financing and received gifts. that includes gifts that constitutes personal hospitality, the category that has come under intense scrutiny because of explosive reporting from propublica about the many luxurious gifts justice clarence thomas had been receiving from the texas billionaire and republican megadonor harlan crow, all in the name of personal hospitality. so, what did justice thomas and his 2022 financial disclosure claim? we are going to have to wait a little longer to find out, because justice thomas has requested a 90-day extension. that does it for us tonight. we will see you again tomorrow. and now it is time for the last word with lawrence o'donnell. good, evening lawrence. >> good evening, alex. does this mean that i have to disclose every time that oprah brings me flowers? >> well -- >> every time? >> the 600 dollar bouquets you get weekly should probably be disclosed. the smaller -- no is gay nosegays may --

>> i am prepared -- >> and the corsages that you get may skate under the disclosure limits. >> i'm prepared to disclose right now all of the flowers i have received in my entire life, which i believe is exactly zero. >> i will change that. i am going to change -- that is going to change. you don't have to -- >> there you go. no, i'm going to. if i get those flowers from you, i'm disclosing. that's going to be great. >> exactly. you heard it here on this network. it's going to happen. >> thank you, alex. >> have a great show. >> thank you. well, once again today, down trump said something that no other former president of the united states has ever said. at 3:36 pm today, donald trump said, on social media, no one has told me i'm being indicted. when defendant trump was indicted in manhattan in march, he was the first to leak that he was going to be indicted. but he was off by over a week in his prediction of -- when it would happen. so, it remains a distinct possibility. that the next time donald trump is indicted, we will hear it

first from him. we are tracking multiple developments tonight in special prosecutor jack smith's two investigations of donald trump. former federal prosecutor andrew weissmann will join us to guide us through all these developments. and we will also hear tonight, for the first time, from the trump defense team. we will be joined by a lawyer who spent a year working on the trump criminal defense team that is handling the documents case being investigated by jack smith. on monday, the remaining lawyers in the trump criminal defense team met at the justice department with jack smith to try to convince jack smith that donald trump committed no crimes involving the government documents found at his florida residence. we will, in effect, we recreate a shorter version of that meeting right here at this table tonight, in our washington city, with tim parlatore, who knew everything about the trump defense argument as of may 16th, his

last day serving as a trump defense lawyer. first, in that jack smith investigation of donald trump's attempts to overturn the presidential election leading up to and on january 6th, steve bannon has been subpoenaed by jack smith. in a subpoena demanding documents and his testimony to a washington d. c. grand jury. according to information obtained by two sources from nbc news, here is steve bannon the day before the attack on the capitol. >> all hell is going to break loose tomorrow. it's all converging and now on we are on, as i say, the point of attack. the point of attack to mark. i will tell you this. it's not gonna happen like you think it is going to happen. it's going to be quite extraordinarily different. and all i can say is, strap in. >> steve bannon will be asked about that, under oath, in front of a criminal grand jury in washing to d. c.. washington d.c.. steve bannon was previously convicted on two counts of

contempt of congress, and sentenced to four months in prison, for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the january 6th committee, but that also demanded documents and his testimony. steve bannon's four month sentence in that case has been suspended pending his appeal of that verdict. the observable action in the documents investigation has moved to florida, where a grand jury today heard testimony from taylor bodiwic, who served as a communications aide for donald trump after he left the white house. he was seen leading leaving the federal courthouse about an hour after he entered and in a statement on social media, he said, i fulfilled a legal obligation to testify in front of a federal grand jury and i answered every question. the washington post reports this possible basis for his testimony today. it says, after sending boxes of materials from his mar-a-lago home and -- private club to the national archives and records administration, which catalogs and preserves presidential records, trump drafted a

lengthy statement, saying he had given everything back to the federal government. but taylor budowich did not release trump's statement after consulting with lawyers and advisers for the former president, people familiar with the episode said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, to discuss internal conversations. at least some of trump's advisers did not believe that he had returned everything. at the time, the people said, even though the archives had been asking for months for trump to give back any government material in his possession as required by federal law. several days later, trump issued a different statement that did not include the claim that everything had them returned. and the new york times is reporting something tonight that has seemed obvious since the fbi executed a search warrant on donald trump's florida residence on august 8th of last year. the times reports federal

