ahead on all cylinders and full steam ahead as they should. the importance of the calender and timing, i agree with norm these new charges will certainly bump back that may 2024 start date, and now you're getting into a danger zone where a trial which is going to take six weeks, eight weeks, that is going to start bumping right up against the election in november of 2024. and jack smith has a really important decision strategically to make an on issue called severance, which is will he seek to break donald trump off from these other two and try them alone, or will he seek to try them all together? >> guys, thank you very, very much. i'm wolf blitzer in the situation room. thank you very much for watching. our breaking news coverage continues right now with erin burnett out front. >> announcer: this is cnn breaking news. and good evening. i'm erin burnett, and welcome to

a special edition of "out front." we're following the breaking news as wolf said and the additional indictments. all right, well, good evening and let's get straight to it. president trump now facing additional charges in the mar-a-lago classified documents case. those charges include willful retention of national defense information and two obstruction charges. those relate to alleged attempts to delete surveillance footage from trump's mar-a-lago club last summer. according to the indictment trump requested -- that's the word they used -- that a mar-a-lago employee delete security camera footage in order to, quote, prevent the footage from being provided to a federal grand jury. these new charges are in addition to the 37 charges trump is already facing. and we're also learning tonight new charges were filed as well against trump's aide, walt nauta. and a third individual is now charged, specifically related to this deleting of video, and that

man is carlos de olivera who helped walt nauta move boxes of classified documents after he was subpoenaed for those documents. we don't know exactly how many times he helped move them, but we know he did help, and we know those boxes sat for months in a ballroom where events and gatherings were taking place, that the public were able to access. the boxes were moved to a business center and then to a bathroom. from there the boxes were moved today a storage room. we've got a lot to get to tonight with these additional developments. let's begin with evan perez live in washington. let's start with what we're looking at tonight. in june we got an indictment with 49 pages. today we got a superseding indictment, it takes the place of. it is 60 pages. we have additional charges. they're alleging video is deleted. they have a new document presented in here. how significant is this? what specifically are they

adding? >> reporter: well, one of the most significant things that you see in this document, erin, is the addition of a 30-second document, classified document that prosecutors are alleging the former president attempted to willfully retain against the law. that's what they're accusing him of here. and that document has to do with those iran attack plans we've described in previous reporting from cnn. this, of course, was captured in that now famous video -- i'm sorry, audiotape that was recorded by biographers who were working on a biography for mark meadows, interviewing the former president in which he described his work of his efforts to, you know, try to stop what he said was a plan to attack iran, that people from the pentagon were trying to come up with plans to attack iran. that document is now listed as one of the documents the former

president was willfully retaining. we don't know much more about that, just the fact it is now listed. we also know according to this document that the former president is accused of working with his two aides, both carlos de olivera now facing charges, and walt nauta, his valet, attempting to delete surveillance video. they describe in very great detail the attempts in which they have a discussion, they walk the grounds, they go and they look at the place where you can see all the footage. they even go in and take photographs of places where the cameras sit, and they describe talking to another trump employee and says the boss wants you to delete this footage. the employee responds i don't think i can do that, i don't

know how to do that. that is the crime, the attempt to delete that would still be a crime, erin. >> all right, which is obviously very significant, and we're going to talk in a moment about why all this would be added now. again, the original charges are june 8th. today obviously july 27th. you mention carlos de oliveira. and they still in this indictment list employee number 4, employee number 5. there are others not yet named, but we now have an additional named employee and now a defendant. what do you know about him? >> reporter: it is clear, erin, perhaps one of those employees and perhaps more provided very key information to prosecutors that allowed them to put together the puzzle here we have. it's also clear they have at least some text messages, some signal text messages in which

they're describing whether carlos can be trusted, whether he's good. after that conversation donald trump according to prosecutors has a conversation with d dd de oliveira. and all of this after retrieving those documents from mar-a-lago. he's one of those people seen on surveillance tapes moving boxes. he's working with walt nauta to remove boxes. and according to prosecutors some of those boxes don't come back to that storage room. again, that is part of the key facts here in this case. and we also know he was responsible for putting a lock on that door, that they had told the fbi that they were going to secure that room with those documents. of course, it ended up not being secured because according to prosecutors documents were moved out and not put back in. >> all right, evan, thank you very much. and as evan gets more, i'll bring this to you. i want to go to our experts

here, of course, as you know them. ryan goodman, former special counsel with the defense department. a former close colleague to the special counsel jack smith. alyssa farah griffin, director of strategic communications in the trump white house. and jamal simmons, former communications director for vice president kamala harris. all right, thanks very much to all of you. let me start by you've got a new document presented and then you have this whole new area of deleting security footage and these codefendants. let me start with 49 pages on june 8th. superseding indictment is 69 pages on july 27th. jack smith at the time talked about a speedy trial. so obviously this is going to slow it down. it seems it's going to slow it down. you're adding all this. why now? >> so why now might be just they came across the evidence after their first indictment because the grand jury continued to meet, continued to take

