The Second Indictment 39:45

Hello and welcome to another breaking news episode of Prosecuting Donald Trump. We are here because for the second time in history, in this country, the former president of the United States has been charged with crimes, this time federal crimes.

A grand jury in Miami charged Trump with seven criminal charges in special counsel Jack Smith's documents investigation. Trump has said that he is innocent and he is now in the legal system presumed to be innocent, hinting that the government bears the responsibility that it welcomes to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt to a unanimous jury. If it can't do that, then the defendant is acquitted.

So, with that, Mary, welcome. Good to be here, Andrew. This is sort of the day that I think we've been building up to for some time, and it's time to kind of take a reflective look at what's happening and how we got here and what this really means. You know, as much as, Mary, we all knew this day was coming, there was just no question given the reported facts that

this was going to be a charged case consistent with DOJ precedent. It just would have been anathema to the rule of law if it weren't charged. But there's something...

breathtaking about the actual fact when it happens. And that's in spite of the fact that he's actually currently under indictment in state court for 34 felony counts. And yet still the news yesterday when it broke was still

sort of awe-inspiring. Right. It's unprecedented. Yeah. Yeah. So I know we're going to talk a lot about what we know, what we don't know, what we can anticipate today, tomorrow, in the next few days. But

Why don't we start with Mary, what was your reaction to this? Why do you think this is important? What was your sort of initial take on what we just learned? I think what really struck me is that even though we've been building toward this moment,

And there's been a lot of discussion and speculation about what the charges might be and a lot of discussion, including between the two of us, about the evidence that will support charges here. I think it's a good time to really stop and reflect on what this case is about.

And this case is not just about indicting a former president, right? This case is about threats to national security. That's why we have the laws on the books that we expect are some of the laws that the indictment will charge were violated. Those laws are to protect our national security, and that's for a very good reason.

The United States is a major world power. We cooperate with other world powers, other governments to protect the security of not just the United States, but all of our allies and partners. We share information with foreign governments. They share information with us.

We have our own assets whose jobs are to oftentimes put themselves in danger in order to acquire information that helps the United States protect its national security.

We obviously have military and defense operations going on across the globe. And information about troop movements and activities is highly, well, top secret, right? It's stuff that has to be kept close hold or else our adversaries will get a hold of it. And I could go on and on about the things that the United States and its allies are every day taking care to keep secret.

And these are the very things that are in the documents. I mean, we know just from the things that were obtained during the search of Mar-a-Lago, we're talking about over 100 documents of highly classified information. So when we're talking about mishandling of classified information, we're not just talking about, you know, casual information.

oh my gosh, I accidentally took this document home and I'm bringing it back the next day. I didn't mean to take it home. We're talking about the documents containing the kind of information I was just talking about that could reveal sources, could reveal our assets. That means people working for the United States government that are helping us obtain information that helps us

protect the U.S. national security, protect global security. We're talking about military information. All of these are the kind of things that are in the documents that are at the heart of this case. And no one, frankly, should be more concerned about national security than a commander in chief or a former commander in chief. I mean, one of their primary jobs, but it's a job that the American people

don't hear about every single day because so much of it is done in secret in that situation room in the basement of the White House where I spent many, many hours. And you probably did too, Andrew, when you were FBI general counsel. Many, many hours there. I'm sorry to say yes. Yes. And you know that windowless room where people, you know, in the national security community at the highest levels, including the president, spend many, many, many hours and

oftentimes, in single days, worrying about and strategizing over and making plans for how to protect our national security. That's what's at the heart of this case here. And so

It's not a casual case. It's a very important case. And, you know, back when the search warrant was first executed, we had a lot of discussions about what would our intelligence community be having to do? You know, we've been focused on what is Jack Smith and what are the prosecutors doing? Well, our intelligence community, you know, the director of national intelligence, Avril Haines and others had to then reach out to our allies in foreign countries and

and talk to those folks who they work with on a regular basis and try to explain to them what has happened.

