welcome back to msnbc special coverage of donald trump's indictment. we are following multiple new

developments just coming in in the last 90 minutes or so, including the huge shake-up involving trump's defense team. about 90 minutes ago we learned two of his attorneys resigned. they were part of the team that met with jack smith on monday and trusty has been defending the former president on tv nearly every day since, including this morning. he will be represented by todd blanche. we learned trump is not the only one being charged. >> he has learned that his former valet is facing charges. he was a military valet in the white house. appearing to confirm a report in the "wall street journal" and remembered that he had come under scrutiny under shifting accounts of whether or not he had moved boxes of documents at the former president's urging. >> in the last hour, nbc news has confirmed that judge aileen

cannon will be overseeing the case. it caused months of delay for prosecutors after the mar-a-lago search. decisions that were ultimately overturned in a scathing ruling by the 11th circuit court of appeals. let's bring in our team. the former president will be arraigned on tuesday. and garrett haake is in new jersey where the president is today. ari melber is the msnbc chief legal correspondent and host of "the beat" and andrew weissmann served as former fbi general counsel and helped lead robert mueller's investigation in 2016. you know him so well. i'm sure you can say his title by heart. i want to start with you,

garrett. and i want to start with a name we haven't mentioned in the last hour, mark meadows. what do we know about mark meadows? >> very little. we know that it has been reported that he has testified in front of the special counsel in perhaps both buckets of the special counsel's investigations here. both the classified documents piece of this and the january 6th attempts to set aside the 2020 election results pieces. there was some reporting that i got very aggressive brushback on the idea that somehow meadows might have been perhaps more of a friendly or cooperating witness. i don't think that has turned out to be the case. meadows is a central player in everything trump did in his last year at the white house. and for a short period of time, in his transition back to private life. he was involved in the rush to transition out of the white house. and we know that he was involved, or at least, people working with him were involved in writing his book about his time in the trump administration that produced what appears to be some of the most damning

evidence the special counsel has acquired here. audio recordings of mr. trump talking about one of the classified documents that he had, according to nbc whether mr. meadows will face any legal jeopardy remains up for question. and in this case or perhaps the ongoing investigation into the election interference part of this is still an open question. >> so lisa, you're outside the court and you have been for several days. when might we learn what is in this? a lot of people have questioned when might we hear from the special counsel? >> let's start with your first question first. could it be more than donald trump? we've seen reporting that among the charges is a conspiracy charge. you only need two for a

conspiracy charge and sometimes you don't even need that. you can have an uncharged co-conspirator. but certainly, there can be additional participants to any conspiracy to obstruct. and we know from public reporting that there were other participants along go the way and helping trump wittingly or unwittingly conceal documents from first, the national archives, and then the fbi and the department of justice. as to, i'm sorry, can you repeat the second question? >> i was going the ask but jack smith. i've heard critics say, listen, basically the trump supporters have the room to themselves. we haven't heard anything from the side of the prosecution. when are we going to at least figure out what is in these charges? >> right. so the indictment is sealed right now. as you noted, and garrett has been talking about this morning, the former president is filling that vacuum. any time there is a

communications void, he will fill it. usually as merrick garland has said, they do their talking in court. but usually they're not up against a defendant like donald trump who has a mega phone as large as his is. we could expect the justice department to move to unseal the indictment. that motion itself would be sealed. so hopefully in the next couple of days, we might get more clarity on the dimension of the charges. maybe even get to see a company of the indictment itself. and there after, we might see jack smith or others on the department. justice make a public statement. because here, as andrew can tell you, normally the department of justice doesn't want to go out and talk at length about the charging decisions. but here, in a matter of such significant public importance, they may feel the need to justify and clarify to the american people what has happened in this case. >> merrick garland's appreciate here, and this according to special counsel rules but also according to his m.o., is not to

comment on anything like this. i want to drill down a bit on trump's defenses. he's been impeding, and cnn is reporting this, they have this transcript of this meeting in bedminster of july 2021. nbc news has not independently confirmed it but i want to juxtapose that with what trump told john hannity last year. at that time he said, quote, when you're the president of the united states, you can declassify just by saying, it's declassified. even by thinking about it. in other words, when i left the white house, the documents were declassified. compare that with this transcript from bedminster when trump said the documents he had were highly confidential and secret. and he said, as president, i could have declassified, but now i can't. how damaging is that? and we'll juxtapose that against finally the espionage act, it doesn't have to be classified. it just has to be defense

information. >> right. the national defense piece of this, what we've heard about classification, that's not the legal bar. we have to see the exact charges. what you showed there is what we do in journalism. we pick the sources, we pick the words. it also may in its accuracy be the kind of thing that we can see as a trial exhibit. whether or not donald trump ever testifies, or a version of that with whatever is deemed admissible, where you say even by the most generous deferential approach. and former presidents are entitled to certain deference. the doj didn't rush to search. they had a process. when you take that together with deference, you have what prosecutors call criminal intent. the willful and knowing act where he says, i don't have this power but i'm doing it. and by brief analogy, because some of this gets into, you know a lot about this from foreign affairs reporting, what about