additional witnesses and maybe they were looking at this third person who they sent a target letter to him. when they get all that information, it doesn't just implicate him, it also implicates the former president. they in some sense have no choice given the nature of these charges, but to add it to slows things down. >> but it's worth it. so the may trial date is out i would assume. >> the additional person has to a get a new lawyer, that person has to have a security clearances. >> karen, what do you say to why now? >> i think this is kind of a blockbuster of a superseding indictment. i think partly jack smith wanted to show that donald trump was claiming oh, no at bedminster those were just magazine and newspaper clippings, it was just paper, there's nothing there, this is jack smegt calling his bluff and saying we have the document. i think they had the document all along. if you recall they recovered over 100 documents that had a classified marking, but they only used 31 of them in the 32

counts partly because some were so sensitive that they're not going to use them. but when donald trump came out and was taunting the special counsel and lying and saying it wasn't there, i think jack smith must have worked with the national security officials to negotiate and say we've got to show that we have this document and we've got to include it in there. so they added a count related to that. i think that's very significant. and also with mr. oliveira, look he lied. and there's a lot of false statements. it's spelled out in the indictment in the final count about count 42 about mr. oliveira. and it's question after question did you move the boxes, did you see the boxes, no. did you see anything like that, never. never saw anything, no, no, no, no. and they have the video showing the opposite. it's just these people are lying, they're obstructing the

investigation. they're destroying evidence, and it's just so blatant. this is not an inadvertent, gee, i didn't realize i had these papers. these are people trying to cover it up. >> she's talking about the attempt to destroy the video that they lay out. so mr. de oliveira is the head of maintenance at mar-a-lago. trump calls de oliveira and they speak for 24 minutes. that's a lot of time for the former president of the united states to spend on the phone with his head of maintenance. >> it talks specifically the boss wanted the server deleted, talking about the video showing the documents transported which they now have the evidence of. they have this document of detailed war plans against our adversary nations, something in the wrong hands would jeopardize the security of the united

states in a way we can't truly fathom. but also this detail about walt nauta was supposed to be traveling with the former president, but then he rushed back to palm beach after having some sort of discussion. it speaks to him perhaps being directed by the former president to go and deal with this issue. i mean this is laid out in a narrative where it's clear-cut and you can see very specifically that the justice department reached out, and at every turn they were looking to cover up. >> i'm going to lay out the time line in a moment. jamal, first to what ryan was saying. if the outcome here appears to be -- appears to be an inevitable delay pushing off far from a speedy trial, anything but, right? clearly the special counsel reached a conclusion it was worth it, whatever that may do to the political calender of the outcome. is it? >> people who ask that question are going to be the republicans running against donald trump during this primary because they're the ones who won't have an answer to this question. and all the people voting in this primary who won't have an answer to this question, they

have to choose who the next leader of the free world is. i've got to tell you, i got my first security clearance when i worked at the white house when i was 21 years old and just had another one when i was there with the vice president. you just take this so seriously, and how important it is you to guard these secrets. and here you have this president of the united states just showing stuff to people as if it's a deck of cards he has in his club. >> it did stand out to me, by the way, the one person trained how to handle classified documents was donald trump. he put these other people around him sort of in jeopardy by exposing them to information they never should have had access to. the buck stops with him. he should have known better. >> so now can we go through the time line because it is damning as alissa points out. they lay it out. they say fbi agents come to the mar-a-lago club on june 3, 2022, and they come to collect the documents they're getting from the trump lawyers. this is all agreed to, we're

going to hand it over. they come in, while they're there they notice some security camera footage. so they then on june 22nd, they e-mail saying, look, we'll get a grand jury subpoena for this stuff we need to. here's a draft, but we want the video. june 23rd, so the day after they have this draft grand jury that we're going to be getting this stuff, that's when trump calls de oliveira and has a 24-minute phone call. and then the next day they e-mail this is going to be it the subpoena, this is going to be it, and on that same day it all starts. nauta delays his plans to travel, he stays. and all of this is triggered as they lay out the, hey, buddy, i want to get rid of this footage and the part about as you say the boss. the boss wants this stuff gone. it's incredibly damning, and it also shows that somebody's providing all this text information and all of this to investigators. >> 100%. and just as you laid it out just

imagine that as the opening argument in a trial and then you've got these other individuals not named here but identified as employee number 1, are you cooperating witnesses, which it appears they are. >> it certainly does. it appears the director of i.t. who knew about the videos who's number 4, it afears from the text messages here that individual cooperated. >> yes, i can't think of another explanation for it. it's so damning, and just imagining that, that is what a defense counsel would say to a defendant to say you need to plea. in any normal circumstance, it's only because he's a former president and might be a future president we're in this abnormal circumstance in which somebody doesn't plea. i've seen all these espionage cases someone pleas, and to alissa's point especially because there's other people in the crime. other espionage cases are people acting as a rogue individual with secretive information. this is a principal organizing a scheme with his underlings and

