Updated
Summary
DOJ to file response to Trump`s request for special master at any moment. How to approach a complicated economy ahead of midterms. DOJ responds to Trump`s request for a special master.
Transcript
LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, MSNBC HOST: Tonight`s “LAST WORD” is Electable, the title of Ali Vitali`s book, THE 11TH HOUR with Stephanie Ruhle starts now.
STEPHANIE RUHLE, MSNBC HOST: Tonight, a midnight deadline for the Department of Justice to respond to Trump`s apparent delay tactic, as Trump goes on a rant on social media.
Then President Biden out on the campaign trail touting his administration`s accomplishments on gun safety. One topic that didn`t come up, the complicated economy.
Plus, my one on one interview with Maryland`s Democratic nominee for governor of Wes Moore. He shared thoughts on inequality throughout the state, the Afghanistan withdrawal and what he calls the threat he faces in November, as THE 11TH HOUR gets underway on this Tuesday night.
Good evening once again, I`m Stephanie Ruhle and at any moment the Justice Department will file its formal response to former President Trump`s request to have a special master review documents seized from his Florida home, Mar-a-Lago. A third party reviewing the documents could delay the investigation, which is why many are calling Trump`s move a delay tactic. DOJ lawyers have until midnight to file their response, so stay tuned.
As this investigation heats up, the former guy is also beefing up his own legal team. NBC News reporting he has hired former Florida Solicitor General Chris Kise, who has won four separate cases before the Supreme Court. He is expected to appear in court for the first time as Trump`s attorney this Thursday during a hearing for the special master.
The search of Trump`s Florida home has unleashed attacks, and even some threats from Trump supporters against the FBI and our own Justice Department. Today, the New York Times reporting this, “The response by Mr. Trump and some of his allies is underscoring yet again, the degree to which threatening undertones are creeping into Republican political speech, raising concerns about words spilling over into violent action.”
Today, President Biden weighed in on all of this during his speech in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE BIDEN, (D) U.S. PRESIDENT: It`s sickening to see the new attacks and the FBI, threatened in life as law enforcement agents and their families for simply carrying out the law and doing their job. There`s no place in this country, no place for endangering the lives of law enforcement, no place. None, never, period. I`m opposed to defending the police. I`m also opposed to defunding the FBI. It turn on a television and see senior senators and congressmen saying if such and such happens, there`ll be blood in the street. Where the hell are we?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: President Biden expected to say a lot more about this Thursday night. The White House says he will be giving a primetime speech about ongoing threats to America`s rights and freedoms. We got a lot to cover tonight. So let`s get smarter with the help of our lead off panel. Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney and former Senior FBI Official, Luke Broadwater, Pulitzer Prize Winning Congressional Reporter for the New York Times, and Jeff Mason, White House Correspondent for Reuters.
Gentlemen, I hope you have had your Red Bull, your coffee, your Coca-Cola, because we could be getting this 40 page response from the DOJ any minute now. Chuck, when we do we know that they`ve already seized all these documents from our logo. What do you think is going to be in this filing?
CHUCK ROSENBERG, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: A couple of things, Stephanie. But let me just take a step back, because I think keeping eyes on the prize is important here. The reason they executed the warrant to begin with, was to get evidence that they can use an investigation, and perhaps a trial if they charge anybody with a crime.
And so one way or the other, the Department of Justice and the FBI are eventually going to get that either through their internal filter team screening for privileged materials. Or if the judge appoints a special master through the special master. I imagine the Department of Justice will say among other things, we`ve already reviewed the material. It`s not that difficult. We don`t need to go through this extra step. And that extra step is only going to slow us down. It`s inefficient, and for the purpose of delay, so let`s get going. But Stephanie, regardless, the investigation is ongoing, the entire investigation doesn`t grind to a halt over this one issue. There are other facets to it, and I`m certain it`s moving forward.
RUHLE: All right, but is this going to be a bit careful what you wish for, for the former President Trump. Luke, if we get this 40-page explanation, does that not look like the DOJ is showing up with receipts? There`s got to be a lot of content in there?
[23:05:06]
LUKE BROADWATER, THE NEW YORK TIMES CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: Yeah I think it`s very telling the fact that they asked for this expanded page count. That`s not that — that`s signals to me that the Justice Department wants to lay out a set of facts here and tell their side of the story in a more robust way than we`ve seen. Let`s remember, the facts we`ve seen to date have largely come from court filings before the search. And so this would be the first court filing that would lay out a set of facts after the search, and what I`ll be looking for, in particular, to see if there`s any more about evidence towards obstruction of justice.
We know that — we`ve reported in the New York Times about surveillance video showing some boxes being moved in the storage room or out of the storage room. And we know that some papers were found not just in the storage room, but in other parts of Mar-a-Lago. And we know that the Trump lawyers told the Justice Department that everything had been returned, all the classified materials had been returned. So I`ll be very interested to see what more facts this, and more evidence this 40-page filing lays out.
