good to be with you. i'm katy tur. it could be a pretty big day and it's all up to one man. federal magistrate judge bruce reinhart is hearing arguments on whether to unseal the affidavit behind the search of mar-a-lago. a coalition of news organizations, including this one, are asking him to do it. the department of justice is asking him not to do it. interestingly donald trump, who said on his social media site that he also wanted the affidavit released, is not making a formal request for it. one of his lawyers is in the courtroom today, but just to watch. team trump isn't arguing or filing anything. so how will judge reinhart rule? if fast is precedent, it is almost certain he will side with the d.o.j. and keep the affidavit under seal. and all, d.o.j. is arguing

releasing it would do grave damage to their investigation. but here's the thing, there really isn't a lot of specific precedent here. a former president of the united states has never had their home searched by the fbi. a former president of the united states has never taken classified materials home and then not given them back. a former president of the united states has then never gone on to publicly attack the fbi and the d.o.j., putting the departments and the individual law enforcement officers and officials who work there in grave personal danger. that is to say the public interests around this case along with the potential consequences of withholding more information around the search could sway the judge into releasing it, if not all of it then maybe some of it with redactions. and while we don't know what judge reinhart will decide at this moment, we could know at any moment. the hearing started an hour ago. joining me now from outside of

the courthouse in west palm beach is cal perry. also joining me is justice reporter ryan reilly. so, cal, what can you tell us about what's happening down there? >> it's been going on for just about an hour. d.o.j. started the proceedings and that's when we heard the judge actually say that he will release some of the procedural filings that are currently under seal. these are some of the more interesting documents related to the warrant that the department of justice said they did not oppose releasing. then we heard from attorneys on behalf of the media and then again from d.o.j. here's the headlines coming from the department of justice. this is what we were hoping to learn and this is an exercise in what we can learn about the investigation by listening to what they said to the judge. they called the document a, quote, detailed road map of an investigation that they say is in, quote, early stages. a top official argued the documents need to be kept under wrap because it contains substantial grand jury information in what he called a unique case. he added that the government is,

quote, very concerned about the safety of witnesses in the case whose identities could become public. that is, they could be -- he noted the nail gun attack was via a trump supporter who had been outraged by the search. he finished saying, quote, this is a volatile situation with respect to this particular search across the political spectrum he said, with, quote, one side in particular. that one side in particular is obviously the folks that support donald trump. now, as you said, it's not clear what donald trump's legal team thinks about the proceedings. they are there, present but are not a party to the proceedings. the two parties really are the national media, lumped under one group to make this more efficient, nbc is one of those groups and then the department of justice. what the court has to balance here is the public need and in what was an unprecedented,

historical event last month versus national security. a reminder to our viewers, judge reinhart, whom we understand officially confirmed this morning is receiving death threats is a former federal prosecutor. it is likely that he will understand that d.o.j. argument. again, we do know this group of media organizations, we heard from their lawyer saying we don't know what we don't know. we cannot be grasping around in the dark. it needs a light signed on it. >> let's talk about what donald trump posted on his social media site earlier today, this letter talking about declassifying materials surrounding crossfire hurricane. earlier ken dilanian was reporting that it indicated to him the documents that may have been taken from mar-a-lago could have included documents around that investigation, the crossfire hurricane investigation, also known as the origins of the russia investigation. what does that tell you and what

does it mean that donald trump posted this? he didn't really put a message out there. >> you know, i think it is one of those things at the last minute that donald trump was trying to basically open the doors to bring all this information that he thought would be looked bad upon this broader investigation. i think that, you know, in those last moments it was a pretty chaotic situation and from what we've heard from individuals who were involved in this sort of alleged declassification process is that there was sort of a holdup in terms of wanting to release that information but make sure some of it was redacted before it actually formally came out. so there might be some back and forth about whether or not it was actually declassified on that day or whether he agreed to hold that back because there was so much information on there that could -- you know, there was no interest in getting out to the public because it could go to sources and methods, it could put people in jeopardy but apparently there was some sort of agreement between the archives or something of that nature and donald trump's

affiliates who were saying you can withhold this until it actually formally comes out. but, you know, i think just broadly it doesn't seem like that was the only information that was found down at mar-a-lago. i think there's a lot more information just that he shouldn't have and just to back up even further, he's not supposed to have all this information all together. he's not supposed to have -- even if it's not classified, he's not supposed to have all these government documents at his private home. that's all supposed to be with the national archives and held under their control, katy. >> ryan, cal, thanks for starting us off. and joining us is a teacher of law at yale university and former agent for the counterintelligence division of the fbi a former senior member of the mueller investigation. i want to begin with you, andrew. i mentioned the public interest in this at the top of the show.

