Updated
Summary
Redacted affidavit for Mar-a-Lago search unsealed. FBI found 67 documents marked as confidential, 92 marked secret and 25 marked top secret. Mar-a-Lago search warrant affidavit cites possible evidence of obstruction. Republicans largely silent after release of affidavit.
Transcript
ALI VITALI, MSNBC HOST: And that`s tonight`s “LAST WORD”. THE 11TH HOUR starts right now.
ALICIA MENENDEZ, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, revelations from the highly anticipated affidavit that led to the surge in Mar-a-Lago. Confirmation of classified documents discovered in Florida and the possible threats to national security. Then, be heavily redacted document leaves a lot of unanswered questions, especially about potential legal implications for the already twice impeached former president. And as we try to navigate this uncharted territory, one of our favorite presidential historians tries to put it all into perspective as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this very busy Friday night.
Good evening, once again, I`m Alicia Menendez in for Stephanie Ruhle. It was nearly three weeks ago that former President Trump first told the nation the FBI was executing a search warrant at Mar a Lago. Today, Americans had a chance to see some of the Justice Department`s reasoning for that move. The heavily redacted affidavit that underpins the warrant has been unsealed and made public. The documents supports much of what was already known about the criminal investigation into whether Trump and his aides took secret government papers and failed to return all of them despite repeated demands from senior government officials. NBC`s Peter Alexander has more on today`s bombshell developments.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
PETER ALEXANDER, NBC NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: The 38-page affidavit focuses on what the FBI says it found in 15 boxes Mr. Trump returned to the National Archives in January, mixed in with newspapers, magazines and presidential correspondence were 184 classified documents 67 of them marked confidential, 92 marked secret and 25 documents marked top secret where the government says their unauthorized disclosure could result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security.
Also discovered documents that contain information about clandestine human sources and Mr. Trump`s handwritten notes. The Affidavit reveals more about the timeline in May of last year, the National Archives first requested the missing records from the former president. In January Mr. Trump turned over those 15 boxes containing that classified information. A month later, the archive sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department. President Biden authorized the archive to reject any executive privilege claims by Mr. Trump over the documents allowing the FBI to examine them.
In June Mr. Trump turned over additional documents. Two months later, the Justice Department submitted that affidavit that a federal judge approved granting the Mar-a-Lago search. In its filing, the FBI argued there`s probable cause that more classified documents with National Defense Information were at Mr. Trump`s residence, and there was probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found.
But the affidavit with entire pages blacked out leaves many unanswered questions about the extraordinary search of a former president`s home that sparked fierce blowback from Republicans and Mr. Trump, who today said the judge should never have allowed the breaking of my home. And slammed the redacted affidavit is a public relations subterfuge by the FBI and DOJ after arguing he`d been turning over documents and that the investigation is politically motivated.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MENENDEZ: Our thanks to Peter Alexander for that report.
Justice Department filed a memo along with the unsealed affidavit explaining the many redactions, the DOJ says some edits are there to protect people involved in the criminal investigation. Prosecutors refer to “the safety and privacy of a significant number of civilian witnesses, in addition to law enforcement personnel.” Many legal analysts say that may refer to people close to the former president who might now be cooperating with the FBI. The affidavit also offers more hints about that investigation, including that the FBI has not yet identified all potential criminal confederates nor located all evidence related to its investigation.
[23:05:03]
This afternoon the current president described how he handles highly sensitive government documents.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOE BIDEN, (D) U.S. PRESIDENT: Depending on the circumstance. For example, I have in my home a cabined-off space that is completely secure. I`m taking home with me today today`s PDB. It`s locked, a person with me — military with me I read it. I lock it back up and give it to the military.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: And just about an hour ago, the former president`s legal team refiled his request that the government stopped reviewing the material seized at Mar-a-Lago. Trump is asking for a neutral special master to sift through the documents from the original request was filed on Monday, but a judge asked for clarifications to his motion be submitted by midnight.
With that, let`s bring in our leadoff panel, Peter Baker, Chief White House Correspondent for The New York Times, Harry Litman, former U.S. attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence, Tracy Walder, former CIA Officer and FBI agent. She is the author of the book, “The Unexpected Spy.”