prosecutors have informed the legal team of former president donald j. trump that he is a target of their investigation into his handling of classified documents after he left office, according to two people familiar with the matter. nbc news has confirmed that new york times report. leading off our discussion tonight is andrew weissmann, former fbi general counsel and former chief of the criminal division of the eastern district of new york. he is professor of practice at nyu law school and an msnbc legal analyst. and andrew, let's begin with the january 6th investigation, which has been kind of eclipsed lately, a lot, by the documents investigation. what does it tell us that steve bannon is just being subpoenaed now, given that that video we showed has been out there for a long time in and jack smith's investigators had known about it that he was basically predicting an attack on the capitol the day before? >> great question. i think the only thing that is

surprise it could be is that that is happening now and the reason is that this is the kind of thing that you can imagine someone saying, oh, we need to issue a subpoena just to be sure that he is not going to later to say, no one asked me what i thought. because, he is not going to testify. he is going to assert the fifth amendment, which he has very good reasons to assert. he has, as you mentioned, been convicted of criminal contempt. he is appealing that right now. that's one reason he would assert the fifth. the other is that he is awaiting trial on a fraud case in state court in manhattan. that is the so-called wall case, where he is alleged to have solicited money saying, it's all going to be used to for the wall, when in fact it was used for his and other people's personal advantage. so, he's extremely unlikely to testify.

frankly, if he does testify, that's going to make jack smith 's day, if he does decide to do that. but i just can't imagine with any competent defense council that that is going to happen. so, i think this is something that they will check off on the list, which is seeing if he would testify. -- likely have this counsel sending a letter saying that he would -- to all questions. and that will end the whole matter. >> andrew, so, on monday, we had that dramatic news that the trump defense team is meeting with jack smith on the documents case, apparently. that seems like a very last step in the process. then we see that they are still talking to witnesses in a grand jury in florida now, where the action seems to have moved to. and then today there is this also report that other news outlets have that donald trump has been told that he is a target of the investigation and

i just kind of thought that he had been told he was a target a while ago. >> yeah, so, let's take the target point. like the bannon subpoena, this is also what i would call not news. for anybody who is his defense counsel, he has known for many, many, many months that he is a target. so, i suspect that he was told that a long time ago. sometimes, defense council actually deliberately does not ask the question. because they don't want the answer, which is that he was a target, and they rather live in that twilight world of, they know that the case, but they rather not be told. so this is again something that the department says is a formality. it is obviously something that everybody knew was the case. and certainly if mark meadows is speaking -- there is no question that if mark meadows is speaking that the target

here is donald trump -- i think the only thing that is a little unusual is that the meeting with defense counsel is certainly -- at the department of justice -- is certainly a sign that this is at the very last stage. it is been unusual to also see witnesses go in. but there can be a lot of explanations for that. and one of them could be jack smith saying, you know what? i want to walk and chew gum at the same time. i want to make sure this is moving along. i don't want to -- delays -- i want to hear from defense council. we want to hear their pitch. but i'm also going to continue on pushing these witnesses in, so everything is locked and ready. that's my speculation. but now there is internal pressure to get this case moving along. so, that's one explanation for why we are seeing both this happened at the same time. >> and as to jurisdiction, what does the florida grand jury tell us about a trial might be held if donald trump was a defendant in the documents case? if there was obstruction, if that's a charge, the

obstruction was presumably committed in florida. most of this investigative work, we know, in the grand jury, has been done in washington d. c.. and perhaps there is a criminal trail that begins in washington. but how does jack smith -- how does this case end up in one jurisdiction or the other if there is a trial? >> so, this is a complicated legal issue. because the law in florida and the law in d. c., those two federal jurisdictions, is different. in florida, you could bring an obstruction case either where the acts of obstruction are committed, or where the investigation is that is being obstructed, namely an investigation in d. c.. either of those would be fine. but if you were to go to d. c. and bring that obstruction case, the law in d. c. is a bit of an outlier. and there is a 1975 case that

suggests that you can only bring the case where the obstructive acts occurred, meaning, unless they occurred in d. c., you would have to bring it in florida. and so, you could imagine here that the department of justice wants to be super careful. and they want to make sure the venue is correct and they don't bring it in d. c., only later to have a transferred. obviously, this could have huge ramifications. we all have experienced what this case looked like when a judge in florida, aileen cannon, had the case, and how much that really disrupted the rule of law and she had to -- be reversed not once but twice by the court of appeals there. so, bringing the case in florida could be a real benefit to donald trump. but it may be something that the department of justice feels is legally and ethically warranted. >> andrew weissmann, thank you

very much for starting off our discussions tonight. we really appreciate it. >> welcome. >> and when we come back -- last month, attorney timothy parlatore, very publicly, quit the trump criminal defense team. timothy parlatore will join us next. next your best defense against erosion and cavities is strong enamel- nothing beats it. new pronamel active shield actively shields the enamel to defend against erosion and cavities. i think that this product is a gamechanger for my patients- it really works.

