news, thanks for staying up late. be sure to tune in tomorrow night at 11. rachel maddow, out joy reid, and nicole wallace will be here with expert analysis after the first republican debate. first republican debate. >> breaking news this evening. yeah while much of the focus today has been on fulton county, where donald trump will surrender and less than 48 hours, there are some big developments coming out of the federal indictment down in florida in the classified documents case. involving the former president. we are learning that one of the key witnesses in that case flipped after ditching his

trump affiliated lawyer. the witness is known formally in court documents as employee number four. nbc news has identified this person as you seal tavares, the i. t. director at mar-a-lago. and a very central player in the alleged crime involving the retention of classified documents in the destruction of evidence related to that crime particularly security camera footage. according to the special counsel, when trump employee 4 testified before the grand jury in the district of columbia, in march 2023, he repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversation about the security footage at mar-a-lago. okay, so, when employee number 4, again yuscil taveras, said he knew nothing about any security camera footage, he had the same lawyer as trump's vallet and codefendant in this case, walt nauta. that lawyer, stanley woodward, was being paid by a trump pack. according to the special counsel, it appears that mr. taveras did not get to choose stanley woodward as his lawyer. stanley woodward was apparently appointed to him by one of the lawyers on trump's legal team. which is, wow.

after federal prosecutors told mr. taveras that he was facing possible criminal charges for lying to the grand jury about that security camera footage, and after prosecutors raised the possibility that having this same trump funded -- defending defendants and witnesses was a potential conflict of interest, well, the judge offered mr. traverse the chance to talk to a different lawyer. about those conflicts. a federal public defender. not a lawyer paid for by donald trump, or his pack. guess what happened? according to this new court filing from the special counsel this evening, immediately after receiving new council, trump employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated walt nauta, de oliveira, and trump in efforts to delete security camera footage. that is what led to the surprise superseding indictment

against donald trump and his codefendants down at mar-a-lago, which was filed by the special counsel late last month. it is because a witness flipped the minute he was clear of his trump world lawyer, and gave new evidence that resulted in new charges, including attempting to alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal evidence. you would not be at fault if all of this is giving you a serious case of déjà vu. because time and time again, evidence and testimony has shown donald trump's propensity for using his team of lawyers to attempt to, shall we say, control the narrative. you might recall cassidy hutchinson, a former top aide to former white house chief of staff, mark meadows. who testified before the house select committee investigating the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. hutchinson told the committee, her lawyer, stephen passantino, a former white house ethics lawyer with deep connections to trump world, that her lawyer,

mr. passantino, sought to influence miss hutchinson's testimony, and urged her to downplay what she knew about the lead up to the capitol riot. miss hutchinson said mr. passantino never explicitly told her to lie, but he did encourage her to use the phrase, i do not recall. and to tell investigators that she did not recall important events surrounding the capitol attack. miss hutchinson eventually hired new legal representation ahead of her public testimony. but like so many trump associates, she was forced to face the question, when donald trump is paying your legal fees, who is your lawyer really representing? joining me now is danya perry, a former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york and andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and member of special counsel robert mueller's investigation, also co-host of the indispensable msnbc podcast, prosecuting donald trump.

danya and andrew, i found this to be a shocking revelation here. i don't know whether i should put my eyes back in my head here. the suggestion that a trump affiliated lawyer did not recuse himself or get off of this case for, a, a conflict of interest here. but that, b, the minute yuscil taveras no longer has trump lawyer, he flips. how do you read this, andrew? >> so, i think the reference to cassidy hutchinson is such a good one. i think it educate people on what is happenisng here in this case. as danya and i know, and our jaded, this happens in the special counsel mueller investigation. it happened in enron. it happened in organized crime cases. this is a standard problem when you're a prosecutor of house counsel. and the problem that money buys

influence. just to be clear, there are some lawyers who can be paid by a company, and they do their job. they represent the individual. that's what they're supposed to do. but, i'll give you one quick example, in enron, there was a junior person, the company paid for that person's counsel. when we finish the interview, i remember that person's lawyer turned to the general counsel of meryl lynch and said, it's been an honor representing you. i remember going, that's the problem. that's the issue. >> in that case, did the junior staffer, not like, understand the dynamic at play? >> you have to remember, what's really hard for somebody who is not experienced with the legal system, they get a lawyer, the lawyer's giving them advice. and saying this is what you need to do. and the company is paying for. we're taking care of you. they don't have a reason to be thinking this is a problem or there's an issue, and they have the company saying, this is standard procedure. it takes somebody with cassidy hutchinson's moral integrity. here the chief judge in d. c.