the rest of us? let's use a very basic example. if the you are an fbi agent or a cop, you have great powers to detain, to arrest, sometime to use force. the day after you leave the post, you don't have any of those powers. and it's not a good defense or a good distinction to say, i used to be a cop. no. now it's kidnapping, what we used to call arrest. so these powers, i would argue he's the are a little more wonky. why is this so important? well, there are names on this paper that could get killed. that it is as serious, if not more so, than what people do with weapons and he shows, he e-vinces a knowledge if he no longer had that authority. >> that's such a great analogy. >> one of the thing that i think is striking about what we're seeing here, donald trump on the campaign trail really went after hillary clinton for her emails and was trying to knock her down on national security saying she was a threat to this country. and he even said in the 2016 campaign rally, if he were president, he would do everything he could to protect

classified information. it paints a picture of donald trump as somebody who believes that he is above all that. i'm going to protect classified information because whatever i do is enough. whatever i decide is the right decision. and that's the way we saw him act when he was at the white house. declassifying in front of the russians about iranian intelligence and the white house. it came from israel. and then leaving the white house and saying, i can just declassify if i think about it. i alone have the authority to do this. when the prosecution, when jack smith presents donald trump as a defendant to the jury, how many of it will be about the way that he has treated information? the way that he's composed himself? the way that he's seemingly put himself above all of the institutions? >> so i do think that there will be a chart of all of the

inconsistent statements. so the thing that you just pointed out will be one of the things to say, here are all the inconsistent defenses. but it's also useful to remember, if donald trump wants the say, the say i declassified it. even though it is largely irrelevant to the charges and for some of them, it is nothing to do with it at all. somebody from the defense has the put on evidence. so programbly, if he wants to say, i just thought of this and declassified it, is he going to take the stand? that is never going to happen. we saw that in e. jean carroll. in a civil case he was not willing to take the stand. natural civil case, the best gift for the prosecution would be donald trump as a defense lawyer. so a will the of this won't even come into evidence without competent evidence of this happening. >> a quick follow-up. can they also, can the prosecution bring into evidence

the fact as katy just said, he disclosed classified information to the oval office, and in fact, brought their news people into the oval office, incredibly, as well, as posting a picture of an iranian facility that was classified when he was president. can that sloppiness be brought in as evidence? >> so there is a rule called 404 b. prosecutors say this is 404 b evidence. what they mean is, if you've got relevant evidence that, on either side that you think can help prove the case, even though it is not part of the technical charges, then the court can allow that. and the court weighs, is it more probative than prejudicial? if the court finds that, you can bring in other things. a really good example of something that i think would be very relevant is his statements about hillary clinton and what he said about classification and how seriously he takes it.

in fact, the statute was increased when he became president. all of that would be very useful for the government to show he knew what the law was. he was talking about this for years. so in trying to prove his mental state, what did he know? did he think he was doing something wrong? it is really useful to uses his own words. >> and a quick point. the actual emails were not classified at the time they were sent. they were upgraded to classified status in the post benghazi investigation. so there is a lot of misreporting by the critics. >> certainly, trump and his supporters would like to say that there is an exact line between donald trump andological hillary, between donald trump and hunter biden. putting that aside, when you start to hear things like the espionage act and 404 b, it can

sound complicated. how complicated is this case, do you think? >> that's a great question. you have to get back to the jury sooner or later. and you need clear evidence, and a clear story for the jury. i think this case is somewhat complicated. i think if you're not steeped in this stuff, even the word document can sound misleading. if i'm telling you, we have a list of secret spy names, right? that sounds bad. documents doesn't. if we are watching what will come, when they go to trial, they have to be clear about what the case is, what the stakes are, what the damage is. the obstruction side of the case, as we understand, is simple. this guy is a liar. he got other people to lie for him. he is such a liar that he tricked his own lawyers and some of them, best we can tell, were so concerned, that even though they were paid and duty-bound to defend him, they started making

their voice notes and their own tapes because he is such a liar. and that's why a judge approved this search. and that's never been overturned. that's why a judge found there was a crime-fraud exception and pierced at least one of the lawyers' privileged material. so the reason that back ends, when you tell a injure, it's not just one honest mistake. sometimes jurors give deference to people in power when they think they are the commander in chief or people in general. it is lie after lie after lie. to try to hide the underlying crime. donald trump knew was abuse of power. and power he didn't have. so had he done certain things on the 19th, the question of abuse of power. this is abusing powers he didn't have anymore. >> since there is great distance between the two of you, i can ask if you agree or disagree. how complicated is this case? >> one of the things you have to