RUHLE: Jeff, you`ve covered Donald Trump for years, his request for the special master, is he just pulling a move from his classic playbook, run the clock, run the clock and let`s delay?
JEFF MASON, REUTERS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it fits in with that playbook stuff, absolutely. Whether or not it ends up being successful. Of course, we have to wait and see. And as the other panelists have shown, or have said it could and if you suggested one of your questions, it could end up backfiring in terms of what comes out and what they show. But yes, I mean, there is a playbook that President Trump uses, and has used since long before he was President. And you see that also in the comments that are coming out on his social media platform now, bringing attention to himself, dominating the media story and trying to change the narrative from one thing that we`re talking about to another but always keeping himself centered.
RUHLE: Whether it`s deserved or not, Chuck, Trump and some Republicans are trying to demonize and hyper politicize the DOJ. So let`s say Trump gets his way. And they do appoint a special master besides delaying the proceedings, is that going to hurt the Department of Justice? Or could it put them in a better position that Trump can`t complain anymore?
ROSENBERG: It`s a thoughtful question, Stephanie. So it could help in the following way, if folks don`t trust the Department of Justice to handle this filtration process, internally, which is how we normally do it. And appointing a special master, perhaps a retired federal judge, as a neutral third party gives you that imprimatur of neutrality. And so, look, one way or the other, the Department of Justice and the FBI will get the fruits of this search, they`ll get the evidence to use and maybe even though it will slow it down a bit and seems unnecessary to me, doing that through a special master, a neutral third party, to your point, might give Trump much less to rail about although he never seems to be at a loss to find something to rail about.
RUHLE: And he hasn`t been at a loss over the last 24 hours. He`s obviously not on Facebook or Twitter. He`s banned from those platforms, at least for now. But he is on his own appointed social media site truth social, Jeff, talk to us about what he has said and done over the last 24 hours because he appears to be going off the rails.
MASON: Well, I mean, he is repeating some of the things that he`s been saying now since the 2020 election, in terms of saying that he should be reinstated, that the election should be declared that the results should be declared false, and at the very least another election should be should be held. And it just, Steph, let me just underscores how separated his mind is. And he is from what are the tenants of the Constitution and the tenants of any democracy suggesting on this social media platform that because of the grievances that he has, therefore, another election should be held, or he should be put back into power is the type of talk that you hear from leaders in countries that certainly are not in line with the values of the United States.
RUHLE: Luke, where`s the rest of the Republican Party following that? If a former president is coming out and saying he should immediately be reinstated, that is essentially saying that our current sitting president is in the White House unlawfully? If that`s how Trump feels and Republicans remain silent, next to a guy who is currently the de facto head of their party, what does that say for their respect or understanding of democracy?
BROADWATER: Right, and it`s not the first time Trump has said things like this, as you recall was only a few months ago, it feels like that he tried to get mad. He called Mo Brooks and told him to try to overturn the election, you know, year after the election is over.
[23:10:08]
So even Mo Brooks stood up to that, and Mo Brooks had been, you know, one of Trump`s chief cheerleaders for trying to overturn the election before January 6. So I do — you know, you are seeing, obviously, the folks on the far right of the party are standing with him and saying to fund the FBI, destroy the FBI, and sort of this hard right rhetoric, but the Republicans I`ve been talking to recently are doing a lot of hand wringing about this, they`re seeing their hopes for a big red wave in the midterms starting to evaporate. They think some of this rhetoric about riots in the streets is turning off suburban voters and potential swing voters. They`re seeing a smaller chance of taking the house with big numbers. So I think they`re — most of the ones I`ve been talking to recently, I`ve read recent inclusion, this is not a winning issue for them talking about Trump or standing with Trump, I think they still will do it publicly, lots of them when they have — when they`re put on the spot, because they see no other way to react in these circumstances. But this is not a winning political platform for the Republicans.
RUHLE: Chuck, could Trump`s new lawyer change things for the former president`s defense? Over the last week, we have not seen the former president`s legal team do anything. They have not addressed any of the issues around why he had these documents to begin with? I think it`s safe to say he has a bunch of made for TV lawyers spouting on television, but really saying nothing. The fact that he has now hired a real guy, former solicitor general from Florida, a guy who has won argued and won four cases before the Supreme Court. Could that change things?
ROSENBERG: Look, Stephanie better lawyering is not going to hurt Mr. Trump, but it`s not necessarily going to save him. And here`s why. Cases are decided by their facts. If you have good facts, you have a good case. I was a prosecutor for a long time, certainly not the most brilliant one ever to walk into a federal courtroom and argue before a jury. But when we went to court, when we charge somebody, we did it because we had the facts and facts win cases.
So judges appreciate when they have better lawyers in front of them. It`s more efficient, and it doesn`t waste their time. Better lawyers can get to the arguments more succinctly and more coherently. And that`s good for the administration of justice. But cases are decided by facts, Stephanie.
RUHLE: And there are no such thing as alternative facts. They are just lies. It`s always good to remind our audience.
