selected? >> well base -- is a great question. stephanie based on the rulings we are whereof, as well as what we know what federal judges, she is probably one of the toughest, most adverse federal judges you could draw for this -- >> for jack smith? and he was willing to risk, that he was clearly more willing to risk it, more willing about venue, more worried that this case would get tossed out by not filing it in the right place that he was willing to take a gamble on judge cannon. >> jack smith as a gambling man. lawyers, stephanie ruhle, andrew weissmann, and ari melber. thank you for being here, and lending your expertise, that does it for our special coverage of the indictment of donald. trump now it is time for the last world with lawrence o'donnell, getting in. lawrence . >> good evening avalanche, and could you tell andrew weizmann the way down the hall. >> he's running down the right now! >> we're gonna need him here. we're gonna continue the coverage, alex, thank you very much. >> have a great show!

>> thank you. well at this hour, tonight right, now, 27 hours after donald trump was told that he had just become the first former president in history charged with federal crimes, including violations of the espionage act, the trump criminal defense team is in chaos. the trump criminal defense lawyer who call donald trump at seven pm last night to tell him that he was indicted by prosecutors in the executive branch of the government that he once controlled, resigned or was fired this morning along with another criminal defense lawyer that also resigned or was fired this morning. last night, after the indictment was announced, the league criminal defense lawyer in the case of the u.s. versus donald j trump said this -- >> even if he talks about the documents or the existence of them, that is light years away from the specific intent that they need for an espionage case. >> and now, that lawyer is

gone. anything the trump defense lawyers have ever said publicly about what we're done the possible charges against donald trump as turned out to be completely wrong, not that we see the actual charges against donald trump. donald trump is now charged with 37 counts, all felonies. the crimes include obstruction of justice and a violation of the espionage act. the indictment is better in and reads more clearly and easily than anything else you might have heard about the case. it includes stunning photographs of the way, as the that man says, donald trump illegally kept government documents at his florida residence, showing just how insecurely the documents were maintained and how vulnerable and likely the documents were to be obtained or examined by people with or without donald trump's knowledge and without the knowledge of the secret service who were always there for the sole purpose of protecting the former president,

not protecting the documents. the indictment points out, quote, donald trump did not inform the secret service that he was storing boxes containing classified documents at the mar-a-lago club. the document includes -- the indictment includes these quotations from donald trump, while he was running for president in 2016 against hillary clinton on the issue of protection of classified information. >> in my administration, i am going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. no one will be above the law. >> we also need to fight this

battle by collecting intelligence and then protecting, protecting our classified secrets. we can't have someone in the oval office who does not understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified. >> one at the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information. >> we also need the best protection of classified information. >> service members here in north carolina have risked their lives to acquire classified intelligence to protect our country. >> each of those statements appear tonight in the indictment against donald trump. donald trump's own public comments after leaving office about the documents proves that he did not mean anything that

you just heard him say about classified information when he was running against hillary clinton. >> why did you take those documents with the when you left the white house? >> i had every right to under the presidential records act. i was there, and i took what i took, and aid gets the classified. i took the documents that i am allowed to. >> did you ever show the classified documents to anyone? >> not really, but i would have the right. two >> with you may not really? >> not that i can think of. let me just tell you, i have the right to do whatever i want to them. i have the right. >> we now know why donald trump said he could show those documents to people. >> did you ever show those classified documents to anyone? >> not really, but i would have the right to. >> what do you mean not? really? . >> not that i can think of. >> according to the indictment, donald trump showed classified documents to at least two people, the first person described in the indictment showed a classified document by donald trump said wow, when the person saw that document.