the threats that are surrounding law enforcement, the threats that are surrounding the judge himself how is that likely to factor into this? this is not something that we've seen before in our history, a former president who had to have his home searched by the fbi to take back, as they say, classified information. >> as much as i'd like to say your arguments at the outset are going to sway the judge here, i think that the chances that the judge is going to fully release the affidavit here are zero. there are national security interests in terms of the material in the affidavit, the ongoing criminal investigation and there's concern about witnesses to name sort of the three basic building blocks. that being said, the judge could ask the department of justice to give him a redacted version of the affidavit because if they do

address that in a footnote, the government does, and says they don't think that would lead to very much information becoming public, but that's all they said and so you could imagine the judge being interested in pushing on that issue. but this sort of general issue of our overriding interest in wanting to know what's there, that's true in lots of criminal cases, in a high-profile matter. i don't think that's going to sway this judge. >> cal perry has an update for us. cal, the judge has said something? >> reporter: yeah, in the last ten minutes there was a back and forth, the judge talking to one of the attorneys for the media says "if i were to conclude the affidavit not to be sealed in its entirety, would you agree to give the government time to submit proposed redactions"? an attorney for the media says totally, i think -- not direct quotes, from the courtroom.

the judge said, "i have not decided what many i am going to do but i am inclined to say i'm not going to seal the entire affidavit." it seems it's about whether or not the judge will allow more time to allow the government to submit those redactions, which is what you guys were talking about so i apologize for the brief injection. >> no, no, we want to hear everything he is saying. aaron, what do you think of that? >> to me that seems like the right call here. the government saturday it would want to propose redactions but it didn't provide that redactions to the court. i think the court would be very responsible to see what it is that the government is proposing to redact and evaluate that in light of the interests here. again, i'm not sure how much we will get out of that whole process and it certainly isn't going to all happen today because he will give some time for the government to propose the redactions and to be heard with respect to the support for

those redactions. >> so i wonder how long this would take. i'm sorry i'm messing up your name. i apologize. >> that's okay. >> asha, the law enforcement agents that searched the home, the fbi, they're still sifting threw the documents they've got there. it's been a week and a half and they're still going through it, just indicates the amount of material that they took through the home. when you hear about this and as somebody who worked in counterintelligence, what is the process like? >> i think in this particular instance there's actually going to be several layers to the process. there's the filter team that's going to have to go through the documents to ensure that they are recovering only the things that are in the scope of the search and making sure they're not getting privileged documents, for example, attorney/client privilege, executive privilege and then they need to go through and identify which of these documents that they properly recovered are also classified

and go through that kind of review to do classification review to see if they're properly classified, if there were things that weren't properly marked that should be classified and then they're going to have to do a damage assessment. s they -- that's going to involve the entire intelligence community. given the classified information that at that point would have been basically in an unauthorized, unsecured location, they're going to have to look at what is the potential harm that has been created if third parties have accessed this, have photographed it, released it and really do a huge damage assessment. so i think there's a lot of different layers here and some of them may come into play later if trump is ultimately charged with a crime. >> the government in the past has been accused of dramatically overclassifying material, classifying stuff that didn't really need to be secret. could we be dealing with a situation here that the materials that trump had, at least some of them, weren't that

sensitive after all? >> i think as a general rule it's true that the government overclassifies material, but i think that the kinds of things that would get to trump's desk would probably be very highly sensitive information. i mean, he's not getting your low-level diplomatic cable that's marked secret from one embassy to another that's just reporting on something that is general knowledge, i don't think. and certainly not to the degree that he has these voluminous -- at this point i've lost count of how many boxes we're talking about here, not all of which were classified but boxes of record, around 30 or so that have been returned and recovered through the search. it's hard for me to believe all of that was overclassified information. given the arguments made by the

government in court, i don't think they would be making the arguments if they didn't believe there were sensitive secrets at stake. i don't believe they would have conducted the search. >> to go all the way up to merrick garland who thought carefully what they were doing. and some of them were top secret sci, the top secret according to their coding system. what would we find out in the affidavit and if we were to get a redacted versions are would we get a little more insight into why merrick garland decided a search warrant was necessary? >> who knows on that last point because we don't know what they're going to propose as redactions. will relearn more? yes. there will be a lot of tea leaf reading and is there's no question there will be more data, but i don't think that it's going to provide grand jury information, i don't think it's

going to provide the substance of the contents of classified documents. i don't think it's going to provide anything about the names or identity in any way of people who are cooperating with the investigation. so i think all of that will be sanitized. what you could get is the efforts between the department of justice and trump and his attorneys because i could see the court thinking that's less something that is of real concern in terms of the national security and criminal interests here. so that we could get a sense of all of the efforts that the department made to try and get this short of a search warrant and so that could be helpful in terms of the news organizations' interests. >> and what did you think about donald trump releasing that memo, that memorandum that said that i have declassified things. does that help him?

