restrictions but the fact the president s alleged co-conspirator was not arraigned yesterday. what actually happens next here? how does this move forward? reporter: the next thing on the calendar now is the walt nauta, trump s co-defendant, the man accused of moving boxes on his behalf around mar-a-lago to avoid the justice department finding them. nauta has to come back in about two weeks or enter an appearance in some way saying that he will be pleading not guilty at this time. the reasonable he didn t right now is because he didn t have a lawyer in florida yet to represent him. he does have a lawyer who has represented him but moving forward in this particular system. the two men, one of the restrictions they walk out of court with and one of the things that is one of the first issues that trump s side took issue with is a decision by the judge to put over this case the
clinging to the words of judge jackson when she said this is left solely to the president. ultimately the tapes were viewed as an audio form of a personal diary but can you explain why her words in this decision do not hold water as bradley was just saying in this case? let me try to simplify presidential records. generally all presidential records will fall in one or two categories. sensitive documents and the other, to use your phrase earlier today, chatzkys. the latin term. personal belongings, souvenirs. but judicial watch said clinton talked about things that were security related and classified on the tapes. the way it works the archives gets it presumptively. and then if the president or former president can establish that they are personal, that they re not related to anything government related then the
president gets to keep those records. so there s a process. the president has to go through it. archives and the presidents agree on what gets to come and go. this is the opposite of that. donald trump took them all for himself and said i get to decide. the archives gets to decide as a result of that long process. every court case has to do with what is the question before the court? it s not let s have a general esoteric debate. what is the question you re asking? what is the prayer for relief as they call it. it was the idea of i d like you to make an entity do something. i would like you to make them enforce their own laws in some way or own statute and that s the courts dealing with that issue. the analogy regarding the clintons, bill or hillary clinton, will keep coming up for this very reason. it s about the substance of the information where you find the analogy, classified or sensitive material, but this case before
Former President Trump and his supporters say a court case about Bill Clinton's documents will exonerate him, but there are differences that may prove vital.
can be tried before the election. i think the special counsel is going try it. we will know immediately. i have appeared before a number of judges. you know immediately the first thing you appear in that courtroom how the judge is going to be. so we will know. is she going to be someone who is going to move the case along or is she going to try to delay it. when she delays, judges are the ones that delay trials. could they back up and say if she messes with the case, just go ahead and charge in new jersey for dissemination? because that s not been charged yet. they could. but what they could do if there is a question about whether or not they should ask her to further recuse herself and do that, i don t think that will do that because that will delay the case. but if she does anything crazy or unorthodox, they may, they meaning the special counsel, may go to the 11th circuit. and last question i guess will go to you. unfortunately, the disinformation from the right is seeping in,