truth socials i guess. the national archives and records administration assumed exclusive legal and physical custody of obama presidential records when president barack obama left office in 2017. in accordance with the presidential records act, narra, the national archives and record administration moved 30 million pages of unclassified records to a nara facility in the chicago area where they are maintained exclusively by nara. additionally they have a nara facility in the washington, d.c. area as required by the presidential records act. former president obama has no control over where and how the national archives records administration stores the presidential records of his administration. so that was an immediate clap back from the national archives. donald trump is also going out

and saying that he was able to declassify whatever he wants. joyce, put that -- make sense of that for us? explain that to us. >> well, i'd love to make sense of it, katy, but it doesn't make much in the way of sense. it is a shocker that the former president would try to distract from his own problems but invoking barack obama who by all accounts including this official one complied fully with the presidential records act. when it comes to these new suggestions that trump could have declassified these documents on his way out the door, this rings a little bit too good to be true. and certainly the president has declassification authority, he can do it with far less need to dot the i's and cross the t's than someone else could. but if for instance i had walked out of my office with tss, ci information which we're being told what was recovered in the execution of this search

warrant, it is clear that if i had refused to turn it over or tried to keep it hidden saver a request was made, i would be immediately substantial to prosecution. the possible distinction here and i've heard some of our friends say on air today, and this is true, is that the government bears a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal prosecution. so if trump came forward and said well i de classified this, it is tough to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. but that is not how it would work. trump, in order to raise that defense, if he were to be prosecuted and obviously that is not where we are, there are a lot of steps in between executing a search warrant and bringing an indictment. but if that were to happen, before he would be able to raise this defense that he declassified these materials, he would have to come forward with a threshold burden of showing that was true, of showing these materials were properly declassified before he would be

permitted to make that argument in a court of law. even though that would be a low threshold that he would have to reach. there would at least have to be someone around him confirming that he went through appropriate steps to declassify these materials. and that seems extremely unlikely from where we sit today. because had that happened, one suspects there would have been concern and it would have rung some alarm bells inside of the department rather than letting these materials sit at mar-a-lago for a year and a half before they were recovered. >> so it is just past 3:00 p.m., past the deadline that the trump team had to tell the federal judge if florida that they objected to the release of the two documents. we have not gotten those documents from the federal authorities. not from the judge. they have not been unsealed yet. but we have obtained a copy of the documents. joining me now is ryan riley, josh dossy, political reporter for "the washington post" as

well. and msnbc legal analyst paul butler and joyce vance. we also have david rode, msnbc legal analyst tally winestein. thank you for being here on this breaking news. so i do want to go back to you, ryan. now that you've had a moment to digest some of the documents, what else could you tell us? >> i do want to look -- i think one thing is important is attachment b is what described as what they were looking for here and section d, any evidence of knowing alteration, destruction or concealment of any government or presidential records or any documents with classified markings. so in addition to looking for all of the classified documents they're looking for evidence of concealment of the documents and evidence of destruction of the classified documents. so you go back to not that it is classified but maggie haberman reporting about how trump got rid of documents by flushing them down the toilet. that would be a presidential

record to some extent. he is supposed to save a lot of that. it is not at all in the classified category. which is really what this search was all about. but given trump's habits here, i think that basically any evidence of concealment is something that authorities were very much looking for when they went to actually go and search mar-a-lago, katy. >> tally, let's focus on that when ryan just flagged. any evidence of the knowing alteration or destruction or concealment of any government and or presidential records or any documents with classification markings. what does it say to you that they were going in looking for potential knowing alteration? >> you know, so these are the -- this is the category of cover-up crimes, right. and one of the interesting things that it said to me, katy, is that the sort of defense of donald trump that we have heard over time when we've talked about his criminal exposure to

possibly other crimes like in the fake electors scheme, obstructing congress or in his business dealings in his tax returns and in his bank returns is, did he have the criminal intent. and once you have somebody covering up or, you know, destroying something that he should not have taken, flushing the drugs down the toilet when he knew the government wanted to get their hands on those drugs, it becomes really hard for him to say, oh, i didn't know that having this stuff was illegal. i didn't have the criminal intent to violate these statutes that say that i can not be in possession of these documents and i could not have taken them to mar-a-lago. so it is -- it is a stand-alone crime in and of itself that we're talking about. but i think it also amplifies the criminal case if there is one as to the underlying substantive charges that we're talking about and some of which have been delineated in the attachments to the warrant. >> so josh, you and your paper

have been reporting that the documents that were being searched for, some of them pertained to nuclear weapons and donald trump has said that that issa -- is a hoax. and oun truth social he said how many of them, in regards to president obama's documents, pertained to nuclear -- to nuclear he said, word is lots and then he goes on to say they could have have it any time they wanted without playing politics and breaking into mar-a-lago. it was in secured storage with an additional lock put on as per their request. i know he's not confirming that he had documents about nuclear weapons. but it does raise the question of whether he knew about what was in there. and whether it about nuclear information. >> well the last part of that in particular is misleading at best or false. what happened here, was the national archives asked for those documents for anything that he had back that he improperly took a year ago.