and we know all at that because that conversation was actually recorded, the audio recording, includes donald trump toeing the person this is secret information, look, look at this. six and a half months ago, when special counsel jack smith was appointed by attorney general merrick garland, there was disappointment among some people that believed that this would slow down the investigation of donald trump. jack smith literally did not say a word. he did not say anything to or about his doubters. he did not say anything about donald trump when donald trump attacked him repeatedly and his family. america never heard jack smith 's voice until today. we all began this day expecting

not to know anything about the contents of the indictment until tuesday at three pm, when donald trump will be arraigned in federal court in miami, then came the news that jack smith was finally going to speak at three pm today in washington. before jackson stepped up to the microphone today, the 49 -page indictment was made public so that by the time that he spoke, all of us in the news media knew all of the details of the case that he has brought against donald trump. jack smith in the last six and a half months has asked for not one minute of our attention, literally not one minute, while others, including myself have talked endlessly about his work. and today, when jack smith entered that room, where he would finally speak, the suspense was thick.

even just on the matter of what does this man sound like, jack smith, when his time came as something of all of you. he asked you to read his work. he asked you to read the 49 pages, which are very easy to read. i want to keep stressing that. that is all he ask of you after his six and a half months of work. jack smith, when he finally spoke said this. >> today, an indictment was unsealed charging donald j trump with felony violations over national security laws as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle at the department of justice. and our nation's commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. we have one set of laws in the country, and they apply to

everyone. >> leading off our discussion tonight, neal katyal, former acting -- u.s. solicitor general and msnbc legal analysts. bradley moss, former clerk for the national security archive and andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel in the eastern district of new york. he's a professor of practice at the end why you law school and a mom s&p seat legal analysts. and you, you have been discussing this all day. i've spent some time discussing it. i think the audience is more up to speed than they usually are for us at this hour, but this is a carry over from our earlier discussions about this. that is the issue of the way the attorney client privilege was penetrated in this case, because it seems that some of the real gold in the indictment was obtained from evan corcoran, the trump criminal defense lawyer in this case. we've now seen what they got

from that, but they did not know what they would get. when they were asking to penetrate the attorney client privilege, they did not really know what was on the other side. >> yeah, that is right. so, the goal that is in here that was revealed by having pierced the attorney client privilege relates to the obstruction charges rather than what i would call substantive charges, the 31 counts of retaining classified and national defense information. at the time that the application was made, there clearly was sufficient evidence to satisfy that chief judge -- because they knew that there had been a certification saying that everything at been turned over, that a thorough search had been done, and they knew that was not true because they had done a search, and there was much more stuff. as we knew from the reporting, there was some indication that they had been talking to people at mar-a-lago and had a sense that this was intentional, the boxes were moving, that there was a reason to think that when

they filed the certification, it was not true. but the -- work the lawyers in on it? what the lawyers did, who gave the instructions? those are those kinds of details. the basic rule is, attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct until and unless you as the client are trying to solicit a crime that your lawyer is participating in. so that is not something that is privileged and you obviously need to go to a judge, and the judge has to agree that you established that, and how found out that it. does this is a gold mine because essentially, you have mr. corcoran relaying chapter in verse about how he was not. not only about how she was duped but basically that the former president, according to him and as recounted in these charges solicited him to go along with the crime of not turning things over, and there is a list of all the things, the two most sensational paragraphs are paragraphs 54 and 55. you can see all the weeds now. in paragraph 84, basically, the former president is saying, why don't we just say that we

turned everything over? or -- >> a total crime? >> it had to beat. you >> committed the crime this way. >> of lying to the justice department, or why don't we make them disappear. >> why don't you commit the crime this way? he gives a very suction for had to commit the crime. >> the third one, which is my favorite, why don't you do it for me so i don't get in trouble? and then he says, that is what hillary clinton's lawyer did. there is no proof that, but he is set to have repeated that during the day. here's a third way to commit the crime, and mr. corcoran who

is credit is like, now, i will do a search. the reason for the moving at the boxes according to the indictment is because mr. corcoran is saying that i am not losing my bar to commit a crime. i am going to do a search required by the subpoena for these documents, so that led to donald trump saying, okay, you'll do a search, give me a moment, and what is outlined here is, where will you search, the storage room, great. i will take everything out that they're telling you, now go ahead and look at the storage room. >> evan corcoran's behavior at been fascinating here because some there is a line. there is a line, and is trying to make sure that is put does not go over the line, can't get his foot on the chalk, or he committed a crime here. so, there is a reading of this

