evan britton charlie savage, you're going through the affidavit right when it was released. charlie, that was also doing the same in realtime as we try to digest it. it was tough to say the least. but, half of it was in fact redacted. we now know for good reason, because of the sensitive nature of so much that was likely at mar-a-lago. i can't fail to mention this enough, what we read about in the affidavit was literally the things that they had seized earlier. it was not what they then got in the search of mar-a-lago just a few weeks ago. >> that's right, we saw actually -- we know something about it with the got a few weeks ago. but two weeks ago -- we learned two weeks ago when they released the search warrant itself and the inventory of what the fbi had taken. and that included batches of documents marked -- mark classified, some marked very classified with spendy compartments of information. they definitely got momala of both publicly owned documents generally and specifically classified documents including highly classified documents in the search. but it -- you are rig

of the best or supporters in the game when it comes to national security, maybe has some idea, charlie savage, pulitzer prize -winning correspondent for new york times. nbc contributor, author of power, wars relentless rise of presidential authority, and secrecy. charlie you've had a couple of days to try to make sense of what is going on here, what have you been able to learn? what was there, and why was it there? >> that is the 64,000 dollar question. the question is whether president trump had some reason to take all this stuff, or he just wanted to do it. these are mine, i can take them, they are neat. and that is it. there is no sort of larger scheme here, then a generally chaotic approach to following the rules. but we may never have a systemic understanding, if indeed they are classified, i twist you did not mention in your otherwise comprehensive intro, trump's latest defense here, is that they were all declassified, even though the markings were not removed from them. that he had a system in which anything that he took upstairs to the residential, presidential floor of the white hous

>> as you can imagine we've got a lot to sort through this hour with nbc's -- along with charlie savage, a pulitzer prize-winning washington correspondent for the new york times, and ben rhodes, former deputy national security adviser for president obama. now msnbc contributor. welcome all, ben, charlie, let's walk through this affidavit. ben, to you, in these 15 boxes trump returned, a full year after he left the white house, the fbi says that 184 classified documents, 25 of which were marked top secret, 92 secret, 67 confidential. there is mention of who meant, or hcs material derived from clandestine human sources, as well as restricted from -- agencies restricted from foreign nationals obtained from fisa or special intelligence. that ben, there is so much redacted. we still don't know what was actually taken from trump. can you give us some examples about what kind of items these could be? >> sure, alex, when you get into top secret documents, you're getting to the highest levels of classification in the u.s. government. here's what the distinction is. a confidential marking, as som

let's bring in pulitzer prize winning journalist, charlie savage. his latest reporting is titled "possibility of obstruction looms over trump after thwarted efforts to recover documents" and with us katie benner, her latest piece is entitled document inquiry poses federal judgment and with us neal katyal and jonathan lemire back with us as well. charlie, let me start with you. i found your article fascinating yesterday. where we're all talking about 184 unique documents with classified markings on them. 25 top secret documents, et cetera, et cetera. but you talked to legal analysts who suggested that the obstruction part of this investigation may be the most legally damning for the former president. tell us why. >> or at least as perilous as this is. it is right that we've been mainly talking about the spectacle of finding these documents marked top secret and the questionable claim by trump that he somehow declassified anything that he randomly took out of the oval office. but looming over this whole problem he's entailing is that a totally differe

charlie savage is a washington correspondent for the new york times. trump claims he declassified all the documents at mar-a-lago. even if that's true, it probably doesn't matter. and danya perry served as a new york state federal prosecutor as well as deputy attorney general of new york. donald trump is trying to argue that he declassify the documents in his possession. but as you write, the espionage act makes no reference to whether a document has been deemed classified. instead, it makes it a crime to obtain, without authorization, documents related to the national defense that could be used to harm the united states or aid a foreign adversary. so, what's he is arguing doesn't even matter charlie. doesn't even matter charlie. >> that's right, all three of the criminal laws cited in the search warrant do not turn or depend on whether the information was classified. so, maybe trump's lying, maybe he is telling the truth and he sort of waved his hands over these documents on january 20th at 11:59 pm right before biden took the oath and dean them on cl

