general, christopher carter, who is a republican attorney general. >> yes. >> he is behind this prosecution. >> yes, he is behind it, and sherry boston said she was not . i really appreciate it. >> thank you, chris. >> that is all in on this wednesday night. alex wagner tonight starts right now. good evening, alex. >> we'll have that dekalb prosecutor on the next hour of television. >> you should ask her about this indictment, hear what she says. >> we just may. there's a flip side to having a vast and aggressive interpretation of georgia's rico statute, and that is it. >> tools can be used in different ways. >> that is very true, my friend. thank you as always. and thanks to you at home for joining me this hour. so one of the things that makes a fulton county election interference case against trump and his 18 codefendants, one of

the things that makes it truly unique is that cameras are allowed in the courtroom, and today we saw the very first glimpse of what that will look like, mainly the back of a lot of lawyers' heads. today's hearing was to discuss the severance motions that were filed by trump's codefendants and former lawyers, sidney powell and kenneth chesebro. both of them waived their right to appear. so visually speaking what we got today was the back of a lot of different heads. eventually all 19 of these defendants, eventually they could testify or appear in person, so we could potentially be looking at any one of them, trump included, on the witness stand on live tv. but for now a lot of back of heads. now, even though the actual hearing today wasn't exactly cinematic, it was still fairly

dramatic. this case with 19 defendants all demanding different things was a logistical nightmare. and the logistics are going to play a meaningful role in determining how and when this case gets to trial, which in turn could be critical in terms of actual accountability. today lawyers for ms. powell and mr. chesebro tried to argue to meet their defendant's rights to a speedy and fair trial, they should be tried next month individually. the judge here scott mcafee did not go for that. they're trial is set next month october 23rd but they'll be tried together. the idea they'll have any guilt by association issues is null and void, and judge mcafee isn't going to waste court resources trying themt separately. so at the very least mr. powell

and go to trial together. do the 17 other defendants do they have to go to trial next month as well. ? the prosecutors from the district attorney's office think, yes, they should. >> judge, we contend we must prove the entire conspiracy against each and everyone charged. each and everyone charged, so the court in the interest of the will have to make the decision whether or not the court wants to try the case 19 times or two. >> the state's position is whether we have one trial or 19 trials the evidence is exactly the same. the number of witnesses are the same, and so many of the arguments made on the other side evaporate. >> today the prosecutors told the judge that because they believe they need to prove the entire conspiracy in each and

every case even if the trial is just for one or two defendants, each trial will take roughly the same amount of time. prosecutors estimated that a case against all 19 codefendants together would take four months in addition to whatever time jury selection takes. and fani willis' office anticipates calling upwards of 150 witnesses. again, d.a. willis says that four-month long, 150 witness estimate is the same whether the case is brought against all 19 defendants together or whether it's just kenneth chesebro and sydney powell. still going to be four months, still going to be 100 witnesses. judge mcafee thought a trial could easily take eight months. which, though, i have no law

degree at all makes sense to me. jury selection for this case feels very tricky, and 150 witnesses feels like a whole lot of witnesses. so splitting the cases, severing from from one another in the parlance of the court and having one trial in october for just two defendants and another down the line for everyone else, that could be setting up the court for very healthy hearings not to mention staggering inefficiency. having all 19 defendants go to trial together on october 23rd, in particular he seemed worried about whether it was even logistically possible to get through all the pretrial motions for 19 defendants including, by the way, the former president and get through all of those in just a month. >> this is going to be a case with a lot of pretrial motions, and again i don't know how many hearings we're going to have to have to sort through all those,

but if we can press our time line to 40 something days, the ability to weigh those and think through these issues, again, it just seems a bit unrealistic to think we can handle all 19 in 147 days. >> the judge has given fani willis' office a brief. joining me now kristen, and mimi roka. okay, this is the fact i have no law degree comes shining through in glaring light, but 19 defendants, october 23rd. is this -- are we operating in the same universe as the d.a.'s office? is this even possible, mimi?

