news has gotten opinionated, i want to give you my opinion, that woman right there jackie goldberg, she is freaking awesome. and we are landing our timeslot tomorrow night to another person who is freaking awesome, my good friend jonathan capehart, and he will be hearing his special defending pride where he will speak to lgbtq champions fighting to hold on to the rights at a time where they are under attack. you can watch defending pride tomorrow night right here at 11 pm eastern on msnbc, and streaming on peacock. i promise, you will not regret it. love, it is very powerful. we all deserve it. on that note, i wish you a very, very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news, thanks for staying late, i will see you soon. e you soon

the year was 1990, republican incumbent of north carolina senator jesse helms was polling behind his black democratic challenger, a man named harvey gantt. it was a surprisingly competitive election, so home called in the political consultants who, in turn, helped the helms campaign figure out a way to fight back, and this is what they came up with, this ad. >> you needed that job, -- but they had to give it to a minority because of the racial quota. is that really fair? harvey gantt says it is. he supports the racial quota law, making the color of your skin more important in your qualifications. you will vote on this issue next tuesday, harvey gantt -- . >> that ad, with the white

hands holding the rejection letter as the narrator intones you are a better candidate than the minority guy that they went with, can you steal the injustice of it all? that ad was exactly what senator jesse helms needed, he. term in the senate, 54 to 46%. that strategy worked. it worked well. making gantt the face of affirmative action, a racial quota system that kept whites at a disadvantage in favor of less qualified minorities. it was potent stuff. the race baiting in the zero-sum politics, it moved people because it angered them. it made them believe the system was rigged against them and in favor of someone else. it was politically explosive, and that was 33 years ago. but the strategy to undermine affirmative action, a program to combat discrimination correct centuries of racial injustice, the war against all that, it started well before jesse helms. this is what was happening 14 years before that.

>> certainly no one of us would challenge governments right and its responsibility to eliminate discrimination in hiring or education. but in its zeal to accomplish this worthy purpose, government orders what is, in effect, a quota system. both in hiring and in education. they don't call it a quota system. it's an affirmative action program. now if you happen to belong to an ethnic group not recognized by the federal government as entitled to special treatment, you're a victim of reverse discrimination. i'd like to have the opportunity to put an end to this federal distortion of the principle of equal rights. >> that was presidential candidate ronald reagan using the issue of affirmative action to protect president gerald ford and his democrat rival, jimmy carter. now reagan didn't win the presidency. he didn't even make it past the primaries. but oh boy did he get his chance to chip away what he called the federal distortion

of the principle of equal rights when he won the presidency in 1980. when reagan took office, he found the perfect person to chip away at affirmative action. he put that man, his perfect candidate, in charge of the equal employment opportunity commission, the eoc, the branch of the justice department is supposed to bring cases about workplace discrimination in hiring in harassment. the man's name was clarence thomas. he was a young black lawyer who graduated from yale law school just eight years before reagan omnipotent him. and this is how one of that man's classmates describes clarence thomas's feelings about affirmative action. clarence thomas, by the way, attended schools and universities that were specifically trying to increase the number minority students and their student bodies. this is how clarence thomas felt about affirmative action. >> he believed that people assumed he was there as a beneficiary of affirmative action. and it grated on him.

>> he had this feeling of being around these white students who he says questioned his presence at yale. how is it that you, not just you, clarence thomas, but all you guys here, is it because of merit or is it because of affirmative action? he said he would keep stacks of rejection letters he had gotten from law firms. even when he was like a supreme court justice he had letters just disorder lined him of this feeling of rejection by the elite law firms. >> clarence thomas blamed yale 's affirmative action policies are 1970s for his own trouble finding a job after graduation. he even strike a 15 cent sticker from a cigar package on his yield diploma because apparently that's how much he thought it was worth. and clarence thomas is the guy reagan picked to head up the office in charge of taking on affirmative action related cases. with clarence thomas as eeoc