>> so i don't think if i were his counsel, i'm not sure i would have told him that it was a good thing to release that for a number of reasons. one, it's simply not a defense. i mean, we've talked a lot about the fact that the statutes involved here do not require the documents to be classified. two, it's highly unlikely that all of the documents that were at mar-a-lago all relate to crossfire hurricane. to say highly unlikely is generous. but the main issue and the reason i think it really hurts him is that document shows that donald trump knows how to declassify things and what the process is and that there needs to be communications where the fbi and with the department of justice and there's a formal memo. so it really belies the claim made that there was some spontaneous standing order where if you move documents from one

room in the white house to another room things become declassified. >> all right. we should also note in their arguments to the judge today, the justice department is calling this investigation an investigation that is still in its, quote, early stages. they also say the affidavit should be kept under wraps because it contains substantial grand jury information in a, quote, unique case with national security overtones. andrew weissmann, asha rangappa. thank you so much for being with us today. i'm not speaking so well today. still ahead, he's going to prison but not for long. what donald trump traded prosecutors to get a reduced sentence. plus, the mid terms are just over two months away and the democrats might just defy history. larry sabato joins us to talk about changing odds for who crows the house and the senate. and a texas school board just

pulled 41 book from library shelves including a graphic novel version of "the diary of ann frank." why? why? so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's a pool party. look what i brought! liberty mutual! they customize your home insurance... so you only pay for what you need! ♪young people having a good time with insurance.♪ ♪young people.♪ ♪good times.♪ ♪insurance!♪ only pay for what you need. ♪liberty liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ we believe there's an innovator in all of us. ♪ ♪ that's why we build technology that makes it possible for every business... and every person... to come to the table and do more incredible things. ♪ ♪ wanna help kids get their homework done? twell, an internetle anconnection's a good start.s. but kids also need computers. and sometimes the hardest thing about homework is finding a place to do it. so why not hook community centers up with wifi? for kids like us, and all the amazing things we're gonna learn. through projectup, comcast is committing $1 billion so millions more students can continue to get the tools they need to build a future of unlimited possibilities.

we might be doing this a number of times this hour, but we have a little more developing news out of that south florida courtroom. cal perry joins us again. cal, the judge has made another statement. what did he say? >> reporter: yes, we have a decision. the court has been adjourned. the judge said by next thursday, august 25th at 12 p.m., the government will file its proposed redactions to the affidavit. the judge will then review those redactions and if there's some kind of disagreement, if the judge looks at those redactions that the government put forward and he disagrees, he will do his own version, discuss further in court and we suspect after that they will release a heavily, i would assume, redacted verse of that affidavit.

so there has been common ground here. the judges for the media said without any objection they agreed that was the best way forward. by next thursday, august 25th, 12 p.m., the government will give that affidavit to the judge with its redactions. if there's a disagreement, the judge will step in and move it forward from there. >> generally speaking a judge would rule on the side of the d.o.j. if the d.o.j. was arguing grave consequences for an investigation. even redacting it, are we likely to see -- i know i asked you this a moment ago, but if they're just going to redact the whole document, what's the point? >> you know, i don't think they will redact the whole document. i think this is the kind of thing that merrick garland is going to review and lisa monaco, i think they are going to take to heart what the judge is

trying to accomplish here. so, one, i think this is the correct decision by the court. the government only addressed this issue of redaction in a footnote in their brief and said they thought about it long and hard but didn't produce think it would produce that kind of information. this is the court saying i want to see what the redactions are. the back and forth with trump and his attorneys, that's the kind of information that you can imagine the court saying what is so sensitive about that? that doesn't go to the contents of national security or really jeopardize national security or the criminal investigation or identify witnesses and it's something that trump and his people already know. so i could see that piece being something where the court does provide the public more information. >> given the moment that we are in, as we laid out at the top of the show, with the intense

public interest in this, with the threats to law enforcement, the threats to the fbi, the way that donald trump is going after the fbi and saying they could be planting evidence or they've stolen my passports, even though the fbi gave them back. the way that it's being handled by donald trump and his allies, making it so explosive that there are a number of supporters out there who say they want to get violent, does that mean that merrick garland might say to himself i want to try to get as much information out there to show the justification on why we had to do this. is that going to be the thing that lowers the temperature? >> i think that might be in his mind about trying to do that, but i think first and foremost he is going to be concerned about witness intimidation and worse. i think that must be the first things. the second would be making sure that he is protecting national