interceded to say, you should at least speak to independent counsel before you make a decision that you want -- >> that seems like a critical step. >> that happens in mob cases a lot. of course, what happens, as soon as get independent counsel, and advises them the person's like, oh, now i've got it. this person may not have my best interests at heart. they may be passing on what i'm saying to somebody else. and all sorts of concerns. that's why, more often than not, especially when the government is saying there's a potential conflict, responsible council says, you know what? i'm out. get somebody else. >> the key phrase there is responsible council here, danya. stanley woodward is still defending walt nauta. and there is the possibility now that one of his former clients, yuscil taveras, will be testifying against one of his current clients, walt nauta. they're taking opposite approaches with regards to this case. one is cooperating with the

feds, one is not. so, how does that work, that stanley woodward can't be conflicted out of this? >> as well, let's not forget, two other witnesses who are at issue in this very same case. and that were the subjects of the government motion for this, what's known as our garcia hurrying, or cursio hearing, different words for the same thing. which is a hearing in front of the judge, where she will decide, first of, all will appoint independent counsel, in the witnesses and defendants can decide, but she ultimately may have to make the decision, as to whether there's a fatal conflict. so, woodward in this case, actually agreed, as he had to, that there should be such a hearing. what he then did was went on offense. and said, actually, the remedy here, because it's for the judge to decide what the appropriate remedy is, and she has a host of possible remedies at her disposal. what he said, mr. woodward, is,

don't get me off this case. don't get conflict council in this case. no. preclude the testimony of these witnesses. >> yuscil taveras. throw out, yuscil taveras, the central witness in the superseding indictment, andrew. >> on the obstruction piece. >> on the obstruction piece. >> that is a huge deal, effectively, that a trump paid for lawyer, i gotta keep saying, that someone affiliated with trump world is saying, don't take me off this case, even though my conflicts of interest or so plainly obvious. get rid of the guy that's causing the conflict of interest. >> just to be clear, to danya's point, that's not the law. this is one where, obviously, judge cannon has made a lot of wrong decisions. this is one, if she were to rule that this is testimony that's precluded, she will be reversed. >> you sound very confident that. >> this is absolutely black letter law. no way that this gets

suppressed because he has a conflict. and there's absolutely different ways, assuming she thinks this that he can still stay on the case, one way to deal with this, mr. woodward cannot cross examine either a current or former client. you have a continuing duty of loyalty. so, one way to deal with that, is to say, local council will have to do that. the -- >> you effectively have to wall off that local, how does that work? >> you're not a lawyer. but you are. >> television law school. how do you wall off your co-counsel? i'm not gonna tell you what i learned what i was representing yuscil taveras. i'm certainly not gonna tell the guy who's paying the bills what may be going on here. >> so, the legal system has not solved that rubik's cube of what do you do there. the assumption is, you cannot use anything you learned from a current or former client, so that the other counsel is walled off and has to do the cross-examination.

there is no way to police that. >> how is this not witness tampering, danya? on its face, for the layman, donald trump's pack is paying for these specific codefendants'legal fees, right? these lawyers are, apparently, encouraging their clients to take positions that are most beneficial to donald trump. is it not witness tampering? because these codefendants are willingly entering into these agreements with council? how is this allowed? >> well, as andrew said, we're both aware of, there are no doubt, countless examples where one lawyer can, ethically and responsibly, represent two clients. usually, not when they're at such cross purposes. that becomes difficult. and a lot of lawyers would recuse themselves in that event. so as not to pit one client

