alex has the night off, and what a night is for the past two hours we have been speeding the newly unredacted affidavit that the government used to get a search warrant for trump's mar-a-lago -- last year. nbc, was part of a group of media organizations that sued to get this affidavit unredacted. now, it is out. it is not totally unredacted. it is way, way less redacted than the original version, so we have been comparing and contrasting the two, as fast as we can. again, this thing just came out two hours ago. the thing that jumped out at us immediately? was this. the newly unredacted sections of the affidavit, gave us a much better understanding of

what the government could see on the surveillance footage they've got from mar-a-lago. there's details we didn't have before, like how the cameras were motion activated. really, it's where the cameras could not see that sticks out. on july 6th of last, year the trump organization provided the fbi with a hard drive, containing the footage of four cameras. all four of those cameras were in the basement hallway, leading to the storage room, where trump had been keeping this classified documents. that's a pivotal part of how the justice department knew documents were being moved in and out of that storage room. those cameras did not capture what was happening upstairs at mar-a-lago. which is what makes this interesting. this is from that same

affidavit from august of last year. quote, the investigation has established that other boxes were moved from the storage room to other locations in the premises, including the former president of the united states presidential suite and pine hall. so, how, if the video cameras only captured what was happening in the basement, how did the government know the exact rooms where these documents had been brought upstairs? there are two big potential options. number one, the government may have intercepted communication and have a text or email from inside trump's orbit, they obtain that told them where these documents were brought. or, after number two. they might have had a human source, someone on the inside, who by august of last year when they filed this affidavit for a search warrant, was already talking to them. we do not know that there is one other tiny detail from this newly-unredacted filing i want to show you. do you remember what now, to the trump aide that -- is accused of moving documents to help hide from investigators. he's a coconspirator on the day. he essential to this case. in this newly-unredacted affidavit, he is referred to as witness five.

meaning, there were at least four other witnesses the government talk to in reference in what might still be sealed motions of this affidavit. so, who are? they could they or nauta have talked. we'll get some expert help bring down this filing just a second. there's one part i think i can answer. early last month, when trump was arraigned in federal court in miami, his alleged coconspirator, his white house valley, walt nauta, appeared alongside him. he wrote in trump's motorcade on the way there. but after court was stopped at a local restaurant. here the two are, again, just this past friday, at a philly cheesesteak shop in philadelphia. trump and nauta, have not just been alleged coconspirators. they have been tied at the hip. nearly a month after trump's arraignment, nauta himself has yet to be arraigned. his arraignment keeps being delayed. and delayed.

and the reason that nauta is giving for this nearly month long delay? he claims he is having trouble finding a lawyer to represent. having lived in florida, i can tell you, there are plenty of lawyers there. so, what's going on? here last, week people familiar with the matter told the guardian, part of the delay came from the fact that nauta had picked a local lawyer. that lawyer, and the group fitting nauta his legal bills, had a dispute about the lawyers fees. so, who's paying his legal bills you might ask? the guardian reports it is none other than donald trump's save america pack. it's not normal for someone a position like walt nauta's to

have their legal bills covered by someone else. he was a white house valley. he got trump's coax, carried his boxes from room to room. he wasn't exactly raking in the big bucks. trump's packs, paying his legal bills, that make sense. it also signals something. it signals that trump, and nauta are just alleged coconspirators. they appear to also be codefendants, working together likely not turning on each other. nauta is set to be arraigned tomorrow, in miami, at 11 am. we will see who he has as local council then. this isn't the only indictment trump has to worry about. that means that keeping nauta on his side, isn't just important this case, it's also setting a precedent. just in the past few weeks we've seen high up trump affiliates, brought in to talk with special counsel jack smith in his other investigation. the investigation to trump's attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election. rudy giuliani, trump's former lawyer, and mike roman, one of the orchestrator's of trump's fake electors scheme, both of them have reportedly met with jack smith as part of the proffer agreements. some of the fake electors themselves have been offered immunity in exchange for the

testimony. so, a special counsel jack smith's investigation heats up there is a very live question about who will flip and who won't. who could be coconspirator, and who could be a cooperating witness. joining us now, mary mccord, former acting assistant attorney for national security at the department of justice and into, aikman former lead of my fa prosecuting donald trump. mary, andrew, thank you both so much for being with us tonight. mary, i watched all our producers had the two affidavits up on screen, looking at them side by side what stood out to you as noteworthy in this less redacted fbi affidavit? >> to start off, there's not really much we learned knew that isn't in the indictment. of course, this was an affidavit in support of a search warrant, conducted nearly a year ago at this point. we've only recently seen the indictment, which includes more than what we've now seen in the redacted, even the unredacted partially unredacted affidavit. i did think it was notable, you know, a few things that were just interesting. the use of the photograph of 60 something boxes in the storage room, to just show in that affidavit, that trump knew even back in november of 2021 when the national archives were trying to get the return of

