. >> kim whaley is a law professor at american university. let's begin with whether or not you can define this as a raid. what does that mean? raid is not a legal term. that is not a term i would use and it is a bit incendiary and misleading. this was the execution of a warrant under the fourth amendment of the united states constitution. the king of england at the time of the revolution have the power to issue general warrants. his officers could go into homes and randomly raid them. many steps of the process i have to go through in the federal government including three of the director christopher wray who was appointed by donald trump through the justice department and to judge and there is a standard. we call it probable cause but there has to be an affidavit articulating evidence under oath that demonstrates to the judge that there's probable cause to believe that there is evidence of a crime on the premises. the warrant has to be very particularized. the fbi or the people who conducted the search are not allowed to grab things that they

. >> kim whaley is a law professor at american university. let's begin with whether or not you can define this as a raid. what does that mean? raid is not a legal term. that is not a

kim whaley is a former assistant u.s. attorney and law professor at the university of baltimore. so good to see you. so based on this information that's just coming in, that, you know, cnn is learning that one of trump's own attorneys signed a declaration back in june telling the doj all classified documents had been returned, but according to the fbi, as we know now, they uncovered more of the unclassified -- or more documents, we should say, on monday's search. what kind of potential legal jeopardy does that pose for jump and for the attorney who signed the statement? >> well, of course two different issues, and i think katelyn set it up very well. the three statutes cited in the warrant, we don't know what particular individuals the d oj has in mind. one is the espionage act that talks about defense information, it doesn't specify classified or not. one is taking or concealing documents. the other is concealing documents to obstruct an investigation. we don't know which investigation or investigations that applies to. any that have could potentially affect donald trump. he is

would you like to have you here today to share an evening without a vitale and kim whaley if you haven't been here before welcome to kramers, this is an iconic establishment started in 1976 known forest parkiness progressiveness and inclusive this if you're returning book lover we're thrilled to have you here again now that students dances are safe enough to return to in-person events. this is about our fourth event. so far in this new space, so welcome. oh and perhaps it's unnecessary to say, but if you could please silence yourself. it's really never unnecessary to say that but i always say that. all right. allow me to introduce our guests of honor. i'll leave italy is a capital hill correspondent for mdc news based in washington, dc. she ported on both president biden and vice president harris throughout the 2020 campaign trail as well as congress's most recent efforts to pass covid release legislation. as an mdc news road warrior in 2020. she followed and reported on the campaigns of center elizabeth warren. senator, amy klobuchar and michael bloomberg during the democratic primary c

attorney and associate independent counsel for the white water investigation, kim whaley, and clint watts, now an msnbc national security analyst. so, ken, what are we learning here about the case that the doj laid out in this affidavit? >> lindsey, a couple of pig takeaways. one, the doj saying that there are multiple civilian witnesses whose identities they want to protect in this case. not one single informant or confidential source, but many, many people, and that's why they've asked for all of those names and identities to be redacted. secondly, we're learning new details about the extent of how classified some of the documents were that were found in the origin 15 boxes that were turned over by the trump folks to the archives in january. and it looks like they are some of the most classified documents you can have in the u.s. government. documents relating to confidential human sources, who may be talking to the cia. documents related to intelligence communication intercepts by the national security agency and others. documents so sensitive that they can't be shared with our closest

sacrifice it for the sake of the demonization of russia, as an illustration, the foreign agent deutsch whaleyat is more like a joke. russian troops use the zaporozhye nuclear power plant to rest their troops. and later they write that it is our soldiers firing at the station apparently for the thrill of the british daily mail. europe's largest nuclear power plant sings along hit by new russian missiles, so ukraine requires international sanctions against moscow for nuclear terrorism. naturally, the facts are not given, because they refute the whole premise. a member of the main council of the administration of the zaporozhye region, showed a photo of the fragments of shells. these were american high-precision missiles, which clearly hit. these are terrorists and the 44th artillery brigade of the armed forces of zelensky e. billy. they are from nikopol purposefully on the zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, guided missiles are clearly visible. e production, just here all the same anglo-saxons distract from the defeats of the apu once again expose russia as a threat to the whole world. these are