Harry, a lot here. What do you consider the critical revelation in this document? And where does this leave Trump now? So you have tonight, the Wall Street Journal editorial, implying, this isn`t really a big deal?
HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Yeah, you know, I just don`t see how anybody can say that. So you look at the affidavit, overall, I guess two things stand out, Alicia, first, look at paragraph 47 when they finally find out what`s involved here, we`re talking about documents, dozens and dozens of documents that can result in people being killed that can result in the revelation of sources and methods that are just being hanging around Mar-a-Lago where nobody has a security clearance, nobody knows what to do.
And I just want to be clear about this. The reason you have to go, as the president was just talking about those skiff, you have to surrender your phone. If you even have your phone on you sophisticated adversaries can read everything here, everything. So it`s a remarkably cavalier and dangerous aspect for the national security.
The second thing that really comes out is just this prolong negotiation that completely puts the lie repeated, by the way in the motion that you just mentioned tonight, to Trump`s idea that he was somehow cooperating on the contrary. For a year he holds them at bay, they find out it`s classified, four more months they forbear and forbear and forbear with this radioactive stuff, with his own handwriting, by the way, what the heck is that, down there on and until finally, really, nobody but nobody with any national security experience could say other than they had to go and get it, especially after a final attestation that said they had no more classified documents was determined to be a lie with fresh probable cause. That`s part of the stuff that`s redacted from it. But at that point, forget about it, you must, must go in and retrieve all the documents.
MENENDEZ: Frank, I want to dive back into the first part of Harry`s answer, would is should we make — the number of highly sensitive documents that Trump had, and then the conditions under which they were stored?
FRANK FIGLIUZZI, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE: It`s a worst case scenario in terms of unlawful retention of documents, we`ve got an environment where clearly, it`s not authorized for the storage of the sensitive information. People coming in and out even today reports that this woman was able to penetrate Mar-a-Lago several times, even though she seems to be a scam artist that at best, and then then we`ve got this situation where they`re told repeatedly, you can`t have this stuff. It`s too sensitive, and they`re not securing it and the negotiations go on.
Look, I spent 25 years in the FBI eventually heading up all counterintelligence and espionage investigations. These classification markings that I saw today really caused the hair on the back of my neck to stand up. HCS, human lives are at stake, that`s for — you know, there`s been a lot it`s kind of close, but not their accurate descriptions or inaccurate descriptions of what this means. These are human beings who said, I`m going to betray my country. And I`m going to work for Team America at the risk of death, or imprisonment. And myself or my family are at risk. They`re reporting is in HCS marked documents. SIGINT, SI, those are electronic intercepts the most sensitive things that our intelligence community can do and the techniques used. They could be singular in nature. A conversation could be one of these documents that only one person overheard. If someone saw the document they would say there`s only one person I told that to I know who the source is for working for the U.S. government.
[23:10:05]
The same goes for NOF (ph), no foreign, not allowed for any foreign national to see. ORCAN (ph), Original Agency Controlled, don`t give this to anyone without asking us first. This goes on and on and on. It`s the most sensitive information we can have in one of the worst places it can be from a security standpoint.
MENENDEZ: Tracy, I want to bring you in on this too, the affidavit describe several types of security classifications, as Frank said, one human intelligence, the clandestine sources. Tell us what would that mean, when you saw that that was one of the classifications? What went through your mind?
TRACY WALDER, FORMER CIA OFFICER: Yeah, so it was really interesting. You know, there was a lot of talk about the affidavit, the legal implications, and all of that. But really, to Frank`s point, what I zeroed in on really was the levels of security clearance that that were in there. That to me was, I guess, sort of the smoking gun. And really to further that more, and to really hit home, the larger implication that has that would make it really difficult for someone like myself, who recruited human assets and worked with human assets, to do my job, and to also work with other foreign countries.
You know, when you see and the other countries see that this information was out there. And in such an unsecured fashion, it makes it really difficult for them to want to work with the United States. And there have been countless terrorist operations, intelligence operations that have been incredibly successful. And that`s only because of the work that we have done with foreign countries and their intelligence services. And so I am extremely concerned about the implications that this is going to have for the future and for the future of our work with other intelligence services.