>> which i think if the d.a. says it's possible very affirmatively, i think it is possible. do i think it's going to happen, do i think it's even the best idea for the case, no. the judge will decide that. yes, they have to prove the conspiracy no matter how many defendants are in the case, in essence the same case, but having 19 lawyers to do cross-examinations, to make objections, that is what will make that size of the case much, much longer. >> totally unwieldy. >> and unwieldy. and i think this judge seems very common sense, and i think the d.a. is doing absolutely what she should be doing. the government is always ready, the people are ready, the state of georgia is ready, and so she is ready. would she do it if she had to? absolutely. and i'm sure she'd do a very

good job. >> okay, but -- andrew weissman tweeted today fani willis saying she'll call 150 witnesses is really absurd. 150 witnesses no matter who's on trial does seem aggressive, does it not? >> it seems unwise to say you're going to present the same exact case no matter who the defendants are. you only have two defendants part of two very discreet schemes. you don't need to start proving up all the other evidence with respect to 17 other defendants the jurors are never going to meet. it's going to be confusing and the jurors may start to resent the prosecutors for making this go on so long. she's estimating four months. the judge said that could take eight months. you have to prove there's a pattern of racketeering and enterprise, but you don't necessarily have to put on the

exact same case to do that when you only have two defendants versus 19. >> is it just because she wants these folks tried together, and if it does, what is a reasonable time line for that, mimi? >> i think she's doing it, again, because i think that's the position that a prosecutor who charges 19 people together must take. you must say you're prepared to try them together. and, yes, because she believes they acted in concert, they acted together, and so it would be more efficient in some ways in her point of view to do the case once so -- >> sorry to interrupt you. i understand why she wants them to go together. i'm confused why she says regardless whether they're tried together they're all going to get 150 witnesses at their trial. >> i think now they're making arguments to the judge why he shouldn't break it up, and this is one of several arguments that were made. i've charged 40 defendant cases. they were organized crime cases.

i never had more than four at a time go to trial either because most of them pled out, cooperated, or because the judge severed them. it's not common, but i do get the sense here this judge is going to not not have separate trials for everyone but maybe break it up into some more manageable pieces. and we'll wait and see who does plead out, who does cooperate bhch i mean it's very unlikely all 19 will go to trial. they have a right to and they might, but in experience that's unlikely to happen. >> i think the broadest assumption here a bunch of them are going to flip, they're going to plead out, whatever. when is that going to start happening? because ticktock. what is happening behind the

scenes with some of these defendants? >> it starts now. there's an order case now between powell and chesebro. and getting in now would make sense, and before any pretrial motions are filed, so you have to imagine at least some of these 19 defendants are having real conversations with their lawyers about whether or not they're going to cooperate. >> there's another part of this that i think has gone like largely underdiscussed, which is the removal piece. mark meadows and other defendants are saying take this out-of-state court, send it to federal court. right? that decision has not yet bip made. there's likely to be an appeals process that could take some time. this is what judge mcafee, i think we have sound of him bringing up that very important point to prosecutors. >> so if it's a four-month trial that starts in october we're

potentially sitting at a point where we presented the entire state's case, maybe the jury has returned a verdict, but we can't enter that judgment of conviction until the judge issues a conviction in the circuit. >> let's say they say you can't throw it out, it's working its way through the court system potentially at the same time the trial is happening, and if a verdict is returned in the trial you cannot actually convict until the removal process is complete, that whole appeals process is complete. is that right? >> that seems to be what the judge is saying. i'm not sure that's exactly right. i mean, it wouldn't be right if meadows' case was severed, because you still could sever his case, but he would have to do that ahead of time, and he seems not necessarily inclined to do that. i think at some point he said

something about double jeopardy and he's worried about a conviction at the state level, and there's going to be a federal possible trial. there's also still the question if meadows motion is successful does that mean -- >> everybody's. >> and the law is not clear and many people have said on whether, so that's going to have to be decided as well. look, i don't know. i would be hesitant to predict how this is going to play out. i don't think anybody can. >> it's tera incognito in some ways. >> it is. >> when we talk about the federal part of it i'm wondering how this is factoring into the conversations jack smith is making. there's so much overlap. the timing for the jack smith case march 6 of 2024. if this case goes to georgia this fall, i mean you could have a lot of overlapping witness testimony. how would it even work?