what we're doing here in the U.S. to mitigate any threat, to understand whether there was any risk that any of these documents or the information of them could have gotten into the hands of adversaries. You know, everything we were doing to kind of contain this. Our national security apparatus had to think about, do we have any assets who are now compromised or exposed? Do we have intelligence collection methods that are now compromised or exposed? All of these things had to happen. And that's at the heart of what

this case is about. And that's one reason, among others, why it's important. And I'm sure your time at the FBI, Andrew, as well as your time as a prosecutor, makes you reflect on these things as well and all the seriousness that comes with them. Yeah, absolutely. So,

Before I sort of give my take, just in something you said, it's just important for people to remember, it's not a crime to make a mistake and accidentally bring home a document in your briefcase or knapsack. I mean, it's not a good thing. It's called a spill. As soon as you see it, you report it to your security officer. There's a whole process for dealing with that. But that's a mistake.

that's not a crime. A crime has to be knowingly and intentionally doing that. If you looked at the document in your office, saw that it was classified, and then brought it home, that's a crime. So we're dealing with something very, very different here, where the charge is that everything was knowingly and intentionally done in terms of retaining documents. And then, of course, the obstruction. And we'll turn to that in a moment. So I had a take last night when I was

heading home at 1:00 AM before I got up at 5:00 AM. That's like MSNBC 24 hours a day. And during that time, I thought back to, and to, wait, hold for a moment. And like, I have a big buildup for this. So it's gonna seem like I'm not answering the question, but I thought back to a summer internship

that I had at the ACLU in New York. And it was when Roger Baldwin was still alive. He was one of the founders. He was in his 90s. He died a few years later. And he would come and talk about how the most important thing for the ACLU and for the legitimacy of the United States is that

the belief in civil rights had to be in the hearts and minds of the American people or we were lost. And that all of the work the ACLU did about law reform and statutory reform and interpretations of the Constitution were important. But if it wasn't in the hearts and minds of the American people, none of that mattered. And I remember the time

That just went way over my head. I was like, what's he talking about? I was just like, but if it's a law, it's a law. And if it's in the Constitution, it's in the Constitution. I just, you know, I hadn't gone to law school yet and I was very young. And I was thinking about that because we're going to have such a clash now between the legal system and the rule of law and court system and the Justice Department and

And the vilification of all of that. And somebody who, his whole persona is, the rules don't apply to me. We've already seen people in the Republican Party talk about how this is a witch hunt and this is terrible. They haven't even seen the charges and it's already a witch hunt. And that clash is

just brought back home that this is going to be a test to the American people of how much do they value the courts, the Justice Department, and the rule of law

and fundamental precepts of what at least I thought it meant to be American. Because that's going to be, to me, the sort of showdown here in sort of big picture. But I, Mary, couldn't agree with you more. And the reason it's important is all of the things you said and the fact that that is why

There are so many people who have been charged with doing far less. Yes. And this is the former president of the United States. So it is so important that he be held to account. And for those people who thought yesterday was a sad day, to me, it was an incredibly important day, not just symbolically, but in terms of what this country stands for. So...

That's my high horse. Totally agree. And I think important for our allies to see that our system is not just going to brush this under the rug, right? That we do take it seriously. Absolutely. You know, we've joined now other countries. You know, we like to think of ourselves as, you know, the leader of the free world, that our country

system is so much better than everyone else's. But you know what? Other countries have dealt with this issue of holding political leaders, even ones in office, to account. And I keep on reminding people that Jack Smith, of all people, knows that because he came from the International Criminal Court.

And so he's quite aware that this is unusual for the United States, but it is not unusual for so-called first world countries, which have held people to account. So Mary, let's jump to at this stage,

what do we know about what has been charged in Florida? And then, you know, that's going to sort of naturally lead to what do we not know that we're sort of looking for? Right. So,

First of all, none of us have seen the indictment. It appears that not even Trump's attorneys at this point have seen the indictment. We're recording this the morning after the announcement that the former president has been indicted. But his own attorney, Jim Trustee, did go on national media right after learning of this and did

at least list out that there were seven counts and mentioned what a number of those are. And those include the 793 unlawful retention of national defense information. That's a count we've talked about many times as we've talked about the Mar-a-Lago investigation. That is a charge under the Espionage Act. He mentioned obstruction of justice, including two different provisions,

Section 1519, which is 18 United States Code, Section 1519, which is one that was listed in the affidavit in support of the search warrant. So that's one that everyone's been talking about for months and months now. But he also listed a second obstruction charge under Section 1512.