in which you can say he stayed right inside the line even while the clients in the room with him asked him to commit crimes, he stays inside the line because he does not commit those crimes. but with a client who has asked him to commit crimes, which he has not committed, he then on behalf of that client gives to the fbi and the justice department a document written by evan corcoran that says we're giving you everything that we have here. he will maintain that that was the representation that he got from donald trump, that this is everything, but he already knows donald trump is highly criminally minded, so criminally minded, he's trying to get evan corcoran to commit a crime with him. what i am trying to find here is -- when evan corcoran hands over that document that he wrote telling the fbi that you're getting everything, and he knows that he's doing it on the basis of information that

includes someone who he has seen an attempt to commit crimes right in front of him, isn't evan corcoran getting really really close to an active knowing misrepresentation in that document? >> possibly, lawrence, but this case is the ignited states against donald j trump. it's not the united states against evan corcoran. i think the focus has to be on donald trump's wrong doing, not on the others, and that is for a host of reasons. i think the most fabulous is evan corcoran -- when trump tried to get him to do all the, as detailed and paragraph if the four of the

indictment, corcoran my thought to himself, we'll, not a distaff was actually classified in the end because trump is telling me that it is the classified and maybe, corcoran did not have experience with national security information, did not know how bananas such a difference would be. so, he could have acted in good faith, it's possible. i think andrew makes the important point that regardless of -- at that point, what ultimately was litigated and brought to this very respected judge in washington, d. c., and then ultimately to our nation's second court, the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia, should attorney-client privilege in the current note speak given over to prosecutors? and they took the radical step, really unique, of saying that

this is so serious, this crime, and trump was using's attorney to try to commit it. they basically pierced attorney-client privilege. that to me, lawrence, says that all you need to know about this case is that you have the nation's second highest court saying that this is a somewhat political investigation or something like that, this is such a serious matter, and trump's actions were so lawless, we have to pierce attorney-client privilege, the most sacred privilege in anglo american law going back centuries upon centuries. that to me is why i listen to jack smith's press conference today, and the most important words he said were two of americans, read the indictment. you and i heard lots of nonsense for the republican party about what the indictment was last night, no one read it, but now, we can all read it. this is not the kind of

barebone indictment prosecutors typically file. this level of an indictment about the legit crimes is expensive, it kind of hippopotamus, a speaking indictment for this prosecution. and it speaks loudly and clearly, lawrence, that they have damning evidence against donald trump, and the most notable part is that it comes from donald trump's own words. it's damaging statement after damaging statement from donald trump himself, and in many ways, it's trump's big mouth that did him ultimately in. >> and jack smith was also very deliberately pointing out that donald trump does enjoy the legal presumption of innocence in this case at this stage at the case. bradley moss, we jumped right into the weeds, which is what we have been doing habitually for the last few hours. i want to pull back and take a look at this document, at this indictment that we did not know

that we would have today, did not know that it would be available for our discussion tonight. i want to get whatever reaction you want to give us to anything or the totality of the effect to those 49 pages. i want to go around the table and give everyone a chance, literally at the entire indictment and what strikes you as you saw it today. >> sure, lawrence, as far as i was concerned, reading through this thing this afternoon, it is a damning and concerning depiction of a description of a former president who clearly never learned, never understood any of the rules with respect to the sanctity of classified information. he never took the hard why are these procedures in place? why do we keep documents in certain locations? why are they only transmitted in certain manners, because of how much money, effort and expense we put into safeguarding them. he got spoiled, for a lack of a

better phrase during those four years that he knew that he could do whatever he want as president. people would back him up and say that they can do it. he's the president and has that discussion. when he left the office, he still thought that he'd more or less had that leeway. he had a whole lifetime of scurrying along, and people get away with it. so what did he do when he got back to mar-a-lago? he's showing off documents. he's talking about it to a staffer from the portico action committee. he's talking about it to the ghost writers of mark meadows. he's getting subpoenas and acting like the most mafia don in the history of mafia dons. he was joking and talking to his lawyer like, can we to say that we don't have anything? no, you supply would at the subpoena or move to quash it.