and by the way, if it's a real clown scene down in terms of the witnesses and the defendants and their lawyers in georgia, like what are the implications for a federal trial that covers much of the same ground? >> so, you have witnesses when they have federal exposure, they're going to be approaching that state trial with some trepidation, right? what witnesses do they put on the stand? do they present a defense? do they testify? anything they say on the stand, any witnesses they're putting forward could be used against them in a federal case. they have to be careful when there's this overlap in the conduct being looked at at the federal level and the state level. >> is this seen as a sneak preview for him, a useful exercise, or is this gumming up the works if you're jack smith? >> look, to be honest if i were a federal prosecutor in his shoes i'd probably not be happy with it. you'd rather just proceed with your case. you want to be the one to

preview or premier your witnesses. you don't -- yes, and those kind of conflicts happen all the time. >> sure. >> this is not unusual. >> it's just wholly unusual in another way. >> yes, 100%. >> thank you both for exploring this uncharted waters with me. we have a lot more including the potential to get fani willis off this case entirely. it is an idea some republicans in georgia are open to exploring but a bipartisan group of prosecutors is fighting back. that's coming up next. later, new developments in one of the other criminal cases against former president trump over his handling of classified documents. oh, that old chestnut, it's back. stay tuned. old chestnut, it's back stay tuned to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie.

and there's no catch, it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

so as we saw today the rico prosecution of donald trump and his 18 alleged accomplices is moving full steam ahead in fulton county, georgia, but the efforts to delay or even derail that prosecution are not just playing out inside the courtroom. certain georgia republicans have their very own ideas about how to create chaos in this case. they want to oust the prosecutor to remove fulton county d.a. fani willis from office. now, earlier this year the republican controlled legislature passed a law

allowing a newly formed commission to investigate and remove any elected prosecutor in the state of georgia. it is called the prosecuting attorney overnight commission. using it to go after d.a. willis in the middle of the very public and high stakes case would be a step so radical that even georgia's republican governor brian kemp is warning against it. but the new commission that theoretically has the power to remove d.a. willis is set to begin its work in the next few weeks unless it's stopped by the courts. four georgia district attorneys have filed a lawsuit arguing the new law establishing this commission is unconstitutional and anti-democratic. one of them joins me now. the district attorney of dekalb county, georgia, right next door to fulton county. madam district attorney, thank you so much for joining me tonight. and there's a lot to talk about in terms of the substance of this law and its decidedly

anti-democratic bend. for folks worried about the commission and what may come in october, can you talk to me about the make-up of the commission and how the process is supposed to work given the novelty of all this? >> well, alex, i wish i could answer some of those questions, but those are just some of the issues we've outlined in our lawsuit. there are so many unanswered questions on what the rules are and how these types of investigations and removals are supposed to happen. but what we do know is that the eight men, all men have been appointed to this commission, seven white, one african american, by republican political officials and have decided these eight men get to make a decision about the investigation and removal of prosecutors. and once removed would be barred from running for office for another ten years, really ripping local decisions out of

the hands of the voters. >> yeah, and i think that we don't know what is going to happen with fani willis in particular, but the very idea that there is this, you know, external body that can effectively undermine the will of voters and the citizens of georgia seems decidedly anti-democratic and very much fits in with a suite of initiatives, if you will, that republicans have taken up nationwide to undermine institutional integrity and the rule of law and democracy in general. to that end when you talk about who is for this law and who is against it, i think it is notable that governor kemp has said at least publicly that he does not want this law effecttually bastardized to oust fani willis from office. is that meaningful? >> well, it was very meaningful when governor kemp made the statement that he did, stating he has seen no evidence of any

level or reason that d.a. fani willis is doing anything other than what she was elected to do, which is follow the leads, investigate, present the case to the grand jury, and the grand jury made their decision. and so i commend the governor for that. however, at the same time, the governor did say very clearly that he would allow this commission rather than a special session to review the actions of d.a. fani willis, and that is a problem and should be a concern for everyone especially when that commission has power on october 1st, and we know that this trial is slated to begin with at least some defendants on october 23rd. so the idea that anybody can bring a complaint and try to thwart d.a. willis from doing her job in the middle of a major prosecution should be troubling to everyone. >> yeah, and it is worth noting that many of the people that sit on this commission are former d.a.s themselves.