Jeff, let`s talk about the current president, President Biden, who in the past has not talked much about January 6, has not talked much about what happened even the Mar-a-Lago search a week ago. But in his speech today, he said the attacks on federal law enforcement must end and he went after MAGA Republicans.
I want to share with Republican Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, you remember him, he testified at the January 6 committee hearing. I want to share what he said earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE REP. RUSTY BOWERS, (R) AZ HOUSE SPEAKER: I have many, many, many friends who are members of the GOP. They don`t act in that way at all. They are horrified at what`s happening in their party. I`m one of those people even though I`m “disgraced.” And so when we generalize that it`s the party as if it was all the party I would say no, it`s not. That is definitely a loud and threatening and intimidating and angry by choice. Part of the party that is intimidating others into either acquiescence or silence, tactic is get rid of you. You`re nothing we`ll get rid of you. To me, that reminds me of Mussolini.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: Jeff, I don`t know if he`s disgraced. But I do know Rusty Bowers just lost his primary to a Trump endorsed MAGA Republican. He shared very strong words there. But he shared them as a guy who`s about to lose his job. Any chance more of his fellow Republicans might start speaking the truth, those who are going to be in office going forward?
MASON: I mean, if past is prologue, it`s hard to imagine that anyone who hasn`t already come out and to now some of these things are all of a sudden going to start making that their mantra going into the midterm election. But back to someone something else you mentioned, Steph, in terms of the President and what he is mentioning, he did spend a good chunk of his speech today in Pennsylvania, talking about January 6, which he certainly has spoken about before. But what I thought was remarkable day was not just the mention of MAGA Republicans, which is something that is a kind of a piece of his rhetoric and has been for the last couple of months, but making a connection between supporting January 6 and supporting the police.
[23:15:00]
Democrats are vulnerable on the issue of crime and that`s something that this President, this White House is — are certainly he knew of which they are keenly aware. But going into the midterm elections, the point that the President made today is you can`t defend the people who attack the Capitol on January 6, and led to 140 police officers being injured, and then say you`re pro-police. And that`s a shift in rhetoric, or at least a new sort of specific message from this president, who`s sort of leading the way for Democrats on the issue of crime going into the midterms.
RUHLE: Chuck, as someone who was once part of the FBI for a very long time, do you believe the President`s defense of federal law enforcement is going to sink in? Right, we currently have Republicans who want to defund even abolish the FBI. Yet I could drive down the street where I live, and there`s an awful lot of MAGA flags, next to Blue Lives Matter flags.
ROSENBERG: Yeah, it`s perplexing. Do I think it will work, the President`s words? I sure hope so. I mean, he described the attacks on the FBI is sickening. I have a whole bunch of other words, most of which I can`t use on your show, Stephanie. I hope so. I hope we get back to some middle place in our country. I think that`s where most people live. And I think most folks overwhelmingly support the work of the men and women in law enforcement, state federal and local. The attacks on the FBI are at least sickening. They`re deranged, and they`re dangerous. And we saw the effects of that with the attack on the Cincinnati office of the FBI, and the arrests in Pennsylvania, people who wanted to target FBI agents. And so I hope what the President said resonates and I hope people come back to their senses.
RUHLE: All right then. Chuck Rosenberg, Jeff Mason, Luke Broadwater, I`m going to thank you all and say goodbye for now. But please don`t go far, do some jumping jacks, push-ups, have another cup of coffee because we are still awaiting the Justice Department`s response to Trump`s special master request. The deadline is midnight, we could get it any moment and when we do, we will bring it to you. And these gentlemen will be back to break it down.
But next, what President Biden is not focusing on today, but what it means for Democrats heading into the midterms. And later, my one on one interview with the Democratic nominee for governor in Maryland, why Wes Moore says he views his Republican opponent as a threat, a threat to our country, our democracy. THE 11TH HOUR just getting underway on a really important Tuesday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:22:16]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: When I signed in the law, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most significant gun safety law we passed in 30 years took 30 years. And the NRA and the vast majority of Congressional Republicans voted against it, saving lives and keeping America safe. But guess what? We took on the NRA, we`re going to take him on again. And we won, and we will win again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RUHLE: President Biden was in the key state of Pennsylvania today talking about his recent win over the gun lobby, he has finally gotten a little breathing room from the issues many experts were calling the Problem from Hell just a few months ago, that problem, of course, inflation. And we got some key information that sheds new light on where this complicated economy might be going.
Consumer confidence is up. That`s a really good thing. Americans are out there spending, they feel good about their spending power, gas prices are down, that is a huge, huge positive. It`s one of the biggest drivers that make people feel negative about the economy, there are 11 million jobs open, which means there are jobs to be had, and employers will likely have to pay up to fill them. But on the negative side, the markets are down and people are expecting home prices to go down in the future. And that has people concerned. Is it a good economy or a complicated one? And how do you play politics around it.