host: joining us now this morning is kim whaley, and abc news legal contributor and law professor at american university . let's begin with whether or not you can define this as a raid as our first caller said. what does that mean? guest: raid is not a legal term so that's not a term i would use and i think it is a bit incendiary and misleading. this was the execution of a warrant under the fourth amendment of the united states constitution. george the third, the king of england at the time of the revolution had the power to issue general warrants where his officers could go into homes and randomly raid them. the framers were upset about that, did not want that authority for the american government so it is actually many steps of the process that have to go through within the federal government, including through fbi director christopher wray who was appointed by donald trump, through the justice department and to a federal judge. and there's a standard. we call it probable cause but there has to be an affidavit articulating evidence under oath that demonstrates to the judge that the

sacrifice it for the sake of the demonization of russia, as an illustration, the foreign agent deutsch whaley like a joke. russian troops use the zaporozhye nuclear power plant to rest their troops. and later they write that it is our soldiers firing at the station apparently for the thrill of the british daily mail. europe's largest nuclear power plant sings along hit by new russian missiles, so ukraine requires international sanctions against moscow for nuclear terrorism. naturally, the facts are not given, because they refute the whole premise. a member of the main council of the administration of the zaporozhye region, showed a photo of the fragments of shells. these were american precision-guided missiles identified by who e. the terrorists from the 44th artillery brigade were shooting clearly. all zelensky's militants were beaten. they are clearly visible from nikopol, precisely at the zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, guided projectiles of production, that's all the same anglo-saxons distract from the defeats of the apu once again expose russia as a threat to the whole world. these are

the role of law, they whaley made decisions. the depth of the democracy.not think anyone was worried that they would put their money in the u. s. and not be able to get it out. which is a lot more than you can say for other countries. what worries me, first of all, i think it is a great advantage for the u.s. to have this preeminent currency. it certainly allows us to finance our deficits at a much lower cost, and a much easier way than we would otherwise do. because everybody is willing to -- but here is what i worry about. i think that we have been using economic sanctions far too indiscriminately, and that is a fact that the europeans and the chinese are really looking for a way to get out from under the u.s. dominance of the plumbing of the international financial system. we levied secondary sanctions on the europeans and they found that a total humiliation. i think if there is a way around the dollar, the europeans and the chinese are certainly looking for it. and you have to believe that they are going to be fairly creative. especially as we continue

joining me now to discuss kim whaley she's a visiting professor at the american university and the author of the upcoming book how to think like a lawyer, as well as cnn senior political analyst ron, cnn counter terrorist analyst and former fbi senior intelligence adviser, philip mudd. good evening, kim, let's see, let's begin with you, let's start with your reaction to the new reporting? >> don, i'm not really that surprised, i think merrick garland has made clear in speeches that he will follow the facts and the law as far as they take them, regardless of who is involved and he nodded potentially to donald trump, and the january six committee hearings in a very small segment of the evidence have knocked it out of the park in terms of donald trump's involvement and what is already been alleged as, and people think convicted for serious federal crimes. the fact that his lawyers are talking to the doj's not a big surprise. i'm expecting indictments, frankly. the idea that this is about executive privileges is [inaudible] because that is controlled by joe biden and not donald trump. donald

joining me now cnn political analyst alex burns, and kim whaley, visiting professor of law at americanersity and author of "how to think like a lawyer," so good to have both of you on. these lawmakers are demanding transcribed interviews with key staffers for the inspector general about the dropped efforts to recover these text messages. how does this need a broader investigation? >> well, there's a potential number of federal statutes both criminal and civil that could have been violated here. the big question for me is where does the buck stop? the buck stops at president trump who was in charge of homeland security at the time that congress on january 15th, 2021, asked for this information and, don, it doesn't take a cyberexpert to understand that having your employees themselves do the transition, that is upload all of the documents and things from your texts that reportedly was done, is not a safe and effective way of protecting these kinds of documents. as you indicated, this inspector general who was also appointed by donald trump sat on this and declined even after these invest

