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

investigation, a month after indicting him on dozens of felony counts. in addition to more obstruction charges, the special counsel is now charging the former president with the willful retention of a national defense document. according to this indictment, it is the one he mentioned during the taped discussion two years ago with biographers working for his former white house chief of staff mark meadows, none of whom, all the people in the room, again, according to the indictment, possessed a security clearance. here is that recording. >> these are bad, sick people. >> that was your coup, you know, against you. >> well, it started -- >> when milley is talking about oh, we're going to try and do -- no, they were trying to do that before you were even sworn in. that's right, trying to overthrow. >> well, milley, let me see that. i'll show you an example. he said that i wanted to attack iran. isn't it amazing? i have a big pile of papers. this thing just came up. look. this was him.

they presented me, this is off the record. but this presented me this. this was him. this was the defense department and him. >> wow. >> we looked at some. this was him. this wasn't done b this was him. all sorts of stuff. pages long. let's see here. isn't that amazing? this totally wins my case, you know. except it is highly confidential. >> yeah. >> this is secret information. look at this. >> hillary would print that out all the time, you know. >> send them to anthony weiner. >> yeah. >> by the way, isn't that incredible, though? >> yeah. >> i was just saying because we were talking about it. and he said he wanted to attack iran. >> you did. >> this was done by the military, given to me.

i think we can probably -- >> we'll have to see. >> declassify. see, as president i could have declassified. now i can't. >> now we have a problem. >> isn't that interesting? >> yeah. >> it's so cool. look, and you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me. >> no, i believed you. >> it's incredible, right? bring some in, please. >> remember after that was released and after the original indictment, the former president came out and said that was not classified things. it was bravado. well, the indictment today said that document was a, quote, presentation in a foreign country and that the former president showed the document to the biographers in that meeting. what's particularly interesting about it, as i said, after that indictment weeks ago, the former president made a number of public statements to bret baier

and fox and many others claiming the papers he was waving around and had on his desk were not classified. he called it to some bravado to some reporters on his plane. with the new charges it is clear not only does jack smith know the former president was showing a classified document, they likely have the document. thesuperseding document includes charges against a third person, carlos deolivero. his indictment ties back to the new obstruction charges against the former president. so the former president according to this not just involved his valet nauta to move boxes and do other things, he also involved the head of maintenance there. in one instance, the indictment lays out a timeline in late june of last year detailing how the government believes the now three indicted men, nauta, oliveira and the former president, who have now all been indicted in this documents case, that they tried to delete security camera footage that had

been requested just days earlier by the department of justice in this investigation. if this is true, it is stunning. a former president of the united states trying to destroy evidence after being served a subpoena. i'm quoting now from the indictment. de oliveira told someone listed as trump employee number 4 that their conversation should remain between the two of them. this occurring after the subpoena was already sent. de oliveira asked trump employee number 4 who was in the i.t. or security office how many days the server retained footage from security camera images at mar-a-lago. trump employee 4 responded that he believed it was approximately 45 days. then the maintenance guy, de oliveira told trump employee number 4 that the boss wanted the server deleted. trump employee number 4 did not know how to do that and did not believe he would have the rights to do that. trump employee number 4 told oliveira would have to reach out

to another employee who is supervisor of business. head of maintenance then insisted to number 4 that the boss wanted the server deleted and asked what are we going to do? evan perez joins us now. just from that it seems like employee number 4 has talked to the department of justice. >> that's right, anderson. we understand that that employee was one of the many employees at mar-a-lago who have provided testimony either in interviews to the fbi or also to the grand jury. and we know that. we know that almost everybody who worked at mar-a-lago ended up becoming a witness in this investigation. and to go through just again what you just laid out, the former president is now being charged with three additional new charges, two of them having to do with the attempt that the prosecutors described in that part you just read with trying to delete the surveillance footage.

one other charge related to the willful retention of that document. this is the 32nd document. previously he was charged with willfully -- actually 31 documents were listed in the indictment. now there is a 32nd document listed. and that is the document that is referred to in that recording where he's referring to mark milley. we also see from the indictment a description here of an effort that happens after all of this comes to a head, when the fbi comes and does the search of mar-a-lago and retrieves more than 100 additional classified documents. what prosecutors describe is that a few weeks after this, back, again, in august of 2022, walt nauta, one of the other ones charged here, he reaches out to another employee of mar-a-lago and says someone just wants to make sure carlos is good. again, this is a reference to

carlos de oliveira. there is a reference then to a signal chat where people describe that they believe carlos de oliveira is going to be loyal. and at the end of this, prosecutors say that trump called de oliveira and told him that trump will get deoliveira an attorney. this is what prosecutors are describing as part of the obstruction that the former president is doing. he is trying to make sure carlos de oliveira, his maintenance guy, stays on the team, having the fact that the fbi is now aware of all of this. >> we want to point out signal is a highly encrypted communications app that journalists use. i'm sure law enforcement uses as well, others who don't want conversations. go ahead. >> it's also an app that was banned by the white house, the trump white house because they didn't want people talking on encrypted channels, leaking