type 2 diabetes? gadiscover the power of 3ts- in the ozempic® tri-zone. ♪ (oh, oh, oh, ozempic®!) ♪ in my ozempic® tri-zone, i lowered my a1c, cv risk, and lost some weight. ozempic® provides powerful a1c reduction. in studies, the majority of people reached an a1c under 7 and maintained it. ozempic® lowers the risk of major cardiovascular events such as stroke, heart attack, or death in adults also with known heart disease. and you may lose weight. adults lost up to 14 pounds. ozempic® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't share needles or pens, or reuse needles. don't take ozempic® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it.

stop ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. gallbladder problems may occur. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. join the millions already taking ozempic®. ask your health care provider about the ozempic® tri-zone. you may pay as little as $25 for a 3-month prescription. first, there's an idea and you do something about it for the first time with godaddy. then before you know it, (it is a life changer...) you make your first sale. small business first. never stopped coming. (we did it!) and you have a partner that always puts you first way. (no way!) start today at godaddy.com.

we moved out of the city so our little sophie could appreciate nature. (no way!) but then he got us t-mobile home internet. i was just trying to improve our signal, so some of the trees had to go. i might've taken it a step too far. (chainsaw revs) (tree crashes) (chainsaw continues) (daughter screams) let's pretend for a second that you didn't let down your entire family. what would that reality look like? well i guess i would've gotten us xfinity... and we'd have a better view. do you need mulch? >> from april 22nd of last year what, we have a ton of mulch.

to may 16th of this year, our

next guest, timothy parlatore, served as a trump criminal defense lawyer in the documents case, four days after he quit he explained that one individual made the proper defense of donald trump virtually impossible. >> there is one individual who works for him, boris epshteyn, who had really done everything he could to try to block, us to try to prevent us from doing what we could to defend the president, and ultimately, it got to a point where it's -- difficult enough fighting against the doj, and in this case, special counsel. but when you also have people within the tent that the trying to undermine you, block you, and really make it so that i can't do what i know that i need to do as a lawyer and when i am getting into fights like that that's a detracting from what is necessary to defend the client and, ultimately, was not in the client's best interest --

i made the decision to withdraw. >> there was someone else who made the defense of donald trump difficult. on april 26th, timothy parlatore signed his name to a republican chairman of the house intelligence committee, blaming the discovery of classified documents and other government documents that donald trump had no legal right to possess on white house staffers who, quote, quickly packed everything into boxes and shipped them to florida. in that same letter, timothy parlatore said that, quote, the presence of marked documents in the boxes, end quote, was not the result of, quote, intentional decisions by president trump. in that letter, signed by his co-counsel, timothy parlatore also wrote, we have seen absolutely no indication that president trump knowingly possessed any of the marked documents or willfully broke any laws and two weeks later donald trump sharply

contradicted those statements. >> why did you take those documents with you when you left the white house? >> i have every right to under the presidential records act. you have the presidential records act -- i was there, and i took what i took, and it gets declassified -- i took the documents. i'm allowed to. >> did you ever show those classified documents to anyone? >> not really. i would have the right to. by the way -- >> -- not really? >> not that i can think of. let me just tell you, i have the absolute right to do whatever i want with them. i have the right. >> do you still have any classified documents in your possession? >> are you ready? >> do you? >> no. -- i have no classified documents. by the way, they became automatically declassified when i took them. >> five days after that, tim parlatore quit. joining us now is tim parlatore, former member of donald trump's legal team handling the special counsel investigation of documents. he's a graduate of the united

states naval academy and a former naval officer. thank you very much for joining us tonight. i saw -- i was quite stunned that -- saturday afternoon when i watched you on cnn describing the boris epshteyn problem, which is often surprising. it's one of those things we could not know from the outside. but anyone who has the vaguest idea about him and his history isn't surprised by that. >> and you portrayed boris epshteyn as an obstruction to your ability to do this job properly. but what i am seeing donald trump say on television, two weeks after you put in writing the opposite -- the absolute opposite of what he's saying on television, i have to ask, you who made it more difficult to defend donald trump? boris epshteyn or donald trump? >> look, i don't actually see what he said there is being totally inconsistent. i think that the situation is a lot more nuanced than that. i have not had any particular