With us for more, Mara Gay, she`s part of the New York Times Editorial Board, and an MSNBC Contributor, and Mark McKinnon, former Adviser to both George W. Bush and John McCain. And he is among the superstar co-hosts of the circus on Showtime.
Mark, it was just two months ago, that Republicans said it`s all about the economy, which we`ve always said. And they thought that was going to do Biden income, the midterms, gas prices, the fact that people simply couldn`t afford to get to work, couldn`t afford to go on vacation, the fact that that picture is getting a lot better for Biden, how do Republicans play it now?
MARK MCKINNON, FORMER ADVISER TO JOHN MCCAIN & GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, what they don`t want to do is be on defense. And that`s — Biden has flipped the script for them on criminal justice matters, which is very smart. It`s political jujitsu. I mean, the reality is that we haven`t heard much about inflation in the last couple of weeks. There`s lots of talk about gas prices going down. There`s lots of talks about all the jobs that are available. So there`s just a different sort of ecosystem right now about jobs and employment, and just not as much about inflation. And so I think it`s very smart for Biden to flip the script on criminal justice and take the offensive. The one thing I know in politics outside from all the campaigns that I`ve ever done, is that if you`re explaining you`re losing, and you always want to be on offense, so Biden has taken offense and now Republicans for a change are on defense and having to defend what they`re doing — what they`re talking about in terms about defending the FBI.
[23:25:10]
RUHLE: Mara, the fact that President Biden doesn`t have to talk about the economy right now, he doesn`t have to address gas prices day in and day out. How much of a positive is that for him in terms of having breathing room?
MARA GAY, THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER: Well, it`s a huge opportunity and Mark hit the nail on the head, this isn`t going to solve the problem for Biden, but it does present an opportunity for Democrats to come out swinging ahead of the midterms instead of being constantly on the defense. So this is not only, you know, talking about flipping the script on crime, but this is also should be a time when the Democrats can start talking about the Dobbs decision, which I think is clearly very unpopular with the American people and will drive a lot of voters to the polls.
And so there`s room now to talk about those things when you don`t have to explain and defend why people can`t take vacations because gas prices are up, or why the cost of everyday staples, you know, is extraordinary. So there`s an opportunity, not a guarantee here for the Democrats.
RUHLE: Mark, the fact that the President is able to talk about crime prevention, funding the police, which, as you know, was clearly difficult for Democrats even just a couple of years ago, he even said today that he`s determined to ban assault weapons. Might the American people actually start to buy into this because it was only a month ago, he actually got something done on guns, something many people have given up on?
MCKINNON: Yeah, well, first time in 30 years. So yes, I think there`s an opening. I think there`s an advantage here. And you know, listen, I mean, I mean, he`s talking — he`s taking the offense on jobs, he`s taking the offense on guns, he`s taking the offense on row, he`s taking the offense on the Inflation Reduction Act. I mean, there`s a lot of positive things. Suddenly, the Democrats now talking about. I mean, just a few months ago, they were defending and explaining and all on so many issues, and now they`ve got — now they`ve got the range, now they`re in the saddle. And now it`s Republicans that are having to respond on all those things. I mean, look at a lot of the stories today are about how Republican candidates are changing their websites, changing their language on issues like Roe. That`s called defense.
RUHLE: Damn. Mara, let me ask you about Trump because he spent the last day posting QAnon and other conspiracy theories on his social media platform. We talked so much about how dangerous that is. But if that`s the lane Trump is in, isn`t he just going to fire up his base who believes that crazy anyway, and all those people around the country who are in the middle, or who don`t like politics, or who don`t like politicians, but care about kitchen table issues, the issues Biden is addressing every day, doesn`t it just put Trump further in a crazy corner?
GAY: I actually think that`s exactly right. The scary thing about what Donald Trump and his most hardcore followers are doing is that it really has nothing to do with elections. It — what it really has to do with is sheer power. And so they`re not interested in winning free and fair elections anymore, because that`s not something that they have been able to do successfully since 2016.
So instead, what we have is an extremely fringe group of Americans following an extremely fringe scary person, the former president, United States, who is willing to put to incite political violence. So the concern here is not that Donald Trump is going to stir up voters and going to help Republicans win the midterms, I actually believe the concern is that he`s inciting political violence. That`s the number one concern that I have.
I think that Donald Trump is actually a pretty powerful motivator for Democrats and for many independents, especially women in the wake of the Dobbs decision to come out and vote. So the more he speaks out, the more Democrats are going to remember exactly why they want to show up at the polls in November and a midterm here, and independents too. But that doesn`t mean that the threat to the country isn`t there. It`s not necessarily at the voting booths.
RUHLE: And when you look at Republicans who are clearly speaking out against him, it`s oftentimes those who are leaving office. I mentioned Rusty Bowers a few minutes ago, and of course the cheese who is standing alone bravely, Liz Cheney. But Mark Republicans who are currently in office, those that you know, personally who are shaking their heads who privately know how dangerous he is, never liked him to begin with somebody who`s name might rhyme with Mitt Romney, what are they doing? What are they saying right now as Trump is getting more aggressive and louder in this space?