against another, or risk the betrayal of confidences. but the law allows for that. the law also allows for the top dog, the employer, whatever it is, the mafia boss, to pay for council for his employees or his lieutenants. that is all allowed. the law presumes the ethical conduct of lawyers who are officers of the court. >> that's the mistake. presuming ethical conduct. i'm not gonna besmirch all lawyers from everywhere. but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. i will ask, you andrew, as someone who's seen lower level defendants flip, if i'm carlos de oliveira, or maybe even walt nauta in this case, and i see my buddy, yuscil taveras, who allegedly was in the same room with me doing all this, flip after he gets his own independent counsel, is that not a catalytic event for getting those other defendants

to flip? >> i'll give another sample. in mob cases, this is what happened with sammy --, the under boss of the gambino family. when he's thinking, you know what, i know my counsel is really aligned interest with john gotti, the boss. so, he got word to be able to go to the judge and say, i need to talk to an independent counsel. and i don't trust that if i go to my own council that i'm gonna get the right advice. in that situation, it could be that will get killed if i say i'm thinking of cooperating. that's the reason here you see that judge boasberg, the chief judge in d. c., got involved. because this is one where the special counsel really looks so ethical and proper. they alerted the defense council, they alerted the judge overseeing the grand jury, to potential conflict. they actually alerted judge cannon in florida. so she would be aware of what was happening in d. c.. they said they did that in sealed proceedings. they made sure everyone was aware of what was going on. and then judge boasberg did the right thing, just to say, you

know what? before you make a decision, as to what is in your interest, i want to see that you've talked to somebody who is conflict free. they went to the federal defenders, in our experience, really wonderful lawyers, a lot of people think just because they're free, somehow they're not good. they tend to be really excellent council. that's what you saw happen. what you're putting your finger on, and what is unfortunate, this is so common in any case where there is a crime that's committed by a group. and there's a real hierarchy. it's a real problem in the law, as i said, it in mob cases, in corporate cases, it's in public corruption cases. >> i would assume, don, yet the hierarchy really matters here. trump is not paying for his lawyers legal fees in other federal indictments. presumably, because the lawyer, well, they're on their own for whatever reason.

but it's precisely the people with no background in the law, the i. t. guy, the grounds guy, the valet, who he clearly seems to be trying to manipulate in terms of taking a less adversarial position. at some point, did the scales fall from their eyes? what's your assessment of how damaging this flip is to the other codefendants in the case? >> as your question seems to imply, there can be a domino effect. and a defendant could well say, well, this guy has flipped. he is actually not indicted next to me. in this charging instrument. maybe that's a good decision to get independent counsel. and, oh, now i see, this judge will appoint a federal defender, or some other attorney. let me explore that. that certainly happens. that certainly can be advantageous for the one who's left behind. >> yeah, the federal public defenders are free, right? you don't have to take money from trump's pack to get adequate legal representation. if you're watching, anyone out there. danya perry, thank you so much for joining me. as always. andrew weissmann, we can never

let you go after just one discussion. there is so much more to come, tonight. including the battle over the timing of the other federal case against donald trump. there is a big decision on that, coming up. plus, a lawyer who was once in the center of the campaign to keep trump in power is now feuding with trump world. and what that might mean for trump himself, coming up next. do you struggle with occasional nerve aches in your hands or feet? try nervive nerve relief from the world's number one nerve care company. nervive contains ala to relieve nerve aches, and b-complex vitamins to fortify healthy nerves. try nervive. ♪ ♪ ♪ and, try nervive pain relieving roll-on.

will donald trump wear a maga hat to the fulton county jail on thursday? will he be handcuffed? how much will he weigh? those are all questions online gamblers are apparently placing bets on ahead of former president trump's scheduled voluntary surrender at the fulton county jail in georgia this thursday. you can even bet on which catchphrases trump will post on truth social, after his arraignment. so, it is not an exaggeration to say there's a lot of anticipation around trump's arrest in georgia. which makes sense. a former president being booked in a county jail is not something that has ever happened here. you might even get a mugshot this time. which, considering his campaign is already selling fake mugshot t-shirts, trump will probably spend a lot of time talking about. he is campaigning on all of this. earlier this month, trump claimed he just needed one more indictment. this indictment, to win the 2024 election.