just what they thought were presidential records, he knew that even after he'd been looking at boxes and looking at boxes, there are still 61 boxes in that storage room. remember, after that, they only gave 15 boxes back to the national archives. i thought was also notable, as you indicated in your opening, all the different descriptions of the use of what jack smith had learned from the surveillance video. vis-à-vis, what evan corcoran one of trump's attorneys at the time, the attorney who is responsible for turning over classified documents in response to the grand jury subpoena, what they knew about evan corcoran at that time. it showed that, in just that last week before evan came to go search through the boxes to try to find an any classified information or turn over to the department of justice, and just that last week alone walt now tara was in there actively, day after day, on three different occasions, sending boxes up to donald trump, even doing that just four days after the fbi interviewed him and talked him about the importance of that storage room and whether mr.

trump was looking at any boxes in that storage room. of course, only about 30 boxes were moved back into that storage room after 64 were taken out. we knew that from the indictment. seeing it play out, as you indicated, the camera footage of the storage room, what they're able to, see what they weren't able to see, and the things that mr. nauta new, a few details and a few fun things to look at. overall, it doesn't change anything. about the case. otherwise, to give us a little bit of a window into how strong the probable cause was. but what i still unknown, who are some of the other witnesses i think that's why we still see so many redactions. there's information the government is still trying to protect here.

>> andrew weissmann, your analysis was very similar to your colleague. there's also the fact that when you look through it, and you see just a little bit more information, you're reminded how unusual, how unprecedented how while this all is. >> absolutely. i think, of course, i would agree with mary on everything. but the orchestration of the obstruction is what, it's true that it's in the indictment, it's as mary said. but it's very detailed, as mary was alluding to. of exactly what the former president and will now to we're doing. and that is, as we were talking about before, it's still worth remembering, this is the former president of the united states. and it is in black and white as to this dance that mr. corcoran could come in and, unknowingly on his part, lie to the government. saying, you have everything now, in fact, there was this orchestrated thing to take out

all of the material that the former president and want to go. it's really remarkable that this is happening. it also really explains why they got the search. if you remember, we were all going, oh my god, this is unprecedented. why did they do this? what do they have to do this? you read this unredacted piece it makes it absolutely clear what they were sitting on, which is they knew that there had been this attempt to obstruct justice. >> speaking of walt nauta, i would love what you make of this, reporting that one of the problems is the trump team didn't want to pay the rates that at least one local lawyer in florida requested. talk me through why trump would even be involved in that decision? >> well, you know, it's a pack that is trump's pack essentially. as a codefendant, and as someone who's approving of paying walt nauta's, he's

wanting to have a say in this. as you indicated in the opening, this is not uncommon. it's like in a corporation and you can speak to this even more than i can, when a number of different corporate officials are being investigated, they're all having their attorneys pay for it. it is really troublesome he's in a very different position than mr. trump. yes, he's got culpability he's indicted, he's charged now with crimes, and he these are serious crimes. but if you think about the power imbalance between mr. trump and his valet, walt nauta, it's troublesome to think that trump would be involved in pulling the strings on who would represent walt nauta. if i were walt nauta's attorney i would really be trying to figure out if there isn't a way to make some agreement with the united states, and i'm sure at various times, that's been considered. but that is very much not in the interest of mr. trump.

so, these are things that i think could be causing some of this delay. it could very well be that it's not just all about money but that there are attorneys who are concerned about their ability to zealously represent their clients in the circumstances. >> this arraignment has already been delayed twice. it's 9:12 pm on the east coast. 11 am tomorrow, if he doesn't have a lawyer, what then? >> so, the rules are that he has to have a local florida lawyer. and he does have an out of town lawyer. the rules are there the have to have a local lawyer to sponsor you. the judge has a number of options. one, obviously the judge can kick the can down the road yet again. that would not be what i would advise. at some point, you know, what this isn't like -- what you kept putting up until the last day. you just keep saying, no one wants to go to trial if you're a defendant. you obviously want him to to delay things it's true for walt nauta, it's true for donald trump. one option is another delay. the other option is the courts

