♪ good morning and welcome to "face the nation." margaret is off. i'm john dickerson. we find ourselves sorting and explaininging the american system following the actions of former president donald trump for which there is no previous example in american history. last week's news for the first time in history, a former u.s. president has been charged with multiple, 37 in this case, charges, stemming from the investigation into his removal of classified material from the white house and his attempts to hide it from authorities. this is the second time mr.

trump has been indicted this year. these federal criminal charges are part of a two-pronged investigation being conducted by special prosecutor jack smith who is looking into mr. trump's role in the events leading up to the january 6th attack on the capitol. smith was named to oversee the investigation following the fbi's seizure of classified documents from mar-a-lago in august of 2022. the 49-page indictment outlining the evidence against mr. trump is exhaustive in its detail. prosecutors accuse mr. trump of conspiracy to obstruct justice, making false statements and allege his willful retention of hundreds of classified documents, including some that contain top secret military plans and information about u.s. nuclear capability and vulnerability. the indictment leaves little to the imagination. it uses photographs of boxes of material including the

classified documents stored carefully in open locations at mar-a-lago including a public ballroom, a bathroom and spilled over a storage room floor and cite deese tailed notes by trump's attorney, audiotapes of the former president showing classified materials in two instances to people without security clearance. noting that, quote, as president, i could have declassified but now i can't, undermine the former president's public defense anything he took was automatically declassified. >> our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the united states and they must be enforced. we have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone. >> flashback to the 2016 campaign when mr. trump highlighted the investigation into the misuse of hillary clinton's nonsecure e-mail server to forward classified e-mails. back then, he repeatedly pledged

to enforce all laws protecting classified information. >> we can't have someone in the oval office who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "confidential" or "classified". >> most of mr. trump's 2024 rivals or supporters in congress did not address the substance of the indictment but complained it existed at all, declaring it an example of government abuse. >> you can't have one faction of society weaponizing the power of the state against factions that it doesn't like and that's what you see. >> a few contenders say the actions mr. trump show he should not be president. former vice president mike pence who announced his campaign this week says wait and see. >> we also need to hear the former president's defense, and then each of us can make our own judgment on whether this is the latest example of injustice or otherwis trump's mega factio

there is no otherwise. >> if you want to get to president trump you have to go through me and 75 million americans just like me. and i'm going to tell you, yep, most of us are card carrying members of the nra. that's not a threat. that's a public service announcement. >> on the campaign trail saturday, former president trump tried to turn his personal woes into a campaign message. >> i put everything on the line. i will never yield. i will never be deterred. i will never stop fighting for you, never. >> there are a lot of questions we're going to try to answer today and we want to explore how these aren't just documents in a

criminal proceeding, they're a window into the behavior of a candidate, a man who would like to be given responsibility with the most sensitive things a president handles again. we begin with our chief election campaign correspondent robert costa. bob, i've been reporting inside the trump team, the legal team, but also getting reaction on the former president's response to all of this. what are you hearing? >> john, good to be with you. last night as the former president was traveling around the country, his aides and allies say he was defiant privately, furious about the indictment and pledging to stay in the race, even if he is convicted of a federal crime. some of his allies describe privately his behavior and conduct yesterday as someone -- somewhat akin to what happened in october 2016 with the "access hollywood" tape, and it created a major political crisis. what did he say then? i'll never quit the race. that's what he's saying this weekend. trump faces so much uncertainty

and legally. this legal team has this unfolding shakeup. two lawyers left the team in recent days, and now trump's remaining lawyers are trying to get it all together but trying to come up with a strategy, how are they going to counter the sweeping indictment. >> there's one of the most striking parts of thendictment is a transcript of a conversation the former president had with some authors who were in front of him and in that conversation he mentions chairman of the joint staffs mark milley which reminded me of the reporting you did for your book "peril." what do you make of the president bringing of the former chiefs of staff. >> we've been casting our net widely trying to figure out why this did happen and the president bring these documents back to mar-a-lago. what was the motivation? part of our answer in our reporting is that he was angry, so much of this as with many trump stories is driven by grievance, his grievance with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the recent one, mark

milley, and how mark milley in the public eye was becoming a major figure in 2021. to counter milley's profile, trump in interviews with reporters and friends he started to bring out documents to make his own case on national security, on foreign policy to say he was in a sense better than milley, milley didn't know what he was doing, and when he did this, according to our sources, he was cavalier, bringing out things he should not have shown to people writing books and articles. >> we mentioned the fact that this is happening in the campaign context, people sometimes call a campaign a job interview. this is a candidate who's had the job before and this is a way he treated it. what's been the response, treated the obligations of the job. what's been the response inside the republican race to this indictment? >> there is alarm in the sense that they believe if he wins the presidency again, he is so now comfortable with the levers of power, and he ignores the rule of law in the eyes of some of