information to reporters. >> the fact that they have signals communication would seem to indicate that somebody on that signals communication handed some of that stuff over. >> that's right. we know that on that communication was nauta as well as another employee of mar-a-lago. and someone who is identified as a pac representative. previously we've reported that this is a person who was a political action committee representative who was essentially in trump's orbit. and so that we know, that person was also privy to somebody's communications. we know, anderson, that the fbi seized de oliveira's phone. we also know that they have the communications from other employees who turned them over. >> and that pac representative, isn't she the one who the former president allegedly showed another classified or sensitive document to a map? . that is correct. the alleged -- the allegation is that trump also showed her what is believed to be a classified

map. again, something that would -- she did not have a security clearance to be able to see. again, part of what the prosecutors have painted a picture of, the former president being really just, you know, didn't not caring about what classified documents he showed to anyone who didn't have the clearance to be able to see them. >> well, actually, you can make the argument he did care, because he wanted to boast and show these documents. so it's a different way of caring. not caring in a god way about the concern of them being spotted by and seen and read by people who weren't cleared. do we know is this pac representative, she has testified before. >> right. >> the grand jury, has she not? >> my understanding, anderson, from our own reporting is that she's testified probably at least a half a dozen time. >> wow. >> again, we believe that this is in interviews with the fbi. it's not clear whether she actually went to the grand jury. >> okay. >> we know she has testified or

she has provided testimony previously. >> evan, stay with us. i'm joined now by national correspondent christian holmes near the former president's bedminster club in new jersey. i don't know if team trump was expecting a different indictment today, or this -- i doubt this is the indictment they were expecting. but what has reaction been? >> yeah, this was a complete surprise for them, anderson. remember, we were all focused on january 6th. they had that meeting with his lawyers earlier today in the department of justice. then it was essentially radio silence. and i've been talking to a number of trump lawyers and advisers who said it was almost eerily silent, that they were waiting for something to drop, but that something they believed was related to january 6th and the 2020 election, not related to the mar-a-lago documents case. now just moments ago, we heard from the former president. he gave an interview where he reacted to these new charges. and this is what he said. he said it's election interference at the highest level. they're harassing my company. they're harassing my family. and by far, least importantly of

all, they're harassing me. and then he says the charges are ridiculous. they know it better than anyone. and anderson, i do want to mention, he hopes the republican party will do something about it. now trump tomorrow is going to be in iowa, standing alongside a number of these other candidates. and he's running an election, running a campaign with these legal battles looming over him. now it seems as though it is once again going to suck up all the oxygen in this room in this 2024 presidential primary campaign. and that's where we believe these candidates will be asked about on the trail. and really you have to take a step back to remember how unprecedented this situation is, the fact that he is in his third presidential run at a time hen he is facing multiple charges, multiple indictments, and they still expect to get at least another indictment, possibly two if you include january 6th and what happened in fulton county, georgia. so this is a time in which it is

really unprecedented, but the more we talked to voters, it is just unclear, it is going to impact him in that presidential race. of course we are going to keep an eye on the polls. but as we have seen, every time there are more charges, every time there is another indictment, his poll numbers actually go up, as does his fundraising. >> kristen holmes, thank you. back with us is evan perez. i'm also joined by our legal analysts elie honig, and former deputy director andrew mccabe. a lot to get to. elie, this is an extraordinary document that was released today. the timeline of these alleged crimes, it is if not hour by hour, day after day, it paints a very clear picture of communications between these three now alleged co-conspirators. >> it really does, anderson. and donald trump is now way in worse position than he was two hours ago. the big headline to me is they have the document that was the

single biggest most important mystery from the first indictment. that scene at bedminster, donald trump out of the white house, talking about this very sensitive document show aguiar plan. >> just happens to be there. >> look at this. right. and he is shuffling papers. one of the big questions, is he actually showing them a classified document? he has since denied that. on fox news. >> yet again an example of the former president putting his foot in the mouth by talking about an ongoing investigation, an ongoing case. >> in a way that can be used against him in court. you can play that clip of him telling fox there was no document. >> let's just toss to that. >> there was no document. that was a massive amount of papers and everything else, talking about iran and other things. and it may have been held up or may not. but that was not a document. i didn't have a document per se. there was nothing to declassify. these were newspaper story, magazine stories and articles. >> according to prosecutors,