problems with the president himself when i was representing him. certainly, any time you represent a client who does have a campaign, there is a calm's team. there is going to be other things that have happened. most of my clients are not running for any office and you just simply say, you invoke your right to remain silent. you have your right to counsel. don't say anything. >> let's just hold it there for a second, and keep going. so -- and donald trump absolutely did not do that. right? called special prosecutor a terrorist and other things -- i'm sure he didn't consult -- i assume he did not consult you on whether jack smith is a terrorist and he should say that. >> i thought it was a bomb throwing -- >> -- i can read them to you. but let's stay with this boris thing for a minute. >> yep. >> because donald trump wants boris epshteyn to be there. because he is still there. and you went on television, and you told donald trump on television -- that's what i saw you doing. there's no question donald

trump heard you on television, saying boris is a problem in this case, he's a problem running in this defense. he's still there. so, the obstruction that boris created for you in doing your work is an obstruction that donald trump apparently wants between him and his lawyers, which, is in a case that is about obstruction. >> well, first of all, i don't know whether anything has changed since i left, whether there has been any restructuring that, perhaps, there was something that was listened to. but the reason why i went on and said those things was actually something a little bit more nuanced. when i left, i did not say anything initially. i said, this has nothing to do with the case or the client. it was a personal decision i made. and yet, what i saw over the course of the next several days is, the lack of explanation caused a rumor mill and all the

so-called experts to try to fill the gaps. and i heard people saying things like, oh, well, tim must be in trouble. maybe tim has got a target letter. maybe tim is -- going to be a witness against his client, which is, aside from being completely false, is professionally damaging. this was not something i was going to allow that to continue -- so, there's a reason why i went in and said the things that i said at that time. but i will tell you this. i said those things. but i don't want to continue to belabor that point. >> that's why i showed the video. i don't care about the boris epshteyn thing. what i care about is, obstruction is the theme of the documents case. and donald trump is running a weird obstruction operation we we have boris epshteyn, with his own lawyers, to the point that he drives you out of the case. you, the lead lawyer on the documents case, with the most experience of anybody there. >> well, i don't know if i was the lead. we certainly --

our team, it was a great team. i very much enjoyed working with jim trusty, john rowley, evan corcoran, lindsey halligan -- we did run it very much as a committee, if you will. we did not have a lead counsel, per se. >> but your name is on the top of the list. and it's on your stationary -- >> i wrote that letter -- >> that letter -- >> it was my idea. it was something that i drove. but the entire team participated in it. and we all agreed with -- >> and it's a solid legal letter in which you never say, to that committee, donald trump can do whatever he wants with the documents. you say exactly the opposite to that committee and then donald trump goes on tv, after you've written this letter, sent it to the congress, and donald trump says i can do whatever i want with the documents. >> the issue is this. when he says he could take the documents with him, that was true.

because, ultimately, what we were trying to argue in that letter is, that -- >> you said he didn't knowingly take them. -- and he -- did knowingly -- >> i said he did knowingly take the marked documents in there. >> and he saying he did. he went on television and -- said that he did. >> he saying that he took the documents -- >> she's talking to him about classified documents -- and he's saying -- i can take them, i did take them. and in other venues he has said, i took them. in other venues, he said, they are mine. >> what did he take? does he even know what was specifically in those boxes? >> does he? does he know it's in the boxes? >> no. because the reality is, the problem with document management systems in the white house is that classified documents and unclassified documents get mixed together. that's not a donald trump problem. >> sure. >> that's a white house problem -- that's something that the archivist -- >> although, all accounts -- the trump white house was utterly out of control --

>> and yet, the same mixture of classified and unclassified documents has been found in every administration going back to reagan. every single one -- even quarter -- quarter >> no, it's tiny little dribbles of them here and there -- >> i don't think -- >> let's assume -- let's assume for a moment that he does not have any idea what's in the boxes, in the basement of his florida residence. >> right. >> let me ask you this. does he know what's in his desk? >> i would think that he probably would. >> why was there classified document found by the fbi with their search warrant in his desk? >> well, the problem there, i can't answer that because i don't have an inventory to know what it was. >> here's what we know. classified document, found in his desk. >> well -- >> without knowing what the document is, what we do know, it's a marked classified document. it's in his desk. okay? it's not down in the basement in a box. it's in his desk.