MENENDEZ: Peter, there`s the sheer number of documents, there`s the condition, they were held in there, the real world stakes that we have now laid out. There`s also the timeline here tonight, your colleagues at the Times they have a detailed report on the 20 month effort, 20 month effort to get Trump to return these government records. And it describes this was interesting how some conservatives were telling Trump to resist. What was going on?
PETER BAKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look exactly right. I think that`s an important point, because a lot of focus has been on the final chaotic days of the Trump administration when he was leaving the White House and didn`t want to leave the White House. And a lot of people say, well, look, you know, they were, you know, scrambling at the last minute, a lot of things got stuck in boxes where that`s almost irrelevant if you look at this timeline. Because it`s not about what he took with him, it`s what about it`s — about what he refused to give up when he was confronted with it. And he refused to give it up time and time again, right? All the way up until a subpoena that was issued just a few months ago, in which they basically said, OK, you know, we`re not — we`re done asking nicely, this is a legal order to return these documents that was once again defy.
So I think that timeline is important to remember here. There`s something going on here, which we haven`t fully grasp yet and is unfortunately answered by his affidavit. What was he thinking? What was he doing? Why was he doing this? There was this idea of defying the government that sense that, you know, the deep state doesn`t get to tell me what to do. I`m in charge as my papers because I was the president and I`m in charge here, but obviously, as Frank and Harry and we`re talking about here, these papers do not belong to him. They never belong to him, they belong to the public. They belong to the United States government, to the taxpayers, who funded the government.
And even aside from whether they are secret or not, he is not entitled to take them with him, and to hold on to them in defiance of Justice Department or the archives request. So this security part of it is an important aspect of it. But even if that wasn`t the issue, he is not entitled these documents under the law, and he cannot simply take them with him and defy the request to return them.
MENENDEZ: Right. They`re ours. They are not his. Frank, you mentioned this a few moments ago, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting about a Russian speaking woman who impersonated an heiress bypass security at Mar-a-Lago with ease, a year before the FBI search. Here`s the reporter on that story earlier on this network.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL SALLAH, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE INVESTIGATIONS EDITOR: There is an active investigation, and I think they`re just trying to determine, you know, a lot of her background and how she found her way in there. She went back to Mar-a-Lago in and out in her, she was driving a brand new Mercedes Benz SUV, and she at least five to six trips in and out of Mar-a-Lago with really nobody checking your ID, nobody really finding out like who really is she. All the guests in there thought she was a Rothschild.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: MSNBC has not verified this report yet. Frank, if true, it would seem to underscore just how potentially dangerous the mishandling of these documents was when we talk about this through a security lens?
FIGLIUZZI: Yeah, look, this is a real time teachable moment. We were all looking at the issues security around Mar-a-Lago and here comes this report that the FBI separately is investigating at best a scam artists at worst potentially, depending on where this case goes, some kind of intelligence operative. We simply don`t know, but the message is clear. It`s not the first time the FBI has had investigations regarding persons unauthorized lurking around, penetrating Mar-a-Lago, a couple of Chinese nationals at a minimum in the past had done so.
[23:15:29]
And so the question is, what`s going on with the security posture around Mar-a-Lago, around this President, the tone for security is always set from the top. If he doesn`t want vetting of people, and guess, it`s not happening and apparently isn`t happening. And so it proves the point that this is one of the worst places you can store information. And that his approach to DOJ saying, yep, double lock the doors. Don`t worry about it, I got this covered, just simply doesn`t fly when you`ve got at best scam artists who are coming in under false ID, false name, taking their photos with the president, with Senator Graham, playing golf. We`ve got a problem here.
And Tracy alluded to this longer term consequences. Allies are looking at this potential sources of information looking at this and they`re saying how can we possibly do business in good faith with the U.S. government when this kind of thing can happen?