they got 15 boxes back and then there was a subpoena and another meeting with his team and of a doj officials according to our sources began to think that his team was not being entirely forthcoming and when they went back and additionally now and got, according to all of the reporting from ryan and others, another trove of classified documents. so, when he said they could have had it any time they wanted, that is just not what our sources describe happening at all. in fact, there was a lot of puzzling kind of wonder in trump's orbit of why he was so reticent to give some of the documents back and a lot of his advisers don't know why he wanted to keep them at all. entirely. i mean, he's saying now there was no need to raid, as you said in your statement, or just read, we would have given them back to them, but he had sensitive top secret documents and they're searching for nuclear weapons documents and about special access programs that very few people in the united states

government has access to seeing. so this notion that we were being cooperative all along, the facts don't bear that out. >> and in capital letters, all they had to do was ask and said it was secured storage with an additional lock put on as per their request. david, you know how this works. this top secret sci information, the compartmented information, is it normally stored in a basement with a lock? >> no. not at all. and the obvious sort of thing here is to -- can we think of any past president, any republican president, either bush president, president reagan taking dozens of boxes full of classified information, unilattery and that is what is so crazy about the -- president's statements about this. i am concerned about -- i'm not sure that we'll be a criminal

case brought against trump for this. it is been brought in the past against cia director david petraeus, sandy burger, bill clinton's national security adviser but they pled out for this. but so i think expectations of that, you know, should be tempered. but i do think this is politically damaging to the president. i think there are moderate republicans and independents who see it again as his recklessness of, this -- there is no need for this to be happening or false claims. so do you think this at the very least hurts him politically. >> joyce. >> i'm going to ask you this again, what is the likelihood that the doj, that fbi had information from a human source about what was contained at mar-a-lago. i know they've subpoenaed those documents, they subpoenaed -- there was some reporting about how they've subpoenaed it and what they were able to get access to. but what is the likelihood given the speed with which they moves to seize these documents that

they had somebody operating on ground that knew it was there and had seen it with their own eyes. >> right. so katy, when you go to a federal judge and ask for permission to execute a search warrant, you don't just need to have probable cause. that probable cause has to be fresh. that means it has to suggest to the judge not only was there evidence at the location you want to search at some point, that that evidence is there now. sometimes that evidence comes to you in a form that suggests a particular urgency and executing the warrant. that could be for instance a case where evidence is being moved or destroyed, or perhaps used for an improper purpose. i want to be clear that we don't have any indication yet at least that that is the case here. but that is the sort of situation that can cause you to seek a search warrant on a short timeline. we really don't know if that is the case here. this could have been in the works at doj for some period of

time. with the search warrant and the affidavit being honed and inspected over a period of weeks and as you're asking me there was a human source on the ground saying there is some risk here, you need to move expeditiously. either way it is very likely that there was some form of human intelligence that confirmed the concerns that were being raised here. maybe initiated, maybe confirmed them. it is possible that there are other ways that you could gather this information than beyond having someone in place on the ground who is telling you there is classified information that is being mishandled. you know, we could speculate and say you might see for instance some indication in traffic that is being seen by the intelligence community that some of this information is out there in the wild, where we don't want it to be. there are a lot of other indications, maybe security

cameras could be reveltory in a case like this. but if i have to critical ball this one, it is likely there was some sort of human source that contributed to the probable cause here. >> josh, there is reporting that donald trump and his world is looking for a mole. that is a word being tossed around. you have had any conversations about that? >> there is certainly a paranoia in his orbit right now. and they're calling informants a mole but there is a difference between being an informant and answering questions to the fbi when they've been legally asked to -- subpoenaed and telling the truth. our understanding. >> as this investigation has gone on the fbi has questioned a number of his former and current advises about his practices, about why these boxes were taken to mar-a-lago, who packed them and who made the decision. what happened with the boxes once they got there. and i understand they're learning more information from talking to former president trump's advisers and that led

them to do what happened on monday. but again, the idea that someone it-s an informant or mole, we don't have any proof of that or don't know that and to the best of my knowledge trump advisers don't either but a number have been questioned by the fbi about what they knew. and it would reason if they gave more information than the former president did or gave different information that the form he president and his lawyers did, it could lead federal authorities to think they were not being truthful. >> let's go back to your original reporting on what was contained in the documents about nuclear weapons. and when you're doing a report like that and talking to sources familiar who are talking about that potentially being at mar-a-lago, what is the level of alarm? >> well, what is happened this week i think when this initially was search, it happened on monday there was shock and former president trump's orbit. and then as people around him have learned more details about the extent of what he was keeping there and the various

efforts behind the scenes to get them short of a search warrant, alarm as grown in recent days when you talk to advisers of the former president. some of them are trying to go dark and stay away from this if they can and others know this is a bad idea and then there are folks close to him saying he's been through so many different investigations and challenges and so many different times when the walls were closing in and this is another time when he makes a houdini like escape. so the alarm was grown over the course of the week. but it kind of depends on who you talk to. and also katy, some of the folks don't really know what all he kept. i mean there are people in his orbit who are pretty close to him, who i think are somewhat in the dark about what is going on here behind the scenes. >> mick mulvaney said he had no idea there was a safe in mar-a-lago. all right. let me ask you this, paul.