charlie savage is the washington correspondent for the new york times. both for msnbc contributors. coming up next on velshi, we are going live to crying with reports of over six months into russia's war. we're gonna talk about the steps that ukraine authorities are now taking to protect people from a potential radiation poisoning. after freshman shelling of europe's largest nuclear power plant. plus, providing water for seven states. now, like me destroying out right before our eyes. and our message from -- southwest trying desperately to adjust to the historic drought and continuing to try to feel this nation. >> if we don't know the, stretch it is starting to look bleak for the future of agriculture in arizona. culture in arizona ne! (nurse) wait... did you say verizon for just $30? (mom) it's their best unlimited price ever. (cool guy) $30...that's awesome. (dad) yeah, and it's from the most reliable 5g network in america. (woman) for $30 a line, i'm switching now. (mom) yeah, it's easy and you get $960 when you switch the whole family. (geek) wow... i've got to let my buddies k

joining us now, pulitzer prize winning journalist for "the new york times" charlie savage. chief investigate correspondent michael isikoff and carol lee joins us. >> it is great to have you all here. carol lee, why don't you clear this all up for us. what is the latest. >> coy do my best, joe. our reporting about the way that the president approached things in the white house and this is been talked about for some time, is that he saw everything as his own. so that is kind of the context and the back drop to all of this. whether it was staff, whether it was his cabinet members, they worked for him, right. and so the same was true with documents. and people that we talked to, you heard from normer national security adviser john bolton right there said that there was this constant effort to try to take documents and constantly grabbing at intelligence, he thought he just owned it. there were efforts to try to sneak things away from him once he had them, sometimes they would give him photocopies of documents that were sensitive that he wanted and he said he didn't want photoco

charlie savage as an msnbc contributor and washington correspondent for the new york times. monika pressley is a legal analyst and host of make it to make sense. welcome to you both. monique, walk through this. why is this request going to a different judge? what effect could a special master have on the department justices investigation? >> well, i don't think answering your second question first that is necessarily a bad thing to have a special master. >> why? >> judge cannon has been a judge for 30 seconds now, actually 2020. that's when she became a judge. she was 38. she's 40. now she has been a lawyer ten years before that. spent some time in private practice and spent some time as a prosecutor. she doesn't have any experience whatsoever. nail, none. figuring out what executive privilege isn't isn't. pointing to a special master and giving someone who has that level of experience to comb through the documents and figure out whether trump is doing what he usually does, which is claim executive privilege for things they just really don't want people to know, how does a b

serious crimes, serious statues, and as charlie savage of the unit times reported on friday, declassification, if it happened, is not even a defense. notably, none of those laws turn on weather information was deemed to be unclassified. i don't know whether donald trump ends up getting indicted. when i do know is that donald trump is in trouble. big trouble. donald trump knows that he is in big trouble. because the bigger trouble he is in, the bigger lies he tells. stick around, i will break this all down with my expert panel of lawyers, david henderson and lisa grays, and trump biographer tim o'brien. that is after a very short break. what do you want to leave behind? that's your why. it's your purpose, and we will work with you every step of the way to achieve it. for people living with h-i-v, keep being you. and ask your doctor about biktarvy. biktarvy is a complete, one-pill, once-a-day treatment used for h-i-v in certain adults. it's not a cure, but with one small pill, biktarvy fights h-i-v to help you get to and stay undetectable. that's when the amount of virus is so low it cannot be

bring in pulitzer prize winning journalist and washington correspondent for "the new york times," charlie savageo much of what the justice department says it knows about what it believes the former president and his team did but you point out in 84 piece, i'm reading here, prosecutors unmistakenly focused on the possibility that mr. trump and those around him took criminal steps to obstruct their investigation. but department officials are not expected to file charges imminently if they ever do. why is that, based on what we know even publicly? looks like there's plenty of ground for that. >> i agree that most of what would be needed to establish several crimes here, including obstruction, unauthorized retention of national security information. and perhaps a crime that wasn't listed in the search warrant we saw a couple weeks ago which is defying a subpoena. defying a lawful, you know, court order, appear to have been established here if they want to take that extraordinary step. i think they've described their investigation as ongoing, not complete. and i think they are still needing to fill i