MENENDEZ: Right. I mean, Tracy, you both have America`s world, America`s role on the world stage, and you have the reality that the Intel community has been absolutely trashed by the former presidents. So they`re also then as a morale question, how frustrating is all of this to people in the Intel community who put their own lives at risk to keep this nation safe?
WALDER: It`s incredibly frustrating. You know, I wrote an article in 2017, when I said that Donald Trump was really the largest national security threat that our country was facing, because in reality, he`s usually using the national security apparatus really, for his own personal gain. And that`s highly problematic. You know, I worked under two, three different presidents, and none of them, were using the national security apparatus like that. And that becomes a problem when you`re utilizing it for really your own personal gain, own personal needs, or your own personal vendettas to settle.
MENENDEZ: Harry, over these past 20 months, two things now seem clear Trump`s talk of cooperating, not true. And yet there continued to be a level of deference to the former president that other Americans, of course, would never have been given. Do you agree, knowing what you know now about how all of this has been handled?
LITMAN: Well, you mean, should they have come down on him harder, sooner? Yes. But it`s astonishing. Just in broad strokes, Alicia, it takes a year for them to — they just know he`s carded stuff away, but they think it`s the — just the Kim Jong-un love letter and Barack Obama, they don`t find out for a year what`s contained. And when they do, that`s when their alarm rings, they still forbear for four months, because Trump says I want to look at national executive privilege materials, letting the DOJ and FBI know finally they say forget about it and send this letter that says you have no executive privilege claim we`re turning it over tomorrow. By the way, that`s the claim and the only claim he`s still trying to sell.
And it`s then that it rolls in quick motion to subpoena personal visit. And finally, this just tell us, just tell us there`s nothing more classified, they sign a piece of paper that they find out is wrong. That is, as you say, 20 months and 20 months that they halfway through find out there that he`s been juggling radioactive material, the entire time with the with the stomach wrenching consequences that Frank and others have brought out. So as you say, incredible forbearance and complete intransigence and sort of contempt. And, you know, thumbing his nose by Trump from the start over 20 months. And that`s what`s really laid out broadly in the affidavit, even in the redacted parts. You can kind of look through the black lines and see that basic architecture.
MENENDEZ: All right, all of you are staying with me.
Coming up, well, the affidavit confirms so much. It also leaves out a lot of critical questions remain unanswered, perhaps number one, can an indictment be next and for who?
And later there has been a subdued, almost silent response to the GOP? What could that mean for the midterms and for 2024? THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on Friday night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:23:48]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW WEISSMANN, FORMER FBI GENERAL COUNSEL: I have to say my — when I read this today, my big overarching takeaway is — and I notice this is just a prediction and speculation. But I`d say it`s an educated one is that the former president is going to be prosecuted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: For sounds like the former guy is in serious legal jeopardy over his possession of classified material and it was a law he signed back in 2018 made the mishandling of classified documents a felony lengthening the potential prison time. Peter Baker, Harry Litman, Tracy Walder and Frank Figliuzzi are still with us.
Peter, what are you hearing about how Trump`s inner circle is responding to all of these revelations?
BAKER: Well, I think there`s a mix here. There`s obviously those who believe this is a good issue for him politically, that he`s trying to actually make this about grievance and persecution, a continuation of the witch hunt all that kind of thing and believe that He has profited politically from it and generating support his base. Clearly his money raising efforts have been benefited by this. They themselves have said this. But they`re also some people in the Trump orbit particularly the larger Republican, you know, sphere who were very nervous about this. Did not think this is necessarily a good thing even politically much less legally who see the president being exposed to potential prosecution, that affidavit uses the phrase probable cause for a crime. Well, it doesn`t say the president Trump committed one. But it`s hard to imagine who else they could have had in mind, given that he`s the one who took the documents and had possession of them in his residence.
[23:25:17]
That`s a big, big red flag for a lot of Republicans who are concerned that this leads someplace dangerous, particularly Republicans who spent a career talking about the need for guarding the nation`s secrets, who made an awfully strong argument against Hillary Clinton in 2016. Because they said that she was being careless, by having a private email server that used — that sent out emails that were later deemed to be classified in a handful of occasions.