. >>> joining me is kim whaley and evan perez.ry pause from the appeals court and this order for him to appear before the grand jury in georgia. lower court told him he should app and the appeals said he should reprieve. what does this mean? >> the way this works is the lower court will make a ruling and it goes all the way up. original ruling was about whether lindsey graham can cannot testify all like complete immunity showing up based on the speech and debate clause. it went to the 11th circuit and they sent it back saying let's see if there are certain parts of the testimony that can be actually gotten from mr. graham. so i actually think -- i agree with jessica that this is a delay process but i actually think this could consolidate the ultimate appeal, because any sort of privilege, attorney/client or executive privilege or the fifth amendment needs to be implemented on a question-by-question base. i worked with ken starr in the whitewater investigation and bill clinton as a sitting president had to testify before the grand

join me now with kim whaley, a visiting professor of law at american university, and the author of the upcoming book "how to think like a lawyer," as well as cnn's senior political and terrorism analyst, philip mudd. good evening, one and all. thanks so much. kim, let's begin with you. okay. let's start with your reaction to this new report, first of all. >> don, i'm not really that surprised. i think mayor garland has made clear, in speeches, that he's going to follow the backs of the law, as far as they take them, regardless of who is involved. and he is sort of nodded, potentially, to donald trump, and the january 6th committee hearings in a very small segment of the evidence to knock it out of the park, in terms of donald trump's involvement in what has already been elected as -- and people think -- convicted for serious federal crimes. so, the fact that his lawyers are talking to doj is not a big surprise. i'm expecting indictments, frankly, and the idea that this is about executive privileges, particularly persuaders from joe biden, not donald trump. donald trump lost again, even

and kim whaley, a visiting professor at the.rican university and even the author of an upcoming book, how to think like a lawyer. so good to have both of you on. good evening kim. these lawmakers are demanding transcribed interviews for key staffers at the inspector general about the drop efforts to recover these text messages. how do these relate to the broader investigation. i like the head. centered ignorant. . earlier i asked if the ig was acting in bad faith. listen to this. >> it is a. choice, faith or incompetence. the bottom line is that when this kind of critical information is not transferred from one administration to the other that is a routine. and he treated it as such. >> so the timing of these text. it makes some crucial -- and it was never found. imagine that kind of the secret service as much as anything. and let me see these text messages. >> [inaudible] he was sort of i think being diplomatic. and saying weather was bad faith or incompetence, the outcome is unacceptable. the question whether is bad faith and

kim whaley, the author of how to think like a lawyer and why, and stuart kaplan. we've got the heavy hitters. i'm so glad to have you here. lead the game with you, evan, because i want to know the possibility that the investigators got the help of an informant. what do you know? >> there were discussions ongoing between the trump team and the investigators, the fbi, and the prosecutors doing this investigation. something happened in the last couple of months that altered what these conversations were about, and "the wall street journal" is suggesting that thing that happened was an informant or somebody who was a witness and new there were additional documents or believed there were additional documents being held at mar-a- lago that the fbi wanted to obtain. that's what precipitated and what prompted the activity we saw monday at mar-a-lago, that this informant or this person, this witness was able to tell the fbi there were additional things there they needed to go get, and that's why they did this on monday. >> are they reported they know who this informant mig

joining me now is steve moore, retired fbi special agent and kim whaley, law professor at the university of boston and evan perez is back with us. kim, anyone taking the fifth hundreds of times in a deposition, and this anyone is also the former president no less, what does it say to you? >> well, remember this gives donald trump the opportunity at least with respect to what happened in new york allegedly regarding taxes and finances to say his side of the story truthfully if he wanted that to be the message that got out. instead, he i think in a rare moment took his lawyer's advice and decided that to answer the questions truthfully could potentially incriminate himself, could demonstrate his guilt, that is the fifth amendment that protects all americans. i think it is great that donald trump is finally standing up behind the constitution but as kara indicated in a civil case, the jury can be told that they can infer from that that the government's point of view is the truth. this can't be used against him in the criminal case knowing as we all do his psychological profile is not expert

also, kim whaley is. her she is a busy professor of law at america university and the author of how to think like a lawyer. i'm so glad both of you are on. good evening, thank you very much. so andrew we are talking about the former president here threatening to released surveillance video. wouldn't that put this investigation in danger somehow and in the agents who are sk -- executing the search warrant? there's a couple of things that they're gonna be concerned about. first and foremost, they're focused on the work. they go into that space to recover materials highly classified sensitive materials that shouldn't be in there. they're going to be concerned that any video coverage might've captured images of some of that information that could be used to disclose. it and, then secondly, this undoubtedly that the people captured in that video, the agents doing their work have been authorized by a federal court are now going to be identified and thrown around on social media like you've seen what's happened