that makes it more aggravating and more compelling to a jury. >> employee number 4 is the director of information technology for mar-a-lago, and it does appear this individual cooperated. so they -- de oliveira goes into the i.t. office, talks to employee number 4, takes him into a small room, pulls him away from everybody, and tells this individual i want this conversation to remain between the two of us and asks how many days the server retains the video. the person responds about 45 days, and then de oliveira insisted the boss wanted the server deleted and asked what are we going to do. it's all here. >> it's all there. it reads like a spy novel. that's what you would do. you would try to get the i.t. guy to wipeout the video footage. i mean it's just astonishing that this is what trump wanted to do. he wanted to destroy evidence of a crime. i mean that's really what this is. >> i should note though, ryan,

what i just said is obviously what somebody said somebody said. this is little more than a text message but when you add it together with what i laid out, the dates, the stamps, the text messages, is this black and white? >> as karen pointed out if you look at that answer oliveira obviously lied to the fbi. >> because he said i knew nothing. >> and it's not just about the charge of the obstruction -- the attempted obstruction of the video surveillance. it adds to everything else because to try to destroy the evidence is incriminating. what are you trying to hide? you're trying to hide the underlying crime which is the espionage act. >> all right, and can i just emphasize again, alissa, from your knowledge trump talking for 24 minutes to his head of maintenance. >> would be very unusual and abnormal. and what stands out to me i almost had a moment when i read of this feeling sorry for this head of maintenance who's now

wrapped up in what is going to be a massive investigation by the department of justice, but of course he should have known better and cooperated with law enforcement. i can't help but think of the pressure he must have felt as i think walt nauta did from the former president of the united states probably telling him going to be president again, i'm going to wipe these charges, you stick by me and do the right thing. i hate tosy this but he operates like a thug. and these men are going to feel the consequences of sticking by his side. >> jamal? >> you just feel the noose tightening around trump's neck as this thing is taking place. the thing that strikes me the last time he was president there were people around trying to stop him from his worst instincts. they surround him with people who just tell him yes and try to carry out his orders. what happens if this man gets back into the white house and surrounds the entire government with people who only do what he wants them to do. >> of course we'll see what the reaction is among voters and the public when you say, okay, this

is superseding and important stuff, but how do people perceive it? i want to go to ty cobb, the trump white house lawyer. i know you've read through the new indictment, you've bane able to compare every count, see the document added, which appears to be those attack plans. they now have the proof it was not. it was actually a document he was waving around. as you go through everything in this new 60-page superseding indictment, what stands out to you, ty. >> well, i think this original indictment was engineered to last 1,000 years, and now it will last -- the superseding indictment will last antiquity. i mean, this is such a tight case. the evidence is so overwhelming. it's very difficult to imagine how trump could say that his lawyers met with jack smith's today to explain to him that he hadn't done anything wrong on

the same day that jack smith produces this evidence of -- overwhelming evidence of additional wrongdoing on his part. so this is -- this is i think par for the course. i think one thing that's been ignored in the discussions so far, though, is this is trump dealing directly with nauta and de oliveira at a time when evan corcoran has been told by him there are no additional documents, that they don't have anything. and his lawyers certainly were advising him -- at some point advising him not to destroy, move, or obstruct this grand jury subpoena in any way or the government's request in any way. so this is trump going not just behind the -- you know, the back of the prosecutors. this is trump going behind the back of his own lawyers and

dealing with two people who were extremely loyal to him. >> right, and to alissa's point while you're having a 24-minute conversation with the head of maintenance about the video because you didn't want your lawyers to know, you didn't bant anyone else to know so you're actually doing it yourself. >> i can assure you in trump's time in the white house he never had a 24-minute conversation with walt nauta. >> 24-minute conversation for him would have been rare in any case. it does stand out in this. ty, what about the document? it says they added an additional document, top secret -- it's marked here going through it top secret described as plans. i'm just looking at it here but specifically plans about presentation concerning activity in a foreign country. it appears to be the attack plans he was waving around to

bi biographers. he said to bret baer it was newspapers, articles who knows what i was wave around. they're making the point, yeah, it was what you were waving around and we've got the document. what does this do to the indictment? >> so it -- it doesn't add all that much to the indictment, but it, you know, takes away a lot of the platform that trump has been trying to build for himself. seeming to have these ridiculous stories talking about milley's plan to invade iran and they can't even produce it. i think he felt he was under the protection of the -- >> all right, looks like ty just froze. ryan, on that point, though, the significance -- i don't want put

words in ty's mouth but trump's whole thing has been i was horsing around, i was joking. it does take the wind out of those sails. >> that and more. i've always thought about the bedminster episode also driving a hole through one of his defenses, which is, oh, the national archives sent this material to me in mar-a-lago. wasn't me, i didn't do anything. okay, why did you transport it to bedminster? there's no justification for that, and to share it with people obviously with no security clearance i think that's one. and also to build on something else ty said, which he mentions look at all these allegations and now we can see with the time line trump was keeping this all away from his lawyers. that actually also destroys a defense of advice of counsel. you cannot rely on i was told by counsel it was legal for me to keep these documents if you were kept information from your counsel. you have to fully inform them what you're doing to claim that defense. that was maybe one of his best hopes that evaporates. >> cairn, can i ask you one