chair -- and as head of the civil rights division, he sought to ban civil rights. -- that pattern clarence thomas a public admonishment from the naacp, but in the raid reagan justice department was a different story. it earned him praise. during a ceremony held in september of 1985 to reappoint clarence thomas is the head of the eeoc thomas was like by attorney general edwin meese and senator strong thurman, south carolina segregationist as well as bradford reynolds who lauded thomas is the epitome of the right kind of affirmative action, working the right way. bradford reynolds called thomas's reappointment a proud moment. but thomas wasn't alone in the fight against affirmative

action. also in reagan's justice department at the same time was a young man named john roberts. as a young white house lawyer, robert's justice department make arguments against any government use of race as a basis for hiring and diversifying institutions, and he carried those beliefs with him throughout his 30s when he became the deputy solicitor general and the george h. w. bush administration. and those ideas about color blindness became a key feature of john roberts legal career. and then a 1991, clarence thomas was sworn in as the supreme court justice. in 2005, it was john roberts turn, and together these two man, these two justices have made ending race consciousness in american law, whether in affirmative action around voting rights they have made that one of the central causes of the court. >> the u.s. supreme court today ended its 2007 term with a history making ruling. the court made it much tougher for school districts to control the mix of children in american classrooms based on race.

the court said deciding on a student body in that way is not allowed under the constitution. >> so they try to 2007 and they tried again in 2013 and then again in 2014. but today they succeeded. roberts and thomas, joined by the courts for other conservative justices voted to strike down race conscious admissions. in a 6:33 ruling they found race conscious admissions programs at harvard irony university of north carolina they found them unconstitutional. in violation of the >> delivering the majority opinion, chief justice roberts reported, the ambitious programs can be wrecked reconciled with the equal protection grounds. they like sufficiently focused a measurable objectives we're entering the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, and of racial stereotyping, a lack of meaningful and points. we have ever permitted

admissions programs to work in that way. and we will not do so today. in a fiery dissent, the core courts new justice ketanji brown jackson called the ruling a tragedy for us all. we will let them eat cake obliviousness the majority pulls the record and announces color blindness for all by legal fiat. but deeming race irrelevant to law does not make it so in life. and the colleges of this country are required to ignore a thing that matters, it will not just go away. it will take longer for racism to leave us. and ultimately, ignoring race just makes it matter more. joining us now to discuss our melissa murray, nbc legal analyst and -- the senior editor at slate and host of the amicus podcast. there is a lot to talk about ladies. melissa, let me start with you.

the reason we went back to the history of the rights war against affirmative action is because this is a signal moment. for a lot of people this is similar to what happened with dobs. a victory for the right that they had been wanting for decades, that will restructure american society. i know we expected it, but what are your initial thoughts about what has happened today. >> i don't think it's hyperbolic to put it in that context. affirmative action perhaps more than any other race conscious measure has been a means of promoting the social mobility of those who historically had been excluded from major institutions in american life, whether of employment or higher education. it has been a means by which those who were left behind consciously were able to come back again and advance in society and function as equal citizens. the right has been on the tail of affirmative action since the very beginning.

it was called reverse discrimination. it has been targeted from the very start. nobody on the right has wanted it. and now they finally have gotten what they wanted. you are right compared to dobbs. we didn't talk about this in the opening package, but the court effectively overruled an existing precedent. 2003 -- versus ballinger, where the courts are the limited holistic use of race was permissible in a context of college high ridge cajun in missions in order to foster a diverse classroom involvement. it didn't mean race was a tipping point. it didn't mean race was determinative. it didn't mean race was a preference. it meant race, along with a multitude of other factors, could be considered. the chief justice very disingenuously in his opinion seems to suggest that any minority student who is admitted to one of the schools got there because of race when in fact it was a lot of different factors that went into this. grades, test scores, work experience, and race may have played a part in it. by the time they get to those points, the students are incredibly qualified, and he completely undersold that even as he is healed affirmative action for promoting steelers theriot.