kim whaley joins us as well. think like a lawyer, and the former chief of counter espionage, peter strzok, author of compromise, counter intelligence and the threat of donald j trump. good evening. happy to have you all on. thank you for joining. evan, we are getting these new details tonight about investigators looking for more material at mar-a-lago. what do you know? >> don, this is reported from the new york times, and if you remember, the prosecutors there and investigators had asked for and received surveillance footage from mar-a-lago it appears that they want some more. according to the times, there was a period for going back to 60 days that investigators had reviewed, and they saw some things on there that raise concerns. of course, this is something that would explain, perhaps, why after the june meeting, where they came away with classified documents, they somehow decided that there was more information there, and that they were concerned about. that led to this extraordinary move by the fbi, by the j

also here, for private investigator, kim whaley. who is the author of how to think like a lawyer. also senior political analyst, jonathan martin, who is the coauthor of this will not pass, trump biden and the battle for america's future. wow, what a night. and we knew that the fbi rating, essentially, but executing a lawful search warrant. we understand. at mar-a-lago. this is the most recent predecessor to our incumbent president of the united states. chris, explain what it would take for the fbi to get a search warrant like this. this is not just a typical which you have to have probable cause that obviously had to be there, but imagine saying to a judge, by the way the subject home is at the former president of the united states. would that have looked like? >> there had been quite the work of process preparing the affidavit, getting a review by fbi lawyers, getting reviewed by doj lawyers. getting it approved at the fbi headquarters at the level of the director i am certain and approved by the attorney general himself i can't imagine the process of being anything less than tha

kim whaley is here she is visiting professor of law at american university and the author of, how to think like a lawyer. i'm so glad both of you are on. good evening, thank you so much. andrew, you know, we're talking about the former president here, threatening to release the surveillance video. wouldn't that put this investigation somehow in danger? especially the agents as well who are executing this search? >> sure, absolutely. there's a couple things the agents are gonna be really concerned about. first and foremost, focus on the work. they go into that space to recover materials, highly classified, sensitive materials that shouldn't be in their. they're going to be concerned that any video coverage might have actually captured images of some of that information. that could be used to then disclose it. and secondly, there is undoubtedly the people captured in that video, the agents doing their work as authorized by a federal court, are now going to be identified and thrown around on social media like you've seen what's happened to the two folks that were identified last week fr

let's go to kim whaley, former federal prosecutor. she's also the author of how to read the constitution and why. >> so, kim, what is the significance of this and how concerning is this as a development for former president trump? >> well, attorney general merrick garland has been very tight lipped about this investigation, but i agree with his predecessor, eric holder, who said we are likely to see indictments of donald trump. that's kind of the big question. i do think it's coming down the pike. it sounds like the justice department is concerned about drawn out litigation around executive privilege. in this moment it's joe biden who controls executive privilege. that doesn't mean it can't get teased out and the supreme court in united states versus nixon held that grand jury investigations can supersede executive privilege. so i think donald trump is going to lose that battle, but the fact that his lawyers are engaging in this and telling him that he better beware, indictments could come, i think it's very serious news for the presi

but i want to bring in cnn senior justice correspondent, evan perez, former federal prosecutor kim whaleyhow to think like a lawyer and why, and former fbi special agent stewart kaplan. we've got the heavy hitters today, i'm so glad to have you here. we begin with you, evan. i want to know what you're learning about the possibility that the investigators got help of the informant, what do you know? >> laura, we know that there were discussions that were ongoing between the trump team and the investigators and the fbi and the prosecutors who are doing this investigation. and something happened in the last couple of months that altered what these conversations were about. and the wall street journal is suggesting that that thing that happened was an informant or somebody, somebody who was a witness, and knew that there were additional documents, or believe there are additional documents, there are being held at mar-a-lago, that the fbi wanted to obtain. so that's why participant precipitated and that's what prompted the activity that we saw on monday at mar-a-lago. that this informant, this

cnn senior justice correspondent, evan perez is here, and former federal prosecutor kim whaley.he former chief of counterespionage. peter strzok. the author of, compromised, counterintelligence and the threat of donald j trump. good evening. happy to have you all on. thanks for joining. we are getting these new details tonight by investigators looking for more material at mar-a-lago. but do you know? >> hold on, this is reporting from the new york times. but if you remember the prosecutors here that basket had asked for and received. surveillance page from mar-a-lago it appears that they want some more and according to the times there was a period for about 60 days that investigators had a review and they saw some things on their. that race i'm concerned. and of course, this is something that explains perhaps why after that june meeting where they came away with classified documents they somehow decide that there was more information there and they were concerned about. and that led to this astounding move by the fbi justice department. to conduct a search of the former presiden