do as a prosecutor, you need to be completely in the weeds. you have to actually master things that can be technical. so i can bore you all with a statute. >> i was just going to ask you about it. >> it is how to deal with classified information. it tries to prevent a defendant from using gray mail to say you need the settle this case. i have classified information and i want to use it publicly. the government is like, okay, we can't let that happen. so there are all sorts of intricacies that you need to be involved with. but ari is right. your job is you have to simplify this for the jury. you have to tell a clear, clean, easy story. and it that the obstruction piece is the key to that. it is so clear. it is lies. he got a subpoena and he didn't turn the documents over. this is not complicated. >> it is the compounding

behavior, lie after lie. i know you talk to the team all the time. i'm sure they're happy that this case will be tried in florida and not in d.c. garrett? >> i think that's absolutely the case, katy. it goes to their broader political message from the jump here. if if you are the trump team, and you've been messaging the country for months and months now that you think the biden department of justice is corrupt, you certainly aren't going to want to have this case tried in washington, d.c. the headquarters of that corrupt washington machine as you've been casting it. washington, d.c. went something like 96% for joe biden in the last election. it would be very difficult to find a politically balanced jury for such a politically charged case in washington, d.c. that won't be the case in miami-dade county in south florida where you've got a lot more political balance. you've touched on this in other

contexts. if judge cannon is overseeing this, that would be a little bit of a coup for the former president to have someone that was an appointee of his overseeing the case. so for a variety of reasons, it's good news. one reason it is bad news is it might be a factor in two of his attorneys leaving the team today. jim trusty and john rowley. his remaining lawyers on the look yut for those who tumpl the box ahead of tuesday's arraignment. >> thank you for that. thanks to all of you. we're going to led to doj and discuss the next steps in trying the next president who is also running for re-election. eln (smelling) ew. gotta get rid of this. ♪tell me why♪

because it stinks. ♪tell me why♪ i don't know i've washed it so many times. ♪tell me why♪ no you tell me why i can't get rid of this odor? ♪have you tried downy rinse and refresh♪ it doesn't just cover up odors, it helps remove them 3x better than detergent alone. ♪yeaahh♪ guess the odor went bye bye. no, that's not us. sorry. rinse odor away with downy rinse and refresh. (vo) this is sadie. she's on verizon, and she has the new myplan where she gets exactly what she wants and only pays for what she needs. she picks only the perks she wants and saves on every one! all with an incredible new iphone. act now and get iphone 14 pro on us when you switch. it's your verizon.

welcome back to our special coverage. as former president donald trump goes on the attack against the justice department, we are watching and waiting to see if the indictment against him will be unsealed and whether the man bringing those charges, special counsel jack smith, will speak publicly about the investigation that has been ongoing for months. julia ainslie has the latest for us. also with us, former assistant director for counterintelligence and national security analyst, and former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst joyce vance, ari weissmann still with us. jack smith has been very quiet. a few days ago, we caught up with him with a camera. he didn't look at the camera. he didn't respond to questions. what more can you tell us about him or any possibility that we may hear from him or merrick

garland? >> well, i can tell you that the position that jack smith and merrick garland are in today is the fact that they are already seeing trump control the narrative. it is really similar to what we saw out of the state charges in new york where he is already going out, even though he is, with a sealed indictment, he is going out and saying all of this is a hoax. meanwhile, garland has been briefed on the charges and briefed along the way and smith who is the prosecutor bringing these as special counsel. we know they are in the tight position to decide what they can say before the narrative gets away from them without trying to step on their own toes since that indictment remains sealed. they want to follow those rules. at this point we understand that garland will not play a role in the decision to unseal that indictment. they could unseal it at any time. we know that garland won't play the role. that decision will come from jack smith. and because the indictment may include some sensitive information, they're discussing,

of course, classified documents. if they need to talk or summarize any of the materials, they'll need to be very careful in how they do that. perhaps maybe needing to do some redactions and notify people who may be named. so that's the position the justice department and jack smith find themselves in today. can they tell the public more about what the former president has been indicted on without going forward and breaking some of their own rules, appearing political or breaking the rules about the seal. we won't hear from them until the indictment is unsealed and the boxes are checked. >> and let's talk about the judge assigned to the case. the trump appointee, which is not the relevant issue. judge aileen cannon oversaw the mar-a-lago search and delayed the prosecution for months with decisions that favored trump and were decisively overturned by

the 11th circuit. so what do you make of the fact that initially she will be overseeing the case and initially hearing motions to dismiss. >> so it's not entirely clear yet, the role that has been assigned to judge cannon. if she is in the mix for arraignment purposes, that is per fungtory. if she is assigned to this case as the trial judge, there will be serious questions about whether she has behaved in a way in the course of the mar-a-lago search warrant proceedings that so undermines public confidence in her objectivity that she needs to step aside from this case. i think we'll have to wait to see what her status to see whether she decides to voluntarily recuse or whether the parties, namely the justice department, might ask her to step aside and then what will follow from that request. >> i want to talk about the subway sandwich that jack submitted was carrying as he