as you know what? i'm appointing a lawyer right now to represent you in connection with this arraignment. you are going to, because you can afford it, you're going to repay the fees for that attorney. and we're gonna go forward. and when you get your lawyer, fine. if you don't get a lawyer, will represent yourself. since that's constitutional as well. so the court does have options to move this along. you really aren't held hostage to someone saying, i just can't find council. it is worth noting, back to your question to marry, it is not improper or illegal to have somebody else pay for council. of course, money can be power. to state the obvious. so, what mary was saying, if you have a third party paying for your council, if you are a responsible lawyer, your client is still your client. it doesn't matter who is paying you. that puts you in a difficult

position. you have to be willing to say no, it doesn't matter that donald trump or a pack is paying me. my loyalty is to walt nauta. that could be one of the complications here, they want to find a lawyer who might not perhaps, be so ethical. >> 11 am tomorrow, we'll see who walt nauta shows up with. mary mccord, former acting assistant tierney general for the national security at the department of justice, thank you so much for getting us started. into weisman, you are sticking with me. we have a lot more to get to tonight. including a trump appointed judge's controversial ruling that got the federal government 's ability to fight online misinformation. plus, today activists in ohio got enough signatures to get an initiative guaranteeing abortion rights on the ballot, even as the republican-led legislature tries some tricky moves to stack the deck against them. that's next. more shopping? you should watch your spending honey. i'm saving with liberty mutual, mom. they customize your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. check it out you could save $700 dollars just by switching. ooooh, i'll look into that. let me put a reminder on my

phone. save $700 dollars. pick up dad from airport? ohhhhhh. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ i've never been healthier. shingles doesn't care. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness headache shivering, fever and upset stomach. ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingrix today.

we were blown away. (chuckles) legacy is really, really big at howard university so it's really a special moment to know that i had a family member who over a hundred years prior have walk these grounds.

looking for a bladder leak pad that keeps you dry? all of the things that you're looking for in a pad, that is always discreet. look at how it absorbs all of the liquid. and locking it right on in! you feel no wetness. - oh my gosh! - totally absorbed! i got to get some always discreet!

(inspirational music) - [narrator] wounde d warrior project helps post-9/11 veterans realize wh at's possible. with generous community support. - aaron, how you doing buddy? - [narrator] we bring warriors togeth er and empower them to become stronger inside and ou t. - it's possible to begin healing - to get the help you need. - to find pe ace. - [narrator] and as each warrior's needs evolve, so do we. because these last 20 years are just the beginning.

i never been a fan of facebook as you probably. noah never been a zuckerberg fan. section 2:30 should be revoked. immediately. should be revoked. number one. it should be revoked. because it is not nearly an internet company. it is propagating falsehoods they know to be false. >> that was joe biden in an interview with the new york times editorial board, back in 2020. biden was criticizing the ceo of than facebook, now meta mark zuckerberg. and arguing for repealing a federal law, shielding big tech companies from liability from what gets posted on their platforms. joe biden is now president when he gave that interview. he wasn't even a democratic nominee at that point. the position here articulated

on reforming big tech, was one that many democrats and republicans held for sometime. nevertheless, lawmakers cited that interview as evidence that the government somehow coerced social media companies into suppressing free speech online. it's part of a lawsuit brought by the republican attorneys general, of louisiana and florida, to which accuses the biden administration of pressuring social media companies to take down conservative content. yesterday, on the fourth of july, a trump appointed federal judge sided with those republican attorneys general issuing an injunction that bars federal agencies, like the fbi and the department of health and human services, from contacting social media companies about posts they think should be taken down. trump appointed judge claimed there was, quote, evidence of a massive effort from the white house to federal agencies to suppress speech based content. the biden administration is appealing the ruling. for, now that decision effectively blocks a federal government from asking states

to take down online misinformation about issues like whether vaccines work. they do. whether not the 2020 election was stolen. it was not. the judge did make exceptions to allow the federal government to contact social media companies about things like national security threats. criminal activity. legal experts say those exceptions are vague. they've open questions about what exactly the government can and cannot do. andrew weissmann is back with us. andrew weissmann, you describe yourself as angry over this ruling. which is not often a word that i associate with andrew weissmann. tell me why it got you? >> so, i'm gonna give you two examples. one from my own personal experience, one that was cited by the court and as what is so problematic. one from the court, the court says that, as an example of the current administration being so biased against conservatives, was when the government went to tech companies and said, you

need to do something about fake fauci accounts, saying that you do not need to be vaccinated and they're dangerous. essentially, spinning out misinformation that would cause peoples lives, that was given as an example by the court of something that is violet iv of the first of amendment. so, committing fraud by having a fake account, at the cost of peoples lives, is not protected by the first amendment. >> correct. >> it's also not anti conservative. it is anti--- saying that your pro-facts in your pro science. that's one example. the other is, when i was the general counsel of the fbi there was information that we had that would put in danger senior government officials. and there were overseas and gave locations. this was being posted online. what you do in a situation like that, you call up a tech