all you need for a criminal case is one of these. that's all you need. so, you've got one very, very smoky gun in his desk. there has never been a word of explanation from the defense team, or from donald trump, about that document, which is the smoky's smokiest then you've got in the whole thing. >> if we knew what the document was. >> no -- >> because -- >> you don't need to know -- >> i will tell -- -- it's a government document. and he has no legal right to possess it. it's in his desk and, as you have said, quite correctly, the classification issue is not really that important in this case. because that is not what they used to attain the search warrant. what they used to obtain the search warrant was an obstruction element of federal law that does not require the government documents to be classified at all.

so, you don't need to -- >> -- >> you don't need to know, sitting here, exactly what that document was, to know that donald trump, if he does not have an answer to what that document was doing in his desk, a legal answer, that is a crime for that document to be in his desk. >> that is not necessarily true. okay? you do need to know what the document is. okay? simply the fact that it has a classification marking on it, if it does have a classification working on it, doesn't make it automatically some type of -- contraband. it has to be national defense information, one. two, under the presidential records act, we're talking about original documents. not a single one of those marked documents are originals. they are all copies. every single one of them. now, when we talk about, you know, for example, if he has the original letter from kim jong-un in his desk, that would definitely be a government record, because that's the original. and so under the presidential records act, which makes a distinction between originals

and copies, then you can talk about whether he is possessing a government record. but whether that is classified or not does not really matter so much as, does it constitute national defense information? and so, if he has a photocopy of a document, even if it does have a classification marking on it, but it does not constitute national defense information, or if it was the declassified, if it's not currently national defense information than, no, that smokiest wouldn't be the smokiest gun. >> okay. >> -- >> i want to go back to your point, which is correct in the justice department's approach to this, which is, classification is not important to them in -- this investigation -- and the reason >> right. it's not part of the statute. >> that's right. -- and the reason for that is that the heaviest statute that they cited in obtaining that search warrant, 18 usc, section 1519,

and you know what it says, and you know what the final line of it says, which is 20 years. okay? and here's what it describes. word classified never appears. >> correct. >> national defense never appears. this law applies to, as you know, any record. any record. okay? whoever, knowingly conceals, covers up, in any record document, or document, with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence an investigation. and that is what they believe they have in donald trump's desk with his full 110% knowledge that it's in his desk. because -- >> -- >> because they served a subpoena. as you know. you were there. you were on that team. you were there the day they got

that subpoena. you get a subpoena. you guys get the subpoena, it says, give us everything. and as we all know, the fbi and jay bratt, from the justice department, come down from the legal team, you hand them this legal team that says we are giving you everything. and it turns out it's not. and because they know it's not, that's what allows them -- that moment of obstruction right there -- where donald trump, through his lawyers, is saying, i'm giving you everything, not a press release, not to set, i'm giving you -- everything. >> well, which is not what it says -- >> i know -- >> it doesn't say that -- >> tell me what you think the loophole language is in that document -- >> it's not about loophole language. it's not about loophole language. that is a standard form of a certification -- >> it's not a form -- the audience -- it was typed word for word, written word for word, by evan corcoran. it's not -- >> you want to let me answer? >> yes, but it's not a -- government form -- >> no, it's not a -- government form -- it's illegal form.

>> it's his composition, word for word. >> it is evan corcoran's composition. and, what happens is, when you receive a subpoena for documents to a custodian of records, there's a relatively standard custodian of records certification. -- each lawyer will maybe draw up their own. a particular form, but every time you respond to one of these, you don't see it there, open up a brand-new word document, and type from scratch. >> sure. >> you take one that you've done maybe 20, 30 times before, you change the names. but here's the thing. when you have a custodian of record subpoena and you put in -- a certification saying a diligent search was conducted and that all -- documents -- are attached, what you are certifying is that everything you found during that diligent search was attached. no lawyer isn't going to say, as has been -- miss reported in the media -- no other documents exist -- nobodies he's going to -- >> no, no --

you know the law -- >> -- he asked for more time. he did not get the additional time that he wanted. he wanted to be able to do a more complete search. >> he had a year and a half. >> no, he did not have a year and a half. he had a few weeks. no, no. hold on. this is an important point. -- when he received a subpoena, he had a few weeks to respond. he needed more time, doj refused. ordinarily, in any other circumstance, when i'm dealing with the prosecutor, and i say i will need more time, they will either give me the more time -- >> -- >> hold on. they will say, give us what you can and keep searching. jay bratt did not do that. -- he gave him a deadline that must be done by this time. he did his diligent a search as can be conducted in that time, gave them what he found in that time. and then it was cutoff. what they should have done, if doj was going to be acting like normal, professional prosecutors from any other u. s. attorney's office, they would have continued to work on this and said, okay, continue to search. continue to do this. find whatever else you can.