his competitors, that he could be a threat to american democracy. few are saying that publically but trump vote thers want to winner over are standing with trump as he faces this legal show down. former vice president mike pence says trump doesn't follow the constitution, doesn't under the rule of law. chris christie is making a similar case against trump. there's a bit of a growing refrain. so many of the rival campaigns, at this point, are in a wait-and-see mode. they know that on the horizon is not only a trial with this federal special counsel indictment, but also another possible federal indictment on the ongoing january 6th case. and in august you could have an indictment in georgia over trump's pressing of election officials and the ongoing trial and litigation that looms on the horizon in new york. >> cbs news chief campaign and elections correspondent robert costa, thanks, bob.

>> thank you. for more on the legal implications we're joined by investigative correspondent catherine herridge and legal analyst rikki klieman. you've been a prosecutor and defense lawyer. what stands out to you now that you've read this indictment? >> i think what stands out, obviously, is the magnitude of detail in this indictment. it's not only that you're dealing with 31 counts under the espionage act which spl th lang retention of classified information or even unclassified information, that would hurt the defense of the united states and aid our enemies. it's the detail of a speaking indictment. we have to remember that much of this indictment, john, is to educate not only, ultimately a court and jury, but it's really

to educate the public. much of this indictment, in terms of the detail, may not even come into evidence in terms of what's admissible or not in the course of a trial. what also strikes me, john, is the overwhelming detail leaves the trump legal team with real need to have powerful motions to dismiss because if this goes to trial, the way it reads, it's rather overwhelming for anyone to be able to fight it on the facts themselves. >> i want to get to that motion to dismiss question in a moment. catherine, you've been doing reporting about the risk assessment of what was in these documents. >> what jumps out to me, john, when you go to the section on the willful retention of national defense information, by my count there are 21 top secret documents and the disclosure of top secret information has the

expectation of exceptionally grave damage to national security, what else stands tout me is some of the classified could codings like t.k., or talent key-hole, that's about intelligence from overhead imagery. for example, f we're looking at a terrorist target do we have such good visibility we can count the hairs on their head? can we see what they're eating for breakfast on their terrace patio? those are capabilities that we don't want our adversaries to know we have. also special access programs are highly restricted programs because of the sensitivity of the intelligence and the technology, such as stealth technology, for example. think of classified information like the pentagon, special access programs, the handful of rooms where just a limited number of keys to control and restrict access to that information. >> so it's not just secret. it's the top of the top? >> some of these are way beyond top secret, like i said talent

key-hole, talking about special access programs or sensitive compartmentalized information, these are the crown jewels of the u.s. intelligence community. >> rikki, let me ask you about a part of this indictment which comes from one of the former president's lawyers. educate us on the crime fraud exception and how it's possible for a prosecutor to have this information and is that a weakness because we know from our reporting that this is something the trump defense team is going talk about is the behavior of the prosecutors? >> we all believe that when you go to a doctor, that there's a privilege, that what you say and what your ailments are, will remain confidential. same thing if you go to a clergy person. and it's exactly the same thing when you go to a lawyer. you believe that if you are a client what you say will never be disclosed to anyone, let alone in the grand jury or court of law. it's called the attorney-client

privilege. it protects all conversations relating to legal advice. so how did it get broken? that is, how did a court in washington, d.c., a judge, and then an appellate court affirm the idea that you could hear, listen, read the notes and voice memos of a lawyer to testify against his own client? it's called the crime fraud exception. what the court believed was the conversations between evan corcoran the lawyer and donald trump, were really in furtherance of a crime or a fraud, and he was ordered and forced to testify. now one could say that's one and done, so now mr. corcoran is going to be a witness in this case, should it go to trial. what we have to remember that took place, that decision, in the district of columbia.