went back to his office and discuss his choice of dietary options. >> i know there are better options on that street. but i do want to ask you, frank, about this nearly 24-hour, not quite, hole, this black hole that the justice department that jack smith has left for donald trump and his team to fill about the allegations about, the indictment, about what the charges might be. was it a mistake to not unseal it the second they told donald trump's lawyers that he was indicted? >> so i'm looking at things through the security perspective here, and the threat and risk picture that is developing. if i answer that way, i would say yes. it has given everyone on the trump side an opportunity, including all night last night on a certain other network, and

people like senators like tuberville and holley saying this is the end of democracy. this is unfair. he's being targeted. this is all about biden, biden, biden. so do i expect that to disappear? no. if there is damning information and there likely is here that lays out what is likely to be horrific conduct by the former president, it is possible that it would have a mitigating effect on the incitement of anger and potential violence. that it would cause those people to hit the pause button because they're about to embarrass themselves, not having understood the indictment. >> it didn't take long, joyce, for the former president to come out. he released the video claiming his innocence and warfare for the law. and he said, quote, we cannot let it happen. how many of this case do you think will be fought in the court of public opinion?

and obviously, there is one thing about what the political ramifications are. but for jury selection as well. >> so when it comes to trump, everything goes to the court of public opinion and never so much as when he's on the campaign trail. i think that's just baked into this landscape. al judge may try to rein him in, if for no other reason than to preserve the ability to impanel a jury. but you don't want to do anything that could give rise to a first amendment issue. or to interfere with the campaign. i don't know how many times we've used the word but it is unprecedented. every time trump goes out and makes a public statement, it is a double edged sword. so frequently it adds to the evidence available to prosecutors in this and other cases against him. the more he pursues his defense

in public, the more likely he is to add to the weight of the evidence against him. >> let's talk about the squishiness. sl there any squishiness in this case? is there any, what is the vulnerability for the prosecution? the big vulnerability they have? >> so that's a great question. that's what every prosecutor focuses on when they bring a case. when you write for your supervisor, when you are looking at a memo, what are the defenses, what are the responses? not just can you make the case but should you? so here, not to sound partisan, i think that the squishiness in this case is the judge who gets assigned. in other words, that's not the facts or the law. that's a question of, are you going to be in the same situation you were in with respect to the special master appointment to having the case stayed during an investigation unheard of? and having to go to the court of

appeals, not once but twice to get the judge reversed? with respect to the, as i am, the obstruction part of this case, it remains to be seen exactly what the evidence is. and i think we'll get a speaking indictment that will tell us a lot of what the government intends. it is really hard to see how that is defensible. that is the reason in the vast, vast majority of these cases, the person pleads. i mean, you've got many examples of senior people from david petraeus, sandaly berger, they all admitted what they did and they got a lighter sentence because of that. these are very hard cases to defend. and i think it is very hard to sort of figure out what is a plausible defense here. >> and andrew, is there another aspect here? not just the judge in this case and this is controversial among lawyers, at least. but the fact that in florida, you do not have judges with as much experience in handling

classified documents and you have a political calendar clock that is running against the prosecution for sure in favor of donald trump as you get closer and closer to real voting. january is the first caucus and the primaries for the republicans. what do they do with that? all these documents have to be so carefully vetted and crucial decisions have to be made by multiple agencies in the intelligence community. and just getting them into evidence will be hard. >> so that is just such a great question. i was thinking about if i was still at the department. the conversation before hand about where to bring the case. one of the key things you would be saying that would favor d.c. is that in d.c., the judges deal with classified information so much more. it doesn't mean that the judge hasn't dealt with it, at least to some extent in florida. it doesn't mean that a judge who has never dealt with it can't

get ready. that to me is one of the biggest impediments to time in terms of getting this case to trial. going through that sepa procedure. >> we're trying to cover what all the possibilities are. on the judge point, as you know, rick ross was familiar with the legal process, talks about how if you have somebody in power on your side, you're more relaxed. he talks about walking in the courtroom, sipping on the beverage. i know the judge so i have a lot of leverage. if you feel the judge is on your team, katy, that can be something that helps you. that's point one. point two, for the defenses, we've gone through the luminous evidence that is bad for trump. what is the evidence that could work? very simply, our viewers will remember. ask michael cohen, ask john eastman who is currently dealing with more legal trouble for the attempted coup or insurrection