types >> dahlia, to the dobbs parallel, it's also at odds with public opinion, where the public is on. this look at the polling. i think 57% of the public opposed the courts overturning of roe and not affirmative action should continue. ap in may of this, year 33% of the public believe supporting affirmative action in colleges is a good thing. i mean, am i wrong to say that this feels like a hangover of the civil rights era? they couldn't win on civil rights, affirmative action became the hobby horse in the late 70s and 80s, and now they issue a death nail in the same way that the women's liberation movement in the 70s they couldn't stop. they make abortion their hobby horse to curtail a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and

they have this victory with dobbs. >> it feels so familiar to dobson son sense because i think it's worth lingering for a moment at least in jobs they were honest enough to say we are overturning roe v. wade. it's not even clear from the majority opinion, although functionally i think melissa is exactly right, it functionally over turns -- and greater and fisher and all of the affirmative action cases. it doesn't say it. and justice sotomayor and who descend calls out as you socially is saying you can't say you're not overturning it when you're overturning it. there's a level of disingenuousness. but i think that other thing that is really shocking and that feels familiar from dobbs is this very cynical use of this lawyer amazingly important history of civil rights victories that culminates in circumstance with brown v. board, and much like justice

alito sites brown in dobbs to somehow argue that he's a long line of cases where you overturn a -- president, again today the majority does this double troll where it's not enough to do away with 50 years of affirmative action doctrine, but somehow lashes itself to the to brown and its progeny to the 14th amendment itself, to the reconstruction era project of trying to create equality and says this all follows on from that to not even have the courage to say this is nothing to do with civil rights were not civil rights lawyers we are fundamentally undermining the civil rights project and the project of equality. to instead say, if we take round two being what it meant dennis follows logically from that. it is such cynical gaslighting that it almost makes a double whammy who have to sit there

and listen to them say that this is a victory for civil rights and for color blindness. >> i feel like it's kind of part of the actual other right, which is, to quote marc luther might move the king and to promote white nationalism. i was struck to talk about hypocrisy. two parts of roberts opinion, the carve out for affirmative action programs in military academies, which robert says no military academy is applied to these cases, however and i know the courts blow address righty of race based admissions systems in that context. this opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present. i mean, first of all, he's acknowledging with the military has said, which many people said is that diversity is paramount to having functioning society but also a functioning

business or a great college or university. he acknowledges that that's okay for the military, but that's not okay for other areas of american life. the cynicism of that, when we're talking about brown and black people, it's okay to ship them off to war, but don't ask as ketanji brown jackson said in her opinion, don't put them in the boardroom. >> john roberts has been prosecuting the case against affirmative action for quite some time. he has had to mask it in a number of number of ways. he is mastered about this term with some -- through voting rights or not. but a bottom this is a conservative court. a super majority of conservative justices doing conservative things. and here this whole nod to the military academies, the military academies are no

different from other institutions of higher education. colleges have programs that feed officers into our fighting force. the military has always been the most integrated institution in american life and he knows that. but that's not what is going south here. he has a project that he wants to prosecute and it's just dismantling affirmative action slowly. he's on the jolly trolley. and thomas wants to get there faster. he's the one who saying we are actually overruling gutter versus ballinger, as the two women of color on the court who are stepping up to say, not on our watch. you are not going to invoke thurgood marshall, the first african american to sit on the supreme court into say he would've favored color blindness. he was one who litigated brown. the decision the are absolutely perverting and service of this completely -- mission to rollback the 20th century. >> dahlia, the revenge-ism, the hypocrisy, the gaslighting, the really bad opinion making and logic of allowing colleges to accept application essays that gesture towards race but cannot explicitly use them as a selling point. we should talk about this. among the other carveouts in this, roberts suggests that people who are pointing to

going to go to talk about race insofar as they helped create their identity, but they can't use it as an explicit means to gain entry to university. it is so confounding, the logic there. i wonder if you could make sense of how and why this is part of roberts opinion. >> no, it's nonsensical. he simultaneously in the opinion saying, you can still kind of flip it in your essay and then goes on to say, but don't do anything with your essay program that undermines this holding. so he is both trying to stop and blow on this essay escape patch. and again, justice jackson, justice sotomayor called him out for it. i think there's a way in which i keep thinking that if you're an applicant to any university now, i think you are supposed to hint at your racial history and your identity the same way

