them are missing. and i'm very concerned about where they are and who may have access to them. >> do you think he should be able to run given this indictment? >> he'll be able to, but i don't think he's qualified for office. he showed that in the first four years he was in office. >> very happy about it. i think he did things that were illegal and wrong, and i'm glad he's finally being held accountable. >> does any of this surprise you? and what questions do you have? >> i'm not surprised at all. i think everyone has to ask what his intentions were and what he was planning on doing with that. so, i'm thrilled. >> and anderson, one thing that all of those voters agree on, no matter which party they're from and whether or not they voted for donald trump, is that they all believe that this indictment is going to benefit him. they believe that at least in the short term, his supporters will come out, his base will come out even stronger, and he will benefit at least in that capacity. legally, of course, it's another question.

>> if it goes to trial in west palm beach, the people there will be members of the jury. jake, back to you. >> anderson, thanks so much. there's definitely a bit of hypocrisy when you look back on some of the donald trump's attacks on hillary clinton in 2015/2016. >> she bleached and deleted 33,000 emails after receiving a congressional subpoena. she lied about it over and over and over again. we may not know what's in those deleted emails. our enemies probably know every single one of them. so, they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be the president of the united states. this fact alone disqualifies her from the presidency. >> for more reaction now this

time from a democrat in congress, washington state representative, pramila jayapal, house congressional committee, joined me earlier this evening. thank you so much for joining us. what do you make of the indictment? >> well, i tell you, i read it. i'm still going through. i'm going to go back and read it again. i think a couple of things stood out to me. one is the seriousness of the counts that are in this indictment. i mean, this is counts against a president for taking -- knowingly taking -- classified information and then knowingly sharing that classified information with numerous people, it appears, leaving the classified information in places that were completely unprotected, that this is a serious issue of national security.

secondly, i was just taken back to -- i guess it was 2016, when trump said, i could, you know, stand in the middle of the fifth avenue and shoot somebody and the voters would not penalize me. i forget exactly what words he used, but it was along those lines. and it occurred to me the brazenness of this individual who occupied the highest seat in the land. and is absolutely -- from the charges, from what i read -- absolutely knowingly taking, concealing, and bragging about this information, using it for his own personal gain. >> one of the things that's interesting is looking at statements by speaker kevin mccarthy about hillary clinton's unsecure email server at her home and that issue, which, i mean, i think a lot of law enforcement people, even some democrats and legal experts, would say that was reckless by her, if not criminal. but kevin mccarthy had a

standard for her that is different from the one he applies to president trump. but can the same not also be said, even though allegations against trump are far more serious than the ones about hillary clinton. can the same not be said about democrats, that maybe some democrats should have taken that more seriously because the handling of classified documents whether president biden or president trump or hillary clinton or vice president pence, it's all very serious and should be taken very seriously. >> it absolutely is all very serious. and i know i said at the time that we needed to be concerned about any lapses in classified information. but i think that there are big differences in terms of how this president, the last president, actually handled this. >> sure. >> i mean, he was on the steps when the information was handed over saying that he had no more boxes, you know, at mar-a-lago. i mean, there are a number of places where he was given an opportunity to correct the

record. he did not. and he actually continued to lie, to obfuscate, according to what we saw today. i have often said, we need a whole different process around how these documents end up leaving classified places. >> unquestionably i'm not saying it's the same thing at all. for any members of resistance, twitter out there, i am not saying it's the same thing at all. i'm just talking about the fundamental issue of classified documents. republican congressman andy biggs tweeted, quote, we have now reached a war phase. congressman clay higgins also had a bizarre tweet that sounded like some sort of war code for the maga folks out there. you were in the house on january 6. how concerned are you about political violence in the days or months ahead and this language used by your colleagues? >> well, i am very concerned,

jake. you know, i can tell you that today already we have a group called a gallery group. it's the group of members that were trapped up in the gallery on january 6th. we've gotten very close. we share a lot of things. and when that tweet from clay higgins came out, i can tell you it caught all of our attention. we believe that it is -- it absolutely should be taken down. he should be called on to take it down. it should be investigated. it has serious war language that reminds us of some of the things that were being said prior to january 6th and that people actually followed. now, is this just a throw-away tweet?

is there a group that's actually following along with this tweet and planning as per the tweet? we don't know. but this shouldn't be happening. it certainly shouldn't be happening for members of congress. and i think that the former president, trump, is again, relying on this kind of violent rhetoric to, quote, protect him. so, i think it's -- we are watching it. i was going to say we're afraid, and i would say we're afraid for our country. and we need to make sure that this is not the kind of rhetoric that once again leads to some of the things that we see on january 6th. >> congresswoman pramila jayapal, thank you so much for your time, appreciate it. >> thank you, jake. >> we're back with our panel which including carrie cordero and special correspondent jamie gangel. jamie, what are you hearing from fbi folks about the indictment? are they impressed? do they hate it? what do they think? >> just to be clear because they like to -- these are former fbi. but they're senior people. and the thing that's striking to them is that there's so much evidence here. i heard from one who was on a group text who said, we used to have to work so hard to make these cases. he said, but trump made it so easy for the fbi. i think just, as andy mccabe said to me earlier, there is an embarrassment of riches here. and just to go back to your interview with chris christie earlier, just over and over again, you have to ask, how did we get here?