now we are in florida. so can it come up to a new judge? might a new judge decide that it is not admissible at trial? yes. will that hurt the case? not necessarily. there's plenty of other evidence. >> catherine, i have two questions. the first is what happens if you're just a regular joe and you have this kind of information, legally what happens to you? >> well, as one example, i have contacts who work in the nuclear weapons capability arena, let's say you have a nuclear document that's on top of a photocopier and leave it there, your clearance is gone and you're out the door. there are immediate consequences. >> let me ask you about a number of the president's defenders. the current president is under investigation by a special counsel. we don't know much about that. but republicans have brought that up in defending the president. they've brought up the case of hillary clinton. you've been looking at. give us a sense of the apples and oranges or apples and apples. >> what strikes me i think the

special counsel jack smith specifically charged willful retention of national defense information in an effort to sort of blunt criticism that these cases may be the same. if you go back to the summer of 2016, then fbi director james comey said that they found multiple e-mail chains on hillary clinton's private server that she used for government business, that contained highly classified information, including the special access programs that we just discussed, but in his view, it should not be charged because he didn't feel there was sufficient evidence of intent or willfulness. critics would say even just purchasing the server was an example of intent. and then finally, you have to look at just the scope of the information and also the timeline. but i think this charging of willful retention is really by design. >> the facts of the case different but thank you so much for that and for all your other answers and rikki klieman, thank

you. "face the nation" will be back in one minute. stay with us. ♪ the google cybersecurity certificate was made to fill that gap. -with hands-on training, recruitment support, and access to a wide network of employers, this program provides the necessary skills is a growing workforce trained to stop them. ♪

cbs news elections and survey director anthony and his team were in the field with the presidential survey when the indictment news broke and were able to include questions to determine the impact of the charges against former president trump. anthony, it's good to have you here. what's reaction been? >> good morning. start with republican primary voters because we're in the heat of this campaign. they say it does not matter. they expressly say that this will not change their views. maybe that doesn't surprise. they've been with donald trump for years, but what's interesting is the why. when you ask if they're more concerned that this is politically motivated or if there's a national security risk, they come down heavily on the politically motivated side. 76% of them saying that. and, you know, what's interesting about this is, you

juxtapose that against the broader public who is much more split, and in many cases the public says these aren't mutually exclusive. it can be in part both. but the republican primary voter, donald trump is still on top and this hasn't changed anything. >> and the general election voter, the republican party primary voter overwhelmingly but when you mix it together the majority of the country believes what? >> if you take out just the potential national security risk and you ask people, is this one? well you get this big number among the public that say yes, it is. >> a national security risk? >> security risk if true, if as alleged there were nuclear plans or military plans in these documents. that's at 69%. but you want to see that inson to the republican primary voter that number is at 38%. it's that difference that is essential to understanding why you're going to seat rhetoric on

the republican side on the campaign trail that's talking about what they say is political motivation, as opposed to national security risk. >> what happens if the president is convicted? >> so if you look ahead to that possibility, we asked, would that be disqualifying for him to be able to serve a second term for elected to run. republican primary voters say that's not disqualifying. he ought to be able to serve, they're at eight in ten. the public majority saying he cannot. you get through the primaries and wonder about general election implications here, that difference is going to matter. but for now, for republicans, it is not days qualifying. >> a question of history, we remember the lock her up chants from the 2016 campaign from donald trump's supporters at rallies. what did the surveys show about the way republican voters thought about the allegations that hillary clinton had misused classified data? >> back in the summer of 2016, our polling showed the

republicans overwhelmingly thought what she did was wrong and even illegal. okay. now look that may have ultimately had electoral implications for her as well. i think the takeaway from that comparison, sometimes when the public makes up its mind it's politics first. who is doing something as opposed to the abstract of what may have happened. >> we'll have more discussion about later in our broadcast with our political panel where we'll talk about the state of the race. we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation." stay with us. phil: excuse me? hillary: that wasn't me. narrator: said hillary, who's only taken 347 steps today. 348, 349... hillary: i cycled here. narrator: haha! on an e-bike... speaking of cycles, mary's period is due to start in three days. mary: it is? narrator: and her friend hasn't washed his hands since... monday! yeah, i'd put that back. and then there's bill, whose heart rate rises to 115, nervous i'll mention... bill: my diarrhea?

narrator: his chronic night sweats. linda: you sweat more at night than you do at the gym. narrator: which is rich coming from linda, who's wearing yoga pants but never does yoga! linda: i stretch! bill: how do you know so much about us!? phil: i don't like it... narrator: it's your health data, you've been sharing it without realizing it. that's how i know about kevin's rash. and your halitosis! lice! jay: it's true. narrator: and... ringworm! haha! who's next? wait... what's that in your hand? no, no, stop! way to ruin the fun. [lock clicks shut] my a1c was up here; now, it's down with rybelsus®. his a1c? it's down with rybelsus®. my doctor told me rybelsus® lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill and that people taking rybelsus® lost more weight. i got to my a1c goal and lost some weight too. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer,