security information. the issue about the damage to the ongoing criminal investigation, that's one where he has more leeway because he can assess what are those risks, how serious are they as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction that anything, you know, that's remotely a risk i'm going to protect and he can sort of weigh that interest against, as you said, katy, the interest of trying to get more information to the public. >> anyone speak to donald trump's lawyers, cal? they saw them in the courtroom, christina bob, that lawyer of his we've seen on tv so much. anyone get a chance to ask her why the trump team didn't sign on to this request to unseal the affidavit, even though donald trump said he wanted it unsealed? >> reporter: no, i haven't seen anything from our team in the courtroom. i did see a crowd of journalists running frantically to somebody. i just cannot tell from this

perspective. the other thing is the department of justice is saying openly, quote, this is a volatile situation with respect to this particular search across the political spectrum but with one side in particular. the d.o.j. is citing safety, security, the security of the nation when it comes to this affidavit, not just the classified nature of the documents but the atmosphere that exists outside this courtroom. we did see some trump supporters today. they did not materialize in the space behind me. but it's interesting that the fbi is saying openly in court that this is a concern that they have. again, they cited that situation that happened at that situation fbi building where a man walked in with a fake gun but a nail gun, fired that nail gun and was killed later in that day. they cite that by saying he was outraged by this search. it will be interesting to see how the judge reacts a week from today when it comes to some of those redactions in the fbi argues for public safety, because this is in the early stages we need to keep this redacted. >> andrew, why would the trump

team not sign on to this? >> look, i think there's only one reason, because they wanted the p.r. point of this but they knew they were going to lose. they asked to see the names of witnesses. that's not happening, for all the reasons that were just articulated about the government's argument about safety. but if i were the news organizations, this whole idea of like the concern about safety, that goes to the identity of witnesses and that is a real concern, but it's not clear to me that, as you said, katy, if one of the concerns is sort of lowering the volume here, it's no the clear to me that means it's better to keep the entire affidavit under seal with no sort of partially redacted pieces becoming public. there's an argument that that actually could lower the volume by putting out more information about why merrick garland took the steps he took. so it's not clear that totally weighs in favor of the full

sealing of the affidavit. >> what about releasing some of the surveillance footage that it's been reported the department of justice saw and that was part of the reason that prompted them to go and get this search warrant, the surveillance footage that according to the "new york times" showed boxes going in and out of that storage area. i know donald trump has talked himself about showing surveillance footage he said he took of the fbi search, even though the fbi asked them to turn off those cameras because i believe it was assumed they were dealing with classified material and they didn't want that recorded. >> so if i were still in the government, i would not be a fan of turning over surveillance foot and prior to the search that indicated who had access to this information because those are the kind of leads that we don't know if all of those people have been spoken to. one of the things that the department is going to be very interested in is what happened

to these documents during the 18 months that they were sitting at mar-a-lago. who had access to them in any way, shape or form. so that surveillance footage is something that's really important to both the criminal and national security aspects of it. the surveillance footage of the search itself, it may be that some parts of that could be released and obviously if donald trump has that, he's free to release it and it notable that he hasn't so far. but if it showed the identity of actual documents that are classified, that obviously would be quite serious to release. >> i will say donald trump has threatened to release surveillance footage in the past. he threatened to release surveillance footage of me interviewing him at one point and never actually did so. so who knows in that surveillance footage does actually exist. let's bring in legal analyst

lisa rubin and paul butler to hash this how the further. lisa, the government has ordered that the judge go back and redact the document and maybe that's what he will release. i know you don't want to put any witness at risk here, i know you don't want to, if you're the government or the judge, to harm the investigation, but is there a way of saying witness a or subject a said x, y, z, so we get a little more information about why the government felt it was so urgent and necessary to go in there and why they couldn't just get a subpoena? >> well, look, i think that andrew's point that they don't want to compromise witness safety or integrity is absolutely paramount for the department. to the extent that they can give details about the number of witnesses in court today j. bratt of the department of justice cited several witnesses

were involved here. to the extent they can tell us the number of witnesses, the dates on which they talked to witnesses and maybe some of the content of what those witnesses told them, they might do that so long as they can do so without revealing their identity. katy, i'll remind you we're dealing with a fairly circumscribed universe of people that might have had access to these documents, even considering that it's donald trump, who has shown himself to be a flagrant rule breaker, there should have been a fairly limited group of people in the 45 office and in around donald trump who might have had access to those documents lawfully and unlawfully. if the department can give us a little bit more without enabling the trump world to identify who those witnesses are, they will. >> this is from the judge, cal perry gave it to us a moment ago. he said "by next thursday, august 25th, 12 p.m. eastern government will file proposed redactions and any briefing.