that is the face of a liar. he is saying it with his furrowing his brow, he is looking intense. according to prosecutors, that is what he looks like when he is lying. >> he says in that clip -- >> it's one of the many ways he looks when he is lying. >> he says in that clip that was not a document. guess what? that was a document. he is showing a classified war plan to those journalists, to those writers at his country -- >> and the government has the document? >> they have the document. it's so damaging because they have the document and they have donald trump's lies we just saw. all that is in play. >> and presumably the testimony of the witnesses who saw the document. >> it would seem impossible to imagine given the number of people in that room and the vulnerability of those people in that room, that some of them are not cooperating? >> i would imagine that they are cooperating, that they already have testified before the grand jury, or at minimum spoken to the prosecutors. the fact that there is a recording of that encounter makes it a very strong charge if

they now have the document. it's going to be easily understandable to a jury. now it's not just him holding on to information at his residence post presidency, this is him actually disclosing it to people, and it's on tape. >> yeah, a quick word about evidence. audio recordings as evidence are incredibly evocative and power. people hear them, it's a powerful thing. now prior to today, it wasn't quite evidence that might have even been shown at trial. now it is actually quite relevant evidence that a jury is going to hear. they're going hear the president's voice. in fact, if prosecutors have that document, that could be quite devastating. but anderson, there is two competing things going on here. as matter of evidence, what this indictment presents about donald trump is devastating, point by point laying out the knowledge of criminality on the part of both the president and the people around him. constant statements such as keep this conversation between us, but let's talk about whether surveillance video --

>> in the timeline, it's incredible. june 3. june 22nd doj emails an attorney for trump's business organization a draft of a grand jury subpoena requiring the production of security camera footage, which they, the doj learned about when they were there on june 3rd. the very next day, trump called de oliveira, the head of maintenance, a man who i'm sure he knew, but i doubt spent a lot of time talking with over the years. and they spoke for approximately 24 minutes. the day after they get the subpoena, the following day, another call from the department of justice about it. the same day, the trump attorney spoke with trump regarding the subpoena. nauta gets a text message from a coworker indicating trump wants to see nauta. suddenly rushes back to mar-a-lago, meets with oliveira. it's all here. >> any prosecutor has ever tried an obstruction of justice case is salivating at reading this. you have a timeline of knowledge of an investigation and deliberate attempts to try to

obstruct it. now, to be clear, and let's just put something out there, this case is not getting tried in may of next year. it's scheduled at present to go to trial in may. but now with the more complicated indictment, with more defendants, this is going to take a long time to litigate and get to that point. that said, it's really devastating powerful evidence. >> carrie cordero, i want to bring you in, your thoughts on this. >> well, there is a few different things, anderson. one thing that stands out to me is the indictment points out again that the grand jury opened its investigation in this case in april 26, 2022. so what we're seeing now is the result of 15 months of investigation and the fact that there are so many people who have testified before this grand jury. and this goes back to some of evan's reporting at top of the hour, where there is so many individuals who have gone under oath, different than the video of the former president that we

showed a few minutes ago, which is just on television. but there are so many individuals with knowledge of all the different events that transpired, people who potentially maybe had criminal culpability or exposure at least themselves to individuals who had firsthand knowledge. and so many of those individuals with knowledge of different aspects of the way these documents were handled and the way that the former president and those around him appear to have obstructed this investigation took place. and so what we're seeing is more and more of that evidence and that extensive investigation and that so many people who had testified before the grand jury are -- is now becoming more apparent. >> and in this new indictment tells how the former president and his alleged employees conspired to keep classified documents and allegedly attempted to delete surveillance footage at mar-a-lago. it's extraordinary to me. i don't know why i would be surprised by this, but one of

the most formerly powerful men on the planet, the former president of the united states would reach down to the lowest level employees he has and involve them in a criminal conspiracy which if the government is correct, can very likely destroy the rest of their lives. not just with time served, but just involving them in this mishegas. it's incredible to me. >> it is incredible, but it's also totally believable, right? >> yeah, of course. >> this is someone who we know is consumed with his own success, his own survival, to the extent that he completely disregards the health and welfare and well-being of everyone around him, including loyal employees who are willing to allegedly commit crimes in his behalf. but i should also point out, anderson, that particular crime and the way it involves trump with his hands on the very mechanism of destroying evidence

that's been subpoenaed by the grand jury, sure it's an additional count, and it's a serious thing, and it brings the prospect of additional criminal liability, but it also frames him in such an incredibly negative light. it raises the question of why would you go to these lengths, why would you rope in all these other people to destroy evidence other than the fact that it shows his guilty knowledge. he is destroying evidence. he is trying to keep evidence away from the grand jury because he knows he has done the wrong thing. and that the cover up. it's an incredibly damaging picture that he paints for the jury as they grapple with issues like why would the former president do these kind of things. now we see at least in these allegations how he did it and why he did it. >> also to your point, andrew, they go through in this indictment all the various ways that previously we knew the former -- according to the government, the president had

