Summary
The FBI raids Donald Trump`s Mar-a-Lago home. Congressman Ro Khanna discusses the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago.
Transcript
ARI MELBER, MSNBC HOST: This new statement from Donald Trump seems to assert that there is an FBI raid, recent or ongoing.
[19:00:03]
He says that -- quote -- "This unannounced raid on my home was not necessary."
He also then goes on to attack the DOJ and makes various claims we have previously heard about, his view of the investigation, but a big headline here that NBC News and MSNBC has not yet confirmed, but the former president saying there is a raid at Mar-a-Lago. We will keep working on confirming and reporting the story.
THE REIDOUT with Jason Johnson filling in, is up next.
JASON JOHNSON, MSNBC HOST: Tonight on THE REIDOUT, we have breaking news.
Play that sound.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): At last, we have arrived. And we are elated. Every member of my caucus is elated about what happened, because we have -- really, we have changed the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: Democrats` winning streak continues with a major victory in the Senate on health care, taxes and climate, while Republicans continue their streak of voting against things that voters overwhelmingly support, like putting a cap on insulin prices.
Also tonight: the madness of the Republican Party. It`s not just CPAC. There`s also the new reporting about Trump asking his top military leaders why they couldn`t be more like German generals, you know, from Nazi times.
Plus, stunning allegations of voting machine tampering against the Republican running to be Michigan`s attorney general.
But we begin with breaking news. You hear that sound, it is the sound of the police. There appears to be an investigation by the feds into Mar-a- Lago, the home of Donald Trump, the twice-impeached president and very much disgraced president.
We`re going to go to this news right now with Representative Ro Khanna.
Ro, are you here? And have you heard this news that the former president, his residence is now being investigated by the feds?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): I have.
It`s obviously a very serious matter. I know President Trump issued a very lengthy defensive statement. But, look, the FBI doesn`t just go in unless a judge signs off on a search warrant. That means they have some probable evidence about possible wrongdoing.
And it`s something that the whole country needs to pay attention to and shows that Justice Garland -- Attorney General Garland is setting this up step by step.
JOHNSON: So, this is the first question that occurs to me and I think a lot of people watching right now is, how major is this as far as other members of sort of the Trump cabal?
It`s been one thing to talk about the former president. It`s been one thing to bring in the Cohens and people associated with him. But for the FBI to actually be knocking down doors in his home, is this a time that Americans can believe that perhaps the orange jumpsuit is forthcoming?
Because this doesn`t seem to be common. What would be your take on that?
KHANNA: Well, I don`t want to politicize it, because I think Attorney General Garland and the Justice Department have done a very good job by following the facts.
And it`s not for me or members of Congress to say what should happen. It should be where the facts lead them. And they have been very methodical. They have not been quick to do anything. But it shows that they are concerned that serious crimes were committed, and they`re following the evidence.
And now let`s see what they end up doing. But I do think that this gives me confidence that the Justice Department is really pursuing this thoroughly, objectively, and in a nonpolitical way.
JOHNSON: Speaking of being nonpolitical, I have to admit, in many respects, my first thought when I heard this news is, I wanted to congratulate the bipartisan January 6 Committee.
Do you believe that the efforts made by your colleagues on the January 6 Committee, including Republicans and Democrats, and the enthusiasm and the hunger and the satisfaction that Americans have gotten from watching those hearings, do you think that had an influence on the aggressiveness with which we`re seeing right now from the Department of Justice against the former president?
KHANNA: I think that had an impact on the country in understanding what happened, that it wasn`t just about the riots and insurrection on the Capitol, that there was a plan to basically try to overturn the election, to have someone installed as president who didn`t win either the popular vote or the Electoral College.
And they did a masterful job of explaining that to the American public. I believe that the Justice Department has been following the law and the facts from day one. And they have been doing it in the way that builds trust.
And I don`t think it`s helpful for members of Congress to politicize it, because, ultimately, what we want is an independent Justice Department that is not acting in a political motive. That`s why President Biden appointed Attorney General Garland. Many people are saying, oh, he`s too slow or he`s not doing anything.
I think what he has shown is integrity. And that`s why, whatever he does, the Justice Department is going to have the confidence of the American public.
[19:05:00]
JOHNSON: So, Representative Khanna, I always push back slightly on this, because it is a political investigation.
And that`s not inherently bad. And I say this because it was an attempt at political insurrection, right? Like you can`t say it`s nonpolitical when the former president was trying to use politics to sort of overrule the sort of will of the people.