you don't say, how do i lie? that is what is so dangerously concerning with this indictment. and, yes, jack smith is right. donald trump is presumed innocent, the government has to beat that burden a trial if it gets that far. that is the governments initial application, but if we do get the trial, i don't see much of a reason to believe that they won't be able to make their case. i don't see a lot of substantive defense that donald trump will make a trial. >> andrew, i watched you read this indictment because i was rushing here to the studio, watching msnbc on my phone. you had to read it on live tv when someone else would say something, you get a chance to look down and read a paragraph, and then they would call on you, so it was a pretty rough way for you to have to read it, but having read all the indictments that you have read in your career, this one being the first of a former president, this being, as you know, six and a half months worth of jack smith proceeded by more than a year and a half a pursuit of the documents by the federal government -- what was your feeling with the totality of what you were reading? >> sure, i won't make two

points. one i want to know back to the point that you are making about lawyers, because think about what we know about what donald trump has done with lawyers. don mcgahn, the white house counsel, asked him to obstruct justice. we know that because he came to the mueller investigation and said that i will not commit a crime for him. pat cipollone, i suspect that he will be a witness in the january 6th case. he said, at some point, you had to say where is the beef, because i would not go along with the fact that there was a coup, because there is no proof that there was fraud and the election. you have mr. corcoran now saying, i am not going along with destroying documents or hiding them or lying to the government. and then you have michael cohen, and michael cohen went along and paid the price for it. those are for lawyers, and it gives you a real sense of how

donald trump uses lawyers. the reason donald trump said to don mcgahn -- which is just a remarkable statement, if you know anything about roy comb. and then to your point, i think it's important to step back and talk a lot about the strength that the case but also to talk about what the case is really about. we decide the obstruction. there were 31 counselor that we're chilling and 21 in particular were there are if not just top secret documents, these are top secret compartment it documents. that is the highest most sensitive documents. it is remarkable to me having been in the intelligence community that there was even permission for this to go forward and to use this in an indictment, because this is just so incredibly sensitive. there are, over and over again,

documents concerning military capabilities of a foreign country, annotations with a black marker, meaning donald trump did it, a document concerning nuclear capabilities of foreign countries, documents concerning nuclear capabilities of our country, and then over and over again, white house intelligence briefings concerning various foreign countries. over and over again, plans of foreign countries. this plan is highly sensitive information to our country. it is highly sensitive to keep our country safe, and it is exactly what a foreign country with want to know. you can be sure, as john brennan has talked about tonight that mar-a-lago is a focus of our country to have this kind of information lying around and the obstruction that is charged here, it is hard to imagine a more serious case involving the retention, the willful retention of classified information and national security information, and then

on top of the, to obstruct justice, by a former president at the united states, who should know exactly how important this is to the national security. to me, it's these pages that answer why are we here? why is this something that is so important for the justice department and should be important to the country? >> neal katyal, you've got to the last page, page 49 of the indictment today, and you put it down and thought what? >> i thought, this is far more compelling records than even i have thought. ever since they won when donald trump's mar-a-lago complex was rated, i set an air show, this will culminate in an indictment. but to see this level of detail and -- is chilling. i just listened to my friend andrew weissmann, and andrew and i had done this on your show and others for more than two years. but i think i heard a level of emotion in his voice tonight that is different, and i think for a good reason. anyone who handles this kind of national security information

as he did, as i did when i was a national security adviser with the justice department, we organized a sacred duty over the information. it's not just boxes the way that donald trump put in his tweet. it's information generated with lives on the line, whether it's generated by the american intelligence community and spies who are u.s. citizens working abroad undercover, or whether it's people working for other governments to be flipped, or it's information generated by our allies and provided to us under programs for our most sensitive relationships and sensitive intelligence. all of that is under the. if you're an ally, if you're in london right now, if you're kind of the, if you're australia, you have to think yourself, if i give the sensitive information, what happens to my sources?