of the U.S. code, which we can talk a little bit about what's different about those two obstruction offenses. - I know this counts really well because if you may recall at Another Life, - Absolutely. - I was one of the prosecutors in the Arthur Anderson case.

which was an obstruction case. And then after that case was done, there was 1512 and 1519 were promulgated and or amended. So because of the various deficiencies in the

statute that we had to use. Right. And let's come back to that. But just finishing the list. So we've got Espionage Act. I just thought we'd have a nerd out section after talking really big principles and why this is important to the nation. I thought it was really important to make sure that people knew that at heart, we're really boring lawyers. Yeah. You know, when you start citing, even Jim Trustee, I think on the national media is like, I know this is not great TV when I'm starting to cite the code provisions. But for me, I'm like, no, it's perfect. This

It's great. I love it. Bring it on. Yeah, exactly. He also mentioned false statements. And I think particularly interesting, he mentioned conspiracy. And we've talked a lot about whether there might be conspiracy charges here. We've talked about that both with respect to talking about the grand jury testimony of one of

Mr. Trump's former lawyers, Evan Corcoran, we've talked about with respect to people working at Mar-a-Lago like Walt Nauda. And now, even though Mr. Trustee said he wasn't sure whether anyone else was going to be named in this particular indictment, he did say there are conspiracy counts. So those are the things really that are sort of on the table here. We don't know exactly how many counts under each

provision or whether they'll just be one of each. But that's at least what his own attorney has said. And obviously, we also know it's in Florida, which, you know, it feels like a million years ago. But just a couple of days ago, everyone was thinking, including me, that it would be in D.C.

dc and by the way i've gotten all these kudos on twitter on chris hayes was like oh you called it in terms of timing right but i just want to remind people that well i was right on timing you know i thought at least two days ago before all the news happened about florida i thought the case was going to be brought in in dc and you know i've said all along this will be dc this will be dc this will be dc i know i know you and i it's like who should stop listening uh

But at least I was right on timing. I'll just, you know what? My view on timing is these are people who, like when it's ready, you bring the case. Because as we've talked about, the clock is really important if you need to try and get to trial so that the electorate knows what happened. But in any event, those are things we know. I kind of want to get to what we don't know because I'm dying to hear what you have to say about, for instance, the conspiracy charge.

More of prosecuting Donald Trump, the second indictment, in just a moment.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. I have an obligation to find a way of telling this story that is fresh, that has angles that haven't been used in the course of the day, to bring my experience working in the Senate, working in journalism, to try to make sense of what has happened and help you make sense of what it means to you. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, weeknights at 10 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.

So, Mary, we've talked about what we know. I'm dying to pick your brain on what we don't know. And let's start with where we just left off, where you said we know that there's a conspiracy charge. But that, of course, left the question of who are the conspirators or plural or singular. It seemed pretty clear to me just from my experience that that would be

somebody who would be charged. In other words, that we'd see another name in the indictment when it's unsealed. It's not required, but it would be, I think, unusual to have a conspiracy without naming that person.

And it also isn't surprising to me that Jim Trustee may not know for sure who that is, because when the Department of Justice calls, as I have in the past, calls a defense lawyer to say your client's been charged, you don't talk about somebody who the client doesn't represent. You have a separate call. Then those lawyers can obviously coordinate and talk as much as they want. So, OK, with that build up, Mary, who do you think it is?

You're right that ordinarily, you know, when there's a conspiracy, the conspirators would be named, although sometimes you have an unnamed conspirator in indictment. But there's also the possibility that the co-conspirator has cooperated and will not then be charged.

or will be charged and is taking a plea, right, to something in return for cooperation. And I think that's the kind of thing that Jim Trustee was flagging in his interview on national media after he learned about the indictment. He referred to the conspiracy as related to the obstruction, I think, and then referred pretty explicitly to Walt Nauta, the former president's

sort of person. They've called him a bodyguard at times. They've called him just someone who's done many different things over the course of time for the former president. And he's the one, of course, who we know has been involved in moving boxes both out of the storage room at Mar-a-Lago and back into the storage room at Mar-a-Lago. We also know that he did speak to Jack Smith's team and that

They, of course, as you and I would be, were interested in his cooperation. And given that we're now hearing about a 1512 offense, let's talk a little bit about that offense, right? Because that offense could involve corruptly persuading another person to essentially obstruct justice and

That's an area where it's quite possible that Mr. Trump had conversations with Walt Nauda about moving these boxes, right? Potentially concealing some of the classified information. So, you know, my speculation is that probably the co-conspirator is either Nauda or potentially other people as well at Mar-a-Lago.