i will then review. if i believe the government has met its burden, i will go from there. if i disagree, if there are things that shouldn't be redacted, there will be a meeting with the government. i will submit my on version sealed with government only and then can you sit with that and let the government respond. i may agree with the government and we could be done. i could disagree and we would go from there. if there is disagreement between me and the government, obviously i would win -- that's what the judge says -- but i'd seal that and allow the government to appeal it. it will be a considerate process. if the government wants to appeal, if they don't like my redactions, they can and so can the media as well." paul, your thoughts. >> katy, this judge and i worked together at the justice department doing public corruption investigations. among other things, that means that he was present at all of those lessons that every government employees gets about how important it is to preserve

and be very careful with sensitive, top-secret information. i think that redacted affidavit might give us a little something but probably nothing really juicy. both the judge and d.o.j. appreciate the values of freedom of the press and having an open, criminal, legal system but there are some challenges to releasing this. one is just legal. a lot of the material reportedly comes from the grand jury. under law, grand jury material has to be kept secret unless and until there's an indictment. and the other thing is national security. we know that some of these top secret classified documents implicate important concerns that have to do with protecting our nation and there's no way the judge is going to allow the public to see those materials. >> as a former federal prosecutor himself and again i think it's interesting that you worked with him, how does that inform his decision making on

this process? >> so, again, he knows the rules, he knows the importance of keeping classified material private and the importance of storing it in secret places. when we were prosecutors, we certainly weren't allowed to take it home. we had to look at it in specific places. but, katy, as important as what i know about judge reinhart is what i don't know. we worked together for years at the department of justice and i don't know anything about his politics. and i think that's an important point given some of the attacks that have been made on the department of justice and the fbi. >> donald trump has attacked him saying he needs to recuse himself because he's donated to democrats, and public records say he's also donated to republicans. lisa, the justice department also says it is early in its investigation. i think that might be surprising to some folks that this is an early part of the investigation.

>> i can understand why people would say that. on the other hand, the reason that they executed a search warrant here is not because the investigation is mature. it's because there was information that's fundamental and integral to the investigation that they couldn't get in any other way. i note, katy, that andrew weisman told you a few minutes ago that one of the things we could see once material is unredacted is the back and forth between the department of justice and trump's team about why it was that the search warrant was necessary. and that may tell us that lot more about how they got to this point. in order, they may have a number of witnesses who told them you will find materials here, but that doesn't mean that they're ready to make a charge. that just means that they were ready to go in to mar-a-lago and seize some of the materials in order to determine whether they do have charges to bring or whether they could be satisfied simply by the recovery of materials. the fact that they list the

obstruction statute, however, on the warrant is a good signal to us they're still interested in having an ongoing investigation in determining whether charges could be brought. >> do they feel any sense of hurry, andrew weisman, who is also with us, given that the mid terms are a moment away, they're in november and donald trump might in any moment announce that he's running for president. again, he could. >> the concern for alakrity is one that arises in the justice department. having been in those situations, i can tell you in enron and a special counsel investigation, it wasn't so much what was happening on the outside, it was the sense that the public needs to know one way or the other and so you really burn the midnight oil out of that sense of duty. and i am confident that it is

what is governing merrick garland and emanates down from him. not to sound like a polly anna but i really do think that is what's going on. >> as somebody who has been in this position, andrew, are they feeling nervous about their own public safety right now given all of the heat that's surrounding this? i mean, there was a ton of heat around the russia investigation threats. it feels like it's only amplified since then. >> you know, i can't speak to each and every person. i've been in that situation. i have to tell you, you really do block it out. and it's something that you just take as something that unfortunately comes with doing your job. i can't tell you that each and every person has that view, but in my general experience at the department, including at the fbi, is people just try and keep their head down and ignore that. there are people who are tasked

with making sure that you take steps to minimize risk, but there's only so much you can do. it's really unfortunate when what you have is people who are just doing their jobs, particularly jobs that are intended here to secure our national security and they're facing death threats for doing that work. >> let's go back to cal perry. you're there at the courtroom in south florida. it has been reported that there was increased security there, there's been increased security for the judge. what have you seen? >> we've seen increased security. the security here is pretty impressive. it is rings of security that wouldn't normally exist but because of the topic matter today. and in reading these court transcripts and again their notes, i'm totally blown away with the discussion because this is a discussion that attorneys on behalf of the media here in the united states are having with the federal judge about how

the republic should handle sensitive documents and what the public should know when it comes to a search of a former president's residence. something that is very clearly unprecedented. and you have this back and forth in which all of parties involved, and i should say except for donald trump's lawyers who were present but did not speak, all of the parties involved are having this open discussion about the fact that this not on has never happened before but what is decided next thursday by judge reinhart and the department of justice and the lawyers on behalf of a free press here in the united states is going to dictate what happens going forward in future administrations and how this department of justice operates. it is just stunning that that is the open discussion that was had in court today. it is for that reason, katy, that security is heightened. it is for that reason i think next thursday you'll see even more security. judge reinhart has received death threats. local authorities are working federal authorities not just to