what happens to my method, when it could be strewn around in a bathroom in florida or's stage or ballroom in florida? that is unconscionable. and that is what i said when i saw and put down the indictment was jack smith is absolutely doing the right thing. i always thought that this investigation had likes, but i didn't realize how many serious sensitive compartmented documents were in issue at mar-a-lago and so, my hats off to jack smith, he just entered the case recently, but he mastered it. he devote serious evidentiary record and if i were donald trump's lawyer, at this point, i would cut down on the bluster and start talking about a plea. >> we are all going to stay together for the full hour. when we come back from the break, we will be taking notes because harvard law professor laurence tribe will join us next.

there is a better way to manage diabetes. the dexcom g7 continuous glucose monitoring system eliminates painful finger sticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before using the dexcom g7, i was really frustrated. all of that finger pricking and all that pain, my a1c was still stuck. before dexcom g7, i couldn't enjoy a single meal. i was always trying to outguess my glucose, and it was awful. before dexcom g7, my diabetes was out of control because i was tired, not having the energy to do the things that i wanted to do. (female announcer) dexcom g7 is a small, easy-to-use wearable that sends your glucose numbers to your phone or dexcom receiver without painful finger sticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading-- up, down, or steady-- and because dexcom g7 is the most accurate cgm,

you can make better decisions about food, medication, and activity in the moment. it can even alert you before you go too low or when you're high. oh, the fun is absolutely back. after dexcom g7, i can on the spot figure out what i'm gonna eat and how it's going to affect my glucose! when a friend calls and says, "hey, let's go to breakfast," i can get excited again. (earl) after using the dexcom g7, my diabetes, it doesn't slow me down at all. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. it has given me confidence and control, everything i need is right there on my phone. (earl) the dexcom g7 is so small, so easy to use, and it's very discreet. (dr. aaron king) if you have diabetes, getting on dexcom is the single most important thing you can do. (david) within months, my a1c went down, that's 6.9. (donna) at my last checkup, my a1c was 5.9. (female announcer) dexcom is the number one recommended cgm brand

and offers 24/7 tech support, so call now to get started. you'll talk to a real person. don't wait, this one short call could change your life. >> today, and indictment was (bright music)

unsealed, charging donald j trump with a felony violations for national security laws as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. this indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the sub district of florida. i invite everyone to read it in for. >> turning our discussion now to professor laurence tribe, who teaches constitutional law at harvard law school for five decades. professor tribe, i have been eager to hear your reaction to this, so i really want to open your microphone. i would not presume to try to frame a question for you on a night like this. having read the indictment, please share your thoughts with

us. >> thank you, lawrence. my thoughts ranged from profound disappointment that our country could have ever elected as its leader someone with so little concerned for the safety of americans, the sanctity of our national security and the sources of nuclear and other military information, so there was profound sadness. there was also a sense of vindication with the rule of law and a sense that, finally, accountability might meet this man who has gotten away with so much. when he declared his candidacy for president in march, i think it's clear he was calculating that a cautious merrick garland with treated as a reason to step back. but instead, merrick garland stepped forward in a very special counsel independent of him. that's how jack smith entered the case six and a half months ago. had the president of the united states, at the time of these acts, had the president not made those -- we might not be here tonight. it might be that merrick garland would not have succeeded in doing what jack smith has done. what he has done is put together and absolutely devastating mission out of the presidents on mount, and out of

the mouths of his own lawyers with an attorney client privilege that was pierced precisely because he was using his lawyers to commit crimes and beryl howell, the judge, who had to pierce that attorney client privilege sought clear evidence at that. on the basis of all of the, we have a multi count indictment of espionage of the most serious sort, coupled with obstruction, conspiracy to obstruct, lying to the government. all of those are serious crimes, all punishable by years in prison. if it were anyone other than donald trump, the trial would have occurred already. i now worry about is that with judge aileen cannon, if she ends up presiding over the trial, there may be all kinds of ways for justice to be delayed and, ultimately, therefore, the night. call me pen asean, call me the glass half full kind of guy, but i think even judge cannon, even if she had not been chastised by the unanimous reversals twice by a very conservative court of appeals,