But my question for you also is, now that you have seen this, do you think this will have an impact on impending votes in Congress? Do you think that this will make your Republican colleagues more likely to go along with what seem to be policy initiatives by the Biden administration the American public wants?
Do you think this will make them more likely to separate themselves from President Trump? Or do you think that they will basically double down and say, well, the FBI is after him, so now it`s our opportunity, we have to sort of circle the wagons, as we have before.
What do you think the impact of this FBI raid will have on your body working for you?
KHANNA: Well, for almost six years, every time I have thought that the Republicans would finally speak up against Donald Trump, they have unfortunately let me down. So I don`t know whether this will be the straw that breaks the camel`s back.
But, if anything, it should hopefully get enough Republicans in the Senate and a few in the House to vote for the Electoral Count Act -- Reform Act, will make sure that whoever wins the popular vote in states in 2024 actually gets the slate`s delegates, because otherwise you`re going to have a situation where someone can try to steal the election again.
And, hopefully, at the very least, the January 6 commission and all of these findings by the Justice Department will lead to bipartisan support for upholding the basic principles of our democracy. That, I`m optimistic can pass the Senate and the House.
JOHNSON: I want to follow up on this.
I -- one of the things that has occurred to me is that, as we go through the January 6 hearings, as we see the investigations by the Department of Justice, the number one thing that Congress and this administration can do and should do is secure the vote.
How confident are you in this Electoral Vote Count Act? Do you think that these kinds of raids could lead to renewed interest in passing this bill, not just in the House, but in the Senate? Because, at the end of the day, it doesn`t matter who gets indicted. It doesn`t matter who gets arrested. It doesn`t matter who ends up in Oz if the vote still can`t be protected in November.
KHANNA: Absolutely. I do.
And I think people are looking at this and regretting probably the impeachment vote in the Senate. I think, after that, some people thought Donald Trump would just go away. He obviously hasn`t.
Now you have a Justice Department ongoing investigation into conduct at the very least people very close to him. And we don`t know whether it will implicate the president or not. But they are certainly looking at evidence that the president has, former president has.
And so my view is this is the time where we need to at least have the Electoral Count Act passed. And I`m encouraged that there are Republicans in the Senate who support that. All the act says is that there needs to be judicial review before someone, a state legislature can overturn the popular vote in that state.
And I fear, if we don`t do that, that you could have a repeat of the efforts in 2020 in 2024. And that would be malpractice for our Congress not to prevent someone from stealing the election in 2024.
JOHNSON: Thank you, Congressman Ro Khanna, for starting us off with this breaking news today. Thank you so much.
Joining me now is Barbara McQuade, former U.S. attorney, MSNBC legal analyst and professor at the University School -- University of Michigan School of Law.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight, Barbara.
First, what is your immediate reaction to this unannounced FBI raid on Mar- a-Lago, the home of the twice-impeached former President and insurrectionist leader Donald Trump?
BARBARA MCQUADE, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely stunning. I`m absolutely stunned.
I`m stunned that it`s happening so quickly. And I`m certain that it`s happening at all. Searching the premises of the president`s residence is absolutely unprecedented. But keep in mind this could only happen if a judge found probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be found there, so really stunning development.
JOHNSON: So, Barbara, take us through that process.
Look, my knowledge of the law pretty much begins and ends with "Law & Order," occasionally some "CSI." So, is it a matter of the Department of Justice, they just find a local judge? Do they have to find a federal judge? Do they also have to get approval from local police? Is it the FBI comes in and commandeers everything?
What is the process that the federal investigators had to go through in order to initiate this unannounced raid?
MCQUADE: Well, first, to get a warrant, usually, you have to have developed probable cause, which usually requires months and months of investigation. That builds a record.
Then a federal agent swears out an affidavit in great detail. It may be 10, 20 pages` long, detailing all of the evidence thus far in the investigation that they believe supports probable cause to search the premises, that is that there will be evidence to have a specific crime found there, not just any old crime, but crimes they have been investigating for which they believe they have probable cause.
[19:10:06]
They then have to take that to a judge in the district where the property is located. So that would be the Southern District of Florida. In a case of this magnitude, the approvals will go all the way to the attorney general himself. This would not happen without his absolute approval.
Once that warrant is secured, then the FBI would assemble a team. And they usually do bring with them some local police officers who know the lay of the land, who can go up and help with the knock and announce, explain why they`re there.