than trump himself. ask giuliani who is not fit to practice law right now because of the consequences, and perhaps ask mr. corcoran or these newly departed lawyers, whether the facts show that trump, the now federal defendant, is responsible or other people is separate from when whether he has at times, i'm sure you can weigh in on this, gotten out of trouble by blaming other people. michael cohen didn't benefit from arranging those payments. but for years he was the one who went to prison form. >> so does he blame corcoran? >> what do you think? >> i wanted to take it back to your question about mark meadows. your question about what could be a possible defense. mark meadows is a tricky witness. and the reason i say that. unless mark meadows is going to say i, mark meadows, did something wrong, i knew that i was trying to overthrow the government. i knew there were classified

documents being sent to mar-a-lago. unless he's willing, the "w" word, i did something wrong. he in many ways, donald trump could say, you know, mark meadows had a said he didn't think he was doing anything wrong, he thought he was acting in good faith, that was me, too. when he said he was relying on what counsel said, that he thought there was a good faith argument, that's me, too. so mark meadows, if he is speaking, the issue is how much is he coming clean with what he did? >> that's really interesting. >> mike pence, one of the newly declared candidates, of course, is talking to reporters in new hampshire. we're there and we will bring all of that to you as soon as we get the full report. joining us now, nbc news correspondent, hallie batali.

so what else are you hearing from republican lawmakers today? senator mitt romney had something interesting to say. >> reporter: of course, he is saying that this is something donald trump brought on himself by not returning these classified documents. not surprising to see senator romney going against the former president. of course, that is a well documented history there. but i think what is striking here in congress is once again, you're really seeing the divide between the way senate republicans are responding and the way house republicans are responding. in the immediate aftermath, we saw house republicans, almost every person say, immediately come out and say this was an unjust application of the justice system and instead, trying to pivot to joe biden and hunter biden. that's one of the people who the house republicans are using the oversight capabilities have

tried to go after and investigate multiple times. those investigations haven't necessarily borne frat yet. however, we are seeing that be something -- >> i'll going to interrupt you for just a second. mike pence is speaking to this. let's take a listen. >> -- the administration of a sitting president who is also a potential rival in the upcoming election. after years of politicalization in the justice department, years that i lived through as vice president, watching the fbi make a decision not to bring charges against hillary clinton for mishandling classified information. two and a half years of the russia hoax that hung over our administration as we fought to turn america around, and still made it more secure, more prosperous than ever before. now we know that the russia hoax was entirely based on materials that should have never resulted in an fbi investigation, according to the durham report. in the days that followed that,

we saw the big tech and big media literally suppress a story about the hunter biden laptop. in the days leading up to the 2020 campaign. and we've seen, frankly, this department of justice slow-walk investigations into the president and into his family as well. and so i think it is deeply troubling to see an indictment against a former president of the united states. i had hoped that the department of justice would see its way clear to resolve this matter without an indictment and said so earlier this week. an indictment against a former president i think is going to be extraordinarily divisive and a challenging time for american families and i think it sends a terrible message to the wider world. that being said. let me be clear on a few points. no one is above the law. in america, we have to stand on the rule of law irrespective of

politics. secondly, the handling of classified materials is a very serious matter in this nation. my years as vice president, my years serving on the international relations committee in the house of representatives. it is important that we protect the nation's secrets. it is one of the reasons why after the multiple disclosures at president biden's home, of classified materials that he had retained from his days as vice president, and as president, that we thought it was appropriate for us to have our records examined, and we found that there was a small number of classified materials that had been stored inadvertently with our materials as well. we fully cooperated but with the fbi' investigation. i took full responsibility for it. i'm pleased that last week, the department. justice determine that it was an innocent mistake. let me be clear. it was a mistake in protecting the nation's secrets is absolutely vital to securing

this country in the days ahead. now, on the matter involving the president's indictment, let me be clear. as much of the national media rushes off with a predictable rush to judgment, no one knows the facts. it is the reason why this morning i called on attorney general merrick garland to unseal the indictment immediately and stand before the american people and answer questions as to why an indictment of a term that president of the united states was appropriate. i learned moments ago that the department of justice has scheduled a press conference this afternoon. i welcome that. the american people have a rate to know why it was necessary for the first time in history to bring an indictment against a former president of the united states. finally, i think it is important to remember that in america, everyone is entitled to be

presumed innocent until they're proven guilty. and the former president has every right to a presumption of innocence in the days and months ahead as this matter proceeds. i would just urge all may fellow americans in two ways. be patient. no one knows exactly what the facts and the law are in this case. and it is important that we wait. each american will understand the facts and we can each make our own judgment about whether or not this was an appropriate action or whether or not it is one more example of the politicalization and weaponization that has taken place in the department of justice in recent years. finally, i just encourage people to pray. pray for the former president and his family. as they endure this latest controversy. i pray for all those in positions of authority that they would have wisdom and be committed to justice.