But there are other possibilities, too. And if it is Walt Nauda, I think one big question that is open that we will have the answer to before too long is, is he going to be charged or is he cooperating, pleading guilty and cooperating or just cooperating and not taking a charge at all? Yeah, it's worth maybe just fleshing that out so that you could have

a situation where Walt Noda has admitted to Jack Smith, "This is what I did," and he says, "I'm a conspirator," but he was basically given immunity, like he'll never be charged, but he is a conspirator. In other words, the fact is he's a conspirator, but he's not being criminally held to account. But my money would be on that not happening, just because I think we would have heard that sort of sooner. The other possibilities are that

Jack Smith said to his lawyer, you know, you're going to get charged. And I mean, not you, the lawyer, but Mr. Netta is going to get charged. And that Mr. Netta had a change of heart and at the last minute said, you know what?

I'm going to come in and tell you what happened. And Jack Smith said, that's fine. But, you know, this involves pleading guilty to what you did. And then if you're cooperating, you get that brought to the attention of the judge at sentencing because the judge will be told all the bad things you did, but also all the ways in which you helped the government. And then, of course, there's the third possibility, which is

He's just another defendant, and he hasn't admitted anything. He's just a defendant in the same way that Donald Trump is a defendant, with maybe different levels, obviously, of culpability. But he's just facing the charges like anyone else with our due process rights of any defendant. So what remains to be seen. I also agree with you that I think that's the most likely person, but it could even include...

Mark Meadows. I just, nothing about what we've heard so far in the charges suggests that because the charges are about illegal retention rather than illegal taking. And obstruction. And there's no indication, I think, that Mark Meadows, at least at the time that the archives was trying to get, you know, the presidential records back and after the Department of Justice had subpoenaed the Trump Organization for the records, I haven't seen any reporting suggesting that Mark Meadows had anything to do with

anything that happened after that. It's conceivable, but pure speculation. So, yeah, I agree. Obviously, there could be other low-level people. It's going to be fascinating. I actually, I'm sort of very much looking forward to reading the obstruction last

language. We've talked about how there is likely to be a speaking indictment, meaning that it won't just track the statutory language, it will lay out the facts. But the obstruction counts in 1512 and 1519, those two statutes are commonly used. They're sort of, in some ways, catch-alls. They could encompass the false certification that Evan

Corcoran, Roe and Kristina Bob signed. They can include moving boxes. They could include lying to the archives, lying to the Department of Justice. It could include lying to Mr. Corcoran. I mean, it could just really have chapter and verse. We could look at a lot more information about exactly where the boxes were and how this moved.

the nature of the classified documents could be set out. As you and I have talked about, the nature of the classified documents, I think is going to be fascinating to see what they choose because, you know, as we've talked about, you may not want to use the most sensitive ones, but you don't want to use the least sensitive ones. So it's a touchy thing.

And just note to listeners, we will come back with an episode to really focus on how the Classified Information Procedures Act will be applied here. And we'll even have an expert on this to talk with us about that because that's part of the key here. Mary, you're an expert on this. I guess we both are, but we're going to bring another expert on this to talk with us about that. By the way, Mary, do you know I've dealt with that statute both as a prosecutor at the FBI and

but also as a defense lawyer. I have a really good anecdote to tell when we do that. I have not done it as a defense lawyer. So one thing on that episode, which everyone's really going to have to stay tuned for because it's fascinating and it's going to be super important for this case as it goes forward. And we are going to be in our element because that is going to be the nerdiest of nerdy episodes. I mean, our producer is going to be thrilled by that.