we have not done -- i'm sure you know who they are. we do not. perhaps there is some hope because they are d.a.s themselves, they'll recognize the importance of prosecutorial independence here. who can know. what is the expectation for the lawsuit? >> absolutely. when we filed this lawsuit and we filed the injunction a few weeks ago because we absolutely believe that harm can come to a number of d.a.s before we've had an opportunity to let this lawsuit make its way through the courts. we are sitting in fulton county spear, court. we expect a judge to hear the merits. but no matter what that decision is, that case will be appealed to the losing side as it should be to the state of georgia in which they will be the final decision makers on the constitutionality of this commission. so it would be difficult for any

d.a. to have to defend themselves in unconstitutional commission before we've had a valid opportunity to have our legal issues addressed. and i believe that once those issues are looked at, we have some very meritorious claims here. and i'm hoping that because of that you will see a preliminary injunction put in place so there's no interference not only with the prosecution d.a. willis has taken on, but no interference in any of the 50 d.a. offices right now. >> this isn't just about fani willis but prosecutors doing their jobs. >> sherry boston, district attorney for dekalb county, georgia, many thanks for your time tonight. >> thank you. still to come this evening, moms for liberty. this group did not even exist a couple of years ago, and now this group is not only fighting culture wars over education across the country, it is

attracting the admiration of republicans who want to lead the free world. plus new allegations against donald trump over the sensitive documents he kept down at his florida beach club. that story is next. h club that story is next are you good? no, i think i'm late on my car insurance. good thing the general gives you a break when you need it. yeah, with flexible payment options to keep you covered. just tag us in. ouaaaahhhh! [bell dings] for a great low rate, go with the general.

every day, businesses everywhere are asking: ouaaaahhhh! [bell dings] is it possible? with comcast business... it is. is it possible to use predictive monitoring to address operations issues? we can help with that. can we provide health care virtually anywhere? we can help with that, too.

is it possible to survey foot traffic across all of our locations? yeah! absolutely. with the advanced connectivity and intelligence of global secure networking from comcast business. it's not just possible. it's happening. nearly 13 months -- 13 since

the fbi searched donald trump's florida beach club for classified documents. today we got new insight into what led up to that search. nbc news has confirmed that in may of last year, trump was warned by one of his lawyers, evan corcoran, that the fbi might very well search mar-a-lago if trump didn't comply with a grand jury subpoena requesting the return of those classified documents. abc news was first to report on a warning mr. corcoran gave to mr. trump which corcoran documented via voice memos on his phone. according to those voice memos which nbc news has not yet heard nor seen transcripts of but through a source familiar has confirmed the existence of, mr. corcoran explained to mr. trump if you don't comply with the grand jury subpoena, you could be held in contempt. and there's a prospect that they, meaning the government, could go to a judge and get a search warrant and they could arrive here. that is here as in mar-a-lago.

in other words, these recordings appear to show that mr. trump was very well aware that a search of mar-a-lago was likely, which was not at all evident from trump's statements the week after that fbi search when he sort of whipped up anger and indignation at law enforcement on truth social. there is no way to justify the unannounced raid of mar-a-lago without notification or warning, an army of agents broke into mar-a-lago, went into the same storage area and ripped open the lock they had asked to be installed, a surprise attack, politics, and all the while our country is going to hell. remember when your lawyer told you that might happen? anyway, also today we finally got some insight into why trump's lawyers didn't take a tougher stance with their client. according to recordings, corcoran met with another lawyer who warned trump was just going to go ballistic if corcoran pushed the former president to comply with that subpoena. in the end trump did not comply, and the rest is history. joining me now is mary mccord,

former assistant u.s. attorney in washington, d.c., and former acting assistant attorney general for national security at the doj. she's also, of course, the co-host of the invaluable msnbc podcast "prosecuting donald trump." mary, thanks for helping me understand what's happening here. these voice memos the trump team is saying this is attorney-client privilege, you have no right to this. is that fair, and how useful are these in the case that jack smith is making? >> well, i think it's important to remember these voice memos were the subject of a dispute that was litigated in the district of columbia, the district court for the district of columbia back when evan corcoran, mr. trump's lawyer, of course, during some of the mar-a-lago incidents, the one you were just referring to in the opening, when jack smith and the grand jury sought subpoena mr. smith to testify.

