good live at msnbc headquarters in new york city. trump's transition team keeping the fbi from doing background checks on their cabinet picks. will that critical paperwork giving them access to intelligence to office space ever get signed? it was supposed to be done almost three months ago, so why isn't it? plus, no laughing matter. the onion's bid on alex jones's info wars on hold.

keep calm and gobble on. peach and blossom become the latest turkeys pardoned by the president. their journey that took them 1100 miles from minnesota to the white house. >> the music apparently includes a song living on a prayer. [ laughter ] well, fellows, your prayer will be answered today. so, a little bit of humor at the white house, but we start with growing questions about the more controversial picks in president-elect trump's cabinet and growing frustration from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle about their ability to get answers. that's because so far trump's team is blocking fbi background checks. that is the typical way candidates get vetted before confirmation and a tradition going back some 70 years. this time, however, trump's transition team is refusing to

fill out paperwork to allow those checks to take place. it is alarming to lawmakers want to know more about people like pete hegseth, trump's pick for defense secretary who was the subject of sexual assault allegations, and tulsi gabbard. she has drawn scrutiny for sympathetic use toward the russia and a meeting with a syrian dictator. >> i do think we have a real deep concern whether or not she's a compromise and frankly the u.s. intelligence community has identified her as having troubling relationships with america's foes and my worry is she couldn't pass a background check. >> we should note nbc has no reporting to suggest gabbard is compromised but it's a question on whether or not the fbi will be able to investigate gabbard and others or if private investigators end up doing the job. bill haggerty said in the end, it doesn't matter. >> i don't think the american

public cares who does the background checks. american public cares to see the mandate devoted in delivered upon. >> i want to bring injustice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian, senior national political reporter with me in studio, and senior writer and author of in trump's shadow. what's going on here, vaughn? i know you have been following this closely but do we have a sense whether team trump ever expects to get this paperwork signed? >> reporter: this is paperwork normally find months before, yet we are three weeks after the election and every single week i've asked transition, hey, is there any more update? will you sign the paperwork? not only are there background checks, we are talking about the trump's transition having to reveal its donors as well as other potential conflicts of interest and yet every single time i've been told they are still inconsiderate -- discussions about signing a

memorandum of understanding. that is the answer we continue to get. i want to underscore it's not the top cabinet. there are 4000 political appointees donald trump will be able to nominate and put forward through confirmation proceedings. they will need to be affirmed. this, i think, is a real question mark of whether pete hegseth and tulsi gabbard will get background checks or is there the potential he will install his own fbi director at some point? thousands of appointees will never even go through the process themselves. >> very serious questions you are raising. ken, what is the concern of private investigators to the checks instead of the fbi which is as we pointed out something we've seen for seven decades? >> reporter: yes, chris. private investigators can do a

thorough background check but they don't have the same information the fbi does particularly when we talk about national security issues. for example, a counterintelligence investigation related to tulsi gabbard's trip to meet with a syrian dictator, only the fbi would have access to that. private investigators what end. in the case of matt gaetz, they would have access to the investigation file where he was not prosecuted. no one else would be able to see that. the fbi has the ability to get information no one else can and has a level of credibility. the trump folks do not trust this fbi and they have made very clear that is the case so they might be reluctant to use the fbi for these background checks. >> ken, thank you. i want to play you what a member of the senate intelligence committee had to say about tulsi gabbard. well, questions. she met with assad and we will want to know what the purpose

of that was. we will want to talk about past comments she has made in the full context, so sure, there are comments floating out there but we want to know the rest of the story. >> we want to be able to know. interesting sentence there. saw hill, what is the level of concern you are hearing from lawmakers and republicans that there is information out there they may not know that maybe can be recovered without an fbi investigation? >> reporter: there is real concern, chris. background check would ease the anxiety senators have towards this unconventional pick, tulsi gabbard, in part because of her sympathetic views toward russia. the senate is still not as maga as a background check could potentially get information that, you know, there is nothing specific they're looking for. i think it is a piece of mind sort of thing.