attempted to do this, suggesting to his attorney, oh, just pluck out anything that's not good that you find and make it disappear, or telling people, oh, this attorney in the past, he did his client right because he said he was the one who was guilty of this, suggesting where is my roy cohn, essentially. there are plenty of examples prior to this superseding indictment in which they are detailing all the ways he is suggesting criminality of other people. >> no question. but those examples, he is a little bit more removed. >> right. destroying the tapes so obvious. >> it's so obvious. he is no longer just sitting back and pulling the puppet strings or suggesting to his attorney, you know, illegal things to do. he is actually reaching out, having a 24-minute phone conversation with the head of maintenance at mar-a-lago. and then undoubtedly emanating from his questions, you have all these pressure, these

pressure-filled suggestions of how is carlos, is he okay? is he loyal? this is right out of a really low rent mob movie. >> yes, that's exactly what it is. yeah. that was my thought as well. and when they say is he okay? it's not hey, how is his emotional well-being. it's is he a stand-up guy? is he going to stick by me no matter what. >> the scheme is incredibly unimpressive, as upsetting as it, it appears they didn't delete the footage. so it was just an attempt to do something in a very sort of sloppy way. and getting to what andrew was suggesting, this is suggesting consciousness of guilt. why would you destroy the videotape if you had every right to retain the documents and you had done nothing wrong. >> and you knew there was a subpoena saying don't destroy videotape. >> the most direct form of allege justice alleged in this indictment. everything else is a little more subtle. >> also to anderson's appointment of him being ham-handed, you're the head of

maintenance to the i.t. guy in the security office and ask your head of maintenance how long is footage recorded for? >> it's abbott and costello. it is the level of simplicity of this scheme here, if you want to call it that, how it played out. to use andrew's low rent movie or mob movie. the other thing that is accurate, this is also low-level individuals taking the fall in effect for someone much higher up. now he is charged with crimes too, but these are individuals who -- why is the former president calling, as you said, anderson, the head of maintenance at mar-a-lago who's life is now significantly upended and will be forever. >> he is not calling donny jr. or eric. >> no. >> or ivanka. >> he is calling the head of maintenance. and now that guy has an attorney paid for by him. it's stunning to me.

>> right. well, anderson, one of the things i think stands out to me is certainly the first indictment sort of stops when the fbi comes and picks up the documents. again, in june and then you jump to the subsequent search of mar-a-lago in august. what this indictment -- this superseding indictment fills in the blanks on is essentially the justice department prompted new crimes to be committed. at least the way the prosecutors are describing by simply asking for the surveillance tapes. what happens after they ask for the surveillance tapes is a whole host of new activity where trump and according to prosecutors his co-defendants, basically kick in to action to find ways to try to hide things. what they're after when they ask for the surveillance tapes is they want to see about the movement of boxes. they want the see what's going on and what happens next according to this new document

is the commission of new crimes, which is the former president asking nauta and de oliveira to essentially try to delete the videotapes. you see this often in investigations. i think certainly andrew mccabe talked a little bit about this where sometimes the fbi is on to something, and they do some things to try to see, tick typical wire so to speak. and that prompts the people that they're watching to commit new crimes that allows thome make this case. you can tell here that what happens as a result of some of this interaction is they're reaching out to additional people who then become witnesses and tell the fbi about it. >> andrew, to that point, suddenly, once the trump folks are informed, don't destroy any tapes, there is all this scurrying around by the former president and deploying nauta to

scurry back to mar-a-lago and talk to de oliveira. >> the indictment reads like you can almost sense the hysteria, right, the panic that the arrival of the subpoena for the videotapes inspired. as you said, anderson, you have walt nauta, who immediately haze plans to travel the next day get changed immediately. he goes back to mar-a-lago. he goes immediately to mar-a-lago and coordinates with de oliveira. you have de oliveira walking around in the tunnels with a flashlight, trying to locate the surveillance cameras. they know that they have a real problem now, because the government knows about the cameras, and there is going to be footage of people moving documents and boxes of documents in an effort to conceal them. so embark upon -- the cover up is always worse than the crime. that is exactly what seems to happen here. and i should point out also, employee 4 and employee 5, these are people who are clearly providing substantial testimony to the government already.

employee 4, his conversation with de oliveira is laid out in the indictment. so he has testified to that. that testimony is in the book. it will likely come up at trial. so the very expansive efforts that the fbi has conducted here to interview everyone associated with mar-a-lago, that work has paid off for them. they have uncovered some very damaging witnesses. >> what we really see here anderson is obstruction on top of on instruction. the first layer is moving these documents out, getting them away from the lawyer, keeping them from the grand jury. and then they realize, oh, boy, we were captured by these surveillance videos. and then they try to tamper with, delete the surveillance video. it's actually two different layers of obstruction. and all of this bolsters the overall strength of this case. i'm really struck by the substantive power of this case. because a lot of times in federal case, your case as elliot and jessica know will rise or fall on the cooperating