he's asserted grand jury privilege. the government took that matter to the chief judge in the district court in the district court of columbia and argued the attorney-client privilege should be pierced because there was evidence to suggest mr. trump was actually perpetrating a fraud on his own attorney. he was actually trying to use his attorney to commit a crime. the district of columbia judge agreed with that, and that is when mr. corcoran then did testify in front of the grand jury and did supply these voice memos at least some of which were seen by the grand jury at least parts of the same memos appeared in the indictment which were returned. so they're not new. we just have more evidence or more accounting of some of the details of those things at this time. how important are they? clearly they're very significant. they show mr. trump lying to his attorney, and some of the new things we got today show it was

actually when his attorney, mr. corcoran, said if you don't comply with the subpoena, the government may get a search warrant. it was in response to that mr. trump said things like wouldn't it be better if we just said we didn't have anything? we know now that not only did he then spend two weeks, mr. trump, you know, directing his aides, walt nauta, and carlos de oliveira, to move a lot of boxes out of the storage unit and many fewer boxes back into that storage unit, we know now that maybe wasn't just to avoid mr. corcoran being able to see all the classified and go into it and provide the government the response to the subpoena but maybe was to seek those documents away so if there was a search warrant, it wouldn't be found. >> it was almost like he was acutely aware a search warrant was on the horizon and did everything in his power to make sure certain documents were not

found. is it strange to you evan corcoran -- first of all, the fact evan corcoran was making voice memos about his client behaving at best erratically, at worst unlawfully, is that a normal thing in terms of counsel? and secondly, by all the reporting we have, evan corcoran is still engaged as a legal advisor to donald trump. is that bizarre? >> yeah, so, you know, in terms of the voice memos, it's not unusual for a -- for an attorney to memorialize their contacts with their client. right, they want to keep a record of the conversations they said with their client, any advice they gave to their client, how their client responded. that's important not only because they have this relationship. they want to make sure it's memorialized just so they were able to substantiate they were doing what the client # instructed them to do if there was a dispute, of course, but also cya, to protect himself when what he was experiencing clearly there was indications of

mr. trump trying to really solicit him to hide information from the government when mr. corcoran well knew he's a former prosecutor himself. the government had subpoenaed these documents and the result of noncompliance might be contempt or might be a search warrant. so i think keeping the voice memos is not particularly unusual. i do think it is really unusual mr. corcoran is still representing mr. trump. not in the mar-a-lago matter but apparently still in the january 6th related indictment that was also brought by jack smith, this one brought in the d.c. district court here in the district of columbia. now, in that particular case it's -- it's a conflict or an apparent conflict that mr. trump can waive. so if he wants to have evan corcoran knowing mr. corcoran is likely to be a witness against him in his trial in mar-a-lago, he can waive any, you know, conflict and say, no, i still

want him to represent me. now, why does he want to do that? that's what kind of makes me concerned because is he trying to do that to somehow try to pressure mr. corcoran not to give truthful testimony in mar-a-lago because he's paying mr. corcoran to represent him or his pac, or someone is paying mr. corcoran to represent him, and i believe mr. corcoran has got a lot of money from him. all that said, if mr. corcoran says something different in a trial in the mar-a-lago case and memos and voice records and recordings, he's going have to get impeached for that and explain what the changes are all about. >> vis memos are never been so critical. mary mccord, thanks for your time tonight. still ahead hunter biden is about to be indicted, but can a plea deal still be salvaged? his lawyer joins me coming up. but republican presidential candidates are thirsting for an endorsement of an organization

that's being called an anti-government extremist group. we're going to have more on that next. emist group. we're going to have more on that next

i need it cool at night. you trying to ice me out of the bed? baby, only on game nights. you know you are retired right? am i? ya! the queen sleep number c2 smart bed is now only $999. plus free home delivery when you add an adjustable base. shop now only at sleep number.