the situation and her trip with assad in syria is at question. the dni overseas intel briefings for the president. our nbc news colleagues have reported concern in the intel community, people close to senators that she could potentially filter information to trump through a pro-russia lens. remember, senators are politicians and answer to a constituency if there is something there. if there is something there, they would rather know before they cast a vote to make sure potentially something bad does not happen for a nominee they support in this position. >> if something blows up you don't want to be the person who voted for. david, a lot has been written about how trump picked people he knew who have political baggage. some say he feels a kindred spirit with people accused of things they say they didn't do. maybe it's because axios says he wants the roy cohen types,

the attorney general he always wished he could have who could kind of do the so-called political dirty work. why do you think -- do you think he just felt emboldened by the results, or figured he is just going to fight it through? why put yourself in this position? >> reporter: all of the above. let's step back. this transition is more prepared and ready to go than the transition 80 years ago when they scrapped the work they had done because of disagreements, started over and the new president at the time who had never been president is busy trying to place people in positions he doesn't know, may not align with in terms of his agenda but a lot of those people ended up being fired or let go because of inadequate background checks and things they weren't aware of. this time around it is a smoother operation and to understand trump is to watch his campaign. why did he first nominate gaetz and pam bondi?

he wants people who will be more in tune to what he wants and not be willing to play the independent role some people like to think of, you know, as the attorney general. he wants rfk jr. and tulsi gabbard who look to national security and other issues like he does, that reflect the coalition that erected him -- elected him. they imagine in their head people voted for them for every last single thing they ever said from the day they started running until the day they won. i think this mandate exists for two things that exist for anything which is get inflation under control, make people feel like they've got more money in their pocket and make people feel safer by getting the border under control and getting communities under control. beyond that i think we will find out after he takes office is that some of the things people will be fine with as long as it doesn't interfere with their daily life and other things they will push back on

and he will have to learn the government else does. >> sahil, what a lawmaker thing about the chances for other candidates? obviously tulsi gabbard being one but pete hegseth and rfk jr.? >> reporter: chris, matt gaetz rejection stands on its own. this was in a category of a nomination many senators both democrat and republican viewed as preposterous not just for the ethics allegations but many didn't see matt gaetz minimally qualified for the position. i'm not sure if any of the other nominees rise to that level, at least not the level of matt gaetz but that does not mean they will get confirmed easily. there are real questions and issues with several nominees. pete hegseth is one of them. there are sexual misconduct allegations which his lawyers call baseless. bill hagerty said americans don't care about the background check. rfk for hhs. the republican concern is interesting.

they don't like the fact he has been supportive of abortion rights. that might be his biggest problem with the gop senators who ultimately have to vote on his nomination and of course democrats have concerns over his anti-vaccine rhetoric. one senator, ron johnson of wisconsin, says he believes the votes are there to confirm rfk. take a listen to what he said. >> i've got my answer with both republicans and democrats. the conversation always starts with, boy, there is a lot i love. you know, that bobby has been talking about and pushing like chronic illness and better nutrition, but i have these concerns. based on the list of concerns and knowing bobby, i think you will be able to answer those concerns and be able to be confirmed quite easily. >> reporter: the standard caveat here, chris, ron johnson is not the web. he's from the maga wing that was always expected to confirm the bulk if not all of his nominees. and pam bondi is the replacement nominee for ag who

has concerns about the fact she was a registered foreign lobbyist for the government of qatar. there was also talk about the so-called retribution agenda donald trump ran on. james lankford was on the show talking about how he wants to hear from her that she recognizes she is not donald trump's lawyer. she has been in the past but in this position, she would be america's lawyer. chris? >> thank you, sahil. david, in the new york times, they wrote an article and i will quote it here. if there is a surprise about mr. trump's choices, it's the range of experiences and worldviews in some cases just beneath the nearly the claimed make america great again loyalty to mr. trump himself. it is hard to imagine a few of his picks sitting comfortably at a trump rally. what's interesting, if there are differences, will they show them? i was reading this this morning

and the presidential historian was on morning joe talking about how great presidents have in common as a through line is really smart people who are willing to challenge them, who are willing to have debate and discussion. port washington had a couple of guys named hamilton and jefferson. not bad company to keep, but will there be any even if they -- if they are late to the party as maga? >> reporter: it sort of depends. trump is known for enjoying to be a spectator to watch as his cabinet secretaries instigate each other, so the question is how much does he permit them to debate him and push back on him? within the president's circle, there are a group of people who will naturally going to do that. there are a group of people who believe you should not try to prevent trump from following his natural instincts, as was