tonight, the guardian is reporting that trump had his lawyers negotiate his booking at the fulton county jail to take place during prime time cable news hours, to maximize the ratings for his arrest. yes, trump seems to be weirdly enjoying all of this. but he is not the only defendant here. he has 18 codefendants in this case, and so far, they do not seem to be enjoying this. in fact, it looks like they are trying to resist every bit of it. just today, former trump chief of staff, mark meadows, asked a federal judge to either immediately grant his request to move the georgia election case to federal court, so he could avoid being arrested this week. or to require fulton county d. a., fani willis, to extend his deadline to surrender.

sort of an extension, like a term paper. d. a. willis has until tomorrow afternoon to reply to mr. meadows request in a formal court filing. but you already told meadows's legal team exactly how she felt this morning in an email. quote, i am not granting any extension. your client is no different than any other criminal defendant in this jurisdiction. at 12:30 pm on friday, i shall file warrants in the system. d. a. willis means a warrant for mark meadows arrest, if that was not clear. mark meadows is not the only one trying to get out of all of this. both david schaffer, one of the georgia fake electors, and jeffrey clark, trump's former doj lawyer, both of them are also trying to get this case moved to federal court. part of clark's reasoning for moving his case to federal court, and avoiding arrest in atlanta, was that clark should not be required to book a flight to georgia under such extreme time pressure. now, it took us about 15 seconds to find a flight from d. c., which is where jeffrey clark lives, to the city of atlanta.

he could fly american airlines tomorrow for $265. for jeffrey clark, a former partner at a major law firm, that does not seem like a great excuse to skirt arrest. but these days, who knows what mr. clark's finances are like? mr. meadows's lawyers put it a little bit more bluntly for their down in his filing today, prompt action is made it to spare mr. meadows the burden and cost of defending himself in state court. what is becoming increasingly clear here is that the legal bills in this case could be staggering. it is unclear for whom mr. trump is willing to open up his piggy bank. today, we saw the first of trump's 18 codefendants in this case turn themselves in for booking at the fulton county jail. one of them was former trump attorney, john eastman. nbc's ali vitali was on the scene, and nailed on the question i would like to have answered by every trump codefendant.

>> who's paying your legal fees? >> i am. >> you are. >> just to you, sir, are you paying your legal fees? >> that's correct. >> it is clear, trump and his codefendants are all in need of a lot of cash at this precise moment. even if you just look at the bail amounts we have so far for trump and his codefendants, that is a lot of money before the case even gets started. those dollar amount, and whether trump starts footing the bills, could matter a lot. take, for instance, former trump lawyer, jenna ellis, on the hook for $100,000 in bail alone. last week ellis started a crowd funding campaign on a christian website, seeking small dollar donors to cover her defense bills. so, far she has barely passed the amount needed for just the bail. today's, cnn reports jenna ellis's lawyers met at fulton county d a fani willis's office. now, jenna ellis has not surrendered for booking yet, but she is having her lawyers meet with the d. a.'s team. my questions are, is jenna ellis flipping? if so, given the financial

pressure on her other 17 codefendants, or 16, how long until we see others make a similar choice? i am joined, once again, by andrew weissmann. andrew, are we overthinking this one yet? jenna ellis in financial straits, meeting with the dea before she surrenders? >> i think we may be a little bit over our skis. it's definitely a possibility. the biggest issue, if i were counseling one of these people as independent counsel, not being paid by the trump pack, is that the window for cooperating is really now. there is a race to come in. if you want to be able to tell a judge at sentencing, i accepted responsibility. this is how i helped. it helps to be the first in, not the 17th in. because you really want to say,

you know, i broke the logjam. i did this. yes, i did these wrong things, but here's what i did right, to make it right. and putting that off is, i mean, all sorts of things that can happen down the road. for instance, if you want to give information about donald trump, well, what if he wins the presidency? he's gonna be out of the georgia case, but you know what? you're not gonna be out of the georgia case. because that case stays, regardless of whether he or an ally becomes president. so, if you're thinking about your window of when you are most valuable to the government, it could be now. >> the time is nigh. there isso much more to talk about with trump and his many, many indictments this evening, including some key questions about the timing of his federal criminal trial over the 2020 election. that's another indictment, if you guys are following along here tonight. later, some presidential