trump and his team want to get a hold of the affidavit from for specific information. could he his team get ahold of that? is that possible? >> it is possible if he's prosecuted for a crime. but probably not unless that happens. katy, a search warrant has to state the crimes that there is probable cause to think there will be evidence found and in a place that is searched. it doesn't necessarily mean that the property owner committed the crime. but often it results in an arrest or prosecution. so doj's purpose might have been just to get the documents out of danger. and they still would have neede stealing government information, reminder this material belongs

to the american people not to president trump. or concealing documents that might be used to obstruct a proceeding. the main question the prosecutors have now is what on earth was trump holding on to those documents for? what legitimate purpose could they serve and how could trump already have used them? >> so, josh, i want to go back to you. let's also go back to trump world. you talk about folks that are just kind of waiting to see where the wind blows. because you said, donald trump has been through so many investigations before. i remember the access hollywood moment during the campaign and that it was all over and there were a number of thoed those in donald trump's orbit who fled and i spent a morning at trump tower and i didn't see anybody but steve bannon. do they feel like they could use this search and even though this search may be entirely justified to find nuclear secrets, that is

certainly a justification, highly classified material, st, csi material, as the documents show us, that they were able to find. do they believe that they could still use this to their advantage or are they starting to see some peeling away? i mean there was a poll a month ago from "the new york times" that showed that half of republican voters wanted somebody else to run. they were tired of trump. >> right. yeah, he certainly has faded some in the minds of republican voters. you hear that they want desantis or someone else but he still has considerable pull in the party. i saw even this week that there was, you know, he has higher approval rating than anyone else among the republican candidates according to the politico poll. so i don't think this is a death for him. i think when he said that, it is really too premature of a conclusion to know what is effectively going to be in the republican party. and a lot of it is what plays

out. you saw this week his team was saying that they've felt this was going to be a benefit behind the scenes, jason miller and his spokesperson said that, the former said that repeatedly. but then as the weeks gone on, you saw house republicans canceled a press conference they were going to have to talk about this. the hfc folks and you've seen a different tone among some republicans. we've reported and others have as well that there have been folks in trump's orbit who have called republicans on capitol hill in the party and elsewhere to say, you know, you might want to tone it down on attacking the fbi and there is a change of perspective among his advisers as the week has gone on but this would eventually boost him. >> let's bring in peter baker of the "new york times." you've had a long and storied career covering the white house and officials within the white house. we talk a lot about unprecedented moves. certainly a lot of that has come during the trump administration.

and the campaign. have you ever heard of a president accidentally even taking top secret information, compartmented information, with them outside of the white house to anywhere? >> no, i can't think of any parallel to this. obviously, the question isn't just like did he accidently take some documents that he shouldn't have taken. i mean, clearly the fbi and the authorities have been trying to get those back now for months. so he had every understanding that there was an issue with these papers an he didn't give them back. and the fbi and the department of justice decided that they had executed to a search warrant to recover them. as you say, it may be just for the purpose of doing that. we don't know exactly whether there will lead to any kind of criminal charges. but the very fact that they felt that these documents were so sensitive, that they couldn't remain out in the public, any longer without being guarded in effect, indicates that they obviously think they go beyond simply, you know, love betters

with kim jong-un, that kind of thing. and i think that there is no parallel that i could think of with the former president and certainly in our lifetime or before. >> but past officials who have taken classified information home with them, they've been prosecuted and they've been convicted, peter? >> yeah. they have. absolutely. there are certainly officials under the office of president who have gotten in trouble because they have classified information on their personal laptop or on their desktop at home or they brought home files they vunt have brought home. most of the cases they weren't trying to abscond with them but being careless or reckless and they were charged. some of them were convicted about it. the case of sandy burger, the former national security adviser to president clinton who went to the archives and took documents out in his socks and he was charged and prosecuted for that. but at a level of the president of the united states, no, now this former president is trying to say i declassified them and i have the power to do it. it is true. a president has right to de

classify information. but there is a process and the department of justice concluded that he didn't go through such a process. >> but talk about how this information is normally viewed f. you're getting top secret information, compartmented information, your the president of the united states and have the right to see any of it, what is the process of getting those documents, viewing those documents, and then returning those documents. there has got to be a log, right, that shows who is handling them and when. and when they've been returned or properly destroyed. >> that is right. exactly. they do keep very careful track of these kinds of things. looked at in all what we call is a skiff, which is a secure compartmentalize information security, where you can't have prying eyes from the outside looking and they are handled with great care and logged. so a president is different than national security adviser or any other official of the government. but traditionally these have