And then the teams begin their search, and they can search any place on the premises where the items they`re looking for might be found. In this case, my guess is, it`s documents and maybe electronic storage devices, like cell phones, iPads, and the like. And so that really allows them to look just about anywhere where you might be able to find a document.
And people often are shocked at the number of agents that show up for a search like this. But they usually go into rooms in pairs, so that they can develop a chain of custody if that evidence ever gets to be used in a trial.
In a premises the size of Mar-a-Lago, I am guessing it`s dozens and dozens of agents going in, unless there`s one very specific thing they want to seize, like a box of classified documents that didn`t get turned over and they`re looking for specific items.
My guess is, it`s dozens and dozens of agents participating in this search.
JOHNSON: Now, this is one thing that occurs to me, we have seen evidence - - people have talked about it in the books, people have talked about it in the previous administration -- that Donald Trump would tear things up, flush documents down the toilet, have them cut up.
What do you think? Given that he had a tendency to try to burn bad things while they were happening, what do you think? If you had to speculate, what do you think they`re going to actually find at Mar-a-Lago? Does any -- I mean, Trump and his cronies be dumb enough to take FedEx boxes worth of indictable materials and drag them to his house?
MCQUADE: Well, as we used to say in my former office, we don`t catch the smart ones.
People do all kinds of things because they are either too foolish to understand the consequences or too arrogant to believe anybody will ever look for them. I don`t know. And it is also the case, though, that a judge can`t issue a warrant just to go look through the house on the theory that maybe there`s something there that could be evidence of a crime.
There has to be probable cause that there`s -- reasonably specific items will be found there. And so perhaps documents were sent there by aides or others. It could be that there is things that have been found on people`s phones or other electronic devices trace their way back to Mar-a-Lago.
And it may not be Donald Trump himself. It may be a family member. It may be a staffer, or somebody who has an office at Mar-a-Lago. So it could be anyone there. But we know this. It is somebody who is close to former President Trump. And we know that a judge has found probable cause that a specific crime has been -- either been committed or is being committed and that evidence of that crime exists on the premises at Mar-a-Lago.
JOHNSON: In the event let`s say we find out or let`s say the FBI finds out that there are classified documents in the possession of the former president in his home.
Who could potentially be at risk for being arrested? I assume, at that point, they`d have to figure out, well, OK, who brought this box here? But at the end of the day, is that alone something that could lead to an arrest?
If they say, look, somebody`s got to tell us how this box got into this building, could that lead to an arrest of the president, of the former first lady, assuming she`s actually there, or somebody else who may have brought that information down there?
MCQUADE: Well, finding classified documents would alarm government officials for two reasons.
One is the potential crimes that you suggested, possessing classified materials outside of their proper receptacle. The other is who else may have had access to it. So it`s sometimes referred to as a spill, even if it`s just an unintentional possession of a classified document outside of where it`s supposed to be stored, because, if you don`t know who may have seen it -- and documents are classified because they protect methods, means, sources that are the nation`s secrets.
And so if those secrets are out and they get into the hands of foreign adversaries, that can be very dangerous to certain people who are serving as sources. So that`s one area of great concern.
The other is potential criminal liability. And so if someone inadvertently brought boxes of documents, thinking it was framed pictures with Vladimir Putin or something, that is unlikely to result in criminal charges.
There are some charges for negligent handling of classified information. But, as we saw in the case of Hillary Clinton, we have never seen somebody charged, unless there`s a willful violation, and so, again, taking this material either to harm the United States or to help a foreign adversary.
And so you would have to show that level of willful intent before somebody could be charged criminally.
JOHNSON: Do we know -- and this is a general sort of informational question. We know Mar-a-Lago is the -- is the home of the former president. Do we know who else actually lives there? Do we know what kind of people are there in and out on a regular basis?
[19:15:03]
I alluded to the fact that we don`t know if the former first lady is actually there. But do we know if he has staffers, former staffers that live with him? Do we know, is it just sort of a big empty Wayne Manor, where it`s just him sitting across from a big table by himself every night?
How do we actually know who`s there and who could possibly be implicated if something is found in that home?
MCQUADE: Yes, again, without knowing what this search is for, it`s hard to know.
But one of the things that the agents would need to do is to conduct investigation to figure that out, who has access to that property, who is coming and going, because they can only search the property of -- that is authorized in that search warrant.
So if it`s a place of resort where guests come and go...
JOHNSON: Right.
MCQUADE: ... or you have working or other people living, you have to make sure that you`re only searching the premises that are covered by that warrant.