protect him but investigate it. >> have you seen any protection today? >> we seen two jeeps. nobody has gotten out of their cars and come here, two vehicles only. >> lisa rubin, we are at a moment in time when we keep hearing from the justice department, from the legal system in general that nobody's above the law. the rules apply the same to everybody. but we even saw today donald trump's cfo is going to prison for tax fraud, for 15 charges of tax fraud. he pleaded guilty to that. that man was not above the law. he might have gotten an easier centers because of what he can offer prosecutors in the case against the trump organization, but he's going to prison. michael cohen went to prison. the people below donald trump are being treated equal live

equally under the law but donald trump hasn't. he took classified information home, we haven't yet seen charges. the january 6th investigation, what we saw from the january 6th panel, there was an abundance of evidence about what donald trump knew and what he was told and not told. it seems he's gotten away with a lot. if the justice department find that donald trump broke the law, what do we do in this country? do we hold a former president accountable? and if we do not, what does that mean for the future? we are on a precipice with all the election deniers and winning primaries. we're in a precipice potentially in the way we do things in this country in just a few years. >> that's absolutely true. you and i came of age relatively at the same time. you remember ronald reagan was

referred to as the teflon president. i think that needs to be applied to donald trump. he's the ultimate teflon president at least thus far in our history. that having been said, the person in this country i least envy is merrick garland because he's in a position of damned in you do and damned if you don't. if he doesn't prosecutor donald trump based on some of the evidence we have seen to date, he and the justice department will lose the confidence of many people who believe this president has broken the law and will escape being above the law. on the other hand, if the justice department brings its full force to bear against president trump, there will be people who criticize the department as being overtly politicized and having fallen prey to partisan democrats. i can recite the donald trump talking point by heart, as i sure you, katy, can as well. i think i continue to have hope that the rule of law exists in

this country, that merrick garland was brought to the department of justice to restore that rule of law because he was brought to the justice department. most of us are optimists at heart. we believe in democracy, we believe in our american experiment and we believe in the rule of law and we have confidence that ultimately some of those values are going to prevail. >> i'm going to give this question to everybody. paul, that same question to you. >> so, katy, at this point there are three federal grand jury investigations of the president and one state grand jury investigation that we know about. so hold on. i think and hope that president trump will receive his day in court and justice will be served, but this is an historic moment. and lisa is absolutely right, in the same way that charging trump

would express certain values, not charging trump would i think express intolerable ideas about people actually being above the law, being the president or the former president is not a defense to a crime, it's not a get out of jail free card. and i think merrick garland understands that. and so i think these investigations take a long time but i'm looking to georgia, i'm looking to january 6th and now i'm looking to this classified materials grand jury to basically show us the beef. andrew, what about you? >> so i agree with paul and lisa. let me add a couple things. first on a pessimistic note, i would keep my eye on the state investigations because although i do think that a federal investigation is going to lead to charges, i think merrick garland has the back bone to

bring those cases as is necessary. if a republican president is elected, it is highly likely that those charges could be -- could end either by way of pardon or because the department is told to stand down. and maybe highly likely may be an overstatement. i could keep my eye no matter what on the state cases and i would add to paul's list of state cases not just georgia but i think the sleeper case here is the manhattan d.a.'s office. you know, i think that it isn't getting enough attention and there are a lot of telltale signs in that case that the manhattan d.a.'s office is not done with weisselberg or donald trump in the way that it's particularly crafted. i think there are at least two state cases to keep an eye on

with respect to exposure for the former president. >> let's linger on that because the weisselberg news is just breaking today. he's pleaded guilty to 15 charges of tax fraud and he's exchanging for that, the government is giving him a reduced sentence, five months behind bars, he's got to pay $2 million back, those are the back taxes and the fines and the penalties and the interest from the taxes he did not pay and he also has to testify against the trump organization. it's unclear, though, andrew that he's going to testify against donald trump in that case. expand on why you think that this is so intriguing. >> yeah. so first he does in order to get the five months, he has to testify truthfully of the october 24th trial of the trump organization. it seems very, very hard to testify truthfully in that case and not implicate donald trump.