wannabes in the republican party will be duking it out in a debate, others are crying foul, saying they should be up there in the mix. we're gonna have more on that interesting set of dynamics up ahead. (♪♪) rsv can be a dangerous virus... [sneeze] ...for those 60 and older. it's not just a cold. and if you're 60 or older... ...you may be at increased risk of hospitalization... [coughing] ...from this highly... ...contagious virus. not all dangers come with warning labels. talk to your pharmacist or doctor... ...about getting vaccinated against rsv today.

type 2 diabetes? discover the ozempic® tri-zone. talk to your pharmacist or doctor... in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults

also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. you may pay as little as $25. by this time next week, a

federal judge is expected to decide when donald j trump will face trial for his attempt to

overturn the 2020 election. now, we know from a filing last week, if it were up to trump and his lawyers, that trial would date would be set no earlier than april of 2026. that schedule is a nonstarter for special counsel jack smith. who just fired back a response of his own, saying the argument that trump needs significantly more time to review discovery evidence is basically nonsense. quote, the majority or roughly 65% of the government's first discovery production consists of materials to which the defendant has functionally had access, are duplicative, or do not constitute rule 16 discovery. approximately 25% of the first production comes from entities associated with the defendant, suggesting mr. trump wants months to process information he himself provided. by my back of the envelope calculation, that accounts for 90% of the first batch of discovery material.

and then there's this. hundreds of thousands of other pages come from the national archives, meaning the defendant, or his representatives, reviewed them before the government received them, or are publicly available, including the defendant's tweets, truth social posts, campaign statements, and court papers involving challenges to the 2020 election by the defendant or his allies. nearly one million more pages came from the house select committee to investigate the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. a majority of which are already public in redacted form. the prosecution's argument closely mirrors that of nbc's very own andrew weissmann, who today wrote in the atlantic, millions of pages of documents is no reason to delay trump's january 6th trial. andrew weissmann, it's like you're athena, like zeus. this is jack smith is your

athena springing forth from your head. >> okay. >> pardon the belabored greek metaphor. but the 11. 6 million documents are argument that stack up taller than the washington monument, doesn't tend to be holding a lot of water for special prosecutors. talk to me about what the citations of how much of this information should be already familiar to the defendant, what that actually means. >> sure. before i did the special counsel investigation with robert mueller, i was the head of the fraud section at the department of justice. what did we do? we did a large, white collar, corporate cases, day, and day out. that was his bread and butter, over 100 attorneys doing large corporate cases. so, when i hear 11 million documents, i don't think big. i think small. >> do you? >> in civil and criminal litigation, that is not a large number. that is before you get to all of the points that jack made in his reply, which was, it's duplicative, it's been available. the main reason this is just not an issue in this day and age, we are not in the 19th

century, or the 20th century. we do not use pieces of paper. this is the land of old-timey. everything is done by computers. you do, you get rid of duplicate. you do computer searches. you use a. i., you get rid of discovery paralegals. all of this is done in a really, fast computer search way. it's targeted. so, that was basically his argument. i have to say, this is one where the briefs are really for the public. because judge chutkan knows this. any federal judge who's dealing with civil and criminal litigation, knows if you come in and say, oh, there's a lot of discovery. yes, they want to know that you have time. but to pretend like it's hard copy paper that goes to the washington monument? it's not a serious argument for the court. it reminds me of a judge saying

two defense lawyer in the mueller investigation, i know that that brief is for an audience, but it's not for this audience. they were very strong argument. obviously, the judge on the 28th, has a really important decision. and the defendant is entitled to enough time to prepare an adequate defense. one other quick point, in the eastern district of virginia, the so-called rocket docket, it is commonplace to have trials in three, four, five months after indictment. that has never been challenged. it is understood to be within the due process clause, as adequate time. so, here, the time proposed by jack smith is longer than that. judge chutkan and has that as an ability, knows it will not go -- within the do process clause, the real issue is whether she thinks it's enough time, and fair. >> january 2nd is the date that the federal prosecutors have put. the reason you may see on your screen, it ain't tolstoy, is because that's basically part of the defense.