MCKINNON: They can`t believe it. Because at least I think, there`s a couple of things happening. One is, Biden`s got some mojo. Democrats are getting excited about that. They`re animated because of a couple of recent decisions but Inflation Reduction Act and Roe, Supreme Court decision has certainly animated them.
[23:30:07]
But the other equation that`s happened is that Donald Trump has come back on the radar screen because of this Mar-a-Lago search, and Republicans going, Jesus, just when we had some momentum, and just when we thought we really had a wave going into November, here comes Trump again. And that`s part of the problem because not only are Democrats animated, but we`re seeing in polling and a lot of research that Republicans enthusiasm is being dampened now and part of that dampening is the Trump effect.
RUHLE: Well, Mark, Mara, do not go far. Trump always says, as long as he`s in the news, that`s good news for him. But tonight, I am not sure we have got that breaking news. The Justice Department has just filed its response to former President Trump`s request to have a special master, a neutral party, a third party to review those documents that was seized from his Florida home.
Department of Justice lawyers were facing a midnight Eastern deadline. That is 29 minutes from now. And they got special permission to submit a longer document than the judge requested.
NBC Justice Reporter Ryan Reilly joins us now. Mara Gay, Mark McKinnon still with us. And I`m sure we`re going to bring some lawyers on the other side of this. But Ryan, I know you`ve only had it for a few minutes. But tell us what, you know, 40 pages is a lot.
RYAN REILLY, NBC NEWS JUSTICE REPORTER: That`s right. So the key graph that they have here is that essentially appointing a special master is, “unnecessary” and would significantly harm and perfect governmental interest, including national security interest. On top of that, they say that the appointment of a special ambassador is disfavored in this case, because especially because the government`s filter team has already completed its work and standard meeting and he sees materials that are potentially subject to attorney client privilege. And the government`s investigative team has already reviewed all the remaining materials, including any that are potentially subject to claims of executive privilege, appointment of a special master to review documents, review materials, potentially subject to the claims of executive privilege would be particularly inappropriate because binding Supreme Court precedent forecloses pointless argument that review of these materials by personnel within the executive branch would raise any such executive privilege claim.
So essentially, they want to — they are arguing here that a special master is not appropriate for looking at claims of executive privilege that all essentially rests with Biden. That`s not a proper pursuit for a third party, third party special, special master in this case to be looking over, even if there was a special master who was appointed to look over whether or not their attorney client privilege is an issue.
RUHLE: Ryan put their argument why we don`t need this special master aside, in it do they show their work? Do they explain why they sought that search warrant? What happened between May and June when they requested documents from Mar-a-Lago, when they got documents from Mar-a-Lago and how they knew what they got wasn`t everything?
REILLY: So I haven`t gotten through all 36 pages yet, but I would say this government has pretty much walked us through exactly what they did in the process that led up to this. Remember, those initial 15 boxes came at the very beginning of the year, there was in 14 of those boxes that were turned over to the National Archives by Donald Trump. 14 of those 15 boxes contain classified information, including top secret information. They continued in negotiations with him for a while, while referring that to the Justice Department. The Justice Department then went down in response to a search warrant, and — I`m sorry, in response to our initial subpoena rather, in early June, they dealt with Trump then and then months later, two months after that, that`s the grand jury subpoena is when the search warrant was issued.
And there`s a lot of information we don`t know yet about why they exactly went about to get that search, but based on the information that was provided in the partially unredacted document, they had pretty well, well, pretty solid claims for why there is going to be evidence of crimes at Mar- a-Lago. And in fact, they found all of those classified materials along with a bunch of material that Donald Trump was just not supposed to possess, because regardless of the classification status here, all of this material should have been in the hands of the National Archives is not is to keep under the law, Stephanie.
RUHLE: Then what position to do these 36 pages put Trump and his team in, right? For what the judge decides to the side, across these pages. They`re going through their timeline, and won`t that show publicly that Trump had things he shouldn`t have had? And now that that`s out there in the open, he and his team will have no choice but to explain, here`s what I had, and here`s why they have it, right? They keep arguing — Trump keeps arguing that the process is unfair. They`re saying okay, here`s the process. I`m going to show you all my notes. They`re showing them?
[23:35:02]
REILLY: Yeah, I mean, you know, Donald Trump got his hand caught in the proverbial cookie jar here, right? Like he was caught with these documents. So he wasn`t supposed to have these documents. He can make arguments all he wants about, oh, some of these documents, I declassified — or I left. But setting that aside, he just wasn`t supposed to have these documents under the law, regardless of their classification level. Not only that, but they touch a variety of issues that weren`t impacted by any classification. If it had to do with Florida, Russia gate documents that he was putting out.