other thing? did they know about this video back on june 8th, when they did this and didn't have it all buttoned up or maybe didn't have the i.t. cooperation? or -- i mean it's very buttoned up now. do they have it buttoned up now or can you tell? >> i wonder if they were working to get de oliveira to cooperate the way they were trying to get nauta to cooperate. there's such a disparity between trump and the head of maintenance or his valet. you've got like the top guy and then lower level people who are clearly as alissa was saying, you know, pressured by him or scared of him, whatever it is. as a prosecutor you don't want to have those people on the indictment with the big guy, right? you don't want juries to feel sorry for them, so you probably would have tried to get them to cooperate, which is why they

spoke with them so many times and asked them so many questions. but at a certain point when you lie through your teeth so blatantly the way they both have to investigators, and it turns out they were just as much part of this cover-up, they can't turn away. and they have to bring -- >> it's amazing to me people are just willing to die on these swords for him when you think about it. ty is back with us. and ty, there was one more point i believe you were trying to make about the iran document. >> yeah, i was just trying to make a simple point that i think trump thought he was safe because the intelligence community may have objected to originally including that document. and i think smith probably had to go back to the intelligence community, you know, once trump started to make that part of his fake defense to get permission to declassify it and use it at the trial or at least use it in the -- but he kneecaped him by putting that back in.

and i also think that one of the things that you see in the new indictment is additional references to the pak representative prefbsly mentioned and i believe there's reporting indicating thetes suzy wilds from florida. and i think that as we know she was in contact recently with the office of the special counsel, and that may explain why. >> one quick thing, ty. when you look at the document itself, the iran document, the fact it's now inclulded and it wasn't before, does that mean jack smith is acknowledging he's going to go through the whole process of it possibly going public? some of these things are classified and it's hard to get clearances. >> enough cifa it won't be completely public. they'll have to work out some

summary and that's why they have the proceedings for the government to come up with a way the judge is satisfied the essence is a adequately presented without actually declassifying the document. so that'll take place. i do disagree with people who think this pushes the trial back significantly. because this is really straightforward stuff. i mean it's simple proof as to the obstruction, you know, the signal messages alone, you know, open and shut that door. so i don't think -- i don't think -- i think the government will push back, you know, to any significant delay. it could delay a week perhaps, but this is information to get into the defendant's lab pretty quickly. > it's an interesting point. stay with me, ty. everyone is staying with me. i want to update on jack smith's

other investigation on election inter interference where an indictment could be imminent. lawyers for the former president meeting with special counsel jack smith with the hope of avoiding or at best delaying a third criminal indictment. this effort today we understand ended without trump's lawyers getting any guidance about an indictment or the timing of a possible indictment. paula reid is out front on this. and this happened today, obviously important meeting. what happened there as you understand it? >> it was a big day, erin, in the january 6th investigation. as you noted the grand jury that's hearing evidence in this case was in today. several of the key prosecutors working on this case were also spotted at the court but no indictment was returned. really the biggest event today in this investigation is the meeting between trump's legal team and prosecutors. and this meeting comes after former president trump has received a target letter informing him that he's a target of this investigation, and he has also received an invitation to go before this grand jury. now, he declined that

invitation, but his lawyers meeting with special counsel prosecutors today, this is just another sign that an indictment is likely imminent. we're told his lawyers did not expect they would be able to dissuade prosecutors from bringing charges. instead we're told they were hoping to at least possibly just delay this a little bit. it's unclear if tomorrow if the grand jury will be back in, erin, but we'll continue to look next week. this grand jury usually meet on tuesdays and thursdays. but that schedule can be amended to suit the needs of prosecutors or the court. but, erin, one other thing is some people have questioned why they would bring a january 6th case against the former president're they've completed all the interviews or completed all their evidence gathering because we know there are additional interviews scheduled through the summer merchandise what we saw today in mar-a-lago, this is a perfect example. you can bring charges and file additional charges later. >> important to make that point

because past is precedent. i want to bring in former deputy director andrew mccabe. director mccabe, obviously you're familiar with the types of meetings paula is describing that happened today between the doj and trump's legal team. can you take us inside what it would be like? >> sure, erin, i'm very familiar with these meetings both as an investigator and leader in the fbi and my own unfortunate experience being investigated for several years baselessly and i should add fruitlessly, i had the experience of sending my own attorneys into a meeting like this. the way these meetings work, they go with the request of the defense attorneys. they're allowed to come in and meet. they typically meet with some high level justice department person. this case is a little bit different because it's in the hands of the special -- the special counsel when we know jack smith is there today. the defense attorneys are basically given the floor to present whatever they want to present. it's usually they'll make legal