testimony of one witness himself who was a criminal. this indictment is based on text, whatsapp messages, photos, audio recordings and testimony from a lot of witnesses who are lay witnesses, who are not themselves involved in criminality. that is a really tough case to beat. >> everyone stay with us. i'm joined by democratic congressman adam schiff, who managed the first impeachment against the former president, was a member of the house select committee on january 6th. congressman schiff, your reaction to the news the former president is now facing additional charges and a third person involved. >> well, the evidence was already strong in the original indictment. but in this superseding indictment now, you just see how much more evidence the special counsel has. you know, there are evidently cooperating witnesses. there is surveillance footage of some of the figures in this new superseding indictment, including de oliveira meeting surreptitiously with others. some night meetings, morning meetings, meetings in an audio

cabinet or a small audio room to sort of discuss the plot to destroy these surveillance tapes. it just shows what incredible body of evidence the special counsel has. but it also shows just how much consciousness of guilt there is on the part of the president. the overlapping efforts to obstruct the investigation. if, you know, part of his earlier defense which he had declassified this information, or he had the right to declassify it, if any of that was true, o, he wouldn't need to go to these extraordinary efforts to destroy evidence. so it is i think very powerful again and shows just how much evidence there is, but also i think is going to put enormous pressure on this newly indicted de oliveira to cooperate as well as on nauta to cooperate. and i wouldn't be surprised to see one or both of them ultimately decide it's in their best interest to do so. >> by the way, on the notion of

him saying all these things were declassified, he himself in that audio recording points out this was a classified document, and he doesn't have the power to declassify it. so he himself stepped on his own lies which were the initial response to these charges and to the search warrant. the -- you mentioned oliveira, who told another trump employee that, quote, the boss wanted the server deleted and attempted to do that. how problematic do you think that is for the former president? >> well, i think it's very problematic, that you have yet another person implicated, someone who apparently had a direct conversation with the president and then relates that conversation to a third person. who sounds like they are cooperating with the authorities. so it's i think very damning. what i also found striking, anderson, was this conversation where the president wants to

know if deoliveira is loyal. and finding out that he is loyal, wants to offer him counsel. this is reminiscent of some of the defense accounts we saw in the russia investigation. it was reminiscent in the january 6th investigation where you had the use of trump paid for counsel essentially trying to counsel witnesses not to share everything they knew. and this is like a mob strategy. but i think it's going to be very unsuccessful here because there is such a strong body of evidence. >> in an interview tonight, former president called the new charges, quote, election interference and said if i weren't leading biden by a lot in numerous polls and wasn't going to be the republican nominee, it wouldn't be happening. for accuracy sake the latest poll out from marquette trump has trump tied at 50% among registered voters. i'm wondering what you make of his latest comments. do you have any doubt that the reason he is running is because of these charges, to -- that he

believes may be his only snope hope? >> i always thought a big part of his running for president is to stay one step ahead of the jailer. that is certainly a much more pressing reason now. i also think it's about money. running for money has been a lucrative proposition for him. so i think in part it's about money. but certainly, the legal jeopardy he faces, all of the efforts his team is making will make to delay the trial until after the election in the hope that if he gets elected, he can use the power of the presidency to make it all go away. and then, you know, there is this recurrent theme in donald trump of projecting on to others what he himself tries to do. this is the man who more than anyone else in history tried essentially to interfere in an election to overturn an election, and now he is accusing joe biden of that. so very consistent. he is playing the victim, blaming others, when you can see in this indictment again how

it's the president's own conduct that time after time gets him into trouble with the law. sadly too, though, it has been a system that has failed to hold him accountable, that has encouraged his repeated law breaking. >> congressman schiff, thank you. appreciate it. >> thank you. coming up, more on our breaking news on the mar-a-lago documents case. plus, what we learned about the meeting today between the former president's lawyers and special counsel jack smith as another indictment possibly looms in the special counsel's 2020 election case. that's what the meeting was about today. ♪ the thought of getting screened ♪ ♪ for colon cancer made me queasy. ♪ ♪ but now i've found a way that's right for me. ♪ ♪ feels more easy♪ ♪ my doc and i agreed. ♪ ♪ i pick the time. ♪ ♪ today's a good day. ♪ ♪ i screened with cologuard and did it my way! ♪

cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ i did it my way! ♪ my dad was a hard worker. he used to do side jobs installing windows, charging something like a hundred bucks a window when other guys were charging four to five-hundred bucks. he just didn't wanna do that. he was proud of the price he was charging. ♪ my dad instilled in me, always put the people before the money. be proud of offering a good product at a fair price. i think he'd be extremely proud of me, yeah. ♪