So that would be some legwork that the agents would have done in anticipation of this warrant.
JOHNSON: Going forward, we now have this raid at the home of a former president.
I have one last question, Barbara. I got to ask you a last question. Do you think that this is the last such raid like this will -- that will occur? Do you think we`re going to see a slew of raids like this as the sort of dominoes fall and other people in the former administration are concerned?
MCQUADE: Well, searching the president`s premises strikes me as something that happens toward the end of an investigation.
There`s been a lot of criticism of Merrick Garland for not moving quickly enough in his investigations into the former president. But, typically, what you want to do is get your ducks in a row before you aim at the leader of a criminal organization.
So, similarly, a search warrant is an overt investigative step that you do only after you have completed most of your covert investigative steps. So this strikes me as something that`s at the end of the line. We may be seeing criminal charges after they review this material in the shorter term than I might have expected.
I have been predicting criminal charges, if any, to be filed well after midterm elections. But maybe they`re going to prove me wrong.
JOHNSON: Thank you, Barbara McQuade. Thank you so very much for joining us tonight.
Stay with us. Much more on this major breaking story. Former President Trump says his home at Mar-a-Lago in Florida has been raided by the FBI.
THE REIDOUT continues after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:21:58]
JOHNSON: Breaking news.
We have an unannounced raid of Mar-a-Lago, the former -- of the current home of the former President of the United States Donald Trump. This is not only unprecedented, but it is also a sign that perhaps the advancement in the DOJ`s plans have gone much further than people anticipated and expected.
One of the primary concerns -- one of the primary concerns that we have heard from members of Congress and analysts and former people who have actually worked in the White House and those victims from the insurrection on January 6 is perhaps things were not moving as quickly as expected.
This is a sign that perhaps the Department of Justice and Merrick Garland have gotten much more serious about this investigation than we initially expected.
We will now be moving to, I believe, Kurt Bardella and Dana Milbank -- I`m sorry -- Dave Aronberg, who will be coming -- the Palm Beach County state attorney, who will be telling us exactly what occurred at Mar-a-Lago today.
DAVE ARONBERG, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, STATE ATTORNEY: Well, thank you for having me.
My office was not involved with the search today. This was all the feds. We were not notified of it. So this was kept close to the vest by the feds. And one thing to know is, is that Mar-a-Lago is closed during the summer. It`s a ghost town over there. Trump is in Bedminster.
And there are no functions at the club. It`s a social club, but there are guests suites there. And so, although Trump was not there, I do think that he will believe that this is crossing a red line. This is his inner sanctum.
And to get this -- this raid of his place, there has to be a warrant signed off by a judge. There needs to be probable cause. There needs to be a belief that there`s evidence there that could lead to a crime. It can`t be a fishing expedition.
So this is definitely serious stuff. And I guess the next question is, what crime are they pursuing? And who are they pursuing it against? I do not believe they`re searching Mar-a-Lago to build a case against someone else who lives there or a guest of the place. That is Donald Trump`s home.
And I think it shows further evidence that DOJ is indeed looking at Donald Trump himself. And, as far as the crimes, well, you have the false electors scheme, which is, according to reports, being tied to Donald Trump. You also have reports of mishandling of classified materials.
But, as Barbara said in the previous segment, that`s rarely charged. I mean, generally, you got to show willful misconduct. And when you are the president, you can immediately declassify documents. So, I don`t think that`s what this is about.
And the other thing to know is, lately, the DOJ has subpoenaed people really close to Trump, like Pat Cipollone, his former White House counsel. So I think this is definitely big news. I wish I could have more information about it. But, as I said, my office is not involved.
JOHNSON: Dave, I`m curious about this. And I hope you take this in the sincere way in which it`s being asked.
[19:25:02]
Do you think there`s a possibility that the FBI was concerned about alerting local law enforcement because they thought that Trump might have gotten a heads-up? I mean, I`m sure DeSantis is thrilled about this. But there might be people on the ground that they were concerned would have told the former president, hey, maybe you need to clean out the building.
ARONBERG: It`s very common for the feds to keep things close to the vest.
They will work with us on some matters, but it is not uncommon for them to go -- do it alone without telling us. And even though we will not divulge secrets, this is very normal for this to happen.
I do want to throw some cold water on this, though. For people to think that this means an indictment of Trump is imminent, here`s why I don`t think that`s the case. First of all, you have seen these raids on Rudy Giuliani`s home, John Eastman`s home, and there wasn`t an immediate indictment. They`re still building evidence.