and give it to us. they didn't do that. >> when you were a naval officer -- >> yes. >> if you had a classified document in your desk at home, and the government spent over a year -- over a year -- trying, in this cooperative way that you are talking about, to get every government document that you might have at home back from you in a free zone, no harm, no foul, if you give it back. and there comes a day when you give it back what you are telling us is all in your documents, and then the government discovers, they didn't give us back everything -- and so, the next time the government asks you for something, they do it with a subpoena. and where they do it with that subpoena, the second time, after you spent more than a year not giving them everything when you finally gave them something, how much of an extension of time would you expect from the government on

that subpoena that is chasing what you are supposed to give them the first time you gave them documents and you didn't? >> unfortunately, your hypothetical departs widely from the actual facts. during that first year, they were discussing it under the presidential records act. at no time did nara tell -- president trump or anybody on his -- team what they knew from for decades of experience, which is that these boxes generally contained a mixture of documents. instead, what they did is this. they wanted all the records returned nara to headquarters here in d. c.. every other president, from the signing of the presidential records act, reagan, on forward nara we'd get a facility, where that president moved to. they would have all their documents housed there, so that over the next two years -- because, under the law, the former president gets two years to go through all of those -- and decide what his personal, what is presidential.

for donald trump, they chose not to do that. in choosing not to do that, that is what caused the general services administration, another government agency, to move all the documents from the white house to his house in mar-a-lago. the same thing that they do for every vice president. that's why you found documents in biden's house. that's why you found documents in pence's house. for the next year, they are asking him to send all the boxes back to d. c., not to be able to go through them, as every other president had, not offering him -- we will get a facility in palm beach, so at least you can continue this process. they are saying, don't go through them. send them back. and he sitting there saying, under the statute, i have to two years to do this. >> okay. >> you cannot take that period of time, and then the subpoena, and just smash them together and act as if it's a continuous thing. >> in the -- >> these are two totally separate things. >> let's just accept all of that. and there's a lot of things to

argue about, which we -- won't. we don't have time. in the year and a half, when donald trump wants to use his time to go through these boxes, to find out what should be sent back and what doesn't have to be sent back, how many boxes did donald trump go through? >> 15 boxes were returned. >> no, no. how did many did donald trump look at? any? >> you would have to ask him. i know the 15 boxes weren't we were returned -- i don't believe he went through them that carefully, because certainly, when i went through them, i saw things that were clearly personal records. but -- >> did you personally find classified documents -- when you went through the boxes? >> no, i went through them at the nara headquarters, where the marked documents had already been removed, and they were replaced with insert sheets that say, here, within the boxes, is where we found this document, this title, this -- classification level. >> right. >> and so we were able to kind

of reconstruct what was in the box is from that, and understand how these documents related to everything else in the boxes. so -- >> i got you. >> so, yes. i did go through that. >> can we go to the monday meeting, that you would have been at, if you hadn't left the -- team a few weeks ago. >> maybe -- >> i'm sure in the few hours, they spent maybe 15 or 20 minutes, on this point that you make, and that you make in your letter, at length and in detail, about the processes that you believe were afforded to previous president that you don't believe were afforded to donald trump. i'm sure they went through that. and i'm sure and i think you are sure that the special prosecutor was completely unimpressed by that. because they know all that. they live on the other side of those procedures. and they know exactly what they did. and we know that they are completely comfortable with. it. so, that was not going to make -- cover any ground with him. good luck to the -- >> i don't know that necessarily. because by going through the issues of removal and how

things went from d. c. to florida -- >> -- j.a. bratt what is involved -- in >> -- >> absolutely. don't you have to tell >> something that -- not evidentiary -- >> yes -- >> what would you have -- >> there are two categories of things you would discuss in that meeting. first, you would discuss the underlying facts in the case, which is -- >> -- but is there a thing like the document in his desk? is there like an evidentiary defense that you could tell them that they don't know? >> first of all, you presume that the doj has done all their research and they've considered all the angles. >> yes, i do. >> and guess what? a lot of people assume that about prosecutors. in my career of talking to prosecutors, quite frequently, they don't. >> okay. can you give me one -- evidentiary point -- >> they forgot -- >> can you give me one evidentiary point they would reveal that jack smith would've we didn't have known? >> they certainly went through all this issue of -- how it was removed. and by the way, by talking