donald trump the classifies classified documents. you can just sort of do it with your mind. we hope that the colleges figure it out. that's clearly the extent that there is an escape hatch here. i think to melissa's point the utter cynicism of saying that this is what the reconstruction amendments that the radical abolitionists who wrote those amendments were trying to do, the congress that passed, clearly race conscious remedial efforts and the entire history just as jackson's minority dissenting opinion here is a master class on the victory of racism, redlining the g. i. bill, she had, cropping it all in there, and the idea that all of that just goes away, poof,

because you somehow hint in your essay that that is part of your story, it can be considered, he is so profoundly insulting that it almost doesn't bear taking seriously. >> i'm also strike about how much of this is deeply personal for clarence tano thomas. there's a reason we went through his history and his distaste for affirmative action is it personally intersects with his own story, the sense of grievance he has and how it's the opposite of what supreme court justice hitters posed to do, make the personal the national. and yet it seems that that's exactly what he has done. >> who hurt you, bull, is really the bottom line here. this is a man who has been very clear he believes affirmative action is stigmatizing. he says nothing about affirmative bachchan's getting him into the ceremony area and that allowed him to enter holy cross from richie graduated and then loud and graduate from miya law school which put him

in a prime position where he could be noticed by john danforth, could go to missouri to work for danforth, and then could be propelled to the center of conservative politics in washington, d. c.. he completely misses the fact that when george h. w. bush was looking for a replacement for thurgood marshall, the first black person to serve on the supreme, there were not a lot of black conservatives, but clarence thomas was there, and he was identified because he was a black conservative. that's affirmative action. if he doesn't understand how he's there because of this policy, and he is all of these questions about the stigmatizing effects of it, you are still in supreme court. you're still making policy for everyone. you're basically allowing your own personal issues around your life story and your biography to basically shape policy for all of the rest of. us and again, i am so glad the women of color on this court we're here to call him. out >> everybody who hasn't ran ketanji brown jackson's opinion to go reason. it is a master class. it should be a pamphlet. melissa murray and dahlia lithgow, thank you so much for

being here. i appreciate your thoughts and insight. this is a big day in american courts. we have a lot more to get to tonight, including the shockwaves could result from today's ruling. right-wing groups are already promising a free-for-all when it comes to challenging diversity initiatives. and later, look who's talking now? new reporting that a key figure in trump's reelection campaign has been meeting with the special counsel's prosecutors. well, it's a development that has apparently blindsided the former presidents inner circle. we'll have more on that, just ahead. (dog barking) we love our pets. but we don't always love their hair. which is why we made bounce pet hair and lint guard with three times the pet hair fighting ingredients. just one sheet helps remove pet hair from your clothes! looking good starts in the dryer with bounce pet. (vo) when someone is diagnosed with cancer, they need support. subaru and our retailers are there to help... by providing blankets for comfort and warmth and encouraging messages of hope to help support nearly three hundred thousand patients facing cancer nationwide.

we call it “the subaru love promise.” and we're proud to be the largest automotive donor to the leukemia and lymphoma society. subaru. more than a car company. ♪ limu emu & doug ♪ what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. now you get out there, and you make us proud, huh? ♪ bye, uncle limu. ♪ stay off the freeways! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ as someone living with type 2 diabetes,

i want to keep it real and talk about some risks. with type 2 diabetes you have up to 4 times greater risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. even at your a1c goal, you're still at risk ...which if ignored could bring you here... ...may put you in one of those... ...or even worse. too much? that's the point. get real about your risks and do something about it. talk to your health care provider about ways to lower your risk of stroke, heart attack, or death. learn more at getrealaboutdiabetes.com when i was diagnosed with h-i-v, i didn't know who i would be. but here i am... being me. keep being you... and ask your healthcare provider about the number one prescribed h-i-v treatment, biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in many people whether you're 18 or 80. with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to undetectable—and stay there whether you're just starting or replacing your current treatment. research shows that taking h-i-v treatment as prescribed and getting to and staying undetectable prevents transmitting h-i-v through sex.