But let's just say what we talk about it when we get to SIPA, you're not going to hear that.

on msnbc it's going to be here and only here that you're going to get all of those details and actually maybe we should give law school credit for oh yeah i think so totally absolutely but can we go back to something before we move on because no um you know one of the other as you were listing all the possibilities there with respect to other co-conspirators etc um

One of the things that Jim Trostey mentioned was false statements, right? And the reason this is so interesting to me is because the biggest false statement we think about, I think, is the letter that you just referenced, signed by Christina Bob, that was provided by Evan Corcoran. These were both Trump attorneys that was provided by Evan Corcoran to the government on June the 3rd when they turned over the 38 documents in response to the Supreme

And this is the letter that said, you know, they'd searched in due diligence and this was everything that was responsive. And no other responsive documents remain. Right. That's the one where Donald Trump, I think, has real exposure if he knows that that was the statement that was made. No other responsive. And that's the key that I wanted to get to. Oops, sorry. Because right now what we know... Well, hey, nope, nope, nope, you're going there. Because what we know is that was signed by Christina Bob, right? What we don't know is...

Did Trump orchestrate the signing of that? Did he tell them? See it. Did he see it and know it? Did he see it? Did he know it? And if there's a false statements charge and it's related to that document, that means that Jack Smith and team thinks they have the proof that Trump orchestrated

you know, was aware the statement was being made and adopted, essentially approved that statement being made. Now, it could be related to some other things, not just that. But remember, a false statements charge is going to be a false statement made to the government in the course of an official proceeding, knowing that. So that's the one that's most obvious to me. And that's the one where we've been talking for months.

months now about whether there's information, whether Jack Smith has information that Trump knew that that's what was being represented to the government. So if that charge is in there, then he's got to have that kind of proof or he wouldn't be able to bring that charge. Yeah, exactly. And it would suggest that either Bob or Corcoran or even potentially others have given that information. So, Mary, one of the things that we don't know, which is critical to this case, is

who the judge is who is assigned. And there's just so many reasons that's important, obviously, because that judge can really set the pace for the case to whether it'll get tried quickly, whether it'll get tried after the Republican nomination convention, whether it gets tried after the election, and also has so much discretion in terms of rulings.

Also, when we talk about the classified information procedures, a judge can be familiar with that or not familiar with that, and that could lead to delay and complications as well.

One of the reasons D.C. might have been preferable from the government's perspective is in general, the judges there have more experience with classified information because that's where so many cases are. That's where the FISA court is. As you know, Mary, I mean, I know I'm preaching. Yep. FISA court, meaning Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for listeners who don't. And there's always three judges from D.C. or part of that court. So they're dealing with classified information all the time. Judges from other parts of the country's

also sit on that court, but it's located in D.C. So you're right. The judges in D.C., most of our classified information cases are brought in D.C., so they're very familiar with those procedures. Yeah. So this, though, will be in Florida. And the judges may have had cases. It's less likely, less familiarity. And obviously, their judges, they're familiar with it, but they get up to speed and they can do a good job. Right. That's right.

But it is worth noting that this is the district where Eileen Cannon sits. So that is a distinct district.

possibility. This should be assigned randomly. If you remember, her case was a civil case. There is no ability to relate a criminal case to a civil case. So I think she would have to get the case randomly. But that is a possibility. And very famously, she was reversed by a conservative

Court of Appeals, not once, but twice. So, you know, she would be sort of a nightmare draw if you are the government. But by bringing the case here in Florida, that is something that, you know, they've accepted that risk.

And so we'll see what happens. Just to go back in time, just to refresh people's recollection. I mean, she's the one who, you know, ordered the government to not review any of the seized documents, the documents that were seized during the search warrant and appointed a special master to review those. And these are the things that were reversed by, like you say, a conservative 11th Circuit. So she has, you know,

been very widely criticized by both of us, as well as many, many other lawyers for how she handled that matter, because she really did a lot of things that we thought were pretty unsupported in law. And the 11th Circuit agreed. They agreed with us, Mary. Yes, exactly. As well they should. Yeah. So the other thing that this calls to mind, though, is, you know, and we alluded to this earlier in the episode, that you and I both thought this would be brought in D.C. So why is it that Jack Smith decided to bring it in

the Southern District of Florida. And I think it was really just to avoid legal risk because the issue here is venue, you know, under the Constitution as well as under federal law. But the Constitution is, of course, what governs a criminally charged defendant has the right to be charged in the state where the crimes shall have been committed. That's the language from the Constitution. And so the question always is, well, what is that place? Where did where is an offense committed when there are

aspects of an offense that take place in multiple places. And although there is

precedent for, I think, most of the charges that we've heard from Jim Trustee that appear to be included in the indictment. I think there are good legal arguments and some precedent that those could have been venued in the District of Columbia. This is where the National Archives is. This is where all the intelligence agencies are. And this is where the request to return the documents came from. This is where the investigation then got obstructed.