The other thing that tells me that an indictment is not imminent is that the DOJ is starting to litigate issues of executive privilege. They`re going to court to proactively prevent Trump world from invoking executive privilege.
That`s the kind of thing that you do at the beginning of an investigation, not at the end. So, I think this is an evidentiary move here, but don`t expect charges to follow immediately.
JOHNSON: Thank you, Palm Beach County state attorney Dave Aronberg. Thank you so much.
Joining me right now is Kurt Bardella, adviser to the DNC and the DCCC and Dana Milbank, columnist for "The Washington Post" and author of "The Destructionists: The Twenty-Five Year Crack-Up of the Republican Party," which comes out tomorrow.
Kurt, I will start with you.
Just your immediate reaction to this unannounced raid on Mar-a-Lago. Are you surprised? Are you thrilled? Are you jumping up and down? What was your immediate reaction?
KURT BARDELLA, DNC AND DCCC ADVISER: I guess we know why so many Republicans were talking about defunding the FBI at CPAC over the last weekend.
I think that this is -- this is unprecedented. I mean, we -- and we cannot underscore and understate the fact that the former president of the United States` residence, if you will, just got raided by the FBI.
I think that, as we look ahead at the political consequences potentially, I think any Republican who has spent their time and energy on the campaign trail sucking up to Donald Trump, begging for his support, begging for his endorsement, they do so at their peril, because whatever happens next, I don`t think it`s going to be particularly good.
And I don`t know how you get to campaign on being the law and order party, while perhaps the single person that has the biggest sway in your party is under this type of scrutiny from the FBI.
JOHNSON: Unlike Vegas, what stays -- what happens at Mar-a-Lago may not stay at Mar-a-Lago after this investigation.
Dana, as Kurt sort of suggested, people who are politically connected to Trump, all the Republican members of Congress who go down to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring, do you think right now they may be concerned? Are they thinking, did I leave my business card in the wrong bathroom? Did I leave this document here or there?
I mean, are there members of Congress right now who are checking their schedules to see how much time they spent there and whether they left anything incriminating?
DANA MILBANK, OP-ED COLUMNIST, "THE WASHINGTON POST": Well, it may well be.
And it`s a testament to Donald Trump`s malfeasance that there are any number of things that this could be about. There are so many potential avenues of criminality and so many different people involved. So there`s a whole lot of reason for a lot of people to be concerned.
But there`s a reason we should all be concerned right at this moment, because you can see in Donald Trump`s response to this that he is ready to turn up the heat, to turn people against the FBI, against the Justice Department, against the government.
So, even though it`s -- would be a normal procedure for the Justice Department to proceed in some secrecy, I think there`s a real public interest in them letting -- letting the public know what`s going on, getting some information out there, because we`re in a potentially dangerous period of time, if Donald Trump, and possibly with support of Republicans, is going to use this to turn his people against the investigators, against the FBI, against the government.
We know what happens when this anti-government rhetoric gets out of hand. And it can often be violent.
JOHNSON: Dana, one of the sort of key theories in your book "The Destructionists" is to talk about the fact that you trace this back to Newt Gingrich.
You trace this back to the Contract With America. That is where the beginning of the Republican Party sort of going off the rails begins. With that in mind, it`s been almost 30 years since we saw that sort of transformation. What do you think is a potential worst-case scenario here?
In August of 2018, two years into the Trump administration, he was tweeting about how we wanted Jeff Sessions to stop the witch-hunt. He has now shown himself capable of literally raising a terrorist army to attack the Capitol.
Do you think that this raid on his home will lead to domestic violence, domestic terror, or any other sort of violent reaction, as he claims that he has been violated in his home?
MILBANK: Well, Jason, God willing, it won`t.
[19:30:00]
But that is exactly the concern right now. And if you look at -- to go back to the `90s, as you just were, before the Oklahoma City bombing, there was a whole lot of things building up to that, a lot of smaller skirmishes and incidents, and a whole lot of heated rhetoric coming from Republican lawmakers, from conservative talk radio at the time. And it got heated and more heated. And then we had that catastrophic event.
I think some people who follow these things closely are worried that we have been building towards just such a moment right now, with the rising amount of violence we have seen from right-wing domestic terrorists, who are the lion`s share of domestic terrorism right now.
So that is a very real concern. But I think a lot of it will hinge on the reaction Trump has. Is he going to sic his army of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers on the United States government again? And what happens with his potential rivals and elected Republicans in Congress? Do they join in this anti-government fervor?