the case so much during his first term and i think it's really going to depend on who ultimately gets confirmed and how much of this debate he allows. with him versus with each other. >> right. >> one thing i want to point out that very interesting here and it gets to this question and we don't really know the outcome yet. this time around, who are the closest advisors in his ears as far as we can tell, right? tucker carlson, donald trump jr., his oldest son, ivanka trump, his daughter-in-law, jd vance, who comes from this maga wing if you will these days and mike pence was a traditional republican who is always there to counsel trump in that direction and always did it privately, never publicly. >> i mean, a long career as a public servant versus, what,

less than two years. >> right. jd vance is newer and more in line with this newer populace wing of the party that is not very conservative on many issues. so, who is trump going to listen to? when is he going to listen to them? who will he be talking to last before he has to make a decision? that will explain a lot of decisions he makes, even if we don't find out until what's going on until afterwards. >> of course, we have to get there first, vaughn, right? how do we know the team is gearing up to get through the confirmation process? >> reporter: playing on what david was saying, what can galvanize donald trump to change instinctually or on big ways he's putting up for nominations, what the budget may look like, and for instance, a senator from iowa was at mar-a-lago. she posted photos of herself with elon musk and donald trump. quite a table when you think

about what that conversation could look like between michael walz, incoming national security advisor among both parties in washington, d.c. right now, and elon musk. if you follow his twitter feed, essentially it says we should bail on ukraine in real time here. knowing joni ernst and her military background, she is undoubtedly asking questions about pete hegseth and his nomination to go forward. this will require donald trump to acknowledge it is going to take getting people like mitch mcconnell, joni ernst on board if you want to get your nominees through and if those individuals buck him, suddenly donald trump may be thought he had the country's politics and his grip but sooner rather than later -- not even 2025, but here in november of 2024, there may be this realization it may not be as easy as him for push through the maga agenda just

because he won the election and popular vote. >> to be continued. sahil kapur, vaughn hillyard, david drucker, thank you. the onion called it a funny joke but now their bid to buy alex jones's info wars is getting messy. we will explain next.

now to breaking news. just a short time ago special

counsel jack smith officially asked the judge in the january 6th case to drop all criminal charges against the president- elect. this comes roughly 16 months after he initially filed those charges, three weeks after trump won the election, ma there are so many different cases about donald trump, let's remind you, this is about his alleged participation and attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, including his involvement in the january 6th capitol attack. he pled not guilty for all of this. a plot that alleges there were teams of fake electors who were trying to overturn the election and trump's pressure of then vice president mike pence in august of 2023, four charges were filed against him. this was the first indictment against a u.s. president concerning actions while in office. i want to bring in nbc's justice reporter ryan reilly, christie greenberg from the

criminal division and former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst, paul butler , a former federal prosecutor and msnbc legal analyst , lisa rubin, an msnbc legal correspondent. thanks to all of you for scrambling here. ryan, give us the latest. >> reporter: i will read directly from this filing. this was widely expected, the team to dismiss the charges. let me quote from the document. after careful consideration the department has determined the office of legal counsel within the justice department has their prior opinions concerning the constitution's prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting president applied to this situation. as a result, this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. that prohibition is categorical and does not turn on the gravity on the crimes charged

for the merits of the prosecution which the government stands fully behind. based on the department's interpretation of the constitution the government moved for dismissal without prejudice of the superseding indictment. the government has conferred with defense counsel who does not object to this motion. basically what they're saying is we had a really solid case here and we would have gotten this over the finish line but for donald trump being elected president and inaugurated, they are banned from a moving that prosecution forward so i think pretty strong words from jack smith's office, they are standing fully behind what they alleged against the incoming president of the united states, saying that would have been a very strong case and obviously they would have ran into an indictment if they did nothing they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of donald trump's peers that he had indeed committed four felonies during his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election which ended up with a deadly attack on the u.s. capitol, chris.