about all that, and saying, the way that it was removed from d. c. was through these procedures that i just -- talked about -- >> they are not going to care about anything that happened -- everything they care about -- >> they may not! >> every -- jay they care about is every day after they came down there with a subpoena and it turned out they discovered -- that's where the criminal case -- was developed -- >> -- >> after the subpoena, when the subpoena was not fully complied with. those are the days they care about. can you tell them something -- because you were -- >> -- those are all the days that are in florida. so, is that when they -- shut down the grand jury in d. c. and -- realized -- >> -- >> -- oh, my gosh, we've been -- wasting -- >> -- i would love to get you on that. but before we do. that the days they are interested -- and we know, the criminal conduct -- they consider the clock ticking criminally the day that they are given the goods in response to that subpoena, and they go back to washington. and they decide, however they decided, they held out.

they didn't give us everything. that is the day that this becomes a criminal investigation. is there something that happened from that day forward that is evidentiary that they do not know about that you could tell jack smith about on monday? >> that part of it, you have to get into a conversation with him. you have to have a back and forth. and quite frankly, when i go into a lot of those meetings, a lot of times, i'm answering their questions. because they are able to get what they can from witnesses and try to piece things together. and maybe they come up with something where they say, look, we really don't understand this one. point. can we discuss this one point? so, a lot of that is not just about presentation. a lot of that is a give and take. >> sure. >> the other piece of it -- first, you talk about the specific evidence. but the other piece of it that you want to discuss in these meetings are kind of the other atmospherics, as i like to call them. things that are not just the elements of this particular case, but other things that one would want to consider in deciding, is this something in

they are discretion we want to bring? so, it's issues like, misconduct committed by jay bratt and his team in bringing the case to this level. that is something that you would want to consider. because you don't expect that jay bratt has informed jack smith and that jack smith has informed the doj superiors, oh, by the way, these are the things that we did wrong. so, that's part of what we would present -- >> i think it's fair to assume that jay bratt has told him everything that he did -- >> i don't think that's fair -- >> let squeeze in a commercial. and we will come back for us for a minute. because i would love to get your view on what's going on with the florida grand jury. >> sure. >> okay. we will be right back. and while you're hittin' the trail, i'm hitting your cooler. and your cut-rate car insurance might not pay for all this. so get allstate.

hey bud. wow. what's all this? hawaii was too expensive so i brought it here. you know with priceline you could actually take that trip for less than all this. i made a horrible mistake. ♪ go to your happy price ♪ ♪ priceline ♪

when moderate to severe ulcerative colitis keeps flaring, put it in check with rinvoq, a once-daily pill. when uc got unpredictable, i got rapid symptom relief with rinvoq. and left bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc got in my way, i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq. check. and when my gastro saw damage, rinvoq helped visibly repair the colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief. lasting, steroid-free remission. and a chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check. check. and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant.

put uc in check and keep it there, with rinvoq. ask your gastro about rinvoq. and learn how abbvie could help you save. and we are back with the former

trump criminal defense team on the documents case. now you heard andrew weissmann at the beginning of the show where we talked about what is going on with a florida grand jury, what might this mean for possible future defended trump in a documents prosecution jurisdictionally, would that be in a florida federal court, would that be -- what do you think? >> well, i listen to that piece, i actually agree with just about everything you said there. this case, you know, if you look at the allegations, nothing happened in d. c.. if it was documented retention, it happened in florida. if there was obstruction, and have been in florida. the case began with a d. c. grand jury, and yet they never really had venue there. so it strikes me as they have gotten down to the and by a grand jury expired a few weeks ago, and then rather than

restart with a new d. c. grand jury, they restarted in florida. and, in admission i think, they have spent this entire year investigating something without first hitting that threshold they should have. so, i don't think it is so much choice to go to florida, so much as it is a choice that if you go to d. c. it is going to get -- so i think that is probably where it is going. but one of the things to remember, this case was started by a national security mission, not criminal -- not criminal prosecutors. and, when they began it, they made a lot of mistakes when they began it, they did a lot of things that i haven't seen out of experience u.s.