why did we get here? the national archives justice sources have said to me over and over again, if he just said, oops, this was a mistake, here it is, we wouldn't be here today. >> yeah. and what are you hearing, carrie cordero? >> 100% this entire case is just a self-inflicted wound. there's no question about it. at every opportunity that the former president had to keep himself from the legal jeopardy that he now faces, he let that opportunity go, whether it was dealing with the national archives, whether it was deal being the justice department lawyers who kept going down there and trying to talk to him and get him to respond. so, this is of his own doing. i think what the evidence shows in this indictment that is so noticeable to those of us who worked on national security cases before is that it really

does move the story forward in terms of our following of the investigation that not only did he have all these documents, not only did he keep all these boxes of information that shouldn't have been there, but that he knew what was in them. that's the key piece that comes through in the narrative of this indictment, that he knew there was classified information in them. and the other piece that i've been looking at that i have wondered throughout the course of the investigation that i thought might push the justice department over that edge of making the decision that they really needed to prosecute this case is whether or not the documents were shown to people who did not have access to see them. like, not just that the boxes were sitting there in places that they weren't supposed to be, which is bad enough, but that he actually showed them. and the indictment has two examples. those are just the ones in the indictment. but there's two examples of circumstances where he revealed the contents of classified information to people not authorized to do it. and if there was anybody else in government, they would be prosecuted. >> and mark, i just want to note

that vice president pence, there was some classified documents in his house, i guess it was, and he alerted the authorities. and they came. and no allegation that he did it on purpose or that he even knew what the document was, right? somebody else found it. and then certainly didn't try to keep it from anybody, certainly didn't show it to anybody. i believe the same with president biden. to be fair, we haven't heard anything to the contrary. documents have shown up here and there. i'm not saying that excuses anything, but we haven't seen of him showing them to people, hiding them, keeping them from people. >> pence set up a rigorous process and it still got in there. the one thing i remember from my former colleagues in the vice president's world is that the boxes were still sealed. they had not even been untaped and unpacked. and when they went back because of the documents involving the former president and later the

president, they said, let's go to double check. and they found a few more documents. and they're like, how did these even get in here? but they were still in the taped, sealed boxes when they left the white house or left the vice president's residence. and, you know, obviously each of these cases is different, whether it's joe biden, whether it's mike pence, whether it's donald trump, hillary clinton, and that's where the legal aspect comes through. you know, as we've discussed and i know chris christie was discussing as well as well as governor sununu. it's the public court of opinion that's going to be different here rather than the slam dunk or the wealth of riches that you have in the legal case. >> to your point, i think this is why the tape is so significant of trump talking about that document in bedminster because it speaks to all the elements that carrie was just laying out. he knew the document was there. he knew which document it was. and in fact he must have brought it with him to bedminster for the purpose of using it in that conversation.

he had a point he wanted to prove and pulled that document from wherever it was to show that, you know, he thought that, you know, mark milley was really the warmonger of the group, whatever point he wanted to make. i think that's pretty easy to understand. that's not hard to understand. and it's made worse by the fact that it's coming out of his own mouth and he's saying in the tape, i know i can't show this to you, i didn't declassify it before i left, i can't declassify it now. the difference here, i think, between this case and really all of the others is a bunch of elements of just willfully and knowingly having this stuff. and then also trump himself actually vocalizing the elements of the charges against him. and it's a federal court. there will be no cameras in those federal courts. but that information is out there. those tapes are out there. and i don't think that's going

to be very difficult for people to digest. >> so, laura coates, i want to get your reaction to this because this is breaking news right now, and it's another way that trump is different from biden, hillary, and pence on this is, according to kaitlan collins, trump is on his social media site, truth social, attacking special counsel jack smith. in a series of posts, despite repeated warnings from his legal team that anything he says on social or publicly can be used against him. trump is saying the special counsel is deranged, calling him a trump hater, labelling him a thug. how can that be used against trump that he's saying these things about the special counsel? >> first, how utterly predictable and yet another self-inflicted wound to one's own foot. >> shocking but not surprising. >> shocking but not surprising, although this is probably one of the reasons that jack smith does not prefer to limelight, to give additional fodder, to try to substantiate any delegations against him. there are no indications that anything listed on truth social about jack smith. what this is is a not so veiled

attack in trying to help people see the lens of donald trump, to undermine somebody whose job it is to have investigated his own behavior. and we're looking at all this. remember we're talking a lot about the documents and the willful retention. that's the first charge here. but there are many others, including obstruction, including conspiracy, false statements. this is all going to be before a jury at some point in time if it goes there. and all of those activities are -- if this is true and as alleged, they have to prove it up -- this is going to be corroborated in a courtroom that you had the opportunity not just to have the documents retained but to answer truthfully, not to induce false statements, not to conspire to movement documents this. i don't buy the argument that suggest that the average american in whatever looks