>> this literally just happened and we are printing copies of it but i think before we get into the details of what is actually in it, i want to ask you a question most people have. is this case thus dead forever? >> reporter: yes. >> it's done? >> reporter: it's done. in particular, they are asking the last sentence as the government respectfully moves under federal rule of criminal procedure 48 a dismissal without prejudice in the superseding indictment. let me try to translate that. that means you are dismissing the case and you cannot bring the same charges again. a dismissal without prejudice leaves the door open to charges. however, the charges brought here, chris, unless i'm not calculating it correctly, many of them if not all of them would reach a statute of limitations during the trump presidency that is about to come.

when they are saying they are moving for dismissal without prejudice, yes, the department of justice seems to be leaving a door open for itself, but i'm not sure that is a door they can open again after the conclusion of this presidency. >> i will play part of what jack smith said last year just to remind folks after he filed these charges against donald trump. >> the attack on our nation's capitol on january 6, 2021 was an unprecedented assault on the seat of american democracy. it is described in the indictment. it was fueled by lies. lies by the defendant. targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the u.s. government, a nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election. the men and women of law enforcement who defended the u.s. capitol on january 6th our heroes.

they are patriots and they are the very best of us. they did not just defend the building or the people sheltering in it. they put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. they defended the very institutions and principles that defined the united states. since the attack on our capitol, the department of justice has remained committed to ensuring accountability for those criminally responsible for what happened that day. this case has brought consistent with that commitment, and our investigation of other individuals continues. >> so, kristy, tough question, i think. it's both legal and sort of big picture philosophical. understanding that jack smith very much wanted and pushed to defend the constitution of the united states, defend free and

fair elections in the way that they are laid out in our democracy, and understanding the vested interest the american people have in that, and the very personal interest the folks he just talked about, the people who tried to defend and defended the capitol on january 6th have, did he have no other choice? >> reporter: i think that's right. if he had continued up until, you know, donald trump was in office, essentially the new ag would do the same thing, dismiss the case. in order to conserve resources, it made sense for him to do what he has done but just an additional point to what you and lisa were just discussing, in this motion, jack smith says, yes, there is a constitutionally

afforded to a sitting president is not required dismissal with prejudice. and then goes on to say immunity from prosecution for sitting president would not preclude such prosecution once the president's term is over, or he is otherwise removed from office by regulation or impeachment. so there is possibility here that potentially he could be prosecuted down the line. there is a real question whether or not the statute of limitations would be told because he cannot be prosecuted for this period of time, but the real question for me will be whether or not when the new ag comes in, what's not clear is if judge chutkan will rule on this motion right away or if she will wait for the new ag, who may take a different position and status should be dismissed with prejudice, meaning it is completely over and there is no way to bring this back after he is done with his term.

i would expect the new ag would have a different take on this and would want this completely gone. the fact jack smith left the window open here is interesting. it's interesting to me that i believe and someone correct me if i'm wrong this is unopposed. this is unopposed by donald trump's counsel. that's significant because his counsel is going to be the number two and number three at doj, at least with respect to todd blanche that he is confirmed. so the fact they haven't proposed this is interesting as well. maybe it suggests they are comfortable leaving the window open because they don't think there is any way this could be resuscitated after his term is over. >> lisa, i want you to pick up on that because reading this with my eyes, not a lawyers' eyes, but on the first page, he comes to the conclusion that the department, meaning doj, has determined that olc, the office of legal counsel, a prior

opinion concerning the constitution's prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting president applied to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated. >> reporter: that is an interesting question that they have come to that conclusion. chris, one of the reasons has to do with the interplay between this case and the special counsel regulations. special counsel regulations say at the conclusion of the special counsel's work, they are to deliver a report to the attorney general perk. we are familiar with what those reports look like. usually those reports are generated when the investigation and the prosecutions come to a close. it may be one of the reasons they breached the determination, unless and until these cases are over, jack smith does not feel comfortable releasing the

report in compliance with those regulations and he very much wants to release the reports before he leaves. why does he want to do that? he understands on january 20th at noon, if he is not resigned and the reports by then, the new administration has no interest either in letting him continue this work because the attorney general can fire him. if the report is not out, they can ensure it never sees the light of day because it's up to the attorney general whether to release jack smith's report which we understand is likely in formation to the public. >> okay, paul, i want your overall reaction to this, but i want to remind people the indictment mentioned six unnamed co-conspirators. the question remains what happens there? give a short take. >> reporter: since the co- conspirators were unindicted, they haven't been formerly charged with the crime so presumably prosecutions and investigations could continue, but look, with regard to donald