this is like reading tolstoy's warand peace, 70 times a day forever. or whatever it is. >> there's a great line at the atlantic on that, which have to say, my coauthor had. the seven -- it's like reading warren p 78 times. he said, well you know, after you read it once, you don't have to read the other 77. >> that's the operative thing here. for a lot of people, i mean, on the outside, me included, we don't understand that you don > and you do targeted searches, if you're looking for a weisman, you're looking for alex wagner, exactly, you would look for that. and then you would read those. you have teams doing that. the days of doing page by page review of a document production, that went out with the dodo bird. >> okay. the trump team has said it's 29 points, give me 29. 4, months between trial, the beginning of the trial, and the end of a

trial. jack smith has taken the air of that balloon. and out of the notion that the classified documents involved in, this might be a problem. >> have you noticed, he actually today said, let other classified documents here. to me, that's because they want to get in front of the judge, so she knows how limited that issue is. they know, for both sides, the 28th is the entire ballgame. as to when the date is. they want to get in front of her what that volume. they have already represented to her that this is a non issue. this is not gonna be, they said, we're not planning on using any classified documents in the trial. but they need to turn it over, because their discovery obligations. >> well, as you said, in the commercial break, august 28th is going to be the make-or-break. that is gonna be indicative of how this whole thing plays out. >> yep. >> judge chutkan, out nation

turns its lonely eyes to you. andrew weissmann, thank you for hosting the first half hour of this program with me. we can change the show to enter weissmann. don't do that. put me average up. >> thank you as always, my friend. when we come back, these guys are desperate to get on the debate stage, well this guy, the front runner, is not even going to bother to show up. more on that, next. just between us, you know what's better than mopping? anything! ugh. well, i switched to swiffer wetjet, and it's awesome. it's an all-in-one, that absorbs dirt and grime deep inside. and it helps prevent streaks and haze. wetjet is so worth it. love it, or your money back.

with amazon's back to school deals, you can save money by spending less of it. makes sense! oh, i see what you did there! - what? - what? i don't get it. hehe.

heading on a family trip? nah, sorry son, prices are crazy, [son deflates] awh, use priceline. they have package deals no one else has. [son inflates] we can do it! ♪go to your happy price♪ ♪priceline♪ >> the wait is over, we now

know who will be at tomorrow's first republican primary debate. these eight people you see on your screen right now have met criteria to participate, which is a combination of putting requirements, fundraising credentials and signing a loyalty approach to support the eventual republican nominee. but there are at least three candidates who now claim they also met all of those criteria, but won't be allowed onstage. one of those is dismissed fox news personality and former candidate for california governor larry elder. mr. elder announced today he is actually suing the rnc for not allowing him to participate. then there is miami mayor francis suarez, who previously said that any candidate who doesn't make the first debate stage should drop out of the race. which, i guess, is sort of like dunking on yourself. businessmen perry johnson says he qualified for a spot on the stage, but has been denied. and he's not making that claim alone. nbc news and other outlets, including politico, have been

tracking the process for a qualifying for this debate and by nbc's count and others, perry johnson does meet the criteria to qualify for this debate. and yet, for some reason, the republican national committee disagrees. now if you are not familiar with mr. perry johnson, you are not alone. the self-financed businessman has essentially been laundering his entire campaign through newsmax. perry johnson has purchased a ton of political ads on newsmax and newsmax has returned the favor by showering mr. johnson's campaign with coverage. they even gave perry johnson a reality tv show devoted entirely to follow when the perry johnson campaign. semafor news reports that when another candidate asked for more coverage on newsmax, a network executive told him to

buy more television ads on the network, noting that such a transaction had helped republican businessmen perry johnson. which is the literal definition of pay to play. but ethics not seem to be a stumbling block for this crop of republican candidates. in order to meet the rnc's requirement that candidates get at least 40,000 individual donors, billionaire north dakota governor doug burgum offered anyone who donated $1 to his campaign $20 in return. that very questionable financial arrangement allowed biden supporters to donate a dollar to mr. burgum's campaign, and then donate their 20-dollar proceeds directly to president biden. by helping democrats launder doug burgum donations directly into his opponent's pocket, doug burgum made the republican debate stage. this is the mad, mad world of republican debates. and yes, it is hard to see any legitimacy in this process. and that is before you even get to the biggest problem of all for this debate, the absence of