So it`s, I think, a real danger spot. And a lot of people in the Trump orbit, even those who were not saying it publicly, are quite concerned.
MENENDEZ: Tracy, I want you to take a listen to what former homeland security chief of staff Miles Taylor said this afternoon. Here we go.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILES TAYLOR, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: In Trump world, they are in a full panic, they are in a mole hunt in Trump world to try to find who these people are, who are clearly around him who clearly ratted Donald Trump out. And the investigators want to protect the security of those individuals, because they know from Donald Trump`s history that he tries to root out and punish whistleblowers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: Tracy, there`s been a lot of reporting about the growing paranoia within Trump world, given that environment, how do these law enforcement agencies then protect their sources?
WALDER: Yeah, that`s going to be incredibly difficult, because really, that`s really when he`s made sort of his sole mission is, is finding out who those moles are, who gave the FBI or, you know, Department of Justice, that information to then go in and apply for that search warrant. And so I think, really making sure that all of the names are redacted are going to be incredibly important here, and also making sure that everything is absolutely sealed in regards to this case. I also think, too, you`re going to have to be very, very sure that doxxing doesn`t become a problem with some of these former law enforcement officials, as well as attorneys and things like that, because I can see folks coming after them as well.
MENENDEZ: Frank, you pointed out to us that if Trump applied for a barista job at the Starbucks, inside FBI headquarters, he couldn`t get it. I`m assuming you make that as a security commentary and not a commentary on his coffee making skills. Are these documents so sensitive that prosecutors might actually have trouble than using them in court?
FIGLIUZZI: So the answer is clearly based on my experience, with investigating and attempting to have prosecuted espionage cases, that there are scenarios where the material you have in front of you is so incredibly sensitive that the agency from which it originated tells you they won`t support a prosecution. It can`t see the light of day, it can`t go to a defense attorney, it can`t get to a jury. Even if you clear everybody, they still don`t want this getting out into the public record.
So in this case, however, there`s good news, which is — it`s good news, bad news, we have 184 classified documents from which prosecutors can choose and say — and this is the irony, Alicia, right, you`ve got this highly sensitive stuff that many agencies will say there`s no way you could use this for your prosecution. So they have to go to the lesser sensitive and the lesser qualified documents to actually use in a prosecution.
Don`t be surprised if they actually decide, you know what, this is tough, and maybe not worth the risk. We`re going to go with the obstruction charge, which still fascinates me, by the way, right? And charge for obstructing the case, and try not to get even into the highly sensitive information, which would be the espionage charge.
MENENDEZ: It`s always interesting to me, Harry, because you and Frank often will look at the same issue from different vantage points. So I want to sort of hear your legal take on the same question. I also want to know where you think Merrick Garland goes from here.
LITMAN: Right. So this is actually one point. I mean, we`re on two tracks here, right? And we`ve been from the start and this counterintelligence, but also now criminal prosecution. And this is one where they potentially divert, you can have real Donnie Brooks within the Department of Justice, where they want to bring prosecution and that and the security folks are saying you can use that stuff.
Frank is right. But even if they go on obstruction, you can expect Trump to say here`s how it`ll play out, Alicia, he`ll say I cannot defend myself unless I have access to this ultra-classified material. And therefore, it`s kind of a gray male.
I think, you know, he`s got a pretty limited playbook. I have no doubt they`ve thought it through and there are ways to charge and ways to prove to get around it. Where does it go now? I mean, this is the big revelation. We could have thought on the eighth. This was just a retrieval mission. We know now it`s much more serious, including what the FBI has been doing since.
We won`t be hearing from Merrick Garland for a while. I think we`ll be hearing a lot from Donald Trump, but that`s because they`ll be diligently pursuing the investigation and, you know, people have been wrong before including me thinking that he`s really turned — that a corner has really been turned.
[23:30:11]
But I understand where Andrew Weissmann is coming from. This does feel like the kind of free standing charge and the kind of charge that really gets at what is vicious about the Trump presidency, his thinking that everything is his, not the peoples that really could make Merrick Garland say, this is a fair and righteous prosecution. And I don`t think there`s any doubt but that they`ll have the goods in terms of the law and the evidence. So this is something that really could be put together within a few months. What I talked about unprecedented.