company, a very general counsel, you raised with them the issue of, have you seen these posts? we understand that they would violate your own policy. your own policies. can you take a look at this. usually, with the general counsel says, thank you so much for raising this. it hadn't been -- understandable. they do an evaluation. the idea that a court would say that you cannot do that, and that that somehow is involved in politics, when what you're doing is making people safer is just beyond the pale. i think it should be noted, the government is appealing this and they filed an appeal this evening. so, this is hot off the presses from yesterday, but this is doj taking -- this is something that makes that total sense that this happened in terms of taking -- so quickly. there really is danger in terms of this kind of ruling. i don't think the exceptions that you noted, in anyway, work. because they're actually not at all in the opinion.

the opinion suggests that none of that should be an exception. so, there is this tagline, and it's really unclear how this is going to be, if this opinion stands, her supposed to apply those. he's actually saying, you can't do things that actually are criminal. to try and stop those. you can try and stop things that would be criminal. >> hundred and 50 page ruling on july 4th, sort of tells you a lot of what you need to know. andrew weissmann, as always, thank you so much for joining us. still to come tonight, the epidemic of gun violence in america feels like an unsolvable problem. there is still action happening at the state level in maryland governor wes moore is gonna talk about it. coming up. first, ohioans sign up in big numbers to put the right to abortion on the ballot. will it be enough to overcome some major new obstacles thrown in their way by the republican -led legislature? that's next.

splash into savings with our 4th of july sale. blendjet gives you ice-crushing big blender power on-the-go, so you can soak up the sun with a frosty beverage. enjoy 15+ blends before rapidly recharging via usb-c. and it even cleans itself with a drop of soap and water. stand out even when you're accidentally twinning with our kaleidoscope of colors. dont miss out on our best deal of

the summer. visit blendjet.com to order yours. ♪ when you have chronic kidney disease... there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. if you have chronic kidney disease farxiga can help you keep living life. ♪ farxiga ♪ and farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure which can lead to dialysis. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections in women and men, and low blood sugar. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may lead to death. a rare life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, an allergic reaction or ketoacidosis. farxiga can help you keep living life. ask your doctor for farxiga for chronic kidney disease. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be

able to help. ♪ farxiga ♪ hi, my that's service the way we want it. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair safelite replace. ♪

>> in 2019, the supreme court reversed the conviction of a

mississippi death row prisoner named curtis flowers. he had been sentenced to the death for the murders to four people in 1996, he had been tried for the crimes six times. the court ruled on a 7 to 2 decision that the prosecutor on the case worked to block black citizens from serving as jurors in the trial so, flowers conviction was thrown out. now, four years later another mississippi man named tony clark has been sentenced to death for a 2014 murder. his lawyer citing that 2019 supreme court ruling claimed the prosecutors focused on blocking black citizens from he's jury. and last week the supreme court declined to consider clarks appeal. justice -- sonia sotomayor joined by fellow liberal elena kagan and ketanji brown jackson wrote a blistering dissent criticizing both the mississippi supreme court and their own fellow conservative justices. characterizing their decisions as, quote, a signal from the mississippi supreme court that

it intends to carry on with business as usual no matter what this court said in flowers. by allowing this important make the same mistakes applying the same standards, this court acquiesces the mississippi supreme court's noncompliance. today, this court tells the mississippi supreme court that it has called our bluff. this court isn't willing to do what is necessary to defend its own precedent. in 2023, the supreme court -- and the precedent it set, that 2019 decision in flowers was hailed for sending a message to the lower courts to be vigilant about racial bias in the criminal justice system. but now? as justice so to this on your sotomayor puts it, as this court refused to intervene, a black and we put to death in the state of mississippi based on the decision of a jury that was plausibly selected based on race. that is a tragedy. and that does it for us tonight, alex is gonna be back here tomorrow. i will see you this weekend on my show american voices, 6 to 8

pm eastern. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good evening, lawrence. >> hey, alicia. we are going to continue the discussion of the supreme court in this hour. this supreme court has entered a face unlike any that i have seen in my lifetime. we are gonna be discussing it in this hour. >> in this hour and for years to come as a suspect, lawrence the consequences innumerable. >> yes, exactly, thank you alicia. >> thank you. >> thank you. well it wasn't a classroom at a catholic high school in boston where i first heard the phrase crisis of faith. it was during religion class that a priest told us about a crisis of faith that he had had some years earlier. for priests, the crisis of faith is losing the belief in