Americans.
This is welcome news for those
now heading out for the holiday
season.
Pete Muntean, thank you.
>>> Well, this morning, former
president trump's legal team is
facing a new deadline after the
11th U.S. Circuit court halted a
third party review of documents
seized from his mar-a-lago home.
The court gave trump's team
seven days to respond.
>> We'll see if this speeds up
the overall case.
Senior legal affairs
correspondent Paula reed joins
us now.
When you go back to this, it is
a rebuke of judge Aileen
cannon's order appointing the
special master, attracted all
that attention a number of weeks
ago.
What does it mean for the
broader investigation.
>> A big win for jack Smith
because this removes an obstacle
to one of his key
investigations.
This so-called special master,
this was a third party appointed
to go through the thousands of
documents retrieved from
mar-a-lago and determine what if
anything was privileged.
That process slows down the
entire investigation.
And we had a pretty good idea
that this wasn't going to go
well for the former president.
Based on the oral arguments.
I was down there in Atlanta, and
sometimes it's hard to tell
which way a panel is leaning but
these were three GOP appointed
judges.
Two appointed by trump himself.
It was clear from the questions
they were asking, they were
concerned about the idea that
someone could just come in and
interfere with an investigation
like this, especially in a case
where a warrant has not been
found to be invalid.
Now, the interesting to see, now
that they have struck out with
these three judges if trump's
legal team decides to appeal.
I think most legal experts say
it's unlikely they would
ultimately prevail, but the
former president has very
effectively used delay as a
strategy and appeal would give
him more time.
>> Even if he expects to lose,
time is on his side.
The other development is now
testimony from former white
house counsel pap Cipollone and
deputy Patrick Philbin, they're
going to testify.
>> In addition to using delay,
stonewalling is another
technique he's used for decades.
In the context of these
investigations, he's tried to
very liberally and creatively
apply some of his privileges, be
it attorney/client privilege or
executive privilege.
These two lawyers had previously
testified before the grand jury,
but there were questions they
wouldn't answer, citing
privilege.
Now a judge has thrown that out.
We do expect that will be
appealed.
And look, it was a bad day for
the former president in court.
But as we have seen over the
past few years he can have some
bad days, right, but in the long
arc of these investigations,
things still tend to fall his
way.
But he's no longer president,
and even former trump officials
will tell you the facts
particularly in the mar-a-lago
investigation are concerning for
his legal team.
>> As you note, in a lot of
these cases, trump appointed
judges who are deciding against
him.
Joining us to discuss, Elliot
Williams and Kirsten powers.
>> Lots of developments as
always in the legal sphere.
I want to drill down on the one
about pat Cipollone and Patrick
Philbin having to testify.
The court rejecting trump's
arguments, a broad executive
privilege and attorney/client
privilege claim there.
These guys know what the
president told them in those
crucial moments in the attempts
to overturn the election.
How impactful do you think their
testimony might be?
>> I think very.
Jim, as former lawyers and
senior white house staffers,
these two individuals are
entitled to lots of privileges
potentially based on their
relationship and the jobs they
had.
So certainly, there was an open
question as to whether any
statements they would have made
would have been protected.
Look, a court has looked at it
and said you can't just have a
blanket privilege merely by
having worked in the white
house.
By virtue of those jobs, they
would have been privy to any
number of very sensitive matters
that could be quite useful to
this investigation.
So certainly you don't get the
sense that if these two come in
that they'll stonewall or be
quite difficult as witnesses,
but they're very consequential
folk.
There this decision coupled with
the 11th circuit court's
decision to halt the special
master reviewing the documents
and rebuking the federal judge,
Aileen cannon, definitely a
legal setback to say the least
for the former president.
That having been said, what does
it mean for him politically in
terms of his bid for
re-election?
>> You know, I tend to think
that these things are first of
all kind of baked in.
At this point, if you aren't
aware of what the predhas done
in terms of January 6th, the
former president, in terms of
January 6th, in terms of taking
these documents, you know, I
guess you're just not following
the news at all.
And so it's probably baked in
for his very, very core
supporters.
You know, the question is, how
does it affect people who are
more in the middle, who, you
know, aren't that enthusiastic
about him in the first place?
It's just another thing against
him, but like I said, they
already know this is happening,
and to a certain extent, for
people who really like Donald
Trump, he can actually use this
to his benefit because it's
like, it's his whole schtick,
right?
He's always being persecuted and
that he's always being
mistreated and that's sort of
part of his constant story.
I mean, he's just sent a video
to a group of people who were
January 6th rioters who are
claiming they're being
persecuted by the legal system.
So we can see very much where
he's aligning himself and he's
continuing with this kind of
grievance politics.
>> The other development, of
course, the January 6th
committee meeting today, whether
to make criminal referrals and
they have a couple categories to
decide on.
One, on the five Republican
lawmakers who refuse to
cooperate with their subpoenas.
That, by the way, includes the
possible future speaker of the
house, Kevin Mccarthy, also,
criminal referral of trump.
Doj has its own investigation.
Is it January 6th committee
criminal referral, does that
carry weight?
>> No, it doesn't.
Look, there are two things that
can be true.
Number one, it's a very
powerful, important, symbolic
step for congress to make a
criminal referral of somebody
they think has broken the law,
but also it doesn't matter to
the justice department.
Legally, it's a step the justice
department doesn't have to rely
on.
Our country takes actions all
the time that are symbolic but
very important.
Think about every inauguration,
nothing in the constitution says
there has to be a big party on
the steps of the capitol with
all of the former presidents and
members of congress, but it's an
important symbol that people
around the world see.
It's sort of the same thing and
this would be issuing criminal
referrals would be congress
flexing its muscles as a co
equal branch of government, but
the justice department doesn't
need to consider it, and they
have already charged folks
without referrals from congress.
>> This comes as we're expecting
by the end of the year to get
the January 6th committee's
final report.
There's been a bit of inside
politics and grievances
internally playing out the last
few weeks.
Overall, though, they have been
pretty much in lockstep in this
bipartisan committee, we should
note.
What are you looking for to
stand out and what will you be
watching the most in this final
report?
>> Well, I mean, what's
happening is basically, you have
Liz Cheney very much driving the
idea that this should be
completely focused on Donald
Trump, almost like a legal
brief.
And you have other people who
are saying we need to focus on
Donald Trump but we also need to
focus on in the future, the
things that are happening that
could potentially cause this to
happen again in the future, like
talking about militia or dark
money or thins like that.
That has to be reconciled, but
one of the problems for them is
they have this deadline hanging
over them.
They have to get it done because
the Republicans are about to
take over congress and they're
going to lose their funding.
There's not a lot of time to
hash this out, and I guess if I
had to put my money on somebody,
it's probably Liz Cheney, but
yeah, it will be interesting to
see whether or not this is
something that's really focused
on making the case against
Donald Trump or if it's a
broader, you know, a broader
report that's taking a more
holistic look at the problem.
>> Of course, Kevin Mccarthy has
already promised once they take
control, Republicans take
control of the house, they will