MENENDEZ: Unprecedented indeed. Peter Baker, Harry Litman, Frank Figliuzzi, Tracy Walder, thank you all.
Coming up, well, the Republican response to today`s affidavit has been subdued. Trump allies insists the investigation is all politics, we`re going to get into that side of today`s big revelations when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:39]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: Well, I just want you to know I`ve declassified everything in the world. I`m president. I can do it. Come on. Declassified everything. I`m not going to comment because I don`t know the detail. I only want to know let the Justice Department take that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: President Biden nodding to his predecessors legal troubles before boarding Air Force One this afternoon. Meanwhile, many Trump allies either dismissed the release affidavit as politics or ignored it altogether.
The Twitter account for Republican House members did tweet this before the release, fake redacted affidavit with just the lyrics to Rick Astley`s Never Gonna Give You Up visible.
Joining us, Julian Castro, former HUD Secretary and 2020 Democratic candidate for president and Democratic Strategist, Adrienne Elrod, she was also a senior aide on the Biden-Harris campaign.
It is good to see you both. Secretary what is the Republican silence tell you about the level of concern they are experiencing within their party?
JULIAN CASTRO, FORMER HUD SECRETARY: They`re having this oh, you know what moment of, Alicia, where they`re realizing every single day more and more that Donald Trump is such a political albatross in the 2022 cycle. It`s so fascinating that at the beginning of this right after the raid, you had Lindsey Graham, you had a number of other Republicans, Matt Gaetz, others just go gangbusters and attack Merrick Garland and the DOJ, be very vocal about it. And then with each passing day and new information that`s come out that has incriminated Donald Trump more as well as his team down there in Mar-a-Lago they`ve gotten quieter and quieter.
And I think politically, what it means is they want this to go away. They know that every single day that Americans are watching this, they`re digesting it, understanding the gravity of it, that`s a day that Republicans are losing, that`s a day that it`s less likely that they`re going to recapture the House or the Senate.
MENENDEZ: I think a lot, Adrienne, about the fact that you have President Biden out on the stump now talking about MAGA Republicans, right? Clearly making that a choice about the way they`re going to message of this going into midterms. You got Donald Trump sitting on $100 million in his Save America PAC. Well, you got Senate Republicans pulling ads in Arizona, you you`re thinking on how Democrats should be responding to all of this?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yeah, I look, I think I`m glad that President Biden went there today and made it clear that this is not the way that he or most presidents, and, you know, frankly, like most presidents that we hadn`t had in our lifetime, would not treat classified documents this way, and drew that contrast and kind of, you know, laughed about the fact that, you know, Trump was like, oh, I declassified these documents, and made it clear that this is not only how you conduct yourself, not only how you don`t conduct yourself as president, but you also, of course, have a very methodical procedure in terms of how you handle classified information. And President Biden really went there.
But look, Alicia, here I think is the bigger picture is that Republicans are silent just as Julian said, because they are scared. They know that this is not working with those moderate independent swing voters that will dictate not only what happens in 2022, but of course, most importantly, for the Republicans in terms of the presidency, what happens in 2024. Donald Trump has about 32% to 33% of the electorate who was with him, you know that the guy who can see it on Fifth Avenue, no matter what he does, those guys are going to be with him.
But the people who are going to get him elected or potentially elected are the moderate independent voters. And we know from recent polling, of course, then pulling the NBC News is done, as that those moderate independents believe that his illegal possession of classified documents is of concern, and is going to further detract them from potentially supporting him in 2024. So I think that`s where the bigger picture is. That`s why Republicans are worried. And that`s why you`re not hearing frankly, a lot coming out of their mouths over that — after the affidavit came out today.
MENENDEZ: Secretary Castro, I would layer on to Adrienne`s analysis that you`re also experiencing some of the policy real world consequences, the hangover of the Trump years, Texas` abortion trigger law went into effect this week, making it a felony to provide an abortion in your state, punishable by life in prison. I want to know sort of how that is playing out in Texas. And when you look at sort of step back and look at the composite, right? A former president who continues to have myriad legal troubles and then the reality of what Republicans have started to put into place. How voters are going to feel about all of it?
