i question christina bobb's motives. i know christina bobb. she's very, very loyal to donald trump. i knew her when she was an executive secretary at dhs, and she has a habit of lying her way through things. i think she's in some serious trouble. i think when you're dealing with classified information, anyone who enabled this moment that led to these classified documents to be down there at a resort instead of where they should, which is properly stored, i think the live of intelligence officers are on your head, on your conscience, and you're impacting the entire intelligence community with the cleanup they're going to have to do and the damage you've done. i think you're equally responsible. you're a part of this. >> ellie, what's next? >> tomorrow we're going to have this hearing. it looks like the sor sort of calmer heads among trump's legal team have started to take precedence over the christina bobbs. if i'm trump's legal team, this is not the time to argue the search, whether the search was constitutional or no. all you're asking for here if you're trump's lawyers is a specia

i fear for christina bobb and her career as an attorney.ould never sign a document that says based on my information, this is all that exists in terms of materials that trump removed from the white house. i'm sure you noticed the government's response, they mentioned she put a little caveat that said based upon the information that has been told to me, this is all that exists. and so i think maybe part of her knew that there may have been more. and i'm sure that other folks in trump's team kept information from christina bobb, so that she could say that all that existed was this accordion folder and she hands that to the government. >> does she need to get an attorney? >> oh, for sure. >> because of her potential exposure and role in this? >> i have no doubt she will turn into a witness. >> wow. what do you make of the timing when it comes to the special master, and if the trump team does get one, i think a lot of people have been learning the term "special master" for the first time. it's not a well-known term. if they do get one, and if t

. >> reporter: and that refers to christina bobb and evan cork ran and questions over whether one or misled investigators about sensitive documents. two sources tell cnn bobb signed a letter june 3 claiming that all materials requested in a subpoena had already been handed over to the justice department. but this week in a court filing, the justice department said classified documents remained at the premises, not where standing the sworn certification made to the government on june 3. the "new york times" reports that evan corkran also met with a justice official on june 3. >> it is pretty bad as far as legal jeopardy and for continuing to represent the former president. >> reporter: a couple months after christina bobb signed that letter, fbi agents found over 100 more classified documents. but a key passage in the june 3 letter when she claimed that all the documents had already been turned over said the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. what if bobb or corkran didn't know classified documents remained at mar-a-lago, is that an out for them? >> tha

i'm told by sources that christina bobb will automatically be a witness. she will be asked for testimony. we'll see about evan corcoran. >> so harry litman, let me ask you one key point of the trump filing is the claim that the june 3rd meeting between the justice department official and trump's attorneys, evan corcoran, christina bobb, was as the file put it significantly mischaracterized. how do the courts go about verifying which version is the truth? >> well, for now they don't have to. it's funny, because all these self-inflicted wounds that everyone is documenting were really unnecessary. they have got -- she's not going to have to decide who's right or who's wrong. on the other hand, i think given the sort of documentation from are the doj, we have a pretty good sense of what happened. there is these ellipses in there about further investigation and we'll find out about that later. but the point about bobb and corcoran that carol makes is very strong. bobb is the one to signed an attestation after a diligent search, there's nothing here. surprise, t

i am told by sources that christina bobb will automatically be a witness, she will be asked for testimonywe will see about evan corcoran. he is still a lawyer. but we now know that team trump recognizes christina bobb is in trouble because they are no longer, according to our reporting at the washington post and my colleagues -- there are no longer going to have her representing donald trump on any motion. she is not going to be signing anything. and i think evan is going to be in that situation not too long from now. >> oh, to be a trump lawyer, which is what i said at the end of the last block. but it cannot be stated enough. it is amazing anybody wants to represent him at this point. and yet, the investigation continues. carol leonnig, national investigative reporter for the washington post, thank you for your time and wisdom and reporting on everything else. carol, it is great to see you. >> thank you, alex. >> breaking news out of alaska, where sarah palin -- yes, that sarah palin -- has just lost her bid for congress to a democrat. we will joined by political reporter mark leibovitz