[ tires screeching ] jordana, easy on the gas. i gotta wrap this commercial, i think i'm late on my payment. it's okay, the general gives you a break. yeah, we let you pick your own due date. good to know, because this next scene might take a while. for a great low rate, go with the general. i think what we've seen across this country in recent years has awakened the most powerful political force in this country, mama bears, and they're ready to roll. >> florida governor ron desantis has been trying to get the conservative mama bear in his

corner, seemingly through an endorsement through a group known as moms for liberty. now, the group was founded in 2021 on the idea parental freedom included exposing children to covid and banning books about race and gender. the group has successfully endorsed a number of school board candidates across the country, which in turn has had a profound effect on what children are learning and how they are learning it, but moms for liberty has yet to the dorse a presidential candidate. the group says it has no plans to endorse a candidate right now, but that has not stopped presidential candidates from endorsing moms for liberty. when the southern poverty law center labels the moms group a hate and anti-government extremist group in june, vivek ramaswamy pledged his allegiance. >> it's a sad state of affairs when a respectable organization like moms for liberty -- and by the way, i'm proud to be the first presidential candidate that signed their pledge -- is now designated a hate group.

if they're a hate group, then so be it, count me in. >> count me into that hate group. a few weeks later an indiana chapter of moms for liberty quoted hitler. the chapter later apologized, but even after public outrage over the hitler quote and winning the designation of a hate group, nearly every single presidential candidate traveled to philadelphia for the moms for liberty annual summit this july. they cut through protesters, and they joined the main stage and fashioned themselves presidential candidates for liberty. >> i see that moms for liberty is coming under attack by the left, attack by the corporate media, protests out here in the streets. now you know how i feel everywhere i go. >> parental rights, you'd think you'd have parental rights.

it's unbelievable what they do to your children. >> what we need to do, what you all are already doing, which is why i love you, which is why they will protest you, which is why they'll vandalize our events is that we are speaking the truth without apology. >> now, all the ring kissing here can be explained by the fact that moms for liberty has repeatedly demonstrated its political power among a key republican voting block, conservative mothers. those mothers have been electrified by the group's school board take overs and their censorship of books in school libraries and their more broad anti-woke education agenda. and man, the competition to harness that political power is fierce. this morning governor ron desantis announced the appointment of moms for liberty co-founder tina descovich to florida's commission on ethics. an hour later former governor nikki haley, her campaign sent

out a mass e-mail promoting her interview with tiffany justice. >> what tiffany and i are doing and fighting today is, no, the parents are in charge, the parents get to make these decisions. so i'm so grateful tiffany and the moms for liberty for the fight they're doing to bring this back to the parents. because parents have one job and it's to get this right for their kids. >> you have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing of your children. this is why so many moms love nikki haley because she's standing up as a mom fighting for kids. >> just a few hours ago nikki haley appeared alongside justice once again this time hosting the moms for liberty parents in charge town hall in new hampshire where parents presumably were in charge. despite all the censorial and retrograde and highly questionable things on the agenda here or actually because of it, republican candidates are tripping over themselves to win an endorsement they believe will

yield votes. moms for liberty has had success at the state level and they're going to try to take it all the way to the white house. when we come back, news broke today the justice department plans to indict hunter biden later this month. his attorney joins me to explain what is going on coming up next. .

every day, businesses everywhere are asking: is it possible? with comcast business... it is. is it possible to use predictive monitoring to address operations issues? we can help with that. can we provide health care virtually anywhere?

we can help with that, too. is it possible to survey foot traffic across all of our locations? yeah! absolutely. with the advanced connectivity and intelligence of global secure networking from comcast business. it's not just possible. it's happening. so we learned today that the special counsel investigating hunter biden plans to indict the president's son on a felony gun charge before the end of the month. in a new filing prosecutors said they'll seek to indict biden for purchasing a gun while he was using drugs and then lying about that on a federal form. the filing also mentions a misdemeanor tax case that prosecutors brought against biden earlier this year. now, both of those cases were on track to be settled in a plea deal that fell apart in spectacular fashion after the judge questioned an agreement.