[23:40:15]
CASTRO: Yeah, it`s interesting that down here in Texas, the Democratic statewide candidates are making choice, one of their front and center issues, just a couple of days ago, for instance, Rochelle Garza who`s running for Attorney General against the incumbent indicted Ken Paxton, put out an ad along with the Lieutenant Governor candidate, it was this interesting joint ad that she did with him, but one of the focus issues was choice and that she would fight for a woman`s right to choose.
Beto O`Rourke and others have said that even in rural communities in Texas, they`re breaking up abortion access. So this is turning into the kind of powerful issue that is making these Texas races much closer than people thought they would be. We`ve also seen just recently a few days ago in the special election for New York`s 19th Congressional District Health, Pat Ryan was able to pull off an upset victory by making abortion access the primary issue that he focused on. So I think it`s going to have legs not just in places like New York, but also from what we can tell in places where you wouldn`t expect it as much like in Texas.
MENENDEZ: Julian Castro, Adrienne Elrod, thank you both so much for being with us.
Coming up, Hillary Clinton was once roasted over her handling of sensitive government information. Little did we know her competitor would later be investigated the same thing it has one of our favorite presidential historians questioning how dare he. THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:46:25]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, (R) FORMER UNITED STATES PRESIDENT: Some bad things came out today, you know those classified, you know the word classified. She sent vast amounts of classified information, including information classified as top secret. They said that she was extremely careless. And frankly, I say grossly incompetent. We can have someone in the Oval Office who doesn`t understand the meaning of the word confidential or classified and may be —
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: Six years after Trump repeatedly ridiculed Hillary Clinton over her private email server. Today`s affidavit revealed the disgraced former president took nearly 200 classified documents with him when he left office, dozens were labeled top secret and contained highly sensitive information and were kept in various rooms at the Palm Beach residence.
You`re happy to welcome back celebrated author and presidential historian Michael Beschloss. His latest work in a bookshelf full of works is, “Presidents of War.”
Michael, typically, when you join us, we try to find historical comparisons to our current political moment. But as you tweeted today, and we all took notice, there is nothing in our history that quite compares to this.
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS, NBC NEWS PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Yeah, that`s exactly right. Lovely to be with you, as always, Alicia. You know, here`s a case where an ex-President of the United States was told numerous times by the National Archives, and shouldn`t have needed to be told, you`re in danger of being prosecuted for breaking the Presidential Records Act of 1978 and other laws against an ex-President taking and storing classified documents. And yet, why did he do this? You know, we still don`t know. Did he share the information from these classified documents with someone who shouldn`t have it, foreign governments, terrorists, someone else?
And you know, and the other thing is, we have to ask the question, did he get cash? Did he get favors for sharing that information? We do not know. You know, you were talking about history, Alicia, think of Dwight Eisenhower as a general, 1944 planning D Day, whose success depended on hitting the Germans by surprise, where the allies would land and what the plan of attack was? If someone had left out one piece of paper that could have doomed 10s of 1000s of allied soldiers and sailors to their deaths.
The next year, Harry Truman was president. He had an atomic bomb, which Americans did not know more than one. And he was thinking about using it against Japan, that dependent on surprise. What if Truman or someone in his entourage had sloppily left a piece of paper out that got to the Japanese or some other country that wished us ill and undercut the ability that Truman had to end World War Two? This is what is at stake? Why did Donald Trump do this?
MENENDEZ: But as you all know, that`s not just what`s at stake, because that is as it relates to our national security. But there`s also this piece about what it means for America`s role on the world stage, I mean, as other countries are watching this unfold, is the damage that has been done irrevocable?
BESCHLOSS: Nothing is ever irrevocable, I think, but what friendly intelligence service would cooperate with us today, in the same way that they might have 10 or 20 years ago. Though when they didn`t have to worry about an ex-President of the United States of all things jeopardizing national secrets.
