the tape from donald trump discussing a very sensitive military document could be a game-over moment for the ex-president in the classified documents investigation. it s a recording that not only significantly increases trump s legal exposure. but it also blows a gaping hole through many of the defenses that team trump has been peddling in public in the case. the ex-president s lawyer jim trusty went on cnn last night, playing defense in the wake of the bombshell news first reported by cnn of the tape s existence. and repeated a line that will be familiar to anyone who s been following this case. will trump display documents at will or as trump puts it even by just thinking about it. what i will tell you is there is no doubt as commander in chief when the president left washington, d.c. for mar-a-lago, he was actually still president, when he left with boxes that he brought he was the command in chief. there s no doubt he had the authority as commander in chief to be classi
classified documents case. evidence that paints a potentially damning portrait of efforts by the expresident in the expresident s push to retrieve important and sensitive security documents from that washington post report, quote, two of donald trump s employees moved boxes of papers the day before fbi agents and a prosecutor visited the former president s florida home to retrieve classified documents in response to a subpoena. timing that investigators have come to view as suspicious, and an indication of possible obstruction. according to people familiar with the matter. trump and his aides allegedly carried out a dress rehearsal for moving sensitive papers, even before his office received the may 2022 subpoena. that is according to people familiar with the matter who spoke anonymously to describe a sensitive ongoing investigation. the washington post has new details on a question that has loomed over the entire investigation. what did donald trump do with his trove of
Good evening. Im Chris Matthews in washington. Federal prosecutors in new york have accused the president of criminal violation of the federal Campaign Laws. They say trump directed thats the word Michael Cohen to cover up a Campaign Contribution in the form of payments with two women with whom he had sexual relations. This comes from the Southern District of new york, not Robert Mueller, not the socalled 17 democrats the president says are working against him, not the deep state, not from a witch hunt. Its from one of the two Sentencing Memos filed in the case of trumps former lawyer, Michael Cohen, today, which are shedding new light on the president s potential legal exposure. As trumps longtime fixer, cohen pleaded guilty in august to Campaign Finance violations and making hush payments to two women on trumps behalf. And now, tonights Sentencing Memo makes clear that with respect to both payments, cohen acted in coordination with and at the direction of individual
one. Thats the pr
york matter occurred years before january 6th. right. the new york matter occurred years before mar-a-lago documents. you can see why that one went first. but from a local prosecutors standpoint, we are elected with a political party affiliation after our name. it s just the reality. and so we leave ourselves open to always being attacked, oh, you re being political. the bottom line is you have to have the evidence and the law on your side or else you can t move forward with the charges. i think alvin bragg has that on his side. what do you think, barbara, someone said to me there is sort of this indiscernible psychic exposure if you will to sort of being first. and i take dave s point that it may not be the first case that goes to trial. and on the hush money case, there was a decision by sdny not to ever charge or bring the campaign finance case that is described narratively in michael cohen s sentencing memos there is a campaign finance conspiracy for which trump is named indi
as this court is well aware, the justice system s reaction to january 6th bears the responsibility of impacting whether january 6th becomes an outlier or a water shed moment. such conduct and instigating an attack demands deterrence. it s critical that the court imposed significant sentences of incarceration on all the defendantings in this case to convey to those who would mobilize political violence in the future. that their actions will have consequences. there s possibly no greater factor that this court must consider. if there s no greater factor to consider, it seems like part of the conversation to ask how far they will go, do you think when they are asserting these sorts of things and sentencing memos for rhodes that they are actively pushing and pursuing charges for donald trump s role inciting january 6th? we know that that s part of