serious side effects can occur, including kidney problems and kidney failure. rare, life-threatening side effects include a buildup of lactic acid and liver problems. do not take biktarvy if you take dofetilide or rifampin. tell your healthcare provider about all the medicines and supplements you take, if you are pregnant or breastfeeding, or if you have kidney or liver problems, including hepatitis. if you have hepatitis b do not stop taking biktarvy without talking to your healthcare provider. common side effects were diarrhea, nausea, and headache. no matter where life takes you, biktarvy can go with you. talk to your healthcare provider today. is it possible to protect my business from cyber threats? biktarvy can go with you. it is, with comcast business. helping every connected device stay protected. yours. your employees'. even... susan? hers, too. safe. secure. and powered by the next generation 10g network. with comcast business, advanced security isn't just possible. it's happening. get started wih fast spees and advanced security for $49.99a month for 12 monts plus ask how to get up to a $750 >> the decision by the supreme prepaid card with qualifying internet.

court on affirmative action will have a direct legal impact on admissions at colleges and universities across the country, but it also has far-reaching implications for diversity, equity, and inclusion across the private sector.

it can be a boon for conservative groups who have made dismantling corporate diversity issues their common cause. for the past several months america first legal, a conservative group led by former trump advisor stephen miller, that group has been filing civil rights complaints with the equal employment opportunity commission against private sector companies like starbucks and mcdonald's and alaska airlines. for their efforts to increase diversity in their workforces to other conservative groups are challenging the role approved by the s cc that requires the nasdaq shot stock exchange publicly disclose the diversity of their boards and to mandate two diverse directors. a ruling on that is pending before the fifth circuit court of appeals. will hills, who leads the right-wing advocacy group consumers research, was eagerly awaiting today supreme court decision any told the washington post that it, quote, we'll put the wind in the sales

of groups like ours who want to get the woke racially based hiring and promotion schemes out of corporate america. he also called the legal precedents that allowed race conscious admissions a fig leave for the private sectors diversity initiatives. quote, once that goes away, it is going to be a free-for-all on pushing back against that. joining us now is janai nelson, president of the naacp legal defense fund. janai, thank you for being here. i'm sorry that you have to be here to talk about this, because i do think this is a dark day for people who care about a more equitable society, but first let me get your thoughts on what this does to the broader movement that seems to have some wind in its sails, to dismantle the progress we have made as a society and having more inclusive workplaces, more inclusive schools, and a more inclusive society. >> well, what this decision does is largely up to so many other actors in the system and whether they will be cowed by this court's decision, whether the chilling effect that these extreme conservative groups want to spread actually takes root. we have some agency and this.

corporate america has a moral imperative. it has a business imperative to ensure that we continue to diversify the ranks of leadership in this country. we know that within 20 years this will be a majority people of color country. we know that the consumer base will include more and more people of color. our electorate will include more and more people of color. if we want to have a healthy, functioning, multi racial democracy, we need to make sure that we are educating people together so that they can respect one another and learn about one another. we need to make sure that we are hiring leaders and diversifying our decision makers in corporate america who can help us meet this new involving american democracy with some promise and hope as opposed to division and hate. >> i agree with you in terms of where our culture, is where consumers are at, which is obviously where business is gonna be responsive. from a legal perspective, what are the, you say we have opportunities, we have

leverage. where do you see that opportunity and that leverage, given what the supreme court did today? >> first, it's important to recognize what this decision does, who it impacts directly, and who it doesn't. so in this case we are talking about admissions processes. between two institutions, harvard and u. n. c.. so every college and university needs to think about their admissions process and how similar to harvard's and unc's it is or how different it is and whether based on the interpretation of that decision, their emissions process is illegal or not. and so that's the first step. and those are the only entities who really are directly implicated by this decision. this does not affect corporate america. it doesn't affect recruitment efforts. it doesn't affect dei programs. it doesn't affect any of that. to the extent that it affected