been held very, very carefully. and presidents have cared a great deal about the security of this information. now this president, we know, has been relatively cavalier about classified information in the past. remember, he spilled out something to visiting russian officials in 2017 that had been important secrets of the israeli government. remember, he used the phone repeatedly even after being told that he was acceptable to chinese and russian bugging at an unsecured phone and he didn't respond when they told him to stop that. so repeatedly over the four years he indicated a certain degree of casual, let's say, adherence to the rules an the question here is does it go beyond that. is it simply, you know, being careless here or was there an intent to take these documents for some purpose that is not a legitimate purpose for a former president. >> he tweeted out an image from his presidential daily briefing, showing iran. and the president he had the right to declassify anything but there is a process in place.

there was one moment during the trump administration where he said that he was going to declassify all of the russia investigation documents. he was going to de classify all of the information relating to hillary clinton and those emails. but then one of his aides came back and said, oh, wait, no, he's not unilaterally saying we're going to declassify that, when reporters tried to get that information because he tweeted it was all going to be declassified. >> a source of tension between him and people like gina haspel, chris wray, and mike pompeo, he pressured them to declassify information. he could have done it himself. but wanted other people to have their fingerprints on any decision to declassify information and the details that could be put out that would bem -- that would embarrass

democrats and trip him up by the deep state as he called of the government. this is tension in trump world going back years an it is sort of a -- it is probably inevitable that we could come to this, where it has become a clash of great legal import here. whether a form president can now be, you know, prosecuted in this kind of a case. we don't know. we've never seen it before. we'll have to see. >> so we have the documents but it is important to note that the doj has officially informed the court that the trump team does not oppose unsealing the warrant. let's go back to ryan riley. ryan? >> yes. that is right. so i mean it is a little bit -- the horse got out of the barn a little bit on this one. and just to be clear, because i'm seeing hot takes on this on twitter, these clearly came from the trump orbit. there is no denying based on the sources of all where this is coming from and how doj has

handled, doj reporters didn't get this. this is not coming to doj reporters. it is people more familiar in the trump world. if you look at sources here. so doj is really played this by the book and they then at the last minute decide to throw out all precautions and the steps to make sure they're following the books to leak this out at the last minute before it is unsealed. this came from trump world, full stop. so let's just throw that idea out and that sort of seems to be getting out there, that doj for some reason after being so careful this week, just then at the last minute just decided to throw everything out there and violate these rules that they had been talking about all weekend. in fact, i think one key point that we should remember here is there was in initial incident in may when they issued the subpoena. that information, that fact that the justice department had issued a subpoena, a grand jury subpoena to the former president of the united states, held secret for months because of the fact that the target of that, trump, did not release that

information over the months. that did not leak out of doj. despite the fantastic reporters including our own former pete williams, that went to no one. that was kept very secret. the fact that the doj is really trying to follow the rules here and i think that is what we need to emphasize, despite some of the hot takes that we're seeing popping up out on twitter. >> retired pete williams. let's underscore that. he's still very much alive, ryan. >> oh, my gosh. i'm -- former pete williams. pete is the best. >> we're missing him very much the past couple of weeks. >> and i want to say get off of twitter because it is not a place to get accurate information a lot of time. it just drives you crazy. and barbara mcquade, you're with us as well. it is good to have you. i want to ask, lindsey graham wants to see the affidavit and the trump team wants to see the affidavit, what is the likelihood we're get any of that

unsealed? >> i think zero. the affidavit is the details of the investigation and there is no point to reveal it and it could be damaging to the investigation. at some point it will be revealed because charges are brought or declined and at this point the doj and the fbi is entitled to regularity. a judge signed this and found probable cause. we need to beat back this disinformation is this is weaponizing the department of justice or prosecutor misconduct going on here. all accounts appear to be by the book and they need to stand down and wait for the process to play out. they are buying into and amplifying donald trump's attacks on our institutions, and i think they need to stand down and protect the rule of law and be responsible leaders in this country and not simply echo claim -- echo chambers for a former president. >> i haven't seen that so far. charles coleman, if you were

donald trump's lawyer, representing him in this right now. >> i'm on and i can't hear. >> he can't hear. we'll get that earpiece worked out. live television, folks. barbara, i'll go back to you. if you were donald trump's lawyer, how would you be defending him. >> one thing that is interesting katy, and this might be the kind of argument that you make for indefensible claims but he thinks he declassified them. he can't, as you mentioned and other guests have noted, there is a process for de classifying things. but these statutes require proving willfulness. most crimes make it necessary only to show that the person knew that what they were doing, ignorance of the law is not excuse. but for certain very serious crimes, you must prove that the person not only knew what they were doing but that they knew it was illegal. and so if he believed even falsely and wrongfully that he could declassify these documents, he could say i