the party front runner. by all accounts, the rnc and the host, fox news, have been begging trump to participate in this debate, but not only has trump refused to show up, he's also refused to meet the debate criteria. trump has said firmly, he will not sign the party's loyalty proud to support whoever is the nominee in november. what does it say about the state of this race that trump is thumbing his nose at both his party and the television channel that helped make him president? we're going to have more on that with brian stelter, coming up next. ♪♪ this painful, blistering rash can disrupt your life for weeks. a pain so intense, you could miss out on family time. the virus that causes shingles is likely already inside of you. if you're 50 years or older, ask your doctor or pharmacist about shingles.

we used to struggle with greasy messes. now, we just freak, wipe, and we're done! with mr. clean clean freak, conquering messes is that easy. clean freak's mist is three times more powerful, and it works on contact. clean freak, just freak, wipe, done. he snores like an angry rhino. and it works on contact. you've never heard an angry rhino. baby i hear one every night. every night. okay. i'll work on that. save 50% on the sleep number® limited edition smart bed.

plus, 60-month financing on all smart beds. shop now only at sleep number®. (vo) ninety-two percent of students in high-needs schools can't afford essential school supplies. subaru and our retailers are there to help by giving millions of dollars in funding along with school supplies students need. we call it “the subaru love promise” and we are proud to be the largest corporate supporter of adoptaclassroom.org. it's just one of the reasons forbes ranked subaru the number one automotive brand for social impact. subaru. more than a car company. >> when the very first

republican primary debate of this presidential campaign gets underway in milwaukee, tomorrow night the front runner will be missing from the debate stage. which is sort of where. after all, fox news is hosting the debate and four months fox news has been on a campaign to convince donald trump to attend this marquee event. remember that fox network

executives wined and dined mr. trump at a private dinner earlier this month, on the very same not he was indicted for a second time by the special counsel. all to no avail. instead, the former president apparently taped an interview with tucker carlson, one that will stream on carlson's twitter program, yes, his ex program. it is hard for me to say that still, on the night of the debate. that is the same tucker carlson who once called trump a demonic force, a destroyer, in private text to his former staff at fox and wrote he truly can't wait to ignore trump most nights because he hates him passionately. joining me now is brian stelter, author of two books about the relationship between fox and trump. hoax and network of lies, we just got this november. he is also a special correspondent for vanity fair. i am thrilled to have you here. >> thank you for having me here. >> thank you for being here.

first of all, talk to me about tucker carlson. that present relationship. is it just transactional? why do you think he chose packard to troll the rnc? >> number one, tucker thinks he is better and smarter and savvier than trump. a spotter strategist, a bitter politician. when those texts came out earlier this year, trump called him up. he was wounded, kurt, wanted an explanation. but tucker is nothing if not ruthless. he understands that by aligning with trump, now especially that tucker was fired from fox, he understands along it with trump's beneficial. it will get him attention, and i think ultimately this is what this is about for both men. attention. kind of program. and tucker wants to counter program fox, stick it to his former employer, which by the way is challenging him legally, threatening him, for being over on twitter or x or whatever it's called. so they did tape this interview last week in bedminster. it is in the can. they could post it right now if they want to. they're choosing not to, because they want to program the debate. >> humans put in the. or it's not just a debate. the next day trump goes to surrender in georgia, in

primetime. >> if i were being called into surrender, i would hide that. i would try to do it in the dark of night, as quietly as possible, no one will ever know. but trump considers it a primetime event. so it will be tonight's of counter programming but the from president. and obviously does not have the right to take away attention from whoever is the quote unquote winner of the debate on wednesday night. because there will really be no winner of this primary debate. >> there can be no winner for any of it. but i digress. do you think the trolling of the rnc and fox is sort of, is it punitive in nature or is it more sort of directed to the party at large and all the men who -- and women, who was to the throne trump as presidential candidates? is it to show that he's the biggest guy in the room and he can command the biggest audience? or do you think he legitimately thinks he has a grievance with fox news and the rnc? >> a lot of these candidates are not pulling for a while, but some of them, you know, are in double digits, we can at least say. we want to be generous. it's not as if trump faces no threat at all from anyone in this field.