when she reached the indictment, and i am sure she will before the arraignment, even she for all of her gratitude having been named to the bench by donald trump, even she might have a draw dropping moment. is this a man who put me on the bench? maybe she will see the importance of the nation, whose constitution she has sworn to uphold, the importance for the mission and the constitution that the rule of law and survival a democracy of moving this trial along with expedition will for fairness, of course, as a defendant. fully respecting as jack smith rightly emphasized that he is presumed innocent, but not indulging, merely delaying tactics so that whoever becomes president, if it is not a democrat, might simply pardon. donald trump or drop the

charges and tried to pardon himself. if just trial is pushed into the time when the election is underway, the country will be riven. what i am hoping is that if this trial is slowed down by aileen cannon then jacks mitt, who is pursuing and even more serious crime, and attempted coup and insurrection against the government of the united states, we'll move that case to indictment in washington d. c. before fani willis moves her case in georgia. so from all corners, the rule of law seems to be enveloping a man who never seemed to believe really that the law applied to him. it mantiply that it all belonged to him. it was my boxes, my boxes, my

secrets. i think that the rule of law will be vindicated in the end, and i do hope to aileen cannon, if she is to preside over the trial, and i do think an effort might be made -- if she had to recuse herself or get another conservative to roll over, but if she has this case, let's hope that her commitment to the constitution is stronger than our gratitude for the man who put her there. >> professor tribe, we now have seen two things since jack smith has taken over this work. we have seen is we're in work, his 49 pages of written work. >> what i am hoping is that if this trial is slowed down by aileen cannon then jacks mitt, who is pursuing and even more serious crime, and attempted coup and insurrection against the government of the united states, we'll move that case to indictment in washington d. c. before fani willis moves her case in georgia. so from all corners, the rule

of law seems to be enveloping a man who never seemed to believe really that the law applied to him. it mantiply that it all belonged to him. it was my boxes, my boxes, my secrets. i think that the rule of law will be vindicated in the end, and i do hope to aileen cannon, if she is to preside over the trial, and i do think an effort might be made -- if she had to recuse herself or get another conservative to roll over, but if she has this case, let's hope that her commitment to the constitution is stronger than our gratitude for the man who put her there. >> professor tribe, we now have seen two things since jack smith has taken over this work. we have seen is we're in work, his 49 pages of written work. he turned in today, and we saw the couple of minutes that he

spoke today. those are the only two things that we have gotten from jack smith publicly in the six and a half months. how would you great what you've seen from jack smith as of tonight? >> i would not presume to greet him, one of the love is things that happens -- you know longer have to evaluate. he certainly performed superbly. he was concise, he was clear, and the message he gave was just read the indictment. i am naive enough to believe that even a lot of people who just love donald trump, when they read the indictment, they will say that he was willing to endanger me and my family. he is willing to endanger american spies abroad. he was willing to endanger our national security secrets. no such person should ever hold this kind of power again. that's what i hope will happen if everyone reads it.

it's a breeze -- easy read, it's breezy. it's like a short story, very effective. it reads quickly. i do hope everyone reads it, and i hope, in particular, those people who spoke about it before reading it will finally read it and figure out what it is that they're talking about. >> harvard law professor laurence tribe, thank you very much for joining our discussion tonight. we really appreciate it. >> thank you, lawrence. >> we will all be right back after this break. yes, from colonial penn. your 995 plan fits my budget just right. excuse me? aren't you jonathan from tv, that 995 plan? yes, from colonial penn. i love your lifetime rate lock. that's what sold me. she thinks you're jonathan, with the 995 plan. -are you? -yes, from colonial penn. we were concerned we couldn't get coverage, but it was easy with the 995 plan. -thank you. -you're welcome.