believe they did and i acted in good faith. that could be a valid defense if you could convince a juror. that may be all he's got, though. >> let me ask you about the statute, 18 usc 1519, that is typically use and tell me if i'm wrong, it is used to charge obstruction of justice by concealing or destroying evidence. and if we look at attachment b in the warrant, in the letter d under attachment b, any evidence of knowing alteration, destruction or concealment of any government and/or presidential records of any documents with classification markings. how do you read into that. >> i didn't see this one coming. this is interesting. think all of us speculated about the other statutes that used her. 2071, 793, but this one is about obstruction of justice and it brings with it a 20-year prison sentence maximum. but it suggests to me that somewhere along the president trump concealed the fact that he had some of the documents that

he was lying to them which may have necessitated the subpoena which may be what necessitated the search. so that adds a level of intrigue here. what they are alleged is a false denial that he possessed these documents. >> could it just be that merrick garland just wanted these documents back and that is the end of it, barb? >> yes. i think that is quite possible. they've demonstrated probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. but they still retained the discretion whether to file charges. they may believe it is just not worth the effort. we have a good investigation going on january 6 right now, thank you very much. we don't need this added distraction. what we really need is to get those documents back. so that is a possibility. but think they also have toy about what are the consequences of not filing charges which are done to hold people accountable and deter others from engaging in similar behavior in the future and you could bet that if charges are declined, we will hear about it in this ever happens again. >> peter, in talks about i de classified everything already and i have the right to do that,

when it comes to top secret information, compartmented information, the highest level of security that the government said it has, the most sensitive stuff, does the president need a reason to do so? >> no, i mean, it is a presidential power. ez the executive. other presidents were very cautious about this kind of thing. they didn't want to reveal sources of methods of the intelligence for instance. they didn't want to reveal to an adversary let's say what might be in the american knowledge base because you then give away, you know, an advantage. and so, it is pretty unusual for a president to be declassifying things without a long, thoughtful process and a review and discussing what parts could be declassified or what parts might still be redacted. you could think of examples of where presidents have declassified things going back to kennedy and the missile crisis or george w. bush an the weapons that weren't there in the end. in the process that they did them, they were very cautious about what they put out, how

they put it out, what they let the american public know because they wanted to make sure that the american secrets were protected and that is something that you're not seeing if it is just a president snapping his finger saying i hereby declassify this because i want to take it home to mar-a-lago. >> let's go to steny hoyer who is standing by for us. mr. leader, thank you so much for being us with. i know you want to talk about the ira, which the house is about to vote on in a few minutes. i'll ask you that, but first could i get you're reaction to this unsealed warrant and inventory list? >> well, it is what it is. and i don't want to overreact to it. i haven't read it. i've heard the reports of it. but i think the fbi followed protocol. and the judge i'm sure made a decision on the fact that he felt or she felt, i forget the gender of the judge, but in any event, whether or not probable cause to proceed was present and obviously the judge made that

decision that it was and the fbi proceeded, as i understand it the fbi had requested documents, trump or his folks have given some documents back. but they were obviously convinced that there were other documents still available and ready for trump to give them back. when he did not, so i don't want to speculate on this. i do want to observe, however, it is interesting the hypocrisy that exists with respect to the overwhelming support of the fbi and investigating clinton. when she was running for president of the united states, and subpoenaing a computer and things of that nature. overwhelming support by republicans of that. and now, with a former president like clinton was not president of the united states and she was not at that time, the reaction is this is weaponization.

the fbi as i understand it followed their protocols, went to the court, the court made a decision, and we ought to cool down and wait to see what -- what happens next. there is a way to proceed on these events. but i want to -- i do want to say that the reaction of some republicans, particularly in the congress of the united states, are extraordinarily dangerous and inciteful of violence. we saw that yesterday in cincinnati at an fbi office and we see that on social media. don't -- as i think kristen said, stand down and stand back if you will, which is what the president advised. president trump, the proud boys, they didn't do that obviously. but the fact is, we ought to wait to see what the fakes are here. there is an allegation of obstruction of justice, that is a very serious offense and nobody, not trump or anybody else is above the law.

above the process, above being expected to follow the law. particularly a president and former president ought to follow the law. but, for some members of congress to react as they are reacting, a., prematurely, a., with allegations that are unsubstantiated and if furtherance of the not honoring the truth and not honoring the facts posture that so many republicans have taken with respect to trump's actions in the insurrection. so, i think we ought to wait, see what the facts bring us. trump will have an opportunity to respond through his attorneys. >> yeah. >> to these allegations and let's wait and see what it is. but trump is not above the law. >> i know you have to run. but one more very short question on this search. you've seen classified information, you you've seen top secret information you're one of a very few number of people in this country who has ses to it.