He can`t just, you know, that there was this idea that he had a standing order for declassifying materials that he brought back to the residence, which just sort of you got to throw back, throw out because that`s sort of a ludicrous argument, if you have the standing order, because remember, things that are declassified, aren`t just declassified for Donald Trump to hold on to in his residence or declassified for everyone. So that would make them subject to anyone to be able to FOIA. So it`s just not how the declassification process works, even if that`s the claim that he is going to try to make, and then he didn`t really is just a spaghetti at the wall sort of legal process or proceeding or arguments that Trump is making here. It`s just make whatever argument will essentially ring with his base, regardless of whether or not it actually has much to do with the law that you`re here to determine.
RUHLE: Because President Trump`s base, just like any average American might not know how classification of documents would work. But the judge will, and now that the Department of Justice is laying all of this out, what position does that put the judge, and if they can say, here`s what we meticulously did, how can the judge argue, yes, we`re going to need a third party. Shouldn`t there be some level of trust in the Department of Justice?
REILLY: It`s a good question. I mean, I think that the public influence is going to have, is certainly going to play a role here, regardless of whether or not it should because it`s just so hotly politicized. I mean, it`s clear that the judge was trying to give Trump`s team any breaks that she could. She`s a Trump appointed judge, and she just basically walked them through when they filed bogus or not well filed filings initially, and basically, you know, held their hand and walk them through the process for how to actually file something improperly on the docket.
So she`s, I think, assisting them and pushing them in the right direction here and already indicated that she would be open to appointing a special master. But I don`t know it`s a tougher argument. I think that they have to contend with here that Trump has to come back and respond to here. But I think a big part in Trump`s corner is essentially going to be this ongoing argument that the American people or at least Trump supporters don`t support the FBI or don`t trust the FBI or don`t trust DOJ, which is obviously something that Donald Trump has been trying to promote actively distorting the system in this public relations battle.
RUHLE: But of course, now the Department of Justice has clearly laid out that the National Archives requested amicably these documents, they didn`t get them back, they actually got a subpoena. And Trump`s team did not comply. So they had no choice, but to be forced to get a search warrant because of national security risks. And now they`ve got it laid out there. I want to bring back Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney and former Senior FBI official.
Chuck, I told you don`t go far, I know you haven`t gotten a chance to dig into all 36 pages. But from what you`ve seen thus far, what do you think?
ROSENBERG: So the government makes a couple of important arguments, probably the most important is, they already did the review. So let`s go back a step, Stephanie, you need to understand —
RUHLE: Hold on, hold on, I did the review of what? Hold on did the review of what?
ROSENBERG: Yeah, they did the review of materials seized during the search that were arguably privileged, attorney client privilege materials. So let me just back up a moment, when the government applied for the search warrant, it suggested to the judge what it would do if the warrant was approved and how it would set up the filter team and what processes the filter team would use. And the judge who approved the warrant, approve those processes.
And so once the warrant was executed, the government took the materials it seized, and ran it through the very process it had described to the federal judge who had approved the warrant. And it did it precisely how they told the judge, they would do it, and they`re done. And so one of their principal arguments tonight, Stephanie, not surprising is because we`re done, because the filter team has already screened out attorney client privilege material. And given all the other stuff to the investigative team as we told you judge we would do there`s no need to do this again. We`re finished and doing it again would simply slow us down. So we talked about this a bit earlier. The argument that is unnecessary. The government also says Stephanie and we`ve been skimming through it that if you really want to appoint a special master which we don`t think is necessary there are certain ways we`d like for you to do it, we`d like you to put a deadline on that person`s work, we want to make sure that they have a top secret clearance, so getting a clearance so that person doesn`t further slowdown the work.
[23:40:22]
They put on a number of conditions, because they understand the judge, despite their protestations may still appoint a special master. But their most basic argument is, we did it the way we said we would do it, the investigative team already has the materials that we didn`t screen from them. And so we`re ready to go forward judge, no need to do this now.
RUHLE: They found in the records, that there was highly classified information in Trump`s home that some records were actually torn up, Chuck. And we do need to remind our audience where these documents were, they were at Trump`s club, they were in — and this isn`t just his private home, this is a club. This is a country club. This is a place — I`ve gone to weddings too, right? Strangers go in and out of this place on a regular basis. Here we are on the screen right now, the image that we`re looking at, is the photo that the Department of Justice released, showing the documents, you can see what they are, given how clear this is. What will that say to America? If the judge says yes, despite you doing all of your work, clearly reviewing all of this, we`re still going to need that special master, does that not undermine the Department of Justice and the respect we have for them?
ROSENBERG: Well, I think it can be argued, Stephanie. I think you`re right, that it would undermine the confidence in the Department of Justice. Remember, again, the Department of Justice told the federal judge who authorized the search warrant precisely what their process would be to review these documents. And you can see from the picture on the screen, it`s sort of hard to miss when there`s a classified document, those cover sheets are on the top of all classified records. And so it`s pretty obvious to anybody, even somebody perhaps who didn`t do their homework or read the materials presented to him when he was president that this stuff is classified and has to be treated in a certain way.