arguments about, you know, challenging the strength of the case, or they might just make kind of interest of justice sort of arguments to try and convince the prosecutors not to go forward. typically doj says absolutely nothing. they sit there, they listen to what the defense attorneys say, and at the conclusion of the meeting they say, okay, thank you very much, we'll take what you've said under advisement, and we'll let you know what our position will be, and then it's over. >> which is more of a presentation than it is a conversation or meeting in the way some of us may have imagined it. so how much time, director, do you think trump's team was able to buy themselves today, if any? and obviously, you know, we're going to be getting to 12-plus days past the target letter soon. >> yeah, so it's really interesting, erin. i think that the prosecutors actually factored this into their decision to serve the target letter last week. we know they served it on sunday evening, apparently, and they

gave the former president until thursday to appear in front of the grand jury. he very skillfully did not answer that invitation and basically was able to use each one of those days as essentially additional delay. if he'd said right off the bat i'm not going to come in, he would have sped things up. i think prosecutors anticipated after that period they would receive a request for a meeting like the one they had today, so it is my guess, my speculation that they factored all of this into their timing as to when they want to bring the actual indictment anticipating each one of these moves that the defense would probably make. where does that leave us now? i think the indictment could happen as early likely tuesday when the grand jury reconvenes. but we'll have to see. it could come at any point after that as well. >> thank you, director. i appreciate it. karen, what do you make of the timing as director mccabe is

laying it out as more of a presentation and wis, the this, and this. and not only laid out as he factored in, but they also have this superseding indictment. it wasn't like that got written yesterday or a few days ago. they have that. so they did know all these things. >> absolutely. i think you could call the grand jury in tuesday or monday. they typically meet tuesdays and thursdays, but they could be called in different days. i'm sure there'll be reporters staking out the courthouse, and we'll know if they're called back and there's potentially an indictment. i do agree this is all factored in, and they couldn't vote today because then it wouldn't be like they're actually listening to the lawyers. they have to at least consider -- they have to have an open mind, consider what they have to say. i'm sure they're considering it, and then if they still decide to bring an indictment, which i think they will, then -- then that should happen any day. the reporting is that the

lawyers didn't try to argue the substance. it was more talking about what this will do to the country. and that's not really appropriate for jack smith to consider. he's supposed to just follow the facts wherever they lead and look at the evidence. and if a charge is warranted, you bring it. that's more something potentially merrick garland would -- because that's a political question. >> jack smith would go with the recommendation of merrick garland then makes that decision. >> he would say this is what the lawyer said and merrick garland can make that decision. >> in this moment you've got trump watching all of this. the superseding indictment comes down, lawyers going in. what is this like? >> this has got to be extremely scary for him. and i don't say that lightly. i think donald trump tries to project an image of strength when the walls are closing in around him. i think even the original indictment so many around him told him this is rock solid, this is very strong legal case. but he's also nervous about the

january 6th investigation and the potential coming indictment there. it reminds him of worst day of his presidency, the imagery we all saw that, the many wheem who have gone back to denounce him. there are republicans coming to his defense, trying to keep track in realtime as we're looking at this. elise stefanik came out saying this was a witch hunt. senator holley. in the last half hour since this has been out. so i think there's an expectation he's going to have some cover from his most ardent supporters, but this is a dark moment to be donald trump. >> of course jamal does raise the point -- as ty said, right, it went from being an indictment for 1,000 years to an indictment from antiquity. but for the reality is that for many it does not matter when it comes to the politics of this. it only shores up the support

when you have this immediate rush of people to defend it. have they even read it? >> in the base that's certainly true. the people watching this who are donald trump supporters, they're not going to be shaken from this. i think for everyone else watching this, first of all, these things begin to blend together. there's so many charges, so many cases. >> that is fair. >> there will be a necessity for trump's political opponents, the democrats next year, to find a way to tell this story in a way people can follow it and follow along. chaos was a word that kept coming up in some of the calls i made today. this looks like chaos for a lot of people watching this. i think you have to think about this last thing. elections are almost always about the voter's future. this election is always about donald trump. i think voters have decided if the election is about donald trump they'd rather go in a different direction. >> the strategy of this, there's getting your ducks and all of that, but even if go for an indictment from 1,000 years to

inan indictment of antiquity, if the perception is why didn't you indict earlier, and chaos, is that a risk? >> i think so. i think they took multiple riskwise the superseding indictment. you're organizing, you have great visibility so when you go you go, and when you tell the jum we want a speedy trial, no delays, everything's ready to go, we're giving them more discovery than everyone's received right up front, that doesn't look like a well oiled machine in this instance, but i think it's worth the tradeoff why they had to bring those kind of charges. >> do you think it's it? there's an employee number 5 in l.a., there's an employee number 3. is this it? >> look, i think if the judge had set the december trial date the government had asked for, maybe we wouldn't have seen this. but now we have more time and it has been pushed out, it does