and in the end, i would say pray for all the american people in these challenging times. it we do well to remember to turn to that well spring of support that has always strengthened us since the early days of our nation's founding. i will say that the place i made today, when i announced for my intention to be president of the united states. if i have the privilege to serve as your president, on day one, we're going to clean house at the highest level of the department of justice. we're going to appoint men and women of integrity who will restore public confidence in equal treatment under the law. so help me god. questions. >> if elected, would you pardon trump? >> i'm not going to speak to hypothetical questions. >> let me ask you -- >> talking about the department of justice, are these charges against him political? >> i don't think we know the facts. i think it is important that we

allow the process to be made public to the american people. it is one of the reasons why this morning, i think i was the first to call on attorney general merrick garland to unseal the indictment, stand before the american people and explain the justification for the first time in american history, bringing an indictment against the former president of the united states. again, i'm deeply troubled about an indictment against a former president of the united states. i think at a time when our politics are more divided than ever before, this could only divide us further at a time we're facing real challenges for families at home and real challenges for americans abroad. and lastly, i think it does send a terrible message to the wider world. you look out at many third world nations. incoming leaders very routinely, we use a criminal justice system in their country against their

predecessors. it is a consistent pattern in third world countries. the idea that anyone would look at this circumstance? think america was engaged in the same, very troubling to me. so we have to know the facts. the american people have a right topping the facts, and the law that is applicable in this case for the benefit of making a judgment. >> you had your own experience with the doj -- >> we first heard it from the former vice president. now we are getting confirmation from doj itself. 3:00 this afternoon. we're looking at an hour and 20 minutes from now. we are going to hear from jack smith at doj, it says. the statement will be live streamed. tv coverage provided by network pool and that is it. justice jack smith will make a statement. ari melber, what are you expecting and what are you looking for? >> this is big news. this is not what always happens. it is well within the rights and

practices of the doj to do so. typically, defendants don't promote their own looming arraignment. but this is different. they're clearly responding. special counsel jack smith has the whole nation listening and he hasn't said a word yet. that changes today. we would expect for him to speak to the investigation he's been conducting, to preview what is in the indictment and perhaps to take questions. so i think again, this was the rare sighting we had earlier in the week of jack smith going to work. the only sighting we've ever had. at 3:00 p.m., i can tell you, everyone in the world of law, news, politics, and a lot of other things will be tuning into this all over the country. jack smith will be speaking for the first time. >> and let me clarify something. i misspoke. it will not be at doj. it will be at constitution square. >> let's make that point.

it is not at doj. there's clearly a separation. not just title but physicality between jack smith and merrick garland and i imagine that is very intentional. >> totally. yesterday, last evening, the people saying that merrick garland or lisa, the deputy attorney general, saying they approved the indictment. and the reporting was, no, no, they didn't disapprove it. their power would only be to say no if it was so beyond the pale. second, when we heard defense counsel went into the department of justice earlier this week to appeal and say please don't bring this case, neither the attorney general nor the deputy attorney general were there. why? because they're the political appointees of the president. instead, career people heard this. so this is very intentional to deal with --

>> in fairness, with respect to your former colleagues, we would expect they are fully in the loop. so whether we use the lawyerly terminology -- >> they were not deciding. >> no. not deciding. under the special counsel rules, they're not supposed to be. having said that, i think they are doing as much as the organization, the doj can do to show independence. we would say for our viewers to understand. this level of decision is big and the special counsel made it and they didn't interfere with it. but they're in the loop. >> was there a discussion before hand where jack smith went to merrick garland and said i'm thinking about indicting? >> to andrea's point, the regulations require the attorney general if he decides this is so beyond the pale. >> the indictment has been unsealed. we're waiting to get that information. >> tell never key things you're

looking for once we actually physically get it. >> i have it in front of me. >> the grand jury charges that at times material to this indictment on and, donald trump was the 45th president of the united states of america. he held office from january 20, 2017, until january 20, 2021. as president, trump had lawful access to the most sensitive classified documents and national defense information gathered and owned by the united states government, including information from the agencies that comprise the united states intelligence community and the united states department of defense. number two. over the course of his presidency, trump gathered newspapers, press clippings, letters, notes, cards, photographs, official documents and other materials in cardboard boxes that he kept at the white house. among the materials trump stored in boxes were hundred of classified documents. the classified documents trump stored in his boxes included information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both

the united states and foreign countries. the united states nuclear programs, potential vulnerabilities of the united states and its allies to military attack. wow! and plans for possible retaliation and response to a foreign attack. the unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the united states, foreign relations, the safety of the united states military and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods. there are 49 pages. i'm not going to read them all but i'll keep going for a moment. at 12:00 p.m., january 20, 2021, trump ceased to be president. and as he departed the white house, trump caused scores of boxes, many of which contained classified documents to be transported to the mar-a-lago club in palm beach, florida, where he maintained his residence. this is not saying somebody else carried the boxes out.