all it means we have to double down on doing those things. we need to embrace the ability to make sure that we all have an equal opportunity and recognize that it took over a decade to get this case to yield the result that it did today. >> i've got to ask, because you mentioned dei. it is that diversity equity inclusion has become a buzzword on the right especially. they have their knives out for it. you hear what advocates are saying. it's all dominoes. this is the first one to fall. dei is next. you have lawsuits in various states about dei. environmental social corporate responsibility measures. i mean, i guess i wonder, are we being chicken littles about it or do you think that that sort of social capital that these initiative hat initiatives out and the desire to be more broadly inclusive in america, which is shared among a majority of americans, can

outflank what could be a concerted legal effort on the part of the right to get this stuff dismantled? >> again, i think that if we sit back and watch it happen, it will. but if we actually react and say, this is the democracy we want. this is the united states that we want to embrace. if we recognize that diversity is truly our strength, that it does make us safer, as president biden said earlier today, we know that racist domestic terrorism is the number one national security threat in the nation. white supremacist racist terrorism. so we have to find ways to make sure that those types of harmful ideologies don't continue to take root and become a galvanizing force for evil in this country. and the only way to do that is to ensure that we are giving opportunity to everyone, they were educating people, that we are not denying them truth, and the truth about our history, the truth about the progress we have made.

and that we have a society that has an open welcoming of ideas and a variety of viewpoints. that is the america that we all want to see where the majority of us to. but we cannot let this extreme but quite vociferous minority just eclipse the entire conversation. >> yeah, and that's the position i think sotomayor, another supreme court justice, has taken its societies progress toward equality cannot be halted. i do have to ask, because you point out, rightfully so, the immediate effects of this like places like u. n. c. and other colleges and universities, a lot of people have pointed out the implications for health among communities of color because of what this does to medical programs and medical school admissions. this seems like a very real, very tangible outcome here that you are going to have potentially less candidates of color going to medical schools, which means less, fewer doctors

of color, which has real tangible metrics in terms of bad outcomes for communities of color. i think it is for marginalized, for example, for marginalized communities in north carolina, research shows that black physicians are more likely to actually assess black patients pain tolerance and treat them accordingly, for high-risk black newborns as having a black physician head doubles likelihood of the baby will live or not die. i don't think people understand how much i diversity is not just an ideal but rather an urgent need for the basics of, for example, saving lives. >> you're absolutely correct. the consequences of this could be devastating. but it's going to take real leadership on the part of universities and colleges, admissions counselors, university presidents, because the supreme court did say in this opinion something really important that cannot be lost on us. it said that nothing in this opinion should be read as prohibiting an applicant from talking about their race and

how it effects their lives. so it doesn't take the conversation of race off the table. it doesn't take the conversation of how race intersects with so many other factors in this world and effects peoples'lives and lived experiences. and it's going to be up to colleges and universities to take that information and still exercise their decision-making and how they constitute a class of students who can learn from one another, who can enrich each other with different perspectives and who can be the next generation of doctors and lawyers and others who are going to lead society. that's absolutely essential, because race continues to play a role in our society. that's an undeniable fact. >> i know the naacp has a legal defense fund perhaps they should have a college application essay fund the people could donate directly to to help people write these things. >> we have a scholarship fund,

a legal defense fund has always had it ever since we became separate from the naacp as a separate legal arm, but we maintained the scholarship portion because we believe in education as an outgrowth of the seminal case we won in 1954, brown versus board of education, which the extreme majority in this court did such a disservice to today. we have the ability to make sure that nothing further happens to that decision. that really made us a multi-racial democracy. we really weren't one until we ended segregation and began to integrator society and hold up our constitutional ideals. >> janai nelson from the naacp legal defense fund, thank you so much for your time. look forward to having you back to talk about how this is affecting us in the months to come. when we come back, new reporting revealing the investigation into the trump documents case is still going. it is still going. and the special counsel is reportedly issuing new subpoenas.