i'm jonathan for colonial penn life insurance company. this guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance plan is our #1 most popular plan. it's loaded with guarantees. if you're age 50 to 85, $9.95 a month buys whole life insurance with guaranteed acceptance. you cannot be turned down for any health reason. there are no health questions and no medical exam. and here's another guarantee you can count on: guaranteed lifetime coverage. your insurance can never be cancelled. just pay your premiums. guaranteed lifetime rate lock. your rate can never increase. pardon me, i'm curious. how can i learn more about this popular 995 plan? it's easy. just call the toll-free number for free information. (soft music) ♪ and we're back with our panel

of legal experts. neal katyal, bradley moss, and andrew weissmann. we know that former presidents are taking a great interest in this case, to put it mildly. in my homework today i heard from a former president, okay a fictional former president martin sheen, who texted me, reminded me of something very important in this case. of course we know that martin doesn't do texts, his wife sent a text, this is what martin said. regarding indictment, it is worth remembering, that when trump left the white house nsa strongly advised against sharing any intel with him, and biden agreed. bradley moss, that became a very public moment. there is an interview that norah o'donnell did with joe biden said very clearly, no, don trump, as the former president, does not get any more classified information.

>> yeah. could there have been a better assessment of judgment there by biden or what? >> and by the way, that was about two weeks into the biden presidency. just about immediate. >> and that wasn't even tied into anything about handling classified information after leaving mar-a-lago. that was no doubt tied up in january 6th, but that was a very prescient moment in a good decision by the current president regarding whether or not he could trust the former president to safeguard security information. and you think about, it as you read through the indictment of just how cavalier donald trump is with all this, just how much he disregarded all the rules, and no doubt disregarded the guidance that his lawyers probably tried to give him. think about this team of lawyers that have been around, from evan corcoran, tim palette aretha, james trusty, all qualified lawyers who know what they're doing by and large. they understand the general idea of how this is supposed to work, and they have a client

who just won't listen who, just wouldn't shut his mouth, and he couldn't help but to brag about what he had been doing. and he couldn't help but to try and enlist his lawyers to become the next roy cohen, the next michael cohen, the next rudy giuliani, to be part of his criminal schemes. and that's why they are all gone, as of tonight. the trump legal team on this case, a case against the former president for violations of the espionage act, is one lawyer, as far as i can tell. todd blanche, who's a great lawyer, from his credentials, but he's one guy. this is a former president of the united states. there are serious constitutional and legal questions that are gonna have to be addressed in this case that are worthy of a discussion, worthy of legal debate and judicial scrutiny. and right now the team is one guy. can he take on this entire case, and will he be able to assemble

a team worthy of the role he needs to play for this client? if anything, put aside donald trump for a moment, this is the office, offices of the former presidents. there are questions of the legal authorities and the discretion afforded to former presidents. this deserves a better legal team right now than what donald trump has put together. >> neal katyal, that moment when joe biden was specific about announcing publicly on television in an interview format the don trump would not have access to classified information anymore, i believe that was february 5th, so it's like two weeks after the biden administration. that seems now like a very important message, that president biden was sending, literally, to the world, so that other countries would understand, donald trump doesn't have it. donald trump is not getting anything current. he doesn't have anything

current. and donald trump, we speculated today the don trump was holding out on these documents so that when he's talking to the saudis and making golf deals with them and things like that he can kind of suggest that he has got some real interesting information that he has here, but as it february 5th, one thing everybody in the world knew was, well, whatever he has is dated, it's not this week's, it's not this month's information. and so i'm not sure how knowing that was for president biden at the time to get that out there, to people listening far beyond where we are sitting now the don trump is not getting any current information. >> lawrence, i can assure you that i wasn't in the room i saw that -- but i can assure you i'm hundred dissent convinced that biden knew exactly what he was doing when he made that decision. our intelligence community have been worried about donald trump and his handling of classified information while before that.