give them more time to do this. the longer it goes, they can super seed as many time as they want. they can add as much as they want. it just depends, but i bet they had done a shorter date, i'm not sure we would have necessarily seen additions. >> it's interesting and i'm sure there are a lot of people watching in trump world who are watching what ty just said, he's saying the possibility it doesn't mean it necessarily has to start -- so maybe a week later because it doesn't change some of the terms about classified documents. maybe their initial hope is, okay, great, this puts it out in a few months and may not be the case. >> i'm sure they're watching hoping ty cobb is wrong and this does at least buy them time. the only legal strategy is drag this on the election and been the election so he oesh seas the department of justice and shutdown this investigation. i don't see a coherent defense he has beyond that, so buying time is the key. >> let's remember, though, there are a couple of states looking

at donald trump. he's already got one indictment in manhattan. there may be another one coming in georgia. if he loses the presidency he cannot absolve himself from those two state charges. >> what's your overall perception what this does to the timing? >> i think it might, because you have a new defendant so three players on the defense side. so the coordination of that can take time. we know from nauta he didn't have representation and delayed the clock by a month. the charges against him if you really start to look through them don't dependent on the information being classified, so maybe that's a reason why -- >> it's more purely on obstruction. >> yeah, were there boxes that you moved? and was there video surveillance in which he you try to destroy it? that would be maybe enough. there's reasons behind ty's point, but still the idea of

getting this setup and this person needs to be arraigned and the rest of it. >> takes time. >> yeah. and every day on the clock, every week on the clock gets it to be potentially pushed over to the election. >> from dod days, even if those were security clearances they can't even acknowledge it exists. that would be preet call. you can't talk about what country might be mentioned in it, what it might contain. so trying to work this out in a courtroom where many of the people don't have security clearances could get extremely complicated when you're specifically dealing with classified documents. >> let's bring ty back in, of course former trump white house lawyer. you said earlier this week, a few days ago that if you were trump's new lawyer who's been brought into the january 6th investigation, that this would be your first move to meet with jack smith. he's gone and done that now. does this impact your view of a potential indictment in the january 6th case?

and i guess now i have to layer in they've put the superseding indictment out today. does that affect it? >> i don't believe so. i think there's several things that are driving this. i think the fact that it was -- i'm surprised it wasn't presented today because we were all surprised by the superseding indictment, but that's a -- that's a well-justified reason not to do both on the same day. and i think it's ordinary courtesy and typical doj protocol. keep in mind that when the target letter went out, laurel wasn't even on the scene. he's been there really less than a week. he couldn't have spoken knowledgeably about all the detailed fact. and so the fact it was a plea

about, you know, please protect the country, which seems a little unseemly given the fact the case is about worst constitutional insult in the history of our country committed by a sitting president. it's a little late for trump to start thinking about the country in my view. but i think the indictment will come down on tuesday if not before. >> so on that front, though, and you say it's a little late for trump to start thinking about the country and maybe his attorneys are depositing they're thinking about the country. we learned they're going into this with broader appeal. they didn't dispute the substance we understand of what potential charges might be or who did what. but the argument was an indictment would cause political turmoil in the united states, that it would be the wrong thing to do for the country. as ryan was saying that is not something jack smith would listen to, but merrick garland

might in his decision. >> no, i don't think so particularly in light of trump's railing last week how he would bring hell down on the country if they tried to sentence him. you know, i don't think that in combination those arguments -- i don't think they can be melded. and i don't think they deserve any consideration. i think those decisions have already been made. >> all right, ty, thanks. and all staying with me. i want to go down to kristen holmes. she joins us from outside trump's bedminster, new jersey, home. kristen, what can you tell us about the reaction thus far to this surprising superseding indictment on the mar-a-lago case by trump's team and trump? >> well, first of all, we have just heard from the former president. he did an interview. he said these charges were election interference in the highest form.

he also said they're haw harassing my company, harassing my family, and by far the least importantly of all, they're harassing me. and interestingly he added hopefully the republican party will do something about it. obviously a jab there to try and get the republican party to comment on this and something that they have believed would help him politically are these charges. so it'll be interesting to see tomorrow when they're at this event in iowa, all these candidates, how much time they actually spend talking about their policies and running for president and how much time they're going to end up being focused on the department of justice and trump's legal issues. but i will tell you, this was a surprise. they were not expecting anything like this today. after that meeting, it was radio silent. i had several advisor that i talked to saying it feels uncomfor uncomfortably silent, we feel like something is coming. they weren't sure it was going to be something like the january 6th case. in the meeting lawyers weren't given notification of an indictment. they do believe trump will be indicted in the january 6th

investigation, however that is what they were looking at. that is what they were waiting for. then this news broke, so there was a lot of trying to figure out exactly what this means, exactly what this looks like. and then, of course, now hearing from trump himself once again saying this was election interference. and the important part here to remember this is such an unprecedented time and such an unprecedented situation. you have somebody who is running for president, his third bid for the white house who is facing all these legal troubles, and it is allowing him, the fact he has this campaign, to say this is election interference. and the question is, of course, whether or not voters are going to believe that. and we talked to some of these voters on the ground. they do believe that it's election interference. they do believe the justice department is out to get donald trump, and just something to continue to keep in mind as we're watching this unfold, even with these legal problems there are a lot of voters out there who still support the former president.