trump, make no mistake donald trump won. he beat his case with assistance from the supreme court of the united states. and it's possible the case will be dismissed without prejudice, meaning that if it overcomes the statute of limitation concerns, it might be brought again in the future after trump leaves office, but chris, here is what i think is likely to happen. donald trump can pardon himself in office. can a president pardon himself is a question the supreme court has never answered but the constitution gives the president broad pardon powers and we know how friendly the supreme court is to the power of the executive including the president, so i would expect that at some point in the next four years, either early in his term or on the last day, one of donald trump's pardons will be to himself another supreme court case

regarding donald trump. >> we have been talking about this for a year and a half, two years, ever since donald trump first was indicted and in one case, convicted. he wasn't just running for president. he was running to stay out of prison. >> reporter: right. there was also the new york hush money payments case. the jury found him guilty on 34 felony counts but it would ultimately be down to the voters, his own set of jurors in that case and in the january 6th case to the extent at which they found the january 6th attack on the capitol and donald trump's efforts to overturn the election damning enough to prevent him from going back into the white house. liz cheney and others opposed to the efforts to stay in power articulated over the course of years it was going to be up to the voters to determine whether donald trump and his efforts to stay in power after 2020 should keep him from ever getting back

into the white house again and the answers -- the voters answered that question just three weeks ago. we just got a statement actually from a spokesman for the trump transition here, the incoming communications director. quote, the american people reelected president trump with an overwhelming mandate to make america great again. today's decision by the doj ends the unconstitutional federal cases against president trump and is a major victory nt immediate end to the political weaponization to the justice system and we look forward to uniting the country. of course, pam bondi is the new pick for attorney genald trump believes the department of justice in 2025 should investigate the prosecutors who sought charges and successfully got indictments against donald trump. undoubtedly that would be jack smith and the department of lo

target of investigations or indictments. the tables have turned come 2025. >> we should point out there are multiple misstatements, including it was an overwhelming mandate. we have done entire segments on that. this was not an overwhelming mandate. at last check, he would have fallen below 50% of the vote. i'm not sure that is true today, but thank you. lisa rubin, what else are you seeing that is relevant for this as a lot of people look and say, again, the question i asked you the first time. is it dead, dead, dead? for example, one question, could some other prosecutor in some other jurisdiction decide to pursue this after he is out of office? >> reporter: that's interesting. no. from a for all of the reasons stated in the filing jack smith is going through those opinions from 1973 and 2000 methodically to defend the decision his office is making that this cannot be decided as he says in newspapers on a case-by-case

basis but rather the policy has to apply across the board. a sitting president is not a mountable to indictment or any other form of criminal process. but to your point about whether or not another prosecutor could pick up the slack, fani willis, even someone like alvin bragg are going to continue potentially to make the argument that their cases are unaffected by that policy. it is a policy belonging to the department of justice. it doesn't have the force of law and of course, they don't report to the department of justice. that is a federal policy, not a state policy. we can expect depending on whether fani willis remains in control of her case that oral arguments are set for december 5th before the georgia court of appeals has now been canceled without explanation so we don't know what the future of that case will be and whether she will remain in control of it. but alvin bragg's office right now, you know, has a decision to make about whether to even

sustain their conviction. they have told the judge they are willing to postpone a sentencing, but they have not indicated a willingness to let go of the conviction itself. sort of setting themselves up, i think, not all that similarly from jack smith. maybe a stronger adoration from alvin bragg's office than in jack smith's filing to the point maybe at a future point in time there could be a future prosecution but there are a bunch of ifs, chris. all of the statutes donald trump has been charged with federally have a five year statute of limitation from when they were committed. assuming the latest on any of those violations was january 5, 2021, that runs right into the smack middle of donald trump of -- trump's term. unless a federal court holds those statute of limitation or pause while he is president and we don't have any president to that point yet. >> there is so much in this

unprecedented and jack smith has pointed that out numerous times. i want to bring in justice and intelligence correspondent ken dilanian. ken, we have been talking about the january 6th case but what's going on with the mar-a-lago documents case? >> reporter: chris, we expect another filing in the 11th circuit of appeals later today. it is not exactly clear how that will play out because there are two other defendants in that case and remember, that case has been dismissed. the justice department is appealing that dismissal and appealing it on the legal grounds they believe the way they have appointed a special counsel was proper. remember, she ruled it was illegal so they may try to litigate that appeal while taking donald trump out of the case but one thing is clear, donald trump will be out of that case. i'm sitting here today having covered these investigations for years and having stood outside courthouses and having read every document in these