or is alleged to have been obstructed, was located. There's a lot of good arguments for why it's properly venue in D.C., but there's even better arguments about why it's properly venue in the place where Mar-a-Lago is, where most of the actual acts... Yeah, in Florida, it's not just...

arguments. I mean, there's no question that Florida is a proper venue, whereas you're buying risk if you bring it in D.C. And by the way, if they're false statement charges, those are ones that may not be able to bring those in D.C. The false statement charge is what has to be brought where the false statement is occurring. So if you're interviewed by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago and you make a false statement, that's where you have to bring the case. That's right.

So the idea of like separating a case out piecemeal would have been kind of anathema. And this also is basically saying, look, we're not playing games. That's right. You know, we're just bringing it in a logical location. More of prosecuting Donald Trump, the second indictment, in just a moment.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell. I grew up in the front row of the spectator section in courtrooms. My father was a Boston cop who became a lawyer, and he had me in the courtrooms all the time. And I was learning literally the rules of evidence when I was in high school. My first book was about a case that went on for seven years. And so everything that happens in courtrooms makes perfect sense to me, and my job is to try to make it make sense to an audience. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell.

Weeknights at 10 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC. When news breaks, go beyond the headlines with the MSNBC app. Watch your favorite shows live. Get analysis from live blogs to in-depth essays and the latest updates on the 2024 election. Go beyond the what to understand the why. Download the app now at msnbc.com slash app.

A U.S. Senator destroyed by blackmail. He was not bound by the truth or by facts. The country's most outrageous political demagogue ascending toward the peak of American power. Millions upon millions of devoted followers. This is a story of heroes willing to face down tyranny and the risk to the country if they fail. Rachel Maddow presents Ultra, season two of the chart-topping original podcast. All episodes available now.

So I have a question. You know, we've all been talking about what we know, what we don't know. When do you think DOJ will unseal? Like, why do we have to wait till the Tuesday arraignment? At this point, the defendant has spoken about the case. So why not just seek an unsealing order now? And then also, do you think that DOJ will do a press conference?

So this is so interesting and it's kind of makes me reflect back on what happened when the search warrant was executed. Right. DOJ didn't go out with a big press conference and said we had a search warrant executed at Mar-a-Lago. It was the former president himself who put out a social media post about it. DOJ would typically give a defendant in this case, Donald Trump, the courtesy of saying, you know, in a case like this.

And I know there's no exact case like this, of course, but in a case involving... In cases involving the former president, this is what typically happens. That's not typical. But where you're not going to be going in and making an arrest, right? You're going to allow for a defendant to come in voluntarily and cooperatively into court after an entitlement's been returned. You know, what happens is what happens here. You know, you'll have a call from the prosecutor who will tell you that this is what's

happened and here's the arraignment date there'll be an actual summons a piece of paper from the court that says that the defendant needs to appear on the date and time and partly this is to protect the rights of defendants not go out you know and make a big press statement let the court records and the court appearance speak for itself and here again it was donald trump and his attorney although i'd say donald trump first and his attorney then you know following up on that decided to go ahead and make it public

When that happened after the execution of the search warrant, the attorney general then did go and make a public statement to explain it. And so I do expect at some point there may be some sort of public statement, although the difference there or the difference here is we now have an indictment. And as we've been talking about, we expect this to be a speaking indictment, meaning that it will explain a large number of facts on which it is based. And it will, in fact, speak for itself. So

it's possible that the government will do what it usually does and just speak through its pleadings. But I do think it's also likely, and I was curious your thoughts about this, that there will be some sort of statement from the Department of Justice. I don't necessarily think that will be before Tuesday. And just so that folks know, I mean, Jim Trustee has said we haven't seen the indictment yet. He will have an opportunity to see that and go over it with Mr. Trump before the arraignment. Arraignment is what will happen on Tuesday. But

The judge will explain to Mr. Trump the charges in the indictment and will take an initial plea, guilty or not guilty, just like what happened in New York in the Manhattan indictment. So that's what will actually happen in court. But he's not going to be sandbagged with this and handed it, you know, with like no time to look at it before he has to enter a plea. He'll be he'll be given it in advance. But what do you think about that public statement? So.