we're not talking about a huge company like exxon or jpmorgan. we're talking about a small family-owned company and the scheme was so rampant with signatures by donald trump himself, i think that he has very reputable lawyers who are going to tell him if you want your five-month deal, you have to be truthful in front of the judge who is ultimately going to sentence you. so i think it would be very hard not to implicate donald trump. but the second thing that i found really telling is there was no coverage provision here. and what i mean by that is a typical defendant asked the government i will plea to x, y and z but i need to know this is it, i'm not going to get charged again. so what you normally see is the defendant pleading but the government putting on the record that this covers a whole host of potential crimes. in this case what you would have expected to see is something

that said that this covers any and all crimes that allen weisselberg may have committed as part of the trump organization. that was not in there. that is not something that these are such good lawyers that he has, we're not dealing with sort of the run of the mill people that you see in sort of trump world. these are really first-rate lawyers. they clearly had to have asked of that. to me that is a tell that there is more that the manhattan d.a.'s office has up their sleeve. time will tell whether i'm right, but it is striking to me that there wasn't that coverage language. >> i want to get to more on weisselberg in a moment but i have one more question about the redactions. next week is when the judge will get it back from the government. each said he would allow both sides to appeal. is there a circumstance where next thursday at 12:00 the judge goes over and says this is okay,

gives it to the media organizations, the media organizations sign off on it as well or the lawyer at least, and i don't even know if he has to do that. but if he says that's okay and releases it, could we see it a the 12, 12:30, 1:00 next thursday? >> certainly judge reinhart will give the department of justice a chance to respond and weigh in about what it thinks is appropriate but, yes, we have an open trial system in this country. the thought is that things should be made public. the difference is with grand jury material and items that are sealed because they might compromise an ongoing investigation or this case reveal classified information that impacts national security. but, again, i think this judge understands and appreciates the value of freedom of the press. so much i think we will be something -- it won't be i think all that substantial but we'll know more this time next week about president trump and why in

the world was he hoarding these documents, what was he thinking, what was he going to do, what has he already done? we're not going to get the most complete answers to those questions, but we'll at least learn why this judge believed there was probable cause to think that president trump had --sorry, not president trump, but that there was evidence of federal felonies at mar-a-lago. >> paul, cal, andrew, thank you very much for going all over this today. we knew we were going to get some sort of information and you guys made it digestible and easy to understand. appreciate it. to the other big story. allen weisselberg. we were just talking about it a moment ago. he's headed to rikers. the trump organization's chief financial officer took a plea deal today in exchange for pleading guilty to 15 charges of tax fraud, paying nearly $2 million back to the irs an a promise to testify against the trump organization, weisselberg will only spend five months behind bars.

joining me from outside new york city, the courtroom, is tom winter. also, suzanne craig. and new york law school professor and former assistant district attorney for manhattan, rebecca. tom, first to you. give us a details of what happened. >> well, it's just as you laid out before. we've got a defendant now who has admitted to the things that he's done and not only that, but he's now going to turn against the organization he used to be the chief financial officer. allen weisselberg was indicted at the same time as the trump organization. just a little over a year ago. and in that time period, he's now to the point where he's pleading guilty and then in late october, on october 24th when the trump organization goes to trial, he's going to testify against the very same conduct that just a few hours ago in this courthouse behind us, he admitted to doing.

that's namely off the books payments for certain things he received as a result of his employment for the trump organization. he received payments from multiple mercedes benz cars, an apartment. a garage for the cars. as well as several other cash payments. in one instance he used to pay for his grand kids private tuition. none of that would be illegal has he paid the taxes for it. the state, the city taxes for it and had the trump organization properly accounted for it. we wouldn't be standing here talking about it. there's nothing against that type of compensation, but there is something against when you don't pay the bills and now he's going to pay 1.94 million plus to the city and to the state for the taxes that they say he owes and it's not just they anymore. weisselberg's agreeing with them. the trump organization will go on trial for essentially the exact same conduct and he'll testify against them.

if he doesn't, prosecutors have said and the judge warned him today, he faces up to five to 15 years in prison if he in fact does not testify truthfully at that trial and is called for it. so that's what's at stake for weisselberg. five months, his attorney put out a statement. 100 days of getting a lot of questions over e-mail about that. as to what the discrepancy is. obviously he'll get credit if he's on his good behavior at rikers, which everybody would assume he would be. so there's why there's a little bit of a discrepancy there. but rikers is not a place that i don't think anybody wants to be at now. it's a jail that's got serious problems in new york city with a number of fatalities. i don't think anybody's suggesting weisselberg will be in the general population, but it's a difficult place to serve time and for a 75-year-old, it's not an insignificant sentence. >> when does he begin serving time? >> that will be after the trial. they'll set a sentencing date. we don't even have that.

it's possible we'll get that date before the end of the year and that it's possible it goes into the early half of next year. >> always fighting against the traffic and noise and sirens of new york city. tom we're going to turn your mike off to spare our ears. weisselberg testifying against the trump organization. what might he say? >> well, i think he's going to, if i were to imagine, we don't know yet, but testify to his behavior. i think he's part of it so he's going to outline the scheme. who was involved and you know, did it you know, i was listening to andrew's comments carefully before. did it go up to donald trump or not. what i'm hearing from that and sort of what happened today is it's going to be, i would imagine just what was his involvement in it and who else may have been involved, but more his involvement in keeping this scheme. there was off the books stuff that happened and that sort of thing.