there was top secret compartmented information that the fbi said it recovered according to the inventory list. does that concern you? >> of course it does. information is secret for a reason. now sometimes too many things are made secret. but as long as they're secret, we ought to honor that because they're secret on the theory they are harmful to the interest of the united states of america is disclosed. and no one is authorized to take those to their personal home or something of that nature. including a stormer president of the united states. so, we need to see that. now, you said shortly and i've got to go. but let me say, we're very focused on this but what the american people ought to be focused on what is happening here in washington today on the -- reduction act of inflation. this is a very meaningful piece

of legislation that is going to be very positive for the american people, for bringing their costs down on health care and prescription drugs, on making sure that their insulin costs for those who have diabetics, which is millions people in this country particularly on medicare are brought down. that we have the opportunity to negotiate prices that we invest substantially in the challenge of climate change in this country for energy availability and for moving to alternative energies which will be clean environment sources. and in addition to that, to bringing in the deficit down and investing in tax compliance. so, that average working people who can't afford fancy lauers and fancy account ants are not paying too much while the wealthy would could afford all of those are not paying their fair share. this is a very meaningful piece of legislation. this inflationary reduction act and it is going to pass with

just democratic votes. we'll see. hopefully we'll get some republican votes. but this is a good day for america. >> majority leader steny hoyer, thank you very much for joining us. i know you have to start voting in just a couple of minutes. so i'm let you go. we appreciate your time, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you for being with us. back to the top story that we've been talking about. the search and the unsealed documents related to the search of mar-a-lago. both the warrant and the convenient list, charles coleman, you're with us as well. thanks for standing by. i think we got that audio issue worked out. just your reaction to the legal exposure that the president, former president himself might be facing, might -- might be facing because of what was recovered? >> well, katy, i think it is readily apparent that the president could be facing charges of violation of basically how he stored these records, the fact that he took these records and i think that is pretty clear. that he's already violated that.

now whether the doj will look to prosecute him on that charge is a different story. i think it is important that people understand, during the course of any investigation or even the execution of a search warrant, those things are not released to the public in the manner that this has been released and one of the reasons why is because at this point in an investigation, you're going to have more questions than you're going to have answers. usually you'll hear law enforcement say, we don't comment on open investigations. because there are so many different things that we don't necessarily know. so in this instance, even as we are now looking at the different is a tach -- attachments and addendums, we still don't know what documents are and what the larger question is, if there is a larger question, i think it is been said a number of different times, it very well could be that merrick garland and the doj get the documents back and nothing happens and sort of no harm, no foul, we filed a

subpoena and we got a search warrant to get the documents and we they have them now, end of story. and it is timing. why would merrick garland seek to do it now and what was so pressing now and all of these things are contributing to a level of angst and curiosity in the public now that you let the lid off of this thing, it leads people to wonder what is next. and that is a very difficult place to be as a law enforcement officer, as a prosecutor because there are questions that you simply can't answer. so i'm thinking about all of these. i think on a basic level it is clear that trump could potentially face charges with respect to the fact that he possessed these documents and they did not belong to him. they weren't supposed to be where they were. but, again, it remains to be seen whether merrick garland and the doj will pursue that or is this part of a larger investigation. >> it is crossing of a rubicon, charles, to charge a president of the united states, but then again the law is the law.

everybody should be subject to the same rules and regulations. merrick garland himself stressed that yesterday. that the law will be upheld without fear or favor. did you take anything away from that, that he made sure to say that yesterday. and again he was reading from a teleprompter. these were prepared remarks. >> i feel like merrick garland exhibited a considerable amount of leadership in that he stood in front of doj and said i'm the leader and i'm the one driving this train. we're going to get to the stations that i need to get to when i'm ready for us to get there. he reminded the person public that he was very much in control of this investigation and that he knows what he was doing sand at same time without directly responding to people, he addressed the sort of public murmurs whether this was political or fair or whether this was a witch hunt going after donald trump. he made very clear about what his office intended to do and how it was set out and the fact that, look, i'm in control and i'm the one who is making the

decisions here. i'm the one who signed for the warrant in order to be presented in front of a judge. so all of these things, i think he did in the interest of, number one, showing leadership and protecting his agents and his attorneys but number two being clear about the fact that the political sort of firestorm and conversation was not going to influence him in any undo way whether it comes to interest of justice and the pursuit. >> the law is the law. the justice department has said we're not going to treat anybody for favorably than somebody else. we're also going after political prosecutions. i know the republicans are saying that. but the justice department would say this has nothing to do politics and the need to protect -- what we could see so far, classified materials. the tight rope that they are walking right now, what is the chatter within the department about what to do? >> well, i think that the key part right now is that doj

didn't want this current situation where we're at, by every indication of how they handled this. there was this -- this request that was put in in late may, that was complied with, the subpoena that was complied within early june. so they sort of went through the protocols here and tried to avoid coming to this point. but it was -- there is a certain point where they -- the documents were being withheld that they felt the need to go in and seize them through this search warrant. i don't think this is a case that, you know, doj is really gunning to go for, right. this idea that it is not -- not necessarily the largest potential case that you could bring against a former president. there are a lot of ways that bringing a case against a former prp could divide the country. so i think that merrick garland is going by the rules and by the book in every way that he can and sort of sticking with what the proper protocols are. and making sure that -- it was -- i think he was frustrated