. >> stay with us, because we want to bring in kim whaley, former assistant u.s.ttorney and law professor at american university and the author of the book "how to read the constitution and why." we also have with us phil mudd, former fbi senior intelligence adviser. great to have all of you. kim, now do you understand, having read this redacted affidavit, the predicate for why the fbi had to search mar-a-lago? >> sure. as jessica indicates, additional details. one is when it comes to the espionage act, section 793, they cite the subsection, 793e and there's language about sharing information with foreign adversaries. that's a critical element. in january, they mentioned that news outlets at the time that the original 15 boxes were removed and brought to d.c., that there were two moving trucks seen at mar-a-lago at the time. why were they there? we also have seen the exchanges of information, as indicated, with counsel. this is a situation where counsel was aware, donald trump was aware, and notwithstanding that, notwithstanding all these exchanges of information,

kim whaley, the author of how to think like a lawyer and why, and stuart kaplan.ers. i'm so glad to have you here. lead the game with you, evan, because i want to know the possibility that the investigators got the help of an informant. what do you know? >> there were discussions ongoing between the trump team and the investigators, the fbi, and the prosecutors doing this investigation. something happened in the last couple of months that altered what these conversations were about, and "the wall street journal" is suggesting that thing that happened was an informant or somebody who was a witnes

attorney kim whaley and form state and federal prosecutor elie hoenig. great to have you both. elie, for the sake of discussion, let's assume the judge complies with what both parties want, unsealing. what do we see and not see? >> the judge told the justice department you have to let me know by 3:00 p.m. today if donald trump's lawyers are in or out on this. i. to -- i want to say, it's not valid for president trump to say i wanted to but my lawyers wouldn't let me. it's the client's decision, not the lawyers' decision. putting that aside. the doj will let the judge know if the the answer is they're okay with releasing it, we want to release it, then the judge could say very well, here you go, unseal it. we could see those documents by 3:15 p.m. today. if in the alternative donald trump objects, then doj will tell the judge we want to release it, donald trump does not, then the judge will probably set a briefing schedule and say i need to hear from both sides. >> the judge -- the trump team, if they do object, would have to explain why they object which i think makes it a whol

i want to talk about the legacy and then i want to move on to the response of the laughed to whaley, and this is going to spencer's thing of i have heard of it but if you put a gun to my had. i was wondering where was the end of history in our library catalog? i was legitimately looking for the book to see if we had an e-book for it, but this was fascinating. pay some attention to the topics that people use for this. can folks see the book titles? this is the book, 1992 that fukuyama turned the article into. the end of history and the last man, but then the date is 2000, the curious fate of american materialism, do folks remember dairy data? the homicide bomber phenomenon. liberation theology. the shape of the signifier, 1967 to the end of history. we spent so much time on postmodernism. american fiction in the 1990s after the end. and then, i just thought this was kind of our program. the marketplace utopia and the fragmentation of an intellectual life. really getting back to this idea of utopia, is this connecting with people? this is american utopian thinking and history is over.

host: joining us now this morning is kim whaley, and abc news legal contributor and law professor atmerican university . let's begin with whether or not you can define this as a raid as our first caller said. what does that mean? guest: raid is not a legal term so that's not a term i would use and i think it is a bit incendiary and misleading. this was the execution of a warrant under the fourth amendment of the united states constitution. george the third, the king of england at the time of the revolution had the power to issue general warrants where his officers could go into homes and randomly raid them. the framers were upset about that, did not want that authority for the american government so it is actually many steps of the process that have to go through within the federal government, including through fbi director christopher wray who was appointed by donald trump, through the justice department and to a federal judge. and there's a standard. we call it probable cause but there has to be an affidavit articulating evidence under oath that demonstrates to the judge that there