this is saying trump caused them. trump was not the lord to possess or retain those classified documents. tell mar-a-lago club was an active social club which began, between 2021 and august 2022, hosted events for tens of thousands of members and guests. after trump's presidency, the mar-a-lago club was not an authorized location for the storage, possession, review, display, or discussion of classified documents. nevertheless, trump stored his boxes could not detaining classified documents in various locations at the mar-a-lago club, including the ballroom, a bathroom, and a shower, an office space, his bedroom, and a storage room. on two occasions, in 2021, trump showed classified documents to others. a, in july 2021, a trump national golf club in bedminster during an you had a yes recording, meeting with a writer, a publisher and two members of his staff, he showed those documents. in august or september, at the

bedminster club, trump showed a representative of his political action committee who did not possess a security clearance, a classified map related to a military operation. and told the representative, he should not be showing it to the representative. and that the representative should not get too close. i know all of you are trying to get in here. >> there are some boxes here that are shown in the indictment. and it says here in number 25 from january through march 15th -- >> it's these. >> you can see the voluminous nature of this. they have the goods and the receipts. this is an indictment with about 50 pages with photos. >> to point out, that this sat out in the white and gold ballroom at mar-a-lago in which events took place. and this is a picture. >> and there are more and more of these throughout. we'll go through this live. i can tell you, from looking now

what we have in the indictment is the charges of retention, conspiracy, withholding documents, corruptly concealing the documents, and the false statements which we've reported on. so this is, we're going to go through it. this is a pretty maximal version of this. you have a bunch that are stacked and you have a narrative here that has names. i see lawyer one, the co-conspirator. when you look at this being a documents conspiracy against the united states, you have not only the physical and visual evidence of it but now you have a narrative. you have a story line with testimony. i don't know if you want to weigh in. >> and also now this indictment. ken, what are you saying? >> reporter: a couple things. one, the allegation that he showed classified material to people not cleared to see it and

charged with that crime. that is a huge, huge deal. we didn't have that reporting in our understanding of the charges so far today. and that's a big deal. it is one thing for trump's enablers and defenders will say so what if a former president had documents that he was authorized to have when he was president and they were sitting in mar-a-lago and no one saw them. hospital in foreign adversary. when you show classified documents to people who weren't cleared to see them, that is a breach. people have gone to prison for a long time for doing that. it happens all the time. it is more than just taking them home and squirrelling them away. so they have two incidents here where they say that he did that. and a recording or rather a transcript of the recording that we've been reporting on where he is meating with some people who are working on a memoir for his chief of staff mark meadows and he talks about having this iran-related classified document knowing that it's classified and lamenting he

should have declassified it when he was the president. that's a really important part of this indictment. >> ken, as you've been pointing out, this is devastating, andrew weissmann, those are some of the points you've been looking at. >> so first just to underscore ken's point, dissemination was one of the key things i was looking for. it is a much more serious crime to not just have it and the risk of dissemination but to actually disseminate. second, in quick reading, there are a series of texts that are quoted verbatim as well as tape recordings with employees and others documenting what was said. third, to ari's point, it is clear that nada has been charged as part of this as a co-conspirator. also to your point, trump's statements in 2016 are actually in the indictment to show his state of mind and his knowledge of the classification rules.

four, they specifically talk about classified documents. why is that important? that shows that jack smith has made a determination this whole story about these things having been classified in my mind is something he can prove did not happen. >> one of the first things katy read it could put at risk the national security. >> absolutely. >> they were pretty clear in the beginning that this is not just that he had the documents, he has the documents and he showed them to people, and oh, by the way, they could put us at risk. they show our vulnerabilities. they could put our alliances at risk. >> and they're national defense information and classified. it's very bold. >> does this underscore what you were saying last night and this morning that they must have a really solid case in which they were willing to take the risk of going to florida with a florida jury, a florida judge rather than d.c.? >> i think that's true. although i think there are other reasons they go to florida is because the venue was just so clear and why take the risk of the litigation in d.c.

>> i also want to jump in, pages 25, 26 we see how many lawyers are in trouble and this may offer clues. there are references to lawyer or trump quote attorney 1, 2, and 3. and then there's a story line in here that is just really damning. i'm processing this in realtime, reading from this it says after trump attorney 1 confirmed he was finished with his search, this is where they've actually gone inside with contemporaneous documentation of what the doj alleges of was a crime committed with the furtherance of attorneys, trump asked, quote, according to doj, did you find anything? is it bad or good? trump and attorney 1 discussed what to do. during that conversation trump made a plucking motion. trump attorney 1, quote, he made a funny motion as though why don't you take them with you to your hotel room if there's anything, quote, really bad in there, you know, pluck it out. and that was the motion he made. that evening it goes on to say trump attorney 1 contacted the

doj and requested an fbi agent meet him at the mar-a-lago club the next day so he could turn over responsive documents. this is the outlines of an attempt by now federal defendant donald trump to get other people to, yeah, you're already on record, you're already facing the subpoena process. you've already been caught lying, now, would you according to the doj, would you pluck that out if it's, quote, bad, aka criminal contraband and continue this narrative. >> and take to your hotel room, which is not a scif to say the least. reading from page 26 from the new indictment, these statements the doj says were false because among other reasons trump had directed now to the co-conspirator to move boxes before trump attorney 1's review so that many boxes were not searched and many documents responsive to the subpoena -- this was from may -- quote, could not be found and, in fact, were not found by trump attorney 1. then it goes on to trump attorney 3, quote, executing a false certification.