JOHNSON: Well, speaking of people to help us out, standing back and standing by is former FBI official Frank Figliuzzi.
Frank, thank you so much for joining us this evening on THE REIDOUT.
You were the person that I wanted to talk to you about this. What is the significance? I mean, you were in the FBI. I`m sure there are agents who woke up this morning and were thinking, I am going to be raiding the former president`s house. That`s got to be difficult, regardless of how you feel about the former president of the United States.
What do you think the attitudes are going on in the FBI right now? Are people, are they concerned? Are they saying, oh, my gosh, this is the beginning of what could be an absolutely serious investigation? Were people aware of this all along and were like, hey, this is just step one in finally bringing this person down?
What do you think is sort of the internal rhetoric going on at the FBI right now about this unannounced raid?
FRANK FIGLIUZZI, NBC NEWS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So, Jason, yes, not only did I spend 25 years in the FBI, but I spent a significant portion of it in the Miami field office, which is responsible, of course, for West Palm Beach and the Mar-a-Lago location.
So, look, not a lot of time right now for internal introspection going on in the Miami field office and/or any other agents from other field offices that came in, but, rather, let`s do this job right.
They clearly understand the public scrutiny that will be involved, the gravity of the situation and, of course, what`s coming next, which will be endless rhetoric from Donald Trump about how horrible the FBI is and how this is a targeted fishing expedition.
What we don`t know, of course, is really what the substance of this is. We don`t know if this is connected to January 6 or whether this is connected to the National Archives investigation of the top-secret and secret documents that Trump allegedly squirreled away at Mar-a-Lago.
But it may be helpful, if you want, if you haven`t done this already, to just walk through the process of a federal agent obtaining a search warrant, if you want to just go through that and what it means and what it doesn`t mean.
So it simply means that the agents decided -- and, of course, at this level, when you`re talking about a former president, this will be cleared at the highest level, not only of the FBI, but the U.S. Department of Justice, likely cross the desk of the attorney general of the United States.
And you have to go to a United States magistrate with a prosecutor, an assistant U.S. attorney, and you have to say, we have evidence, probable cause that a federal crime has been violated, and, number two, that evidence of that crime is located in the location that we wish to search.
That`s the big one, right? And so a magistrate or judge has to look at that and go -- and, by the way, a magistrate or a judge -- you ask about what`s going on in the heads of FBI agents. Imagine the federal judge or magistrate that may have been gotten out of bed this morning. I have done that before, right?
And he`s reading through a lengthy affidavit. And he`s got to like have his coffee or her coffee and go through it and go, holy cow, that`s Mar-a-Lago, right?
JOHNSON: Right.
FIGLIUZZI: And I`m going to sign off on this.
And so he has to -- he has to ask the question, how do you know there`s evidence of this crime inside that building? And that`s where very interesting discussions occur, like, hey, we have we have a source that says it`s in a safe, what we`re looking for.
JOHNSON: Right.
FIGLIUZZI: Or we have a source that says it`s under the bed, right?
And then the parameters of the search warrant really kind of constrained where you can look. So, I mean, if you`re looking for a car, you`re not going to be looking in the breadbasket. And so you have got -- you can`t just tear the place apart, unless you`re looking for very small devices and things.
So we don`t know what`s happening here, but we know it`s of grave significance. We know it`s federal, not state or county. And we know that Trump will, of course, lash out starting about right now.
JOHNSON: And, Frank, I want to ask you one other question real quick -- you`re going to be staying with us -- is, how long does this take?
I mean, frankly, when we see raids, we tend to see them on the news. Or if we see them on a television show the raid goes in, we see people go on the building, and then you go to commercial break.
[19:35:07]
Are they going to be camped out there for a while? Are they ordering pizza because they have got to go -- I mean, Mar-a-Lago is a huge location. How long will this raid likely last? Or do you think it`s a precision situation, where they go in, they know it`s right behind this one hidden camera, and they will just move a photograph and pull something out of a safe?
How long do you think this raid will last?
FIGLIUZZI: So, great question, because that will be a clue as to really what they`re looking for.
So, if it`s in and out, like, hey, we have somebody telling us the documents we`re looking for are in a safe, we get the safe open, we`re out, that`s all we`re going to be allowed to do. If this drags on for hours, which, by the way, some white-collar searches, corporate-type searches, health care fraud, where you`re searching an entire hospital administration system for evidence of systemic fraud, those -- those can go on for days.