>> certainly are, obviously, and by far the front-runner for the gop nomination. we'll see if those poll numbers change as a result of this. they have every time we've had something like this, they've gone up. let's bring in scott jennings now, the former special assistant to former president george w. bush. the context here what kristen just said, she said trump just gave an interview and said are republicans going to do anything about this. you guys are supposed to come knights in shining armor to his defense. what's your response to that? >> well, there will be a lot of republicans who come to his rhet rhetorical defense and help him as a public relations matter, but there's nobody that can help him from the evidence and these indictments. i heard ty cobbs saying it was a strong indictment. i read through it. you may stupid games, you win stupid prizes is what it looks like to me. i think there's going to be a lot of republicans especially house republicans in purple districts who are going to look at this and say do i really want

to go through the next cycle dealing with this every single day when the voters of my district don't like it, "a." and "b," want me to be dealing with other topics. there are going to be voters who don't believe any of this, who don't think he ever had classified documents. and they're going to look at this news this week and say, wait a minute, the department of justice trying to give hunter biden an immunity deal yesterday is today piling on donald trump. that's how they're going to react to it, and that's not an unsubstantial number of republicans. half of the party is on with trump on this on these legal issues. >> alissa was tracking the number of republicans even in just the past hour who have come to trump's. our manu raju on capitol hill asked a bunch of republican senators tonight about the charges, and a lot of them took

a dodge of they need to review the superseding indictment first. fair enough. one senator sidestepped the question and tried to turn to other issues. you're very plugged into republicans in the senate, scott. obviously you spent many years working with scepter mcconnell. what do they think of this? >> i think most of them find all of this to be patently ridiculous, that he took the documents, that he obviously was trying to cover up having had the documents. i mean, you read through this stuff and it's not like these were criminal master minds here. this is like "a" grade buffoonery, go destroy the server. this is the exact same stuff he was attacking hillary clinton for back in 2016. >> yes, indeed. >> the political operative in me on the senate side would say what are our best places to win races? trump, ohio, montana, fine. the cold-blooded political operative would say in the political win we've got to take the senate he's not going to be

as big of a drag politically as you might expect him to be in more purple areas. but the way the senate map stacks up next year we don't really have any purple areas other than pennsylvania, but i put that one outside the top three. i think a lot know this is terrible and what's about to happen is terrible, january 6th, it's all terrible. and no republican wants to answer for it because they didn't do it. no one wants to own someone else's garbage. >> well, no, but if they're going to carry it around for him, they're going to start to stink. alissa, can i ask on this point scott is making, one point he said stupid wins stupid prizes. it's interesting in all this time with trump says people say and he didn't direct, he did it all here. and the fingerprints are covered

in cheetos everywhere. >> this is remarkable. he knew what he was doing and any lawyer would have stopped him. ty cobb said i served in the white house with walt nauta. i would be shocked if they ever had a 2-minute conversation. to be having lengthy calls where he's directing him to do things, that reeks of knowing what he's doing is wrong. it's a shame because it's going to affect these two men the rest of their lives if they don't fess up. >> what are the three states we need to win going out against trump in those states is not a good thing. put your hands in the air. >> i'm listening to scott say that and i'm thinking about steve danes, and i've got to believe they also know this. donald trump is not improving his reputation with a single swing voter by being indicted over and over again. so at some point you're not just

going have to win the faithful but win swing voters. i remember in 2022 when i was in the white house and everybody said we shouldn't be talking about democracy and shouldn't be talking about abortion. and we talked about democracy and talked about the right to abortion, and particularly wing voting women came over to the democratic side. i think there's a silent army out there that doesn't want to have anything else to do with donald trump. >> well, all, thank you very much as our breaking news coverage of trump's additional charges continues in just a moment. and also this, new video we are getting into the show tonight of major new fighting in ukraine as the head of the wagner group who's led a short-lived revolt is now back in public in russia in the same place as putin. what's going on?

i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, let me put a reminder on my phone. on the top of the pile! oh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ "don't cha" written by callaway/ray, re-recorded by massivemusic ♪ (camera shutter) ♪ don't cha wish your phone was fun like this? ♪

don't cha wish your phone was fun like this? ♪ don't cha wish your phone was fun like this? ♪ don't cha wish your phone looked more like this? ( ♪ ) don't cha wish your phone could flex like this? ( ♪ ) don't cha wish your phone could fit in here? don't cha? ( ♪ ) get a free storage upgrade when you pre-order at at&t. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [baby crying] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ wherever you go. wherever you stay. all you need is one key. earn and use rewards across expedia, hotels.com, and vrbo. ♪ ♪ we're reinventing our network... ...with smarter, more efficient routes... ...so you can deliver more value to your customers. fast. reliable. perfectly orchestrated. the united states postal service. this is your summer to smile. to raise your glass and reconnect. to reel in the fun and serve up great times. to help you get ready your aspen dental team is celebrating 25 years of affordable care with an epic summer of smiles event. right now, new patients without insurance get a free full exam and x-rays. plus, everyone can get 20% off their treatment plan.