♪( please don't go by harry casey, richard raymond finch )♪ ( ♪ ♪ ) ♪ (please don't go) ♪ ♪ (please don't go) ♪ ♪ (please don't go) ♪ ♪ (please don't go) ♪ ♪ (don't gooo) ♪ ( ♪ ♪ ) ♪ (don't go away) ♪ pre-order now and get a free storage upgrade. ♪ (please don't go) ♪

the new charges against the former president in the classified documents case came hours after a mysterious meeting between the former president and his defense lawyers and special counsel jack smith, involving his 2020 election investigation. a possible indictment could be announced soon in that case. cnn's paula reid joins us with more. what do you know about what happened behind doors a this meeting today? >> it was a busy day for the special counsel on the january 6th probe. we saw the grand jury that hears evidence in that case was in today, and we spotted several of the key prosecutors a the courthouse. but by the end of the day, no indictment was returned, arguably the biggest development of the day happened a few blocks away where trump's defense attorneys met with special prosecutors. we're told they requested this meeting with the special counsel team. as we know, their client has received a target letter

informing him that he is a target of this investigation. he was also offered, as we know, an invitation to appear before that grand jury. he declined that invitation, but it's notable that his lawyers are meeting with prosecutors. all of these things suggest that an indictment is imminent. now at this point, anderson, it's unclear if the grand jury will be returning tomorrow. they typically meet on tuesdays and thursdays. but that schedule, it can be amended to suit the needs of prosecutors or the court. and now some people have questioned whether an indictment would come this soon. we know from our reporting that the special counsel has at least three more witness interviews scheduled over the next four or five weeks. some people are questioned whether they would file charges before completing those witness introduce. but we saw today in florida they can absolutely file some charges and then continue gathering evidence and file additional charges if needed so it does appear again that an indictment in the january 6th case is

likely coming soon. how soon? it's unclear. >> cnn has previously reported that the former president argued against a meeting between its legal team and the special counsel because he believed an indictment was inevitable. is it clear what changed his mind? >> look, it's a good thing to do, right? at least show up, if for no other reason than on appeal. you can alook, we met with them. we tried to change their minds, but we're told that the trump legal team didn't really expect that they could change the trajectory of this investigation. but they hoped at a very minimum, they could delay this. and of course delay, that is trump's love language when it comes to all kinds of legal problems. and if he is charged here, anderson, we know that will continue to be a strategy on a day here, a week there, that adds up. so it is likely that their goal here was to delay, and that is something that the boss would likely be amenable to. >> paula, stay with us. i want to bring back our panel. andrew, i want to start with you. you've been a part of these kind of meetings as part of the doj

and when you were with the fbi and someone being investigated by the doj. what can you tell us about what these meetings are like? >> anderson, these meetings are really not so much of a conversation or a debate between the two sides as it's really more of an opportunity for the defense team to come in and make a presentation. and typically, they will make maybe legal arguments about attacking the strength of the case and making arguments as to why the case shouldn't be brought, or they may make general interest of justice arguments. it wouldn't be fair or proper to bring a case under these circumstances. doj typically says nothing. they let the defense team make their presentation. at the end of it, they say thank you very much for coming in. we'll consider what you've told us and we'll get back to you with our decision as to what we're going to do at some point in the future. not surprising to me at all that the defense team left without any real sense of whether or not the indictment would be forthcoming, or when that might

happen. >> elie, cnn is reporting that the former president, his attorneys didn't argue the facts of the case, and it was a relatively short meeting. does that tell you anything? >> it tells me that they're just trying to make a record here. you're not going convince prosecutors not to charge without any factsment you're not going convince prosecutors not to charge just making some sort of emotional plea. i do think we have to call out donald trump does this over and over again, but i think we have to call it out over and over again, with the language he is putting out there on social media, it's dangerous, it would tear people apart that is dangerous. that is irresponsible. we know that people respond to donald trump's language. and so all we can do is continue to call it out. these meetings, andy is exactly right. usually prosecutor just sit back, give us what you got. very, very rarely can you change a prosecutor's mind. but without any facts, i don't see it. >> and also in that statement, not only it's that sort of call to action, which it's really not a warning to the public saying look, it's a wink, nod to his

supporters. but he also says i was relying on the advice of my attorneys. saying i got information from attorneys. and i think that's a preview of the defense you're likely to see for him, that there are all these people around me in my time as president who are telling me all these things. i was just doing my best. i'm a simple country lawyer, and all these people were telling me what to do. i think so that's what they'll present. >> do you think that has any impact on the timing of the indictment? >> i don't. this struck me as a pro forma meeting. it was so short. i don't think they could have done a robust presentation of the facts or law in one hour. it may have been an effort to buy just a little bit more time. they're thinking being that the department of justice would have to at least in good faith evaluate the arguments in the presentation that was made. so it would be unseemly to indict today. but likely if jack smith didn't seek the indictment today, we he was not planning to seek the indictment today, regardless of the meeting. it's more likely that there is either more evidence to present to the grand jury, or it's going to take more time for the prosecutors to go through the