So I understand there`s some reporting that Trump has issued some kind of a statement. I don`t know if he included in his statement whether the agents came and went. We should key in on that. How long were they there? How specific was this? How short was it or how long is it?
So, again, it depends, Jason.
JOHNSON: I`m joined now by NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hillyard.
Vaughn, thank you so much for joining us this evening.
This is quite the day, quite unexpected. What is the mood and attitude down there now? Are people shocked? Look, I remember when the former president was in the hospital, and there were crowds of people wearing MAGA clothing and flag underwear and everything else like that running around praying for him.
Is that the scene that we see surrounding Mar-a-Lago at this point, or are people still in shock?
VAUGHN HILLYARD, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: I think it`s a good question when at is happening in Mar-a-Lago right now. We`re actually just outside of Milwaukee right now, because there`s a major primary happening here.
JOHNSON: Ah.
HILLYARD: Trump was here over the weekend in the greater Milwaukee area here backing Tim Michels, who is one of these election-denying candidates who is running for governor and could have his hands on the certification process in 2024.
And I think that that`s where all of this hits here. I`m reaching out to multiple Trump sources here right now, I`m told by a source familiar that the former president is currently in New York City. The exact location, I do not have at this time here.
He and his family have not been in Mar-a-Lago over the course of the summer. They have been staying in Bedminster. He did fly back to New Jersey this weekend after attending CPAC in Dallas. But then I know, at some point here since then, he made his way to New York City, where he is at right now.
I mean, essentially, the former president was breaking this news himself here. And I think, to your question, it`s providing the context of this moment here. Donald Trump for years has been setting up an American voting population to question the legitimacy of its investigation agencies.
And he has successfully gotten elected leaders to echo those reservations and the suggestions that the deep state was out to get him.
Just take Wyoming. Next Tuesday is Liz Cheney`s primary against Trump- backed Harriet Hageman. And I was in Wyoming in May when the former president was there. And Harriet Hageman stood on stage next to him and said, do not trust the FBI, the CIA, the NSA.
So, when you are looking at where millions of Americans have been getting their news and the sources in which they trust, at the top of it for so many is the former president. There is a distrust in this.
And so what you just saw the former president lay out in this lengthy statement, he called it an unannounced raid. Of course, it was approved by a judge here. And, ultimately, there was probable cause for the judge to grant this search warrant of the former president`s residency here.
And yet, at the same time, you have seen the former president call this a witch-hunt. He has sown distrust in the media. He has sown distrust in the government. He has sown distrust in our elections here. And the question that we have over these next three months is, where does the American electorate stand?
Will they follow the lead of this former president? Will you see Republican leaders up on Capitol Hill step away from the former president and say, maybe we should take a moment to see what the Department of Justice has come up with?
Again, we don`t know if the former president himself is the subject of this investigation. We do not know what they were looking for here. That is important context to all of this. At the same time, Donald Trump has made himself a political martyr, and has suggested that he is going to run for president again as such here in order to save America, in his words, from the radical left.
This is a political moment, as much as it is an investigatory one, in the eyes of Donald Trump.
JOHNSON: Thanks, Vaughn Hillyard, Dana Milbank, and Kurt Bardella.
Joining me now is Charlie Sykes, editor at large of The Bulwark and an MSNBC contributor, and NBC national political reporter Marc Caputo.
[19:40:02]
Charlie, I will begin with you.
This is significant, right?
(LAUGHTER)
JOHNSON: It`s a former president of the United States. The FBI has raided his home. We don`t know how long they`re going to be there. Trump himself appears to have broken the news by making the announcement one way or another.
How is this resonating -- or how do you think this is going to resonate over the next 24 hours within the Republican Party? We know that MAGA world`s immediate response is going to be, this is terrible, this is the deep state, et cetera, et cetera.
But many other Republicans, this is -- this is now a different line. The FBI is now in his home. This is a home that they have been to. They may be nervous one way or another. Ron DeSantis may be licking his lips and saying, this is exactly what I wanted.
How is this affecting the sort of non-cult members of the Republican Party?
CHARLIE SYKES, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it`s too fresh.
But I would underline everything that Vaughn Hillyard just said. I mean, do not underestimate how much effort Donald Trump has gone to, to sow distrust in the FBI to set up this particular moment.
JOHNSON: Right.
SYKES: So this will unleash an absolute firestorm.
My guess is that many elected Republicans will observe a strategic silence. They will keep their heads down. They won`t -- they won`t speak out about it. I mean, that -- because that`s their normal pattern.