. >> reporter: that refers to trump attorneys christina bobb and evan corcoran and questions over whetherbout sensitive documents held at mar-a-lago. bobb signed a letter on june 3rd at mar-a-lago claiming all materials requested in a subpoena had already been handed over to the justice department. but this week in a court filing, the justice department said, quote, classified documents remained at the premises, not withstanding the sworn certification made to the government on june 3rd. "the new york times" reports that evan corcoran also met with a justice official at mar-a-lago on june 3rd. >> it's pretty bad as far as their legal jeopardy and for their continuing to represent the former president. >> reporter: a couple of months after christina bobb signed tha after she signed that document, a key passage in the letter when she claimed all the documents had been turned over said, the above statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. what if they didn't know classified documents remained at mar-a-lago? is that an out? >> that's an interesting question. that makes them

you think of alina habba, christina bobb. there are privilege issues and what they can talk about and the extent to which this is in the special master's authority but to supplement, this is all a problem of donald trump's own making. he brought this civil litigation when he didn't need to. he gave doj the opening to provide the public with more information about what was going on that he didn't need to let them do and now he has both the 11th circuit and special master breathing down his neck telling him what are you doing here? you can't just make these wild accusations. you have to back up with sworn affidavits, with exhibits. you've done none of that. we're not going to play games with this stuff. either you provide the evidence or your case is done. >> listen, you know this. a lot of people will say especially when a high profile person they want the court of public opinion. they think they can sway people, they think they can sort of push the legal system into what they're thinking. i want to continue talking about what

cnn has learned that christina bobb was at least one of the people giving those assurances, even signing a letter saying so. the doj filing goes on to say the documents were, quote, likely concealed and remove frd a storage room at mar-a-lago as an effort to, quote, obstruct, unquote, the fbi investigation. it says that some recovered items were so classified that even some fbi counterintelligence personnel and others needed additional security clearances to review them. so, that's for the doj filing. now, again, just seconds ago, we got the trump team's reply. cnn's sara murray and josh campbell join us now with a look at what's in it. >> that's right. we are just starting to look through this. essentially what the trump team is focused on is this argument about this special master and whether there should be another outside party who is reviewing the documents that the fbi seized when they searched mar-a-lago in august. and it is very clear in this filing that the trump team is trying to cast themselves as looking for more transparency, more oversight, particularly when it comes to the

people like christina bobb? do you think they've actually gone and gotten their own counsel off a fear that they could be a codefendant in a subsequent indictment with donald trump? >> katie, i see this as a multidefendant type of indictment if it's brought at some point, hopefully. if she has not lawyered up, she should be lawyering up, and so should ms. haba who was on tv talking about being in that room and the documents not ever look like that. she's at a minimum a witness, and she needs witness counsel. a witness as we know can turn into a subject, and a subject can turn into a target easily. so all of these lawyers need their own lawyers, which is part comical and part really astonishing to me. but they have put themselves in a situation where not only he have not controlled their lient to the extent that he's controllable. he's out there talking and digging a deeper hole for himself. but they are digging holes for themselves as codefendants. they have signed off on affidavits having personal knowledge abo

and if donald trump did that with christina bobbe and that representation in response to the subpoenae's obstructed justice. >> add that to the many list of questions, right, we all have in terms of how all this played out. jim, when you hear these comments from bill barr, doj may not need it, right, but i'm curious do you think they help at all when it comes to this investigation in the court of public opinion, or even with republicans who have been -- a number of them as we've seen twisting themselves in knots to rail against the investigation, to rail against the recovery of these documents. does bill barr today change any of that? >> maybe as to those folks who aren't 100% loyal to donald trump. the folks who were 100% loyal to donald trump and believe everything he says are never going to be swayed by what bill barr says. so from a political per spelktive, no, they're not going to be swayed by this at all. but in the general court of public opinion i think having bill barr, former attorney general coming out and saying basically this idea he could, you know, willy-nilly declassif

get the classified material back voluntarily, pointing out that the former president's lawyer, christina bobbified documents and then signed a statement swearing that, after a thorough search, no other classified material was found in the storage area. but, then, "explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room." i don't know why they were suspicious. the boxes were clearly marked "christmas stuff." -- the feds also recovered documents related to the use of "clandestine human sources" in intelligence gathering. that means lists of our secret operatives in foreign governments! why would he have those? is he writing a new spy thriller? "tinker, tailor, soldier, woman, man, camera, tv." almost as disturbing as what the f.b.i. found is what they didn't find, because "43 empty folders with classified banners were taken from a box or container at the office, along with an additional 28 empty folders labeled as 'return to staff secretary' or military aide." his defenders have said "see? some of those folders are empty! noth