draft indictment with the grand jurors. i imagine this is going to be a voluminous speaking indictment, just simply to go through what the allegations are with the grand jurors, and talk to them what the law is going to take a considerable amount of time. my understanding is there were no witnesses seen going into the grand jury. it was just the prosecutors and the grand jurors which suggests to me it could have been time used to present the proposed indictment. i suspect if it's not already a true bill and the indictment hasn't already been voted by the grand jury by the end of their session today, perhaps they'll be called back tomorrow or perhaps tuesday. >> carrie, i want to go back to the indictment that we did get today in the documents cases and the new charges. given new charges, given a new person involved in this, oli oliveira, does that affect the timeline? the judge d a set a pay timelin for a trial. do you think the movement on

this today, the does that push that back automatically? >> i think as a practical matter, it certainly can. and from the perspective of the defendants, they certainly will use it as an argument to delay. you have a new defendant in place who is going to need a lawyer, who is going to need clearances. there is one new document. so that doesn't add a lot to the complexity that the classified information adds in this particular case. but i certainly think that it gives the defense arguments to make to delay it further. oh, we have new charges. that complicates the case. we should delay it even further. and from the former president's perspective, he wants to delay. we he would want to delay this as soon as possible. but also, anderson, i just want to emphasis how different these two cases and investigations are, because we're going back and forth between the classified documents case, where there is new superseding indictment, and then the potential indictment in the january 6th cases. and these are really, really different investigations. the classified documents case, so much of it is obstruction.

and that is obstruction of justice. and those types of cases are things that the justice department actually brings routinely, classified documents cases aren't so common. but the justice department has a lot of experience with them. and so it's sort of a -- it's not a very complex case, even though there is national security information involved, and that adds complexity to it. the nature of the january 6th investigation is historic and is so different because the type of allegations that the justice department would i think presumably make that there was a conspiracy to overturn the election and parts to it that span entire different areas of the country from state election officials to state legislators to attorneys who were advising the former president while he was president. there are just so many different pieces to it. and the nature of it is so unique and historic that the arguments that will be made

potentially by the justice department in the future defenses are just so unique and different. >> paula, we were just talking about the one new document. what do you know about it? >> that's incredibly significant, anderson. of course cnn broke the story that former president trump was on a recording, seeming like he was showing people who did not have security clearances a classified document. now he has subsequently insisted that he didn't have a document. he just had a pile of papers. some of his representatives have told cnn that there was no documents. they went to look for this alleged document, and they never found it. but here the special counsel is saying that it does exist, and now it's been added to the classified materials that he is charged with mishandling. and it is also, i will note, a top secret document. so it really underscores the significance of that recording. and now prosecutors will be able to put his own words on that tape and then show the jury, a potential jury, look, this is a

document that he was showing to people at his mar-a-lago club, bragging, even acknowledging that it was classified and he could not declassify it. that's a really significant buttoning up of something we saw in the first indictment. >> paula, than that document, is it known? do you know if prosecutors had that document all along and just didn't mention it in the first -- when the former president was indicted initially in the documents case? and then the former president went out and said oh, there was no document, and then they felt compelled to mention it? or did it come subsequently in new testimony? >> it's a great question, anderson. something we're going to be asking our source, because the first question is well, how did you get it? because the trump legal team has said after they received a subpoena for asking them for everything related to general milley, that they were never able to find that specific document. so they tell us they did not provide it to investigators. so the question is well, was it found in mar-a-lago?

did it travel from new jersey down to florida? is there some other way? did they go back to the intelligence community? at this point, it's unclear how they eventually obtained it and when they obtained this specific information. because as i said, it's notable it wasn't in the first indictment. an it's been something that publicly the former president and his legal team have made statements that appear to be untrue. >> if it were something they obtained, though, from the intelligence community or intelligence agency, they would then have to confirm that the document they received from intelligence agency was the document that the former president was holding up in that room. >> exactly. and they have several ways to do that, because he was in a room with at least four other people. we know two of his close aides who have spoken with special counsel investigators, and there are also two people working on an autobiography for former white house chief of staff mark meadows. it's unclear if they have spoken with investigators. we know that margo martin, one of his closest aides, who is one knowingly recording this conversation, she was in there. she would likely be asked about

it. also, another one of his aides, liz harrington, a spokeswoman for former president trump, also in the room. so you can bet that they have likely been asked is this the document that you were shown. >> thanks to everyone. coming up next, some republican reaction on capitol hill to the new charge against former president in the mar-a-lago documents case. a and deeper dive into the politics of all of this with david axelrod and joe walsh. >> woman: why did we choose safelite? we were loading our suv when... crack! safelite came right to us, and we could see exactly when they'd arrive with a replacement we could trust. that's service the way we wanit. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite rlace. ♪ when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy.

biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex. serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. ♪ ♪ 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. rich, velvety coffee. café quality espresso. one high-pressure system that can do both. brew to your heart's desire with the l'or barista system. a masterpiece in taste. so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around. with the best price for two lines of unlimited. only $30 bucks a line per month. that's hundreds in savings a year when you wave bye to the other guys. save hundreds a year over t-mobile, at&t and verizon. and now, trade in your current phone,

and get up to $1000 off the new galazy z flip 5 and z fold 5. again, breaking news tonight, former president trump facing new charges in the mar-a-lago documents case, including two additional counts of obstruction and one count where he's accused of willfully

retaining a top secret document about iran attack plans. on capitol hill tonight, republican senator roger marshall sidestepped questions about it from cnn's manu raju. take a look. >> this is the first i've heard of it. again, i'm locked in on an ndaa bill. that's where my mind is right now, so i don't know a thing about it. >> are you concerned about his handling of classified documents? >> there's other things going on besides january 6th and donald trump in this country. >> the new charges against the former president come as he's neck and neck with president biden in a new poll. want to get reaction from david axelrod, a former senior adviser to president obama. also former republican congressman joe walsh. with the new charges in the classified documents case, how do you see it impacting the campaign for the former president? >> you know, i have to see evidence, which i haven't seen so far that, it is going to

influence it at least in a negative way. that construct that you read of his, he has drilled it in again and again and again that each of these indictments is an effort on the part of the deep state and his political enemies in the biden administration to stop him from running and to deprive people of their voice. and i think to his supporters that's been a compelling argument. and right now, ever since these indictments started, he's actually climbed in the polls. anderson, i need to see evidence that this is going to be somehow different from that. >> congressman, your republican senator roger marshall sidestepped saying the charges he hasn't heard. elise stefanik is railing against the new charges saying our justice system is broken. do you think the cake is already baked with the majority of congressional republicans on this one? >> oh, anderson, absolutely, and

david's right. i talk to trump voters every single day. he's built this wall around himself among his supporters. he's a victim. he's a victim, as david said, of the deep state. this is all a witch-hunt, and his voters and supporters believe that. every new charge -- look, trump deserves every new charge and indictment because he's a criminal, and no one is above the law. but legally -- politically, anderson, every new charge and every new indictment strengthens donald trump within the republican party, within the base, because they see this. they really do see this as a piling on and a witch-hunt. he's convinced them of that. >> david, i mean, it's so interesting how -- just the hypocrisy on -- there's a lot of hypocrisy on all sides, but if this was president obama having

done this, the response obviously would be completely different by republicans. >> yeah. i mean, there's no doubt about that. but it's also true that trump's whole political project is built around this idea that he is their tribune against this deep state, against, you know, washington and the entrenched liberal bureaucracy and so on. so, yes, it would be entirely different. yes, they would be coming after -- i mean, look, i don't know what's going to happen with these congressional investigations against president biden, but so far they've rolled out a bunch of cannons and lit the fuse and a flag that says pop comes out, and it turns out to be less than they advertised. so, you know, they would certainly go after a president for this. i'm not sure another president or another presidential

candidate would survive this, and it's donald trump's particular farrell genius to be able to turn these things to his advantage. >> congressman, do you see a point where any of these other presidential republican rivals start to get more aggressive or start to just sort of , say, mae a different argument against the former president in. >> no, anderson, i think they're on a road that they're not going to get off of. desantis, pence, haley, scott, none of them are trying to beat trump. they're just waiting. they're waiting for, as we said before, a heart attack or the justice system to take trump out, and they want to be there standing. but none of them -- trump is going to yell deep state and witch-hunt when this next indictment comes down, and if you're a republican candidate for president and you want any shot at the nomination, you have to echo trump so. that's what they'll do.

>> david, in a new national -- go ahead, david. >> go ahead. no, go ahead. >> no, i don't really have anything interesting to ask you. i feel like we have had this -- this is the discussion we have every time, and it's the same thing over and over again. >> it's the same thing except it changes in that ron desantis, for example, was within 15 points of trump when he was a notion in people's heads in the fall that he could be the guy who could take him out. when he became a real candidate, he's done nothing but fall, and part of it is because his whole scheme -- and i think it's an ill conceived one -- is that he'll be trumpier than trump and when trump fails, falls implodes, he can pick up the pieces. well, trump's not failing with the republicans and desantis continues the fam he's closer to third place than first place,

much closer, and he continues to make mistakes. this ridiculous suggestion today that he might make robert f. kennedy the purveyor of these ridiculous, ludicrous, dangerous conspiracy theories about pharmaceuticals and about diseases that he might make him head of the fda or head of the cdc. this is a guy who purports to be a serious candidate for president of the united states. donald trump could not be luckier than to have an opponent l like that. >> see, david, i was right to let you speak. david, thank you. joe walsh, as well. the news continues. that's it for us "the source with kaitlan collins" starts now. tonight, straight from the source, new charges against donald trump and a new codefendant. what prosecutors say about how the boss wanted surveillance video destroyed, and why the audi