andrew, i'd love for you to walk through with us first of all, how unusual this level of detail is from inside scheming around. >> this is the piercing of the attorney/client privilege. >> how unusual is this, and is this strong evidence against trump? >> trump attorney 1 is clearly corcoran, trump attorney 3 is bob, because they talk about bob is the one who signed the certification. and corcoran is there. the fact that it's -- there's some real quotes there to me resonates with the reporting that corcoran tape recorded these huge notes because -- >> there are quotes throughout this. there's a lot of tape recorders it seems of donald trump's conversations. >> exactly. >> post facto recording of his notes or was he wired? >> i think it wasn't wired. i think it would be very -- for a lawyer to do that -- >> that would not -- the reporting was that he after the fact being concerned about

memorializing what the conversations were with his clients on a car ride dictated very extensive notes. >> no wonder with the plucking notion and take them to your hotel room. >> absolutely. i mean, that is -- >> what's so remarkable about all of this is that donald trump had been able to escape criminal liability, civil liability, a lot of legal liability over his time, over his years because he doesn't text message. he doesn't put things on paper. he kind of winks and nods, and what you're seeing here is recordings of him. this is the first time we've seen him i believe be so explicit about what prosecutors allege is him breaking a lot of crimes, breaking a lot of laws. >> this i always thought for the january 6th case and for this case that you could have a whole slew of lawyers testifying, whether they are white house counsel and now we see his personal counsel because you know what? you cannot use your lawyers to commit a crime. >> so this -- i guess the really big deal here is that prosecutors jack smith was able

to pierce attorney/client privilege. if not for his ability to do that, we wouldn't have a lot of what's in this indictment. >> well, certainly i think -- certainly the stuff that ari just read absolutely. that clearly comes from being able to get the inside story -- >> is that going to be a vulnerability? >> no. and the reason is, one, this wasn't something that the department of justice just unilaterally said, oh, i'd like to find out what lawyers think and i'm going to put them in the grand jury. they had to have approval and got approval from the chief judge of the d.c. court, and that really insulates this from any challenge. >> and that was all after the search but it also -- this indictment also gives you so much to show that the probable cause that they got post-subpoena to even have the search. this justifies the search, at least in any court of law. frank figliuzzi has been wanting to get in with a point, frank. >> a couple of things. one that jumps out at me from the national security

perspective is we're learning now that these documents retained at mar-a-lago were from throughout the u.s. intelligence community, and specifically on page 8 those agencies are cited. and i have to tell you whenever information comes from some of these agencies, particularly the national security agency, the national reconnaissance office, the national geospatial agency, they are almost automatically top secret and then compartmented information. to hear that some of this was sitting on a stage in a ballroom at mar-a-lago is really cringing for me. u just to give you a sense of the sensitivity of these agencies in common conversation at fbi headquarters or if you're out at lunch, we typically use a code name for these agencies so that we know what we're talking about and where something came from but that people sitting next to us would not know what we're talking about. this is the kind of classified

information that he kept openly at mar-a-lago. >> and joyce vance, why don't you weigh in here as well. >> well, while y'all have been diligently working through the specifics of the indictment and talking about the details and the evidence, i'm the person who skipped ahead to read the ending and something stunning is the scope and breadth of this indictment. there are not seven counts in this indictment as reported last night, but there are 38 charges that are brought against the president and his i suppose now former valet. most striking, as you begin to read through the individual counts, is the fact, the repetition over and over of the fact that donald trump lied in order to hide his crimes. it really is at the end of the day of this indictment the cover-up that got the former president in trouble. >> does walt nauta flip? this is a 38 count indictment.

his name is throughout it. is this the kind of document nauta's lawyers if they're not attached to donald trump looks ate him and says andrew, you've got to make a deal here? >> well, presumably that conversation had been had. so the -- you know, that's also the reason for donald trump issuing the first thing you get out of donald trump before he starts fund-raising is to praise walt nauta because he knows. he's been through this. this is something he's very familiar with, which is keep your potential enemies close and so he's been praising him. i would think at this point, yes, you would always continue to have that conversation, but there's no question that that is something that he's had already. >> but he's family, guys, that would be amazing. >> this new material documents that the doj says nauta has criminally lied for donald trump. he's gone down that road. that's one of the charges in the