I'll address first the unsealing. At this point, given that Donald Trump has spoken and his counsel has spoken, I actually think that the right thing for them to do is to get an unsealing order. Because I start with a presumption, unless there's a good reason to seal, it should be unsealed. It's a court filing.

And I understand that there was an issue related to security. That would be the only issue related to security of court personnel, of prosecutors, of even the defendant. But all of that's now been made public, that there are these charges and the dates, et cetera. So I remember when I was on the special counsel Mueller investigation, the court and we were very, very focused on making as much public as we could and as soon as possible.

And that's also, by the way, what happened after the search warrant was executed, right? Yes, an unusual amount. I mean, it's so unusual to have the warrant unsealed. Right.

at least partially unsealed. And partly it was for the same reasons you indicated, right? At that point, Mr. Trump had talked about it and the government made a determination to be transparent and get it unsealed, partially redacted what needed to be redacted. And there were large parts that were redacted, but get it out there. And so I think you're right that it's likely to come before Tuesday. So I think the big difference in terms of how the department might act here in terms of our press conference or not and why we can't really look

back to what happened with the Mar-a-Lago search, is that we're dealing with the special counsel now, not with the attorney general. And although even for special counsel Mueller, there were certain things that Rod Rosenstein actually did the press conference, for instance, when we did our Russia indictments, I'm not sure that is going to be the precedent that

people look to as to how Rod handled things. So I do think that it's going to really depend on how much Jack is comfortable doing this. It is commonplace in large cases and important cases for U.S. attorneys, attorney generals, deputy attorney generals to have press conferences. So there is a lot of precedent for it. I think it's really going to come down to Jack Smith's

preference. I think he should have it. It is a first for the Department of Justice. He obviously has to be very careful not to say that the defendant is guilty and to besmirch him and to make sure people understand these are just charges. But I actually don't think documents really speak for themselves. And in particular, I think it's really important that he explain why this is consistent with the rule of law. And I think he can easily talk about

other cases that have been brought. And I think he should, because I think it's really important in a teaching moment where people really will be focused. And you and I understand how the department works and why they speak and why they don't speak. But I think this is a moment with a megaphone to really make sure people understand that, especially because they're going to be so attacked.

by the defendant and others, this is sort of their one time to have the ability to speak. But we'll obviously talk about that more and we'll know which way Jack Smith goes on that. And Mary, I remember last episode, I said, I have a feeling we're going to talk some more this week. And of course, of course.

We're right. That's right. But I have a feeling we're going to talk a lot more very soon. So at the very least, we'll talk again early next week when there's the arraignment. That's right. Unless sooner, because there's even more breaking news. Oh my goodness. Okay. You're killing me. So have a good weekend and rest up. Yes. And you too. Thanks so much for listening. If you've got questions, you can leave us a voicemail at 917-342-2934.

Maybe we'll play it on the air. But you can also email us at prosecutingtrumpquestions, NBCUNI.com.

The senior producer for the show is Alicia Conley. Our technical director is Bryson Barnes. Our audio engineer is Alex Higgins. Jen Maris Perez is the associate producer. Aisha Turner is an executive producer. And Rebecca Cutler is the senior vice president for content strategy at MSNBC. Search for Prosecuting Donald Trump wherever you get your podcasts and follow or subscribe to the series.

Hi, everyone. It's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening, author and philosopher Daniel Chandler on the roots of a just society. I think that those genuinely big fundamental questions about whether liberal democracy will survive, what the shape of our society should be, feel like they're genuinely back on the agenda. I think it feels like we're at a real, you know, an inflection point or a turning point in the history of liberal democracy. That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Search for Why Is This Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.