>> it's been reported he's going to try to stay away from donald trump himself, but more focused on the trump organization. talk to me about that. >> well that's sort of what i was, you know, he is -- and we heard that today. he's going to stay away from implicating donald trump. i think it was going to be who was involved at the trump organization. that would be his behavior and potentially other people who may have worked to keep these -- there were separate books that were kept and you know, what did that involve and look like and who was involved. i think that's sort of what we're going to be seeing in october should this go to trial. it's scheduled to go to trial. >> rebecca, is this a good deal for prosecution? >> i think it's a very good deal and you know, i think people were a little confused before we understood there was going to be a cooperation agreement in which he was helping the company. that's critical because i think that his testimony basically

ensures a conviction against the company. in new york, companies have to act through their agents an the only way in which you convict a company is if somebody high up in that company was acting on behalf of the organization and in the press release, it's clear that not only is he going to testify that he benefitted from this deal, but the company benefitted from this deal. there were all sorts of ways in which they didn't have to pay payroll taxes and could categorize certain employees as sort of contract workers and get business deductions as a result. all of that is very good for securing a conviction against those organizations. >> what about what andrew weissman was saying. watch out for this when it comes to donald trump himself. watch out for what the d.a. might do with charges against the former president. >> i would be more cautious than he is here. i don't think it's that unusual to have a plea agreement that looks like this one in the state system and so you know, i don't think that it necessarily indicates that the d.a. is doing

in one direction or another with this. i also don't think it will be impossible for him to testify against the organization without implicating donald trump because in order for donald trump to be personally criminally liable, he would have had to have known, agreed or in some way participated in this scheme and if allen weisselberg is not ready to point his finger at him, that's a much more difficult prosecution for the d.a. and i'm not sure that he would bring it. so i think we would have seen further cooperation, further information about cooperation and maybe more of a discount in his sentence if he were implicating donald trump, but i don't think -- i think he is going to try to thread that needle to testify truthfully about the organization without pointing fingers at donald trump. >> we don't know what we don't know, but we have been told this about donald trump over the years and have every indication to believe that he doesn't leave much of a paper trail. >> i think there's another important thing, which is that this case was brought, two

things. this case was brought both against the trump organization and weisselberg earlier and they did not include donald trump in the specific case, which is a tax fraud case. that was marching ahead. then separately, i don't know if you remember, but months ago, there was a big fight inside the d.a.'s office about whether to charge donald trump. several lawyers wanted to go ahead and do it. this was when cy vance was the d.a. bragg came in, a new district attorney, and a decision was made not to charge on separate things that they were looking at. those attorneys resigned. that's very powerful. it's not to say that new information won't come forward and bragg, the new district attorney, won't go forward, but that came to a head and has sort of now been simmering. i don't preclude it will happen, but it seems unlikely that it will happen. threading the need for weisselberg, very smart comment. that's what's going to happen in

this coming trial about simply the tax fraud that's being charged. >> tom, you've been following this really closely as well. it was unusual that move between the d.a.s. >> well, it was and obviously there's clearly two separate factions when you have people that were quarterbacking the case and in the case of one of those attorneys that left, the one that went to the supreme court not once but twice to get donald trump's tax records that a lot of people thought might be a huge corner stone of the investigation into the former president that just hasn't materialized. to kind of sum up the points that our analysts and suzanne mentioned, who's done an incredible job reporting on trump's finances over the past couple of years and beyond, i think when you look at this, you're looking at a case where you have somebody in allen weisselberg who absolutely does not want to talk against donald trump. when you have somebody that has that level of loyalty, it's going to be very difficult to

break it. i don't know how much more weight they can put on his shoulders to get him to a point where he does that. however, to go into the andrew weissman case from the press release today, the manhattan district attorney's office is making very clear that the investigation not only into the trump organization, but the former president, is very much ongoing. >> tom, suzanne, and rebecca, thank you very much. we appreciate and that is going to do it for me today. hallie jackson picks up our coverage right now. we are following that breaking news with the judge saying he's not prepared to keep all the secrets secret forever. cracking open the door to unseal at least part of the affidavit. but first, telling the doj to propose redactions saying they have a week to do it. we've got our nbc news team and legal analysts standing by. also, new comments from mitch