does that mean more charges are coming down the pike? stay with us. i will be a travel influencer... hey, i thought you were on vacation? it's too expensive. use priceline, they've got deals no one else has. what about work? i got you. looking great you guys! ♪ go to your happy price ♪ ♪ priceline ♪ >> by now you are probably

familiar with the unbelievable tape of donald trump appearing to show off classified documents in his new jersey home. >> this was done by the

military, given to me. i, i think we can probably, right? >> i don't know, we'll have to see. you know, will have to try to figure out a -- >> declassified. as president i could've declassified. now i can't. isn't that interesting? it's so cool. i mean, it's so, look, and when i have, and you probably almost didn't believe me but now you believe. >> no, i believe. do >> it's incredible, right? . can we bring some cokes in please? >> the cokes never gets old. the trump has never tried to explain away that moment, saying it was just bravado and then he wasn't really showing off our nation's most highly kept secrets. but the reason cokes tape doesn't explain why he was

waving these documents around for people who had no business he. them in our chamber of 2021 trump now with his office in the bedminster club with a representative of his political action committee. during the meeting, trump commented that an ongoing military operation in country b was not going well. trump showed the pac representative a classified map of country be into the pac representative that he should not be showing the map to the pac representative and to not get too close. the pac representative did not have a security clearance or any need to know classified information about the military operation. so classified information being waved in front of a person with no clearance to see the classified information, just don't get too close, stay over there. we'll, multiple news outlets are now reporting that the person donald trump was speaking to in that moment, the pac representative with security clearance, that press some of the trump political advisor named susie wiles. ms. wiles is one of top trump's top aides for the 2024 reelection campaign. she stood by the former

president through january 6th and his claims of a stolen election and all the rest. so susie wiles, probably a loyal trump foot soldier. maybe, but maybe not. cnn is now reporting susie wiles has met numerous times with the special counsel's as part of their investigation. sources in trump's inner circle say they were blindsided by the news. susie wiles is a still top advisor to trump's presidential campaign. someone who likely still has regular access to trump himself. but trump world apparently did not know she was talking to the special counsel's office. that could be a big problem for the trump team going forward. and today the new york times has explosive new reporting suggesting special counsel jack smith may not be done investigating the classified documents case. according to the times, a grand jury in the classified documents case has issued more subpoenas for people to testify, despite the fact the special

counsel has already charged the former president and his valet with 38 felony counts. as the times reports, post indictment investigations can result in additional charges against people who have already been accused of crimes in the case. the investigations can also be used to bring charges against new defendants. what could that mean for the people who have already been accused of crimes in this case, namely donald trump? and what does that mean for the people around him? we'll talk about that, after the break.

>> president donald trump was charged with 37 criminal counts for unlawful retention of classified documents and for his efforts to obstruct the justice department from recovering secret materials. that on its own is a story of historic proportions except it may not be over yet. a federal grand jury in miami is still investigating the mar-a-lago case and in recent days the grand jury has issued subpoenas to a handful of people who are connected to the inquiry. now we don't know who received those subpoenas or what kind of information prosecutors are after, but post indictment investigations can result in additional charges, including charges against new defendants. well, now. joining me now is danya perry, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york. danya, great to see you. thank you for being here tonight and helping me as well as everybody else understand exactly what the implications

are our of the special counsel 's investigation continuing forward with new subpoenas. is that it's interesting to you as to the rest of us? >> it's interesting. it's not atypical at all. once charges are initially filed and the original indictment, the grand jury often continues its work and the filing of initial charges often has a way of dislodging witnesses and encouraging them to come forward. it sounds like from reporting, from my experience in from common sense, that's exactly what's happening now that the grand jury is marching on, continuing with its work and speaking, issuing additional subpoenas and potentially hauling the witnesses in front of them. we have heard about the big one today. >> so do you think it's inevitable that there are new indictments coming? and how would this affect the broader timeline for the indictments that we do know about?