while trump appears to be facing serious legal jeopardy, two of his lawyers, evan corcoran and christina bobbd come under scrutiny from the department of justice on their own. the new york times reporting they're likely to become witnesses or targets in the federal investigation. with that, we have got a lot to get to, so let's get smarter, with the help of our lead off panel. yamiche alcindor joins us, nbc news correspondent and moderator of washington week on pbs. professor melissa murray of nyu law school. she was a law clerk for sonia sotomayor on the federal bench before her nomination to the supreme court. and her dear friend jeremy peters, reporter for the new york times and author of the new book insurgency, how republicans lost their party and got everything they ever wanted. melissa, walk us through this. trump's legal team has now made their move. break it down for us. >> so this is, again, a little bit better than the initial filing that they made before judge cannon, but not much better. it starts off by arguing that there is appropriate jurisdiction here because the president do

two months earlier though on june 3rd, christina bobb, officially the cuss toldian of records signed on his behalf said under oath in a sworn affidavit that all appropriate documents had been surrendered to the department of justice. of course, when you're looking at that filing from 48 hours ago, the department of justice says that they had acquired more than double the number of classified documents that had been turned over two months previous, as part of that june 3rd setup meeting between trump's lawyers, and the department of justice. but one other note here. when we are talking about the legality of this here, and the potential danger, the department of justice is laying out, and the need to not have a special master but instead to be able to move this case promptly along, the department of justice is citing the concerns around national security here. saying that there are potential sources of important national security information that could be in danger, and that is why the office of the director of national intelligence is currently reviewing these very documents that were

as a result, two of trump's lawyers evan corcoran and christina bobb are now in need of their own legal representation. as the "new york times" reported last week the lawyers, quote, have subjected themselves to scrutiny by federal law enforcement officials. investigators are seeking information from bobb about why she signed a statement attesting to full compliance with the subpoena and they have signaled they have not ruled out pursuing a criminal inquiry into the actions of either ms. bobb or mr. corcoran. as trump's lawyers are in court fighting the justice department over those documents, the former president is now directing his rage not just at the feds but also at the state's republican governor and potential 2024 contender ron desantis. "rolling stone" reports trump is upset about desantis's decision to fly nearly 50 migrants from texas to martha's vineyard last week not because he thinks it was irresponsible and inhumane to target asylum seekers, no, trump is angry because, well, it was his idea first. quote, trump is telling allies and confidantes he is outraged that desantis

still a lawyer -- evan corcoran, he is still a lawyer but we already know the team recognizes christina bobb is in trouble because no longer she will be representing donald trump on any motion, she will not be signing anything, and i think evan is going to be in that situation not to too long from now. >> to be a trump lawyer, which is what i said at the end of the last block, but it can't be stated enough, it is amazing anyone wants to represent him at this point and yet the investigation continues. >> carol leonig, national investigative reporter for the "washington post," thank you for your time and wisdom and reporting and everything else. great to see you. >> thank you, alex. >>> breaking news out of alaska where sarah palin has lost her bid for congress to a democrat. we will be joined by mark liebowitz for more on that stunning result and the reaction of the d.o.j. situation on donald trump. >> and bennie thompson later, chair of the january 6th committee stay with us. every search you make, every click you take, every move you make, every step you take, i'll be watching you. the inte

i think another reason why these things are linked is because of christina bobb.ation that was false, she has put herself in legal jeopardy. and so on the obstruction case to pressure her to put pressure on her to -- put her in front of a grand jury to try to get more information out of her, it -- it puts her in a strange position. would she have information that relates to the rest of the investigation that's to be seen. it's also to be seen whether or not that's what the justice department intends to do. she certainly has put herself into that potentially place by signing that document. >> there's a lot of attesting going on. "the washington post" in the last hour broke a story about some white house counsels attesting to what mark meadows told them about the status of classified documents. they were sure he hadn't destroyed anything and that there was nothing more than news clippings in the boxes in mar-a-lago. talk about all these pieces and people saying i didn't know, mark meadows told me there was nothing in there. >> yeah, well, that's why investigation re

