Jake, first off,
what's on this tape
and why is it seen as so critical
a piece of evidence
for the special counsel
so CNN reporters
Paula Reid,
Caitlin Palance and Kaitlan Collins
broke this story.
And what it is, is an audiotape
that the special counsel, Jack Smith, has
from July 2021.
President Trump, former President Trump
at Bedminster, his resort in New Jersey,
a meeting with some individuals
that are writing an autobiography
of his former
chief of staff, Mark Meadows.
Now on the tape, we are told.
Donald Trump is pushing back
on an article
in which Mark Milley
the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff,
is described as keeping Trump
from attacking Iran.
And Trump is angry about this
and basically holds up a document.
And we hear the rustling of papers.
We're not sure
if it's actually the document question,
but he refers to a classified document
that would disprove all of this.
But he says he can't share it
because it's classified.
Now, why this is significant
is because
that would seem to suggest
that Donald Trump knew
that just because he brought documents
with him from the White House
to any one of his resorts
didn't automatically declassify them
and that he didn't have the ability
to declassify them
just by thinking about them,
as he claimed on Fox.
And it seems to contradict
what he has said about this
publicly as well,
including to our own Kaitlan Collins
at the town hall a few weeks ago.
Let's roll that tape
You have the Presidential Records Act.
I was there
and I took what I took,
and it gets declassified.
Did you ever show
those classified documents to anyone?
Not really.
I would have the right to.
By the way, they would dismiss
if I do after.
Not that I can think of.
Let me just tell you,
I have the absolute right to do whatever
I want with them.
So that would seem to contradict that.
Now, we are going to talk
to Donald Trump's former attorney,
Tim Parks, Hillary, about this.
Coming up on the lead,
he was with the Trump legal team
until just a couple of weeks ago.
So we're going to talk about this
and see what his response is, Brianna.
Yeah,
and that's going to be so interesting.
Will be to stay tuned for that
on the lead coming up here at 4:00.
Jake Tapper,
thank you so much for being with us, Jim.
All right.
So legal concerns aside,
what kind of national security
risk is it for a document such as this
to be potentially out in the open
like that?
CNN military analyst, retired Lieutenant
General Mark Hertling joins us now.
So what we know of this document?
General is that detailed plans
in Iran, attack plan.
Classified material.
You've dealt
with classified material commanding
forces in the region before.
What is the national security risk
of having that out
outside of a secure location?
Well,
first, Jim, I'm glad
you started off
by saying outside
of the legal implications of all this,
because that is a whole different story.
What I'm most concerned about as a user
of classified information
is how much this gives our enemies,
how much
the potential is
for not only waving
the stock
immense around in a room with reporters
who are writing a book,
but also the potential
for the president
to just have these documents
in a friggin golf clubhouse.
You know,
that's the thing
that just is amazing to me.
This is nowhere near
a skiff location
where classified documents are held.
He's sharing it with others,
in this case reporters.
But who else has he shared it with?
And what does it have
inside of these paperwork?
You know, allegedly?
It has to do with
snapping back
at General Mark Milley
because of some things he recommended
in terms of an Iranian contingency plan.
If it was that this is dialog between
the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, the senior military adviser,
giving potential recommendations
for use of military force
against a potential opponent.
Now, friends are interested in that,
and much more importantly,
enemies are interested in that.
So if this document
is just lying around, it's
just it's
just indescribable,
this probably bad
and as far as I'm concerned.
So let me ask you,
especially given you've commanded forces
in the region under threat,
how would U.S.
service members deployed in the region
feel about that sort of information
not being protected,
given that information
could conceivably impact
their own safety?
Yeah, well, it
signals a move
or many moves
or contingency operations or plans
You know,
when when the president was asking
General Milley
to help,
as outlined
in some of the articles written up
during that period of time,
you know,
the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
comes back with different options.
All of the options
put Americans in harm's way,
in harm's way.
So if you're a member
of a military organization
and you know, your commander in chief
possibly has information
that he's not securing,
it's just very dangerous
for the military operations.
It's not something
that we've ever experienced before
in terms
of a commander in chief
giving away
the kind of potential contingencies
or options
that he has to
to actually deploy
troops in different areas.
So another thing we've
learned from the ongoing
repercussions of the discord
leak, this airman
who was sharing
classified documents
on discord, the Washington Post reports
the Pentagon
documents from that leak showed
that Iran plans to increase
attacks on U.S.
troops in Syria.
I wonder, because we've been watching
the position of Iran in the region chain.
We have some of our allies
reestablishing diplomatic connections
with Iran.
What is the state
of the US-Iranian relationship there?
And has the chances
of a direct confrontation increased
given a revelation such as this
I think what we're talking about here
in this case
with the Washington
Post article
and the potential leaks through the text
here, accounts
is not just an engagement with Iran.
Directly,
but with the paramilitary units
that they use in various regions.
In this case, Syria.
The thing that got my attention
truthfully Jake, in this
in this article by The Washington Post
this morning
was an increase
in the use
of something
called EFP
as explosively formed penetrators.
This is a type of improvised
explosive device
that truthfully, our troops, my troops,
when we were in Iraq,
experienced as Iranian
militia came across the border into Iraq
and use these
these are extremely dangerous weapons.
They're much more deadly
than a typical IED.
They can penetrate
a couple of inches of armor
and we
truthfully, during a period of time
when Iranian militias
were using these fees in Iraq,
we saw more casualties than we had
just simply from IED.
So the fact that they could be
using them in Syria
and using them against the Kurds is
and against the type of equipment
the US and Kurdish
partners have in that area
is extremely dangerous.
I believe
the US put the number of more than 600
dead blamed on exactly those devices.
Those IEDs interact.
Just quickly,
can the MRAPs,
those vehicles, can they withstand
a blast from an EFP?
Yeah, yeah.
That's the interesting part.
They they can't.
In some cases they can jam.
But truthfully,
the MRAPs
were designed to take blast from below
as a typical IED and deflect the blast.
What the EFP does
is it forms a penetration of molten
copper or led
that can pierce the IEDs
and then rumble around inside.
It's a very dangerous thing
and it can penetrate any armor.
In fact,
I've seen it
penetrate parts of M-1 tanks as well.
Goodness.
Deadly, indeed.
General Hertling,
always good to have you on.
Thanks so much.