remember in the oval office he gave some sensitive information to two russian government officials based on middle east intelligence information. that was really, really serious. he treated this stuff like a joke. it's one thing, that's his prerogative as president, but the moment he is out of there, no way. and that is why i think larry tribe started where i did, which is all americans should read the indictment. last night, if you listened to the republicans in the republican party, they sounded like a book club for people who haven't read the book. and now we have the book. and so the discussion has shifted. now the republicans are hoping that judge cannon will act like

a zamboni or something and erase these charges. my ultimate view on this is that whatever judge you can put before this case, and judges matter at times, but here the evidence is so strong that i suspect jack smith made this decision, and that's what we talked about last night. the fact he is charging this in florida tells me he thinks he can win this case anywhere. it doesn't matter who the judges. it's because trump's lawlessness was so pervasive, so obvious, it's about the strength of the case, and when i argue big cases at the supreme court, i'm conscious of three audiences, the judges, the justices in front of, me the audience in the room, and i'm also conscious of the audience of history. judge cannon, if she does keep this case, will have to grapple with that third audience, the audience of history, and history will have its eyes on her. i think that that's all the reason to say i know that there are people who are concerned about this judge or that, but here the evidence, this indictment is so overwhelming, if there's a way to provide more-inch assurance, if she

does keep the case, i think that it is that she should provide not just audio but video, live video, so we can all see what's going on in that courtroom. this is america's courtroom. it's our taxpayer dollars that go toward it. we're going to have one of the most sensitive and important trials in our nation's history. all americans should see it. last time around she was afraid to have even live audio. so we didn't have that. so i'm very concerned about that, and i want as a matter of process, all americans to be able to see what goes on in that courtroom. >> andrew, federal courtrooms do not allow cameras. is it up to the district court judge in her own courtroom to decide that? >> chief justice roberts has federal rule. you are allowed some discretion in appellate courts to have simultaneous audios so you can listen in and that is true in the supreme court you've been able to do that and not have to wait during covid, it has

happened at lower courts, for trials it is not up to the individual judge. i completely agree with neal katyal, and joyce vance has said this is -- well. >> cut injustice step up and say let's do this? >> yes. and that's definitely his prerogative and you can have a district judge could obviously ask for that to be done, but neal is right that this district judge was extraordinarily stingy with respect to coverage, not even allowing any texting in the courtroom. you had to leave everything outside so there was a period where no one knew what was happening until the proceeding was over. so i think in a case of this magnitude it's so important for people to have faith and confidence in what is going on. so i would definitely be in favor of what neil enjoy suggested. >> bradley moss, it appears we now have one new question.

for every federal district court nominee in the senate judiciary committee in the confirmation hearing, and that, is will you recuse yourself from a criminal trial of the president who appointed you? >> and if i were like those nominees and i certainly don't expect to be one anytime soon, hypotheticals but the second response is, i'll be guided by the skylines that apply to all judges, set forth by i believe justice roberts to come all the way down to the district court judges. i have heard a lot of this concern about judge alien cannon being there. we talked a lot about this on your program, way back when, when she was issuing her rulings about her special master and we all had our

analysis of that, which was indicated by the 11th circuit. but one thing neil mentioned, and i think andrew did as well a little bit, now this is not just about a search warrant now. there's an indictment. it's a lengthy indictment and play. there's gonna be extensive factual information. put before her. this is much more concrete in terms of what is detailed now that she will have to grapple with, so she will know this is a moment in history that her name will be tied to, if he continues to be in this case. and so i don't necessarily think people should be worried that she is going to somehow go off the rails and go rogue with her pretrial ruling. if she does there are options for the government, obviously, but i think she learned a bit how the circuit was gonna handle that. i think this is gonna be an interesting case for us all to observe. >> bradley moss, neal katyal, and andrew weissmann, exactly

who i wanted to spend indictment not night with. thank you for joining us in this hour. we appreciate. it will be right back.

>> we have much more to cover and to report to you on this historic night, and so i will return to this desk one hour from now, ed midnight eastern, nine pm pacific, for a second live hour of the last word tonight. the 11th hour with stephanie ruhle starts now. >> today, an indictment was unsealed. charging donald j trump with national secrets, as well as participating to obstruct

justice.