now, we don'tt know who donald trump will use to be his lawyer in this instance, and christina bobb, or it could be rudy giuliani, these people will have access to the crown jewels of our classified intelligence information. and as we've heard, there is somee' pretty explosive stuff i here, relating to the national defense. having that information in the hands of people who are not reliable government answers, is definitely a risk to national security. >> the other piece of this is the time line. the government has wanted to wrap this up pretty expeditiously. we are now given an extended deadline here from judge cannon to november 30th but there is kind of anud appeals process fo every batch of documents that either side takes issue with, in terms of classification. could this slide into next year, barb? >> i'm afraid it could. now one thing she did say is she asked tosa prioritize the 100 o so classified documents. so he will look at those, make a decision, and turn them over. but of course, that's where all of the action is. i can imagine donald trump makingi an argument there, aft

it may be evan corcoran or christina bobb or could be rudy giuliani. these people are gonna have access to the crown jewels of our classified intelligence information. and as we have heard, there is some pretty explosive stuff in here relating to the national defense. having that information in the hands of people who are not reliable government actors is definitely a risk to national security. >> i -- the other piece of this is the timeline, the government has wanted to wrap this up pretty expeditiously. we are now given an extended deadline here from judge cannon, to november 30th. but there is part of an appeals process for every batch of documents that either side takes issue with, in terms of classification. could this slide into next year, barbara mcquade? >> i'm afraid it could. one thing she did say is that she asked judge dearie to prioritize these 100 or so classified documents. so, he will look at those, make a decision in turn them over. but of course, that is where all the action is. i could imagine donald trump making an argument there, a

but christina bobb at the moment seems to be in most jeopardy. she is the one that signed the document that testified -- that she believed in good faith that all the documents have been returned. what really telling statement and the affidavit is after about two hours, we found hundreds of documents. it's hard to imagine that anyone could have done a diligence search and not find a single one of these, when we found hundreds in the short period of time. on the face of it, it seems that she is in the most trouble. of course,, it really depends on the source of information was. is that something she was told by donald trump. it she had access to his office says that she could make that representation? i think we need to know a little more there. but somebody is in trouble for making that false at that station. >> barb, what kind of timeline can we expect from the justice department? could we see an indictment by years and for instance? >> i think we might. when you talk about the january six investigation, for example, i don't think we will see ind

more straightup, i would think that you'll be seeing, we'll be seeing evidence of interviews of christina bobb, for example, possibly other lawyers and certainly aides close to trump in gathering, packing and assessing whether those classified government records, totally 100% government property, assessing which ones needed to be returned to the government and what donald trump said amid all of that. >> charles, you have heard the justice department warn that any further delay in appointing the independent arbiter, the special master, could cause irreparable harm to their investigation into the missing trump documents, and here's former homeland security secretary jai johnson a short time ago describing the impact of the delay. >> it is a platter of time is of the essence, before evidence goes cold, before a trail goes cold, before sources dry up and people have second thoughts about talking to the government. there is an impact about having to stall a criminal investigation. i hope this judge appreciates that. it's not simply a matter of just pencils down. when you're in the middle of conduct

that is not really the role of a defense attorney but that is what christina bobb did. now she's probably gonna have to withdraw from her representation of donald trump. why? because her loyalties are split. she still has loyalties to donald trump. she has a responsibility to flawlessly present him. but now, she has to look out for her her own interests, including her own potential criminal interest, so i predict for too long you're gonna see her move to withdraw from representation of donald trump. >> joyce i want to show you a poll. it's from the wall street journal, but it was august 15 to 17. it's a couple of weeks old, and i don't know public opinion has changed on this in the time being. but people polled said that 52% of the people said that the search was legal and proper. 41% say it's a witch hunt. on one hand, it seems like a majority of people think it was legal and proper, except 41% use the language that donald trump and his people use. in a normal world, and a law and order, generally speaking, the defendant wouldn't be able to influence public opinion and

the christina -- whoever wrote that, bobb, whoever wrote that and turned it in and said there are nos, that was a lie. there are plenty of documents. there was over 100 documents. so, she has got a problem. she knew what we she was saying was a lie, at which point she is a codefendant. and if she didn't know, she's a witness, so either way she should not be representing trump. and the same thing was with corcoran. even though corcoran did not sign that out, apparently, he confirms of the department of justice lawyers, who presumably also had an fbi -- wrote it all down. he confirmed to the department of justice lawyers that there were no for the documents and that they had done a diligent search. and every time you turn around the trump team says they have done a diligent search. again, tonight, in their document by the way, they use that term diligent search, apparently the talking point, which is untrue -- so now evan corcoran has the same problem. he's either going to be a witness or he's gonna be codefendant and he should not be represented trump. and what that means is, it's a r