in a court filing biden's lawyers said their client has been following the conditions of that original plea agreement, but prosecutors have pushed back against that. they contend the agreement is null because hunter biden chose not to plead guilty and the deal was never signed by the probation office. mr. lowell, thank you for being here. and help me understand how it is you're pursuing an agreement that you think is valid. can you explain to me what you think and your logic. >> sure, this is pretty easy for people out in the real world to understand. if two parties make an agreement and sign the agreement and submit the agreement and in open court say they have an agreement, then they have an agreement. and more importantly, what has happened since that day as we pointed out in our pleading, our client, hunter, has been living up to his terms of that

agreement. to be clear there were two different agreements, the plea agreement which was not fulfilled, and this thing called the diversion agreement, which is important based on the prosecutor's filing today about what they plan to do on a gun charge. that diversion agreement is where there was the clause that talked about what would happen and the parties agreed. and as to the people who are saying the probation officer didn't sign the agreement, well, it's a little disingenuous at the very least because on july 20th the u.s. attorney's office wrote to the judge and the court and said that the probation office had agreed to the terms of the agreement, and they were implementing the conditions of probation that the agreement called for. in everybody else's life when they sell a car, sell a house, employ somebody, and they have a signed agreement, most people think it's an agreement. >> i guess to the layman, if that is the case why did merrick garland allow david weiss to

become a special counsel. >> those two things are two different things because if it's true that any part of the investigation, quote, was ongoing, which is what the u.s. attorney's office said on july 26th, then the attorney general who said i'm not going to interfere would say, okay, if this is what you say you need, i'm going to do it, but that doesn't have much to do with what could be brought under that agreement should there be any further investigation. look, as to the special counsel designation, i've said this before and i think people get it now. if the attorney general for months and months and months said that david weiss had all the power and all the authority he needed to bring any case anytime, anywhere, anytime he wanted, and if david weiss the u.s. attorney said that, then what happened when the attorney general changed his name's title was a change in title, not the change in his power. and never forget that after five years of a pain staking investigation, that office felt the right conclusion in this

case was the filing of two charging tax misdemeanors and a diversion agreement for the gun charge. so if they change their mind now, which they say in court they are going to do, then the only conclusion is that the facts haven't changed. the law if has changed, it's only changed to make their case less strong. it has to be the political influence, the improper political interference. i want to come back to one point, though, so people understand. they know everything there is to know about the gun possession. hunter had a gun for 11 days. it was never loaded, it was never used. there's never been a stand alone gun charge like this brought like this ever. they decided not to do a diversion because of hunter's condition at the time, and now they're talking about changing that. what's changed, not the facts. and if people had paid attention the only law that's changed has been a court of appeals in the federal system that has called that statute unconstitutional. so then what changed?

not the facts, not the law. but we have seen over the last six weeks the politics of certainly influenced the outcome. >> if it is in fact the politics dictated this do you think it's possible to resolve this without going to trial? >> i mean, look, i've been doing this for as long as anybody. i think it's possible. but if the u.s. attorney who was correct today to say the following, the statute and calls for a speedy trial calculation is 30 days, it is true that in 30 days something has to happen. while in that period of time something could happen which would be let's back to what you think is the right result by an independent republican u.s. attorney who thought the only valid charge was a failure to file on a timely basis like millions and millions of people do and a diverted gun charge because nobody gets charged for a stand alone gun case. that being the case, maybe

that's what could happen between now and some time in the future. i do know what they said in court today, but they know what i said in court today, too. >> i just wonder if the reality of how the supreme court has ruled on gun rights recently will also have -- will also factor into their calculations, right? i mean the supreme court has expanded the rights of gun ownership including for people who have been found to be abusing drugs, potentially. so all of that could factor into the ultimate outcome in this, and do you think that will have a cooling effect for these prosecutors? >> it depends. as much as the facts and the law should cool these prosecutors, it looks like the heat that's put on by the republican congressmen who want to interfere in the normal course of what the justice department does, puts up the heat. but if they are going to focus on the facts and they are going to focus on the law, you know what's changed since july 26th? the law changed, and this statute that they cited to the

court today has been found by a court of appeals to be unconstitutional. where else other than a case in which they are cowering from the political pressure would somebody be charged with something that's unconstitutional? >> abby lowell, thank you so much for your time tonight, sir. really clarifying. that is our show for this evening. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. the truth is the republican party did not begin on a golden escalator in 2015. long before that day it was forged and defended and defined as the conservative party in america and so it should ever be. >> mike pence gives some of his sharpest criticism yet of his former running mate, calling the future of the republican party a battle between conservative and populism. we'll have more of his comments just ahead.