cases just flabbergasted frankly. it is a historic moment. these indictments were historic moment and the dismissals are equally historic. 50 years after watergate. richard nixon was forced out of power by lawmakers from both parties amid credible allegations of criminal conduct. 50 years later, we have an equally serious allegation of criminal conduct against a person who was elected the president and if no person is above the law, perhaps the lesson of the trump era is the majority of american -- the american public decided donald trump in a sense was above the law, or at least they didn't believe the allegations in these indictments. what i hear about weaponization, look, the bottom line here is that the special counsel -- ca there was no interference whatsoever from the political appointees at the justice

department. half the country does not believe that but that is just a fact. particularly when it comes to the classified documents case, chris, many security experts have set anybody else would have alrebeen sentenced to lengthy prison terms for doing much less than what was alleged in the classified documents case and obstructio here. donald trump by being elected by the majority of the american public essentially escapes the claws of justice here, chris. >> i think it is important to go back and remind people because we've had a whole election cycle since we dropped off covering these day to remind people really what the stakes are here. and what the charges were. what the accusations were. let me go back and i will come back to you, lisa, about january 6th in a minute. but ken, let's start with you.

why did people feel this classified documentsh can be ha people if you talk to voters out there. they will say it's a lot of papers and they ended up at mar- a-lago or whatever. it was not something at least a lot of voters i talked to found themselves worked up about in the grand scheme of indictment, after indictment, after indictment, after indictment. tell us why it was so important. >> reporter: you are right. a lot of people reacted that way in part because let's remember joe biden also was caught with classified documents in his home office. but the circumstances are so entirely different. look, it's complicated because he was the president, so he had access to all of this material, but the evidence shows after he was president, he possessed and kept and stored away some of the nation's most sensitive secrets in an insecure place in his bathroom and other places

at the mar-a-lago manchin. most experts who look at this case said even given that set of facts, he would not have been charged if he gave the documents back when the justice department and fbi asked for that, but that is took steps to thwart the investigation to the point according to the indictment, he was ordering his employees to destroy video evidence of boxes of classified documents being moved. and so, it wasn't just he kept these sensitive secrets in a could have exposed them to foreign governments or others. he allegedly lied about it, obstructed justice, and they had to serve a search warrant on his home and said they sent fbi agents in against his will to retrieve those documents, an extraordinary moment in american history among many. that is the issue. again, voters don't see the significance but anyone who

works in national security -- we still don't know the extent of the secrets, but some of them were codeword top-secret, some very, very sensitive material involving covert operations, names of sources, things that if they got in the wrong hands could cost lives. that is what was at stake in the classified documents case. again, many have gone to prison for simply taking home a document that was classified that should have only been kept in a locked safe and so, that is the bottom line of this case, chris. >> thank you so much for that. i will bring in catherine christian in just a minute, our msnbc legal analyst who knows jack smith. i think it's useful to lay the premise if we can, lisa, about the charges that have just essentially gone away, at least for now. >> reporter: in the federal election interference case? >> right. >> reporter: the charges were of multiple varieties. one was a conspiracy against civil rights. that had to do with the fact that trump and his co- conspirators actions what have

essentially thwarted the will of voters had they been successful in that. there were charges having to do with obstruction of an official proceeding and charges that have to do with the way in which they tried to obstruct that official proceeding. literally the manufacturing of records that didn't really exist, meaning the creation of these fake electors in seven different states in an attempt to get then vice president pence to accept those alternate slates of electors. in the beginning, they told some of th just in case. but in reality, what they were really planning all along was to try to use the alternate slate of electors either to convince state legislatures an governors to withdraw their

initial slates, or to convince vice president pence through a pressure campaign that resulted in him having to be evacuated within inches of having the senate chamber infiltrated by folks who ran into the capitol unauthorized on january 6th itself. the nature of the charges here really go to the heart of our democratic process, and yet after that supreme court decision last july, so many allegations, even if the charges didn't disappear, all four charges remained. so many allegations had to go away. all of the allegations having to do with how trump tried to manipulate the department of justice for his own ends. the supreme court said those are conversations between him and his executive branch advisors. therefore they weren't within balance anymore. similarly, there were conversations with other white house aides that came out of the indictment. and so what the case would have

