premeditation would have to be indicted and by suggesting otherwise, the kevin mccarthys, jim jordans, presidential hopefuls, are breeding discredit about the justice department disbelief and distrust of it which means that fbi agents in the future are going to have a harder time getting cooperating witnesses, juries are going to be more suspicious, and that, too, is a danger to our national security. and, congressman, that is something that has been part of the national discourse. maybe not on a broad level, but for some time now. i think that you re absolutely right. that is something we have to talk about and to see what damage that is producing on the pillars of american democracy. i want to bring you back to the documents that were taken from mar-a-lago. the intelligence agency community has said it is conducting an assessment to see how much damage may have been caused by trump s mishandling of
hello and thank you so much for joining us. it is 10:00 eastern. i m ana cabrera alongside my friend and colleague jose diaz-balart, reporting from miami today. and welcome to the start of a monumental day. in just a few hours, donald trump will become the first former president to ever enter a plea in a federal courthouse. a grand jury voted to indict the 45th commander in chief with 37 counts relating to his handling of classified documents at his alleged obstruction of justice. now, trump has repeatedly stated he plans to enter a not guilty plea. and he will be presumed innocent just like any other american citizen. this won t be like any other trial. no other trial. outside doral, trump supporters and protesters made their voices heard. and on the campaign trail, the current front-runner for the republican nomination is starting to take criticism from his own party. if this indictment is true, president trump was incredibly reckless with our national security.
i don t expect the same discussion here today. this is not the judge that is actually going to oversee the trial. but we are learning more and trying to dig in terms of what is actually going to happen in terms of the processing. but in any event, we will not see it. that will all happen behind closed doors. federal court is notoriously tight. we re about five hours away still up until that arraignment, but we know a couple of trump s lawyers resigned just after this indictment was unsealed. the washington post had this headline today, trump scrambles to find lawyer on eve of first federal court appearance. that was just last night. what are we learning now about who is representing trump now, and what it might mean for his defense? this is interesting. given the gravity of what he s facing here, guys, you would imagine he would have a very robust legal team ready to hit
would have to look at it. it is interesting given that this venue moved, right, from d.c. where they had a grand jury and they moved it to south florida and that s where he s been indicted now. and so, given that change, does it change perhaps the possibility, open the possibility for trump s team to try to prevent his lawyers testimony and other evidence provided by his lawyer from being admissible in this trial? i will bet that trump s legal team will go to judge canon and ask her to revisit the decision made in a different court that says that corcoran s notes are fair game. and they then will appeal it because it goes into trump s strategy of delay, delay, delay. i don t think they re going to win it. trump tried to use corcoran to facilitate a crime, obstruction. trump could win by delaying the
talking about the conversations between the lawyer and the client, the client was actually misrepresenting what he wanted to do to the lawyer. and i think that puts it in a very different position. the lawyer essentially was lied to. he was he was told that there were no more documents to be turned over, when, in fact, trump was having them moved. so he is committing a crime in the conversations with his lawyer and that may be the key issue in whether there is a crime for the exception and i think that has been ruled upon in the d.c. courts. if that s been ruled on already by a court, then that s ruled of the case and i would be very much surprised if that would be an issue that could be litigated again now. it will be interesting to see how they approach it, but i would think that would be an issue that may not be raised on appeal until after a conviction. i m not certain of that, but