a bedrock principle of the department of justice and our nation s commitment to the rule of law sets a an example for the world. we have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone. applying those laws, collecting facts, that s what determines the outcome of an investigation. nothing more, nothing less. the words of rachel math maddow, stunningly simple words in both the indictment and from behind the podium. it was the first time we as an american public have ever heard from the special counsel notably he praised the fbi and the prosecutors on his team. rachel pointed out they have already come under vicious attack by the indicted ex-president. he encouraged all of us to read the indictment itself, an endeavor we re taking seriously. it s known as a speaking indictment, meaning it is straight forward and, frankly, gripping and dramatic. it lays out the alleged crimes trump faces. 31 counts have to do with the espionage act. we re going to unpack all of them.
extreme lengths. false statements, it s very common when you bring a case that there are false statements that are charged with it. the reason why the false statement charges are important isn t just because there s another charge. it s because it raises the question why would you lie? whien wouldn t you be truth nfl that instance? and the fact that you would lie, the fact that you would subject yourself to criminal penalty suggests you were hiding something. that you knew something and that s why it s off in a critical piece. we learned at an earlier stage that the judge had seen enough evidence, but we learned what some of that evidence was. i want to read it to you.
trump met with them at mar-a-lago to discuss the response to the subpoena. the attorneys told trump they needed to search for documents that would be responsive to the subpoena and provide a certification there have been compliance with the subpoena. trump in some in substance made the following statements as memorialized by trump attorney one. i don t want anybody looking, don t want anybody looking through my boxes. i really don t. i don t want you looking through my boxes. b, what if we just don t respond at all or don t play ball with them? wouldn t it be better to tell them we don t have anything here. d, well, look, isn t it better if there are no documents. in hindsight, it s pretty obvious why this is part of all this. as someone who has been on the other side of investigations, they don t end in an indictment. protecting the national security sometimes more opaque endeavor.
activities, nuclear capabilities of a foreign country, military contingency planning of the united states and much, much more. this stunning story that during a conversation with his lawyers about the subpoena issued by doj trump said this, quote, wouldn t it be better if we just told them we don t have anything here? well, look, isn t it better if there are no documents? trump is set to be arraigned on tuesday in miami. rachel maddow, it gets more shocking the further we get away from the unsealing of the indictment and the brief statement of jack smith. yeah, i mean, we re back to where we started with this which is we don t know if this is going to be the only federal indictment of donald trump. i mean, it s been noted that this is part of what jack smith was investigating. he apparently was presenting evidence to grand juries both in florida where this indictment has been brought, but also in
lehman is on the ropes. every ceo of virtually all the big banks gets a phone call. get down to the federal reserve. hank paulson had been land battsed and sat all the ceos in the room and said it s your problem. fix it. pretty clear the government is not going to bail anyone else out. that s the message they are sending. loud and clear. in fact, when i was talking to folks on friday, they were saying, look, we re trying to find a buyer, but let s be clear. we are not going to use taxpayer money. people believed if lehman went under, the panic might spread. but people were equally worried if they bailed lehman out, it would be this idea of moral hazard. if you believe the government is going to bail you out, whien wouldn t you make bad decisions. the government is trying to are restore confidence in the markets. you don t restore confidence by rescuing one institution after another after another. that friday when secretary