been about if it continued to be litigated is whether or not the pressure campaign on mike pence could be prosecuted and similarly if the fay collector scheme was in the could be prosecuted because it didn't fall within his core constitutional duties or even within his official duties at all. >> so, catherine christian, i will read very briefly from this filing from jack smith, again, you know. it simply says this outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant. the government's position on the merits of the defendant's prosecution has not changed. rarely in the history of the united states of america has a federal prosecutor and under more pressure than jack smith has been under. the kind of division we have seen in this country, the threats that have been out there and not just for

him but for scores of people who worked for him, that put in thousands and thousands of hours on this case to build a case and the monumental decision that had to be made to bring a case against, at the time, a former president of the united states who was running again for president of the united states. knowing jack smith, tell me what must have gone into this decision for him, especially knowing how in a situation like this, a prosecutor can feel very protective and he has clearly felt very protective of the people who work for him. >> well, chris, now that this case is essentially over, i feel i must say this about jack smith. i met jack smith when he came out of law school. he was assigned as a young prosecutor, young attorney who had days in office in my trial bureau. i was about to start a homicide case. i plucked him and had him second seat me because i saw him

then -- he didn't have a beard then. i thought he was very smart. a very ethical man. a young prosecutor. i felt this man would have a great career of ethics, and the fact he decided today to do this is a test to his ethics. he could have dragged this on. donald trump will not become president until the end of january. he did this today. he has always, throughout his career -- i have not seen him in years but i have followed his career. he has always been about the facts and the law. there has been a lot of, you know, talk about prosecuting him, going after him. that would be an outrage. he did his job. he didn't pick donald trump. he is not vindictive. as lisa outlined the facts of

the indictment, and the classified documents case, these were very serious, very egregious allegations. he could not have just overlooked it and circumstances have changed, as he said, but the facts and the allegations remain the same. >> okay, i will come back to you in just a minute because they have a lot of questions about that but apparently we now have the motion out of florida. ken dilanian, what can you tell us? >> reporter: chris, i've got it in my hand. >> this is the mar-a-lago documents case. >> reporter: it seeks to dismiss donald trump from the justice department's appeal of the dismissal of the mar-a-lago cases and continue the appeal with donald trump's two codefendants, his two employees. donald trump is out of that case, if the judge grants this motion but that appeal would continue. remember, this is an appeal of judge aileen cannon's ruling jack smith was selected as

special counsel. it's illegal and unconstitutional, an outlier ruling. no other judge had ruled that way in many, many instances of litigation so the doj wants to continue appealing that case and it will continue prosecuting apparently the two codefendants, but is asking the court to dismiss donald trump out of that case. that concludes the legal saga involving mr. trump, assuming the motions are granted. he will no longer have federal charges pending against him, chris. >> does that essentially if not conclude, it's the beginning of the end of jack smith's work? >> reporter: is that for me? >> yeah. >> reporter: yes. regulations require the special counsel to send a confidential report to the attorney general and merrick garland has made every one of these public. we expect he will make that public too. they are probably already writing and have a report explaining the prosecution's

decisions. because of the compressed time situation normally there would be a review of any special counsel report. in this case, there isn't time for that the we expect any public report would be not much more than we have already seen in the public record about these cases but he does have to file that before he leaves and, yes, i would expect after that is done, that he and his team, the political appointees, those that don't already work for the justice department will depart their jobs. what happens to the career doj officials that work for him, and by some reports donald trump is intending to fire them. some of those people intended to go back to their regular jobs in the national security division and justice. the question is whether they can continue in a trump presidency, chris. >> one of the things i find really interesting, talking about what ken just said, whether staff can go back to

their jobs. one of the things that comes across to me at the filing in d.c. is jack smith signed it personally in his handwriting and alone. that strikes me as him not only being willing to absorb any of the blame, but also as a protective measure with respect to the career folks detailed to his team. trying to say, look, i take responsibility for this. these decisions were mine from start to finish, from indictment through the end of the dismissal, but also trying to send a line in the sand that the careerists should be left alone because civil service regulations strengthened by the biden administration should entitle them to return to their department of justice jobs. of course, they can be reassigned to jobs they don't want, but can they be fired? no, they are not legally allowed to be fired and yet do i expect pam bondi and todd blanche to try to fire some of these people? yes, and they will spend the