by the physical attacks that we saw on the fbi this week but trump supporters and just -- it is a little bit wild if you look back a few -- six years say before trump came into office and this idea that we would have an if fbi being portrayed as sort of a liberal enclave would just be bizarre. it is not -- the fbi is a generally conservative leaning law enforcement organization and to see some of the attacks on it from republicans are still sort of remacable. you have to pinch yourself to figure out what kind of world you're in when somehow all law enforcement is good according to republicans law and order party but the fbi, don't like those folks any more. so it is really interesting to sort of how all of this is playing out. but i think that garland is a person who is emphasized from the very beginning as attorney general that he wants to follow the rules an the rules are the guidance here. so when donald trump chose to make this public, which is not something that the doj chose to

do. they tried to keep this as quiet as they possibly could. when donald trump decided to publicly disclose this, they went through a proper legal process in which they would be able to disclose that information and even then the trump team as is their right because they have the documents previously, was able to release that to the media before this 3:00 deadline sort of that we're all waiting for here. >> it is important to remind everybody that the justice department and the fbi had to go through multiple layers of confirmation and approval before executing this search. and when you're talking, as you just sense that republicans are only for some law enforcement, steve scalise, the whip got twisted up over that on fox news just the other day when he was saying that this was unfair and using all sorts of volatile language about what the fbi did at mar-a-lago. peter ducey, steve doocy, excuse me sh pushed back and said what your talking about, i thought

you were for law enforcement. so they have gotten tripped up on that. the number of law enforcement that officers and agents they're talking about. the ones they say are okay and not okay. >> catty and one other brief point, there is still this ongoing investigation of the president's son. he's allowed that u.s. attorney to continue who is a trump appointee to continue this investigation going forward. so this guy who was a judge for most his career is trying to swing doj is just not lined up with the facts because he's allowed that investigation of the president's son to go forward. >> david laughman is joining us. chief of the justice department councillor intelligence and export control section where he over saw multiple investigations concerning the mishandling of classified information. the former chief also just so everyone knows, he is of the same title of the man who signed

the -- the motion to unseal this search warrant and the inventory list. all right. we've got the stuff that we were talking about at 2:00 p.m. confirmed. the top secret information, the compartment information that was found at mar-a-lago, what is your reaction? >> i mean, katy, my reaction is that everything fits together now. the basis for probable cause set forth in the application for a search warrant is that there was a violation of section 7 of title 18 which is the criminal code of the united states, it is the section comprising the espionage act. which includes subsection making it a crime to be in unlawful possession of information relating to the national defense or nda. and this is a statute that i oversaw several prosecutions of. sometimes of disgruntled former

government employees, perhaps like the former president who is perpetually disgruntled. it is kind of shocking and sad to tell you the truth, to see a statute like that cited by the department of justice and furtherance of a search warrant. but here we are. and what we know from the reporting is that the documents in fact seized at mar-a-lago are precisely the types of documents that the government was telling the judge it expected to find. so everything fits together. there is a lot of other, you know, pieces the government would have to consider in evaluating discretion to charge the former president or people around him, there are sensitive policy considerations they have to take into account, you know, litigation risk, what defenses were privileges could be asserted by the president, including the certain argument he's going to make if he were charged that he possessed the

authority to declassify these documents and that he did so. that would be an issue of first impression for any court to consider. there is no statute or regulation that actually prescribed how a president of the united states is supposed to declassifydeclassify material b customarily that's something always handled by a subordinate officer. presumably there ought to be at least some actual process rather than the mere ideation in the president's head, walking around as a declassification authority that he has declassified something. so the department will have to think through all these issues. it would not surprise me if the attorney general asked the office of legal counsel at the department of justice to produce a memorandum advising it on the issues surrounding a potential charge of a former president, if the department were confronted with a defense like that. that's what i would do if i wanted to button up the

pre-charge thinking about the sufficiency of the government's case. again, we could be very far away from any charges against the president, and the department of justice might elect not to even go that far. they may be content to have seized these documents. but you know, a search warrant like this is often a precursor to an actual charging document. whether we get there will depend on other circumstances that we don't have disability into yet. >> steven miller, the president's speechwriter, top aide, has said that the president of the united states shouldn't be -- shouldn't beholden to unelected bureaucrats. he shouldn't have to or she, if it ends up being a she, but donald trump shouldn't have to be getting the approval from bureaucrats or having to go through the paperwork process from bureaucrats to declassify documents. what do you think of that argument? >> i mean, look, i mean -- there has to be some actual step taken, some official action

taken to declassify material like it. this is information collected by the united states intelligence community. some of the documents that have been retrieved reportedly include top-secret sci, that's compartment information, probably including signals intelligence collected by the national security agency, possibly human source-related information. and we don't live in an authoritarian regime where the ruler by fiat or, you know, impulse can do whatever he or she wants. we live -- at least for the time being because a democracy under the rule of law. and credit the department of justice for upholding the rule of law despite what it had to expect would be the same withering criticism from the far right about what it's doing. and this is exactly how the department of justice should be behaving, carefully, meticulously, displaying patience over many months, patience that would never have been shown by the subject or