attorneys offices. and so, really, jack smith when he comes in, i suspect that behind closed doors he will do all the stuff and say, what did you guys do, we have to fix this. but as the special counsel, if all you are going to do is get to the end of, this and just write a report, it does not matter where the grand jury is. there is no motion or anything like that. >> so that is an indicator to the florida grand jury as well, maybe moving closer to -- >> it certainly is an indicator they are considering. >> to the most recent developments in this existence of an audiotape from mark meadows ghost writers of his book, they're talking to donald trump about mark meadows, and he is talking to them about classified documents that on the audiotape according to, reports it seems like it is being waved around. and in new jersey, so now some interesting travel of possible classified documents, legally possessed by donald trump, did you know about that audiotape while you were working? >> so i was aware of the audiotape -- >> have you heard it? >> i have.

>> is he waving the document around? >> it is not clear what he is revving around. it is clear what he is specifically talking about. >> wouldn't you like to, as a donald trump defense lawyer, as soon as you hear the audio, no immediately, and have absolute total clarity about what is going on? in a normal case, wouldn't you immediately go to the client and say, will you hold it? >> ordinarily that is something you discussed with the client. this is a case where, and i'm not going to say -- because if i did, it is privilege. so that is not something i'm going to discuss. i guess it is ordinarily something that you would discuss. there is nothing in that tape that i heard that makes clear what he is holding, whether he is actually holding any type of classified documents, or confidential document. >> is it clear to you that he possesses such a document? >> no, not at all, not at all.

in fact, from what i, hear what he is describing, the -- story, the department of defense mark milley has denied that such a document exists. so, is it one of those things where he, is you, know bluffing, or joking, saying yeah. >> people use a word other than bluffing for what donald trump says when it is not true. >> he is my former client, i want to use that word. >> i understand. let me take you back to -- let's assume, if there is a defendant trump in this case, -- so, is it one of those things where he, is you, know bluffing, or joking, saying yeah. >> people use a word other than bluffing for what donald trump says when it is not true. >> he is my former client, i want to use that word. >> i understand. let me take you back to -- let's assume, if there is a defendant trump in this case, i assume it is very unlikely he would testify. he would try to get to a verdict without putting him on the stand. it is obviously a horrible

witness, you don't have to comment on, that the whole world knows what they have seen on tv. okay, so, what is your final argument to the jury? about the classified document found in his desk? >> i would need to see what it is first. >> we don't know what it is. >> according to -- it can be any record or document, any one owned by the united states government. any one. >> what if it is a photocopy, what if it is hypothetically we are talking about a photocopy of a crossfire hurricane document that because defied. if it is a photocopy of that -- >> if it is not? so what i'm hearing is, if it is a classified document, there's going to be no defense, no final argument on it, it is just hopeless. >> now, i am saying that until i see what it is, or an interesting hypothetical here

-- >> have you seen the -- residents in florida? have you seen the desk we are talking about? >> i have not. >> you have not? >> no i have not gone to that area. >> how can you represent a client without seeing all these locations? did you not see's office? >> no i could have seen if i wanted, tua did not need to. we have a team where each of us is handling a different aspect, we work well, together other members of the team have seen it. >> so -- when the news report came out about the, desk you guys did not go hey, let's take a look at that desk and see what is going on in those drawings? >> the other team had been there. >> timothy, thank you very much for joining us, i really appreciate, this i could go on and on. as you know, including all the legal points he would like to raise, really appreciate it. thank, you we will be right back.

erfect vacation rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah.

i brought in ensure max protein with 30g of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks. uh... here i'll take that. -everyone: woo hoo! ensure max protein with 30 grams of protein, one gram of sugar. enter the nourishing moments giveaway for a chance to win $10,000. >> that is tonight's last, word the 11th hour with stephanie

ruhle starts now. >> tonight, more big news, jack smith investigation into donald trump, the former trump aide pearce before the florida grand jury and subpoena for steve bannon, then, smoke and haze from canadian wildfires blanketing several states, what you need to know to stay safe. and, mike pence kicking off his presidential campaign with some harsh criticism of his former boss. will it have any impact for the race as the 11th hour gets underway on this wednesday night. good evening once again, i'm stephanie ruhle. we begin this evening's broadcast in the state of florida, where former trump aide taylor but a which testified for a miami grand jury as part of a special counsel jack smith investigation into the former president's handling of classified documents. and, but a which is very close to donald trump. he spent time as a spokesman before becoming the head of a trump aligned super pac.