bulk of the next trump administration i expect fighting to regain those jobs for which they have that legal protection. >> yes. big difference in the words short and will. what would you expect to see in this case? >> reporter: you can also -- we should expect donald trump in his first week in office finds an executive order called schedule f which would reclassify potentially tens of thousands of federal civil workers, some of these doj prosecutors, and turn them into political appointee decisions. the schedule f classification notes of someone is in a policymaking decision and the trump doj could try to determine that a lot of these folks who are working on this case are in policymaking decisions and could use that as a means of trying to subvert the protections currently there for the civil workforce. >> can i go back for a second, catherine christian , about jack smith -- let me show folks

there at the bottom of the page. there it is. respectfully submitted by jack smith, special counsel. his signature on it. i wonder if you concur with lisa that this was him saying you can put this on me. the buck stops here. it sounds like that would be in keeping with the man that you knew in his younger career. it also struck me, something you said. he chose now. he could have let it go but he chose now not to let it drag on. as i'm sure you know, people will think he should have kept fighting this up until the very last second. the principles at stake are too big and too unimportant. -- important. why do you think he did this now? >> why would he do that? he is a man of integrity. i'm not surprised he put his name on it and said come after

me if you're going to do something that ridiculous. come after me. it's not these staff people. why drag on what is inevitable? do it now. do it before the holidays. hopefully there will be a report released on both cases. that is, you know, jack smith. he is a professional. was never personal against president-elect trump. he just did his job. >> so david drucker is back with us. you covered the trump campaign. he has been waiting for what he views as vindication. this is not based on the merits or strength of the case and will not be read by trump. he will see this as vindication. >> reporter: yeah, and i think he has some right to look at it that way because he's been elected president despite what he did and everything we know about what his involvement was

in a january 6th attack on the capitol, the way he would not concede the election, called it rigged and stolen, and continued to talk about these things that the campaign in the same language, even campaigning on the january 6th writers that have been convicted. >> you make a good point because in the old world of politics if you had something that would be perceived as negative, you are the last person who would talk about it. donald trump put it out there all the time in the way that he was the one who was being persecuted not just prosecuted but persecuted and whatever people voted on and, you know, for many of them, the economy was number one, that clearly was more important than anything they thought in terms of prosecutions. >> reporter: he never softened his edges but let's back up and look at the republican primary. he arguably had his best fundraising days, his best days

politically as he was seeking the nomination after being indicted. the case in new york that alvin bragg brought in particular, it united anti-trump republicans with pro trump republicans. that was seen as one of donald trump's biggest coups in the campaign. the day alvin bragg brought that case, not only did trump raise so much money, tens of millions of dollars in one 24 hour period, pushed him up in the polls over governor ron desantis of florida and other republicans in a way they were never able to recover. even though those federal cases have so much more merit, many

people believe that many republicans believe all of those cases helped him win the nomination. secondarily, as i traveled the country in the final weeks of the campaign, i was in arizona, wisconsin, pennsylvania before election night, west palm beach, florida, i didn't have voters talk to me about this. even voters supporting vice president kamala harris would talk about her economic agenda. you know, there was concern over whether donald trump would not concede again if he lost. there is concern among democratic voters about whether or not he follows the law in his second term, whether or not he leaves the white house willingly at the end of a second term. but nobody brought that up as a first issue. republican certainly don't care about it. when you look at the demographic shifts across the board in trump's favor with hispanic voters, with 18 to 29- year-old voters, and states

neither harris nor trump ever campaigned and were just consuming news, you knew none of this meant anything to them. was inflation, border security, trump's past. they said i'm comfortable with a second trump presidency. it is certainly a lot better than we have now. breaking news. two filings in the last hour or so. special counsel jack smith calling to dismiss two of the cases, the federal classified documents case against president-elect donald trump, and to deconstruct this theory breaking news. will have much more coming up after the break including reaction from a member of the january 6th committee. that is next. detailed dna results. inspiring family history memberships.

now's the time to save at ancestry. ♪♪ ["the glory of love" plays] giving. ♪ giving that's possible through the power of dell ai with intel. so those who receive can find the joy of giving back.

♪ ♪ ♪ something has changed within me ♪ ♪ it's time to try defying gravity ♪