But the most important point here, I think the single takeaway is that the government, after seizing the materials, pursuant to a lawful warrant signed by a federal judge did precisely what they told the judge that they would do. They put the materials through a filter process. They note in their pleading file tonight, that there was really only a very small subset of materials that were arguably protected by attorney client privilege. And they set those materials aside and did not give them to the investigative team. So it sounds like the work is done.
And I think you`re quite right, by asking someone else to do the work that`s already been done in a manner approved by another federal judge, it would undermine some confidence in the Department of Justice and their work that said, if the judge feels strongly that a neutral third party Special Master is necessary here, it will slow things down a bid. But again, eyes on the prize. At the end of the day, the investigative team, the FBI and the prosecutors working the case, will get the stuff they`re entitled to.
RUHLE: Chuck, I want to take our eyes back to that image, the documents. And I want you to explain it to us one more time, because for civilian eyes like mine, we haven`t seen things like this before. Walk us through one more time again, these boxes in Trump`s home, explain those with a red around them and with the yellow on the top right?
ROSENBERG: Sure. So look at the document, let`s say on the top right, and you see across the top in big, bold letters, Top Secret/SCI, Secret Compartmented Information. If a document contains information that is classified at that level, the highest level that we have for classified information, you put that cover sheet on top of it, and it remains there. Then Stephanie, if you were to flip the page and start reading the document, each of the paragraphs are separately marked. Some of the paragraphs in that document might be unclassified. Some of the documents — I`m sorry, some of the paragraphs and that document might be classified at the secret level.
We know from the cover sheet that some of the paragraphs inside of that document will be classified at the top secret, SCI, Secret Compartmented Information level. So even if the cover sheet were removed, and it shouldn`t be, and you see them there on the number of those documents, there are paragraph markings inside the document for each and every paragraph. It`s really hard to miss when you`re holding a classified document in your hand, you know, what you have there`s no mistaking it. You understand that you`re holding information, the disclosure of which could do grave damage to the national security of the United States.
[23:45:11]
And that`s why they have cover sheets. And that`s why they have paragraph markings. So there are no mistakes about the nature of the stuff that you are holding and reading.
RUHLE: Then, Chuck, let`s say you`re in the position that Chris Kise just put him in, defending Donald Trump. What argument could there possibly be? Why the former president would remove these items from the White House and take them to his private home, right? He`s packing up, he`s hitting his funny –fuzzy bunny slippers, some of his favorite pics from his time as president, you get that. But these documents on what planet would it make sense for a president to take them?
ROSENBERG: Well, it doesn`t make sense to take them because they don`t belong to Mr. Trump, they belong to the government of the United States, and ought to be in the possession of the National Archives. That said, Stephanie, you know, if I had to imagine a defense for Mr. Trump, and it`s not really something that I liked doing, it would be as follows. He didn`t pack the boxes, he didn`t move the boxes. He didn`t put anything into the boxes or take anything out of the boxes. He had no idea what was in them. They were put in his house, and he never looked at them before or since. That said, you know what, Stephanie, there`s another issue here. When a warrant is executed at someone`s home, it`s because the FBI has probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed. And that evidence of that crime will be found in the place that you search. So let`s say I am — go ahead.
RUHLE: But, Chuck, is that a viable argument? I wasn`t the one to pack my bags. And I didn`t look in the boxes, right? I`m reporting from home right now. If there are 17 year old kids drinking beers in my backyard, and they get in a car and get in a drunk driving accident, I will be responsible for that, right? That`s how the law works for civilians like me. But Donald Trump could make the argument, I wasn`t the one to put the packing tape on it. Give me a break.
ROSENBERG: So Stephanie, if it`s true, that he didn`t pack the boxes or looking them, then it`s a viable defense. And if it`s not true, then it`s not a viable defense. And here`s how you figure that out. You talk to lots and lots and lots of people who are around the President, when these boxes were packed and moved, or to whom he spoke about their contents, right? So you can`t know just from the fact that these boxes were found and the stuff was found in them, who pack them, who`ve moved them or who looked in them. We don`t know that, we just know where they were found.
But let me let me finish the thought that I was starting just a moment ago, let`s say I am, you`re good for nothing, cousin, and I`m sleeping on your couch because I can`t find a job. And I have no money. So I rob a bank, and I put the gun, the ski mask and the money that I got from the bank in your garage, the FBI could execute a search warrant on your house, they have probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed, and that they would find evidence that federal crime in your house, you didn`t do it, right? You had nothing to do with it, you had no idea that that bank had been robbed, you just knew that you had a lazy good for nothing cousin sleeping on your couch, who did something really, really stupid. You can execute a search warrant at someone else`s house to find evidence of a crime that someone else committed. And that`s why you do investigations to figure out who done —
RUHLE: But Chuck, let`s say I`m just doing my job, packing boxes for the President. What would my motivation be? Why would I have access? Why would I want to take these classified documents? Why would I even be allowed to touch them to put them in a box? That doesn`t make sense to me?