like, to chris sununu, has no ability to distinguish between categories of documents that include things about the vulnerabilities of america and our allies, and documents we have not had revealed in other instances but i think people should have more credit to be able to understand that the difference between hillary clinton scenario and joe biden scenario, mike pence donald trump, is an indictment. >> i don't think he was saying that on of the capability, i don't speak for him but i think he was saying they are not there yet, nobody has explained it to them, they don't have the time to read the indictment figure donald trump is not trying to speak to 320 million americans, he's trying to keep 30 something percent, 37% of the republican primary vote, that is task number 1, we are having a different conversation than trump and a different focus, have an open mind, i

talked to smart people and learn, trump has done this for seven years, he attacks and attacks, in the inbox, their 2030 of them got doing it on to social, they will do it anyway they communicate with their people, the radio, rallies, in the conservative maga media silo. he repeats it cup and he tells us people don't listen to anyone who listens of the justice department, fbi or anyone on cnn, known in the mainstream media, it's cynical and often full of things it's not true but it works. it works to keep the space, he does it one step at a time on purpose, it works for him, the problem is, do some people read it and peel away, that's what we have elections and seven months until anybody votes. a look at the judge overseeing tuesday's trial, previous opinions about this investigation were favorable to trump until they were overturned, what we know about judge eileen cannon, that is not. leverage. [whispering] -frothy markets.

psst. virtual real estate is a lock. ♪ cold hard cash ♪ j.p. morgan wealth management knows the world is full of financial noise. i'm looking at your asset mix and plan. you are right on track. great, thanks. our easy-to-use app and local advisors are here to help you figure out what's right for your investments. j.p. morgan wealth management. ♪ 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 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.

two sources tell cnn that the florida federal judge assigned to oversee tuesday's proceedings against the former president is eileen cannon, who was appointed by the former president, more on her in the controversy from her from cnn's brian todd. >> reporter: the 42-year-old judge from south florida faces enormous scrutiny because of her history with former president trump. multiple sources familiar with the matter tell cnn federal district judge eileen cannon has been assigned at least initially to oversee the criminal case against trump in the mar-a-lago documents investigation. >> if she does end up with it

on a permanent basis, unconcerned or biases out there, she will not handle it fairly. >> reporter: the concerns stemming not only from the fact that he appointed her to the federal bench when he was president but also from her earlier involvement in the mar- a-lago documents pro. last year she approved trump's request to block justice department access to the recovered documents until a special master could review them for executive privilege, a ruling that even surprise legal conservatives. >> i think the opinion was wrong and the government should appeal it, it is deeply a number of ways. >> reporter: the government did appeal in the 11th circuit court of appeals overturned it, if she now oversees his federal criminal trial. bigger she only has to take small steps to throw this off track for the justice department, by delaying it until we are past election and trump hope that if he manages to get himself elected again the case goes away, as he would direct his justice department

to drop it. >> reporter: a former colleague of cannon in private practice disputes accusations that she favors trump. >> i don't think she has bias at all, she will do the right thing. >> reporter: she was nominated and confirmed in 2020, during her confirmation hearing she thinks members of her family including her maternal grandparents, who she said had to flee cuba in 1960. and her mother. >> my loving mother, at the age of 70 had to flee the repressive castro regime in search of freedom and security, thank you for bringing us to this country in the importance of rule of law for generations to come. a graduate of the university of michigan law school she wants practice lawday firm in washington where she said she handled cases related to government investigations. she also served as an assistant u.s. attorney in florida and the major crimes division. >> if i've learned one thing by

working with her, she can be counted upon to work to get the right answers. >> reporter: we reached out to the chambers to ask a response to the criticism she is advised in favor former president trump. we did not hear back. during the confirmation hearings, we were asked if she had any loyalty to trump and she responded no.>> we will be right back. than detergent alone. if you want laundry to smell fresh for weeks, make sure you have downy unstopables in-wash scent boosters. i was stuck. unresolved depression symptoms were in my way. i needed more from my antidepressant. vraylar helped give it a lift. adding vraylar to an antidepressant... ...is clinically proven to help relieve overall depression symptoms... ...better than an antidepressant alone. and in vraylar clinical studies, most saw no substantial impact on weight. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report unusual changes in behavior or suicidal thoughts.

antidepressants can increase these in children and young adults. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, as these may be life-threatening, or uncontrolled muscle movements, which may be permanent. high blood sugar, which can lead to coma or death, weight gain, and high cholesterol may occur. movement dysfunction and restlessness are common side effects. stomach and sleep issues, dizziness, increased appetite, and fatigue are also common. side effects may not appear for several weeks. i didn't have to change my treatment. i just gave it a lift. ask about vraylar and learn how abbvie could help you save.