but hurry, because while these summer savings won't last, the memories you make together will. aspen dental. book today. all right. we're going to closely continue to follow the breaking news tonight of donald trump now facing three additional federal charges in the mar-a-lago documents case, including attempts to destroy video surveillance tapes. but right now, new video in "outfront" of intense fighting in ukraine that we wanted to be sure we shared with you show forces pushing south. ukrainians claim they are pushing back the russians, forcing retreat and they say they captured two of them. we cannot confirm exactly where the video was filmed, but it shows russian soldiers surrendering. and of course the heaviest fighting right now is near zaporizhzhia. this comes as yevgeny prigozhin, the wagner chief who engineered the attempted coup against putin has been spot not in belarus, in

st. petersburg, in russia, in the same city where putin is right now. in fact, it is the first time that he has been seen in russia since the insurrection. nic robertson is "outfront." >> reporter: in public, in russia, wagner affiliated account saying mercenary boss yevgeny prigozhin openly greeting a delegate to president putin's africa conference. the last time prigozhin was seen in russia was his mutiny to overthrow putin's defense chiefs. he sent tanks and troops towards moscow, a direct challenge to putin's authority. putin accused his long-time henchman of betrayal, vowing inevitable punishment. prigozhin backed down, reportedly cut a deal, was last seen in russia a month ago, seemingly headed for exile in

belarus. yet here he is in public in russia, apparently on the periphery of putin's biggest international conference since he invaded ukraine. hosting dozens of african nations. until his failed mutiny and apparent banishment to belarus, prigozhin wasn't just vital in the war in ukraine, he was putin's biggest off-books overseas enforcer, cutting deals with kremlin-friendly african leaders. this week in a voice note sent to an african broadcaster, afrique media, prigozhin reportedly said wagner is still in business in africa. his only caveat, wagner mustn't damage russia's interests. whatever punishments have been forced on prigozhin are far from clear.

the british m.o.d. say short of cash and selling russian international assets to pay his fighters. the cia director bill burns says that prigozhin shows no intent on retiring and far from a hard exile in belarus, is able to move freely in and out of russia. prigozhin's first post mutiny appearance on camera seems to have come in belarus last week. now he seems to be back in russia on putin's doorstep. hard to believe it could have happened without his old friend, the russian president's say so. and i think the real question now for prigozhin is how long is this currency of involvement for putin in africa with these different leaders, with these different shady types of business deals that apparently have been going on, how long is that currency good to keep him out of the type of vengeance that we've seen putin wreak on other opponents who have been so

brazen as to try to challenge him. so far prigozhin seems to have had barely a flesh wound, if you will. perhaps worse is yet to. could. erin? >> all right, nic, thank you very much. and i want to good now to retired u.s. army general hertling. so general hertling, putin calls prigozhin a traitor to his country for the whole world to hear. and now here is prigozhin back in russia in st. petersburg, same place, same time, same event as putin, in fact. what in the world is going on here? >> yeah, it seems a little bit bizarre, doesn't it, erin? the african nexus is a great power competition between the u.s., china and russia. what russia does there, what prigozhin does there is he tries to erode western influence while also extracting as much natural resources for putin as he can. he is the lead in all this. so even though he almost committed a coup against mr.

putin, and we can't look at their government and their military the same we do at ours, he is still in control of russia -- or excuse me, in control of the troops in africa, and some troops in the middle east as well. so he's not going to go away. but there are indicators that many african countries saw what happened in russia with prigozhin and are now doubting his capabilities even in africa. that's why this russia-africa conference is so important. >> and of course going on in niger and all these things as russia is trying to extend its influence. niger a crucial producer of uranium. i'm curious, though, this whole african summit, general, how you see it. obviously the u.s. government sees it as 17 heads of state from african countries came to st. petersburg. that's half that attended the last summit. so it's a sign of putin's isolation. it's still 17 countries, and a lot of those other countries still sent senior people, though not the heads of state. even when i look at the 17,

three of them, three oe 17 that sent heads of state moscow right now are in the top ten recipients of u.s. for assistance right now. three of them. >> yeah. >> egypt. >> it is a little bit -- it's bizarre, isn't it? that foreign assistance that we provide most of those countries, though, erin is mostly through usaid. so it's developmental assistance. china on the other hand, different from russia, is the continent's bilateral trade partner. russia provides protective alliances with corrupt and mo mom mostly authoritarian governments. some of the countries like egypt, they run the boundary line between all three of those countries. >> thank you so much for your time. i appreciate it. and thanks so much to all of you for yours. "ac 360" starts now. good evening. breaking news. just a short time ago, the special counsel's office announced new charges against the former president in its classified documents