We've been making this
point now for a few weeks,
but one of the reasons
Donald Trump was president
was because of Hillary Clinton's issues
much, much smaller than these ones
having to do
with classified documents
as a candidate in 2016.
Mr.
Trump repeatedly hammered
Hillary for her
treatment of classified documents
with her email server
and insisted that he cared
deeply about the sanctity
of classified documents and information.
He reiterated over and over,
No one is above the law
In my administration,
I'm going to enforce all laws concerning
the protection of classified information
No one will be above the law.
One of the first things we must do
is to enforce
all classified cases and rules
and to enforce all laws
relating to the handling
of classified information.
We also need the best protection of class
to information.
Perhaps not
surprisingly, all
three of those statements by Mr.
Trump are cited
in the criminal indictment
against Donald Trump,
in which, of course,
he faces
37 charges related to the mishandling
of the classified documents
he swore he would protect.
Let's discuss.
And Jamie, let me start with you, because
one of the things
I was talking about with Paul Latorre
is that there are 31 classified documents
out of hundreds or thousands And later,
he was making the argument
that, you know,
those are the only 31
that were that serious.
But you say, according to experts,
that's not the case.
And they can add to this before.
I spoke to a senior Justice
Department official who explained to me
that before this indictment comes out,
when you are dealing
with highly sensitive
classified material,
DOJ, the special counsel
goes to the CIA, DOD, all of these,
what can we have in the court case?
What is too sensitive?
So it is likely that
there are many other documents
beyond this.
31 but
everyone had to come to an agreement
that, okay, we can live with these 31.
But been Andy McCabe,
the 31 documents aren't
shown to the grand jury right there
not reading the nuclear secrets to see
oh this is really sensitive.
Some version of that
will actually take place
for each of the documents
that's cited in counts
one through 31 or redacted or no.
So they'll use the classified Information
Protection Act
or SIPA to come up with a series
of redact lines or substitutions
that that are agreeable to both sides
and can then be presented to the jury.
Now, it's important
to know
that a big piece of that of that process
is the one that takes place
before the case is charged,
and that is getting
the intelligence community
to agree
to the potential exposure
of these documents
in the course of litigation.
Many Espionage
Act cases never go to court
because you can't get that agreement.
People aren't
willing to essentially sacrifice
the secret
or sensitive nature of the documents.
And so, in other words,
the reason that
these documents are cited
is because there is
could have been a lot worse.
It probably was a lot worse.
There are probably
many documents in the 300
or so that they collected from our logo
and however many additional
that were voluntarily given back to Nara.
There probably many documents
in that in that collection
that couldn't be agreed
to be exposed in litigation
like things
that were so sensitive
that nobody wanted
to bring them into court
and put them through a super process.
The lab like like what?
I mean, obviously, you wouldn't give us a
like obviously.
What?
Like, like, I'm
just vaguely
like where we think Iran has its nuclear
weapons program.
A lot of sensitivity is down.
It comes down to timing
in some of these documents.
If they are older now,
it may be that the sensitivity
of the source of the collection
method or the location
or maybe current events around the world
have developed in a way
that these
that the content of
some of these documents
has been exposed publicly.
So they're no longer as sensitive
now as they were
when they were originally classified
and considered, you know,
you know,
super sensitive, important stuff.
So there are different ways
to kind of square that circle.
It's not easy.
It takes an agreement
across the intel community.
But these documents,
these 31, have already gone
through that process,
whether these are 31,
not necessarily the 31 worst, just the 31
that they could get
the intelligence community
to sign off on allowing.
Now, on the other hand,
the prosecutors want some juicy stuff.
Right. Right.
This is going to it's going to provoke
a protective
and emotional reaction from the jury.
That's what they're looking for.
So I'm confident that each one of these
has been evaluated so very closely to
to satisfy everyone's concern
that they do
constitute national defense
and information.
That's what's necessary
for the seven 93 charge,
which is the charge in those first three.
Just last question on this.
Does this not put the grand jury
or the jury at risk yet?
Not a grand jury or a jury.
What did the grand jury see these
documents do or no?
The grand jury,
I would expect, saw some of them.
I'm sure they didn't see.
Does it
does this not subject
the great members of the grand jury
and the jury
who are just common citizens? Right.
Who couldn't get out of jury duty?
Does this not put them
in a precarious situation?
Where people might want to know
what they know, what they learned,
even if it's a sanitized version?
The jurors will never have
security clearances. Right. Right.
You can't go through that process.
But they're going to read
some of these document.
But they will read some version
of the documents.
Maybe it's a summary,
maybe it's a redacted version
of the document
to try to kind of limit
the worst damage that could be
you know, it could come from having folks
without clearance to seeing these things.
But, yes, to serve on a
on a jury and a national security case.
Huge responsibility
and it's something that jurors
take very seriously.
And it does
put them
in somewhat of an awkward position.
Well, keep in mind two things.
Remember, a grand jury is only deciding
probable cause.
It will be the trial jury
that will have the overwhelming burden.
The other point is,
you don't get to voir dire your jury.
You get the luck of the draw,
whoever is assigned
to the grand jury process.
So the idea of suggesting
that somehow it was
tailor made to have one
particular result
can be fatally undermined
by incidents like this.
But also,
I mean, remember, it was Trump himself
who elevated
based on all the statements you outline
about Hillary Clinton,
who elevated a crime like this
from a misdemeanor
to a felony
based on the specific gravitas
assigned to it.
And finally,
when you think about all of this
the focus on the legal claims
that the defense attorneys
will be making,
they have not said,
oh, this was an inadvertent
and one document
got away
or 20 documents got away
or 31 documents got away.
They have double down to suggest
not that he declassified.
They've never made that argument
really in open court filing,
but instead that he was entitled
to retain these documents.
We don't know the answer
to three major questions.
Why did you take these documents?
Why did you want to keep these documents?
And why have you tried
to obstruct the retention
and reclamation of these documents
that are
those are the questions that will linger
for any jury pool out there
and have yet to be answered.
You feel to me, though,
that we have some clues
about part of the why, right.
Both the audiotape from Bedminster
and the second example of Trump
taking out this document
for four people in a PAC
It seems, especially in the audiotape.
And since he was trying to use it
against Martin
in the first example,
I mean,
he trying to use classified documents
against people,
weaponizing it in that way.
That's a little bit of a why
that is a little bit of the intent
here of what
why he wanted to hold on
to some of this stuff.
It's not totally unusual, I think, if you
you know,
no Trump,
too, for him
to want to hold on to things,
to be able to put them out
and to say see,
this is that
I know that this happened
and I can't really show you,
but I know that this happened.
But I do think that they are leaving
some crumbs here about the wall.
And that's very important.
Why almost Well, yeah. Okay.
Thanks to all.