ROSENBERG: No. And it doesn`t make sense to me either. Stephanie. And I think that`s exactly right. And I think that`s what investigators are going to try and determine. Who put that stuff in the box? At whose direction do they put it in the box? Did Trump know was in the box and they did for what purpose was he taking it? Was he taking it as a keepsake? Was he taking it because he never read it when he was president and wanted to read it now? Or God forbid did he take it because he wanted to monetize it and give it to another country because he thought he could get something out of that type of transaction? I don`t know the answers to those questions.
And remember, the search warrant affidavit that was unsealed in part the other day was also redacted in large part, all the good stuff, all the bases for probable cause. All the stuff we really wanted to read, remained redacted. I would imagine that some of the answers to your really good questions are behind those redactions.
RUHLE: It would be hard to believe that the former president took those documents because he wanted to read them. During his four years as president, it was reported over and over. I myself spoke to senior White House officials who said over and over Trump doesn`t read. He didn`t read. They would have to find headlines that were positive about him, highlight them with yellow highlighter, and just show him those lines. He doesn`t read documents. So the question is, why on earth would he have them?
[23:50:16]
Chuck, I am going to let you take a break. I know you want to dig into these documents further, but you`re going to stay with us and be back in the 12 a.m. hour because there`s more to cover. And I want to bring Luke Broadwater, Pulitzer Prize Winning Congressional reporter for the New York Times back with us. Luke, we have given you the time to read all 36 pages or close to it. What`s your takeaway?
BROADWATER: I was going through them very quickly. A couple of things jumped out to me right away, it does seem to underscore just how worried DOJ was about obstruction of justice. There`s some very clear language in this filing about documents being moved and not being fully shared to comply with a legal subpoena. They believed that representations were not made, that were fully truthful to the Justice Department. They noted that in the search, the FBI search of the property in one day, they recovered twice as many classified documents, as the Trump team said they had. And the Trump team had weeks and weeks to go through the documents to comply with the subpoena.
So I think it raises very serious concerns about obstruction of justice and about just how seriously the Trump team was trying to comply with a legal subpoena. You know, one thing that we`ve learned through our reporting, is that for a while that Trump team had left it up to Donald Trump himself, to go through the documents determine which shouldn`t be turned back to the government and which he was going to keep, which was classified, which wasn`t. And so when you leave this up to Trump himself to do, clearly they weren`t getting a full search of the materials. And, you know, I think that we`re seeing very clearly that the Justice Department thinks that this was a possible crime.
RUHLE: I know I`m putting you on the spot. I have obviously been on air since this news broke. Do you know if the former president has said anything since it broke?
BROADWATER: I haven`t looked at tree social, sorry. But the — you know, as I`ve been going through it, looking through, you know, the arguments are pretty, pretty strong on the government side in terms of executive privilege. Donald Trump`s attempts to invoke executive privilege and different aspects of this case have been routinely rejected by federal courts and trying to preserve different papers and keep them in his in his possession. So we`ll see what the judge decides here. But, you know, I do think that the Justice Department took this opportunity to lay out as much of the cases they could from their side legally without exposing any sources or any methods, because a lot of what we`ve been hearing is just from the Trump side, right? We`ve been hearing, they asked us to put a lock on the door that we were of cooperating. And you see very clearly so the language in this filing says this calls into question the extent of their cooperation, the evidence that we`ve uncovered here in this search, that they actually weren`t cooperating if they weren`t turning over these very clearly marked classified documents to us.
RUHLE: So what is it? Three weeks now since the Mar-a-Lago — three weeks since the Mar-a-Lago search, if the Department of Justice has made it clear tonight Luke, they`ve already reviewed and reorganized everything. Is there an argument to be made? How much would a special master delay this, how long would it take? Because if they could get through all of this in three weeks, and a special master were appointed, and let`s say he or she could get through it in three or four weeks? Would that not silence Trump or the naysayers who want to knock down the process and say, this is squeaky, squeaky clean? We did everything you asked for now, explain yourself?
BROADWATER: Well, if the filter team has already been through it, and the filter team returned passports and the filter team returned, attorney client privilege documents that, it does sort of render what is the point of this special master? But, you know, I guess you could assure the Trump folks that they`ve had a fair shake here if the special master also goes through it. You know, that said, I don`t think in some ways it`s politically in Trump`s interest to ever assert that he`s had a fair shake, or to ever tell his supporters that the government has given him a fair shake. He always wants to cast to them that he is the victim but there`s something to be very upset about that the FBI that the powerful people in America are out to get him and he`s on the side of them.
[23:55:10]
And so, you know, even if they bend over backwards to assure them the investigation is fair. I`m not sure how — whether Donald Trump whatever really embraced that or whether he would keep finding new ways to say that he was the victim.
RUHLE: He is pretty good at moving those goalposts. Luke Broadwater, thank you so much. I`m really glad you joined us tonight. And for you at home do not go anywhere. Our breaking coverage on the latest DOJ filing continues at the top of the hour. We`re going through all 36 of those pages, don`t go anywhere.