>> it's certainly not inevitable. in this case from the reporting and from the nature of the subpoenas that have been issued and from what we are hearing about, this witness, this top campaign official that i know we're talking about, it does sound, to me, likely that there will be superseding charges. we have seen a number of charges for unlawful willful retention of national defense information, and it seems to me like the next step here perhaps will be charges for having shared that information, which would be charges that obviously pack more of a punch in terms of jury appeal and that also would really rebut any claim of accident or lack of intent or knowledge. so it seems to be illogical that that is what will follow but certainly not inevitable. >> so you are suggesting that there might be more charges for donald trump related to dissemination.

that's the charge that special counsel did not, there were no charge for dissemination, although that bedminster tape certainly sounds like he's disseminating classified information to people who should not be looking at it. is that your suggestion there? >> i think that's the implication. that's my read from the reporting. it does sound like that would be the logical next step. it would flow out of this investigation, out of the continued investigation by this grand jury. it also sounds like this stage might be focusing on a different location on new jersey. there's also reporting that and then also again after of common sense, it may well be that special counsel is looking at filing additional charges, perhaps a naturalistic shun. which would be the natural locus, i think, for these charges, just as some of these charges have been filed in the

southern district of florida for retention and obstruction. if there was in fact dissemination in the district of new jersey that would be the obvious place for the filing of either additional charges, what would have to be a new indictment. so there are numerous possibilities. there could be a superseding indictment, another indictment in a different district, or there could be no additional charges that all. but it certainly sounds like from what we are hearing that there is investigation continues a grand jury is looking at it in any investigation done by the florida grand jury could, of course, be transferred over to new jersey. >> wow. those are a bevy of very explosive, well, at least two of them are more explosive than the other, but still, that's kind of headline news, if that is what ends up happening. i have to ask you about susie wiles, the top trump campaign

advisor, speaking undercover or not to the knowledge of the trump campaign, speaking to the special counsel. you sort of nodded towards that, but can you talk a little more about how unusual that is in your expectation about what the implications are for her work with trump, given the fact that she may be a witness for the special counsel. >> it's not, i mean, it seemed to me quite obvious from the face of the indictment that there was a witness for that incident, that second incident that you talked about in bedminster, in august or september of 2021. and it sounds like she has an incentive to speak with the prosecutors and a disincentive to lie to them. so it sounds like she is speaking with them and is being truthful. otherwise they would have to turn over exculpatory material, it does not sound like that's what has happened. it sounds like she is

corroborating what is already in the four corners of this original indictment. and again, i am speculating, so i don't want to make headline news. it just seems to me like a possible logical flow from what we are hearing and certainly exactly what the special counsel would be interested in looking at. so that's just my read from the bread crumbs that we have. >> we appreciate your read, danya perry. thank you for making the time. we will be right back. [sniffs] still fresh. still fresh! get 6 times longer-lasting freshness, plus odor protection with downy unstopables. introducing the limited edition disney collection

from blendjet. nine exciting designs your whole family will adore blendjet 2 is portable, which means you can blend up nutritious smoothies, protein shakes, or frozen treats, just about anywhere! recharge quickly via usb-c. it even cleans itself. order yours now from blendjet.com and bring a little disney into your life.

sleepovers just aren't what they used to be. aa house full of screens? basically no hiccups? you guys have no idea how good you've got it. how old are you? like, 80? back in my day, it was scary stories and flashlights. we don't get scared. oh, really? mom can see your search history. that's what i thought. introducing the next generation 10g network. only from xfinity. we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature.

but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? that's our show for this what, we have a ton of mulch. evening. now it's time to last word with jonathan kaye pot in for lawrence. good evening, jonathan. >> good evening, alex. quite the day we've had today. >> i know you're gonna have a great show analyzing what went. down >> yes, we will. alex, thank you very much. >> have a great show. >> this is not a normal court. that was what president biden said after the radical conservatives on the supreme