he's clearly the dominant player. but i think it's very clear he wants to take away attention from his other candidates as much as you can. and when. fox i've been speaking with dozens of sources -- and it's very clear when it comes to fox staffers, trump is being small. i'm -- biased on fox, he is small, he is weak. that's how they want this to be perceived. but we both know the corduroy commit very clear. trump is so dominant, he doesn't even need fox anymore. which is a big change from 2015. >> but he can't completely forsake them, right? doesn't he need them? this is the network that helped him get elected, stay in office,

and defended the lies that he was spreading and continues to spread. do you think there will be any punishment dealt out by fox? they're not allowing any trump spin doctors and the spin room after the debate? is that the harshest punishments -- >> i don't see any other obvious punishments, certainly they can spin a little less time talking about it around the margins, but i don't see that happening. i see the opposite happening. and you know, the polls are where the polls are. the fox hosts, they feel where the poll is and it is still trump. trump is going to cut the debate ratings and have. that's the virtual guarantee. the ratings were 25 million back in 2015, trump was on center stage. trump will be lucky to have -- blocked this debate. trump's absence is going to be felt. but i think about trump and fox like a rubber brand. as hard as one side pulls, sometimes folks is pulling away, sometimes trump is pulling away.

report murdaugh famously hates the guy and makes him want to be a non-person -- we are making trump and on person. >> well, see how that went for them. >> one of the most pathetic quotes i've ever read. but ultimately -- he's not a leader, he's a front man. they pull apart, look around, but they always snap back together. rubber bands, they can break. someday this relationship will break. but i don't see any evidence of that right now. i think there's so much tension, yes, fox profits -- >> as we

know from the dominion filings, it will take almost a billion dollar knee in the name of preserving the allegiance of the trump audience. i do wonder if you think there's anything about the debate that causes fear to wring out in the heart of donald trump, or at least a little bit of trepidation? >> i do, actually. >> what do you think it is? is it debating chris christie? is it confronting mike pence, the man who understood his plot to overturn the election? what do you think strikes for in his heart? >> i think it is youth, vitality, the energy of some of these other candidates that he will have to face. look, there will be another debate in september. that will also be a fox debate. trump also said he's not going

to show up that one. there is going to be these debates all fall and all winter with candidates who are younger, seem to have more energy, seem to be holding or campaign events -- there doing this out of desperation because they're not pulling well, yes, but donald trump, continually faced with his age, his mortality, the reality of his presidency being in the past. i wonder if that's what he fear is -- we both know he's going to watch every minute of the debate tomorrow night. he's going to live truth it's -- >> and that will be repurposed on x, presumably. >> yes. >> who can't? no it's all -- >> and most people will just -- >> well i hope they don't -- >> they're exhausted. they're going to watch you. >> yes! we will be on air tomorrow night at nine and we will have special post-debate analysis on this network at 11 which i hope people tune into. >> it's on my calendar? [inaudible] yes, i hope so. and i hope to hear your perspective in the coming days, weeks, and months. thank you, brian stelter. that is our show for this evening. now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. >> i'm going to be one who skips it, like brian just said. because i will be sitting right here at 10:00. doing the last word. do my duty in this hour and i, as far as i'm concerned, that's the only thing happening on tv tomorrow. i don't know anything about the stuff you were just talking about. >> it doesn't exist. it's like a tree falling in the forest. alice wagner and lawrence o'donnell will be on the air tomorrow at 9:00 and 10:00. >> i will be watching alex wagner at nine and i will be wagner at nine and i will be well, they are already turning on each other. and rudolph giuliani might be next. there is a report tonight at cnn that rudolph giuliani is traveling to atlanta, georgia, tomorrow. it is unclear exactly why. it is