or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? you may pay as little as $10 per prescription. we turn now to the first of two republican governors joining us today. new hampshire's chris sununu who announced last week that he would not be a candidate for president. welcome, governor. thank you for being with us. you've taken a look at the indictment. do you think that current frontrunner of the republican nomination should be given the responsibility to handle the most sensitive national security

documents again with re-election. >> i guess we're going to find out. look, if half of what they say they can prove is provable, then he's got a real problem on his hands and it's self-inflicted. let's remember that. he had every chance in the world to hand all those files and documents back and did the opposite, he bragged about keeping them. this is self-inflicted. we'll find out of the 37 or whatever charges there are, how many he's potentially found guilty on. we'll see where it goes and disqualifying and not. the last segment you had was telling. it's just another example that he could win the nomination, but cannot, mathematically, cannot win in november of '24 which is why the republican party needs to look to another candidate and they've got a lot of great options before them. >> this seems to provide an opportunity for them to not look to another candidate because they are rallying around him. i want to read you something from the "national review" which wrote about this indictmnt, it is impossible to read the

indictment against trump in the mar-a-lago case and not be appalled by it, the way he handled classified documents as an ex-president and responded to the attempt by federal authorities to reclaim them. you seem to share that view, but many, the majority in your part and the majority of public officia officials, have the opposite view. >> yeah. this is the problem that the department of justice has, whether you want to agree with it or not doesn't matter. the reality is a lot of people are looking at the cloud that sits over the doj and says there has been a little too much flix that department over the past couple years a lot of allegations of political handling, so they have the responsibility to say look, this is different. this is much more severe. and i think they have to do that. >> let me ask you this, governor, but first of all, the department of justice is investigating a sitting president, there's a special counsel, same standard is applied to him. isn't it not the department of justice that's applying a different standard, but the

politicians the same ones in some cases, kevin mccarthy and others, who are applying a standard to donald trump that they did not apply to others, most, you know, hillary clinton being the primary one? >>, but you can't -- if i may, you can't equivocate the two. you have folks -- look those are politicians that are on the republican side and going to defend a political position, the doj has a responsibility to be above it all and should be and historically has been. region has not been. the average american watches this. you and i are in the weeds and talk about the issue all the time. the average has it for 90 seconds. they found files over there, a server in clinton's bathtub, what's the difference. there's a huge difference. but it has to be explained to the american people. >> i mean, governor, that's like saying new york and new hampshire are the same because they have the word new in their titles.

there are great differences in terms of obstruction of justice in the cases of say president biden and the case of former president trump. so -- >> i agree. >> but we're going to run out of time so hold on. we g toet you on the other side of the half hour and we'll come back to this. we're going to take a break and stay right there. we've got more when we come back to "face the nation." make analyzing a big bank's data... no big deal? go on... well, what if you partner with ibm and red hat, use a hybrid cloud solution to connect data across clouds, then analyze all that data with watson. okay, but this needs to meet our... security standards? yup. compliance standards? mm-hmm. so they get the insights they need... we're going to get you on the e? check. aaaand check. that's the solution ibm and a global bank created. what will you create? ibm. let's create. ♪ with wet amd, sometimes i worry my world is getting smaller because of my sight. but now, i can open up my world

with vabysmo. vabysmo is the first fda-approved treatment for people with wet amd that improves vision and delivers a chance for up to 4 months between treatments. which means doing more of what i love. ♪ vabysmo is the only treatment designed to block 2 causes of wet amd. vabysmo is an eye injection. don't take it if you have an infection or active swelling in or around your eye, or are allergic to it or any of its ingredients. treatments like vabysmo can cause eye infection or retinal detachment. vabysmo may cause a temporary increase in eye pressure after receiving the injection. although uncommon, there is a potential risk of heart attack or stroke associated with blood clots. open up your world! a chance for up to 4 months between treatments with vabysmo. ask your doctor.

we'll be right back with a lot more "face the nation" with governor sununu and north dakota governor doug burgum. stay with us. , cbs news, new

york. >> announcer: thisnit news." i'm lana dazak in new york. thanks for joining us. a travel nightmare is unfolding along interstate 95 a north-south highway that runs up the east coast from florida to maine. it's used by tens of thousands of travelers each day but those passing through northeast philadelphia will have to find another route. an elevated section of the northbound lanes of i-95 collapsed after a vehicle fire under the roadway weakened the structure. the southbound lanes are said now to be compromised and a two-mile stretch of the highway is closed in both directions. the head of philadelphia's

office of emergency