target of any other criminal investigation believed to be in a lawful possession of highly classified information in places where that information had no place being. >> so the warrant has now been officially unsealed. we got our hands on the warrant, the inventory list, about an hour ago. now the judge in south florida has officially unsealed that document. what do you make of the -- the speed with which all of this has happened? the judge said yesterday you have until 3:00 p.m. friday, trump team, to respond to the doj, to object if you want to. that was about 24 hours. and now getting this out within an hour, are you reading into the judge wanting this out there quickly? >> well, the judge set a reasonable deadline. i'm surmising from your statement that trump actually didn't file anything with the court -- >> he did not -- >> so you know, the president as is his practice decided to try

to litigate this so to speak in the arena of public opinion by leaking the warrant, you know, to a favorite right-wing news outlet. that's akin to a default judgment in a litigation setting. there was no objection to the government's motion. the government made i thought a cogent argument for why the court should balance these competing interests in favor of a application to unseal the warrant, and particularly when the president is leaking all this stuff publicly anyway, the judge may not be watching msnbc, but he's hchb -- he's listening to the news and learning the president is putting this stuff out publicly. it's like pushing on an open door at this point for government, and the judge did the only logical thing which was to grant the government's motion. >> well, if he wants to get smart analysis from somebody like david loufman, i would hope he was watching msnbc. one last question, and you tell me if this is unfair. and if you don't feel

comfortable answering it. from the available information that you have, the evidence you've been able to see, and you were in your former position, would you be recommending charges? >> i'd have to know more of what the government has learned in this case and what it still seeks to learn. i think there are important questions, evidentiary questions that we don't have visibility into. you know, oftentimes in evaluating whether to charge somebody with a violation of the sections that the president -- that undergirded the search warrant affidavit, the government is looking to see if there is sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that comprise what we refer to as prosecutors as aggravating factors. what's the volume of classified information that we're talking about that was in a place that was not authorized to be, what's the highest level of classification, how was it found, was it found in some scattered place where many people had access to it, was it

shared with anybody? what knowledge did the president or people around him have at relevant times that this was classified information in a place it wasn't supposed to be? were false representations made to the government by the president or his representatives with respect to the continued existence or nature of the classified information at mar-a-lago? there's just a whole range of additional factors that would go into the justice department's consideration of whether it's appropriate to seek criminal charges as opposed to just -- you know, just satisfying itself that it has recovered all the classified information there. if it has, you know, there's -- there are witnesses it has spoken to, probably individuals who are referenced in the search warrant affidavit that has not been released, who have shared specific information possibly about what the president knew and when he knew it, about the existence of classified information at mar-a-lago, possibly about his motivations

for bringing stuff there, keeping the stuff there, what he intended to do with it. so there are a number of questions that we don't have visibility into yet that will inform the careful exercise of discretion by the counterintelligence and expert control section, department of justice officials working with the fbi to determine ultimately whether criminal charges are appropriate in this case. >> david, thank you so much for joining us and giving us all of your expertise. thank you for everybody for joining us for the past two hours. to remind everybody, the fbi took 20 boxes of items including binders of photos and handwritten notes and information on roger stone, information on the president of france, also various classified top-secret and compartmented documents. the stuff the united states government says is our most sensitive secrets. that is going to do it for me on this friday. do not go anywhere because "deadline white house" is next after a quick break. ick break.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ (dad) we have to tell everyone that we just switched to verizon's new ♪ ♪ welcome unlimited plan, for just $30. (daughter) i've already told everyone! (cool guy) $30...that's awesome. (mom) it's their best unlimited price ever. (woman) for $30 a line, i'm switching now. (vo) the network you want. the price you love. only from verizon. new astepro allergy. no allergy spray is faster. with the speed of astepro, almost nothing can slow you down. because astepro starts working in 30 minutes, while other allergy sprays take hours. and astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid free allergy spray. now without a prescription. astepro and go. as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind.

so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities. millions have made the switch from the big three to xfinity mobile. that means millions are saving hundreds a year on their wireless bill. and all of those millions are on the nation's most reliable 5g network and most recommended wireless carrier. that's a whole lot of happy campers out there. and it's never too late to join them. get $450 off any new purchase of an eligible samsung device with xfinity mobile. or add a line to your plan today at xfinitymobile.com

aloha, namaste and it is 4:00 in new york city. i'm in for nicolle wallace who really missed -- missed a hell of a week this week, i hope you're having fun out there. an extraordinary week at the nexus of law and politics and national security. federal judge bruce rinehart has just unsealed the warrant that was the basis for the unprecedented search of former president donald trump's south florida residence and private club, mar-a-lago, on monday. nbc news, among other news organizations, obtained a copy of the search warrant a whool ago along with the inventory of the items seized by the fbi from mar-a-lago granting the government search warrant, judge rinehart