[23:50:08]
As you know well, Alicia, you know, we have great intelligence services in the United States. But part of the reason that we are so prepared against surprise attacks, terrorist attacks, other dangers in this modern world is that we have friendly governments with great intelligence services with whom we share information. If they close up their briefcases, we`re going to be living in a much more insecure state, the children and our families are going to be jeopardized. And I hold that at the feet of Donald Trump.
MENENDEZ: Michael, you asked if Americans are ever going to get a confession, an apology for any of this, I`m going to go out on a limb and imagine that you`re probably not holding your breath for that from Trump. But what about other Republicans? I mean, those who have carried his water, those people who might still have a political career or career of service ahead of them, do you think we could hear the same from them?
BESCHLOSS: I think that we`re — there`s something that is really reassuring. You know, Alicia, here we are, what is, about 11 hours since that affidavit was released today. And usually you expect, you know, hundreds of Trump supporting leaders, Republican leaders and others through the states saying bum rap. He`s being treated unfairly. He didn`t do anything wrong. As of 11 hours in, there was a resounding silence. And it may well be that the Republicans who have styled themselves as the party of national security for decades, maybe this was too much for them to take and they will say, you know, we`ve swallowed enough to go along with Donald Trump, but putting the lives of young Americans in danger after centuries of young Americans giving their lives and risking their lives for our freedom. That`s one step too far.
MENENDEZ: As you said, maybe, maybe. Michael Beschloss, as always thank you so much.
BESCHLOSS: We will see.
MENENDEZ: Staying up, spending some time with us, be sure to catch Michael`s latest episode of Fireside History that is available right now on MSNBC on Peacock.
Coming up, half a century ago, Neil Armstrong took the first step on the moon. NASA wants to increase that foot traffic details on its new mission when THE 11TH HOUR continues.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:57:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That`s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Oh, gee, that`s great! Is the lighting half way decent?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, indeed. They`ve got the flag up now and you can see the stars and stripes on the lunar surface.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: The last thing before we go tonight, return to the moon. Back on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong became the first man to ever walk on the lunar surface. Some 53 years later, we are still waiting on the first woman to take those momentous steps. But we may be getting closer and the start of the nation`s long awaited next trip to the moon could be just a few days away.
On Monday, NASA is hoping to kick off its first moon mission in 50 years. The launch of an uncrewed test spacecraft called Artemis I as Lester Holt explains.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LESTER HOLT, NBC HOST: Sitting on Launch Pad 39B, the Artemis rocket NASA`s most powerful yet taller than the Statue of Liberty. 55 engines and motors will lift the nearly 600 million pound rocket sky word on a historic mission, a first step to eventually return Americans to the lunar surface.
(On camera): So how real is this going back to the moon?
VANESSA WYCHE, NASA JOHNSON SPACE CENTER DIRECTOR: Oh, it`s very real. We`re definitely going. We`re going to actually live there. We will have landers go to the moon, we`ll have rovers on the moon and eventually we`ll have a base camp on the moon.
HOLT: Once beyond the pole of Earth`s gravity, the Orion capsule perched the top of the rocket will orbit the moon for 42 days, uncrewed but with male and female astronaut dummies loaded with sensors to study the potential effects of the mission on future real astronauts.
Jessica Meir is one of 18 veteran astronauts part of the Artemis team who could fly on the first mission to the moon since 1972. The goal learn more about the moon and use it as a jumping off point to Mars.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MENENDEZ: Learn more about the moon. Artemis I is scheduled for liftoff from NASA`s Kennedy Space Center between 8:33 a.m. and 10:33 a.m. Eastern on Monday morning, we will be watching. We hope you will too.
And on that note I want to wish you a good night. It was so fun to be with you this entire week. Make sure to tune in this weekend for my show, American voices, 6 to 8 p.m. every Saturday, every Sunday. This Saturday, I`m going to talk with Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley about with President Biden`s big announcement on forgiving student loans means for you, for your kids, for the midterms and where this big fight goes next. I want you to check it out, again. It starts at 6 p.m. Eastern.
From all of our colleagues across the networks of NBC News, thank you for staying up late. Stephanie Ruhle will be back on Monday. And I will see you this weekend.