But that you know MAGA world is going to be absolutely on fire. And the attorney general, Merrick Garland, had to know this. The FBI had to know this. The federal judge or the federal magistrate had to know that they were pulling the trigger on this.
I think one of your previous guests described this as crossing the Rubicon.
JOHNSON: Right.
SYKES: This is going to have -- you can`t come back from an unannounced raid of the president`s -- former president`s home.
So, clearly, they felt that there was something that they were -- that was important enough for them to get right now. So everything has escalated dramatically. I think a lot of people have wondered, would there be an indictment? This does not signal that there will be an immediate indictment.
JOHNSON: Right.
SYKES: But it certainly indicates that the FBI, the Justice Department and a federal judge think that there was sufficient reason to go into Mar-a- Lago.
So, I -- in terms of the Republican reaction, I think you watch for silence from the usual suspects and absolute en fuego outrage from Trump`s inner circle.
JOHNSON: Marc, let`s take a look at the Democratic side of this.
So, again, Merrick Garland, the FBI, the DOJ have been adamant, to the frustration really of quite a few Democrats, have been adamant about being apolitical in their investigations. Now, they obviously can`t convince cultists that they`re apolitical, because Donald Trump and his minions have always said that they`re out to get them.
But how do you think this is being perceived or what`s it likely to be perceived by national Democrats? Will they too, as Charlie suggested, observe sort of silence and say, hey, look, we didn`t have anything to do with this, we will see where the evidence takes us?
Do you think that perhaps more progressive Democrats will say, hey, it`s about time? How do you think the national messaging for the Democrats is going to be as this news is broken over the next 24 hours?
MARC CAPUTO, NBC NEWS SENIOR NATIONAL POLITICAL REPORTER: Well, if you look at Twitter, I think the national Democratic reaction is, hallelujah.
(LAUGHTER)
CAPUTO: Now, whether that bears out and whether that continues on, we will see.
Yes, I think your smarter Democrats, especially President Biden, going to be incredibly measured.
JOHNSON: Right.
CAPUTO: Donald Trump is not going to be measured about this.
Charlie`s right about the reaction. I have talked to some DeSantis world folks. Their position is, look, you better have a lot of evidence before you raid a former president`s place. So they`re just kind of focusing on the process of it. They`re not going to step in this one either.
As you pointed out, Merrick Garland is just a very cautious prosecutor. In the end, we have to remember this, is that, if they do make a criminal case, you have to have a criminal case where you have enough evidence where you can -- think you can convict the person.
JOHNSON: Right.
CAPUTO: So that`s a high bar to reach. You got to get the evidence to do it first.
And then they have to decide, how are we going to impanel a jury? This is a long, complicated process. We`re in completely uncharted waters, unmatched territory, Donald Trump pointed out this has never happened to a former president.
Well, yeah, that`s true, but a former president has also never incited a mob that wound up ransacking the Capitol and almost prevented Congress from doing its job to certify a presidential election, a presidential election he lost. So, that`s different as well.
You also didn`t have the National Archives asking the FBI, hey, can you investigate this matter because this guy walked away with a bunch of boxes of documents that were supposed to be left here?
Incidentally, those boxes of documents were at Mar-a-Lago. Do we know exactly what this federal investigation is about? No. And there`s two potential federal ones that we know of off the bat, and we don`t know everything that`s going on in the Department of Justice anyway.
JOHNSON: Now, I think that`s a key thing, Marc. And I want to follow up on that, because we don`t know exactly what`s in the White House.
It`s like going to somebody`s house and saying, wait a minute, that`s my sweater in your closet, right? I mean, obviously, that would be something that the United States is concerned about. So, it could be a January 6 investigation. It could be financial crimes. It could be archives one way or another.
[19:45:00]
My question for you is, what impact do you think this will have on Trump`s already stated and leaked plan to announce that he`s running for president? Do you think this is going to speed this up? Do you think he`s going to say, hey, I have never been arrested for nothing domestic, you guys can`t come after me, I`m still going to run for president
Or do you think that his timeline is unaffected by the fact that the FBI just did an unannounced raid on his home?
CAPUTO: You`re asking me to do a very difficult thing, which is get in the mind of Donald Trump, who is very reactive.
JOHNSON: Right.
CAPUTO: And he decides what he`s going to do when he wants to do it.
Now, he tries to falsify things. The reason you have heard lots of different reports out there -- he`s going to announce in September, he`s going to announce in July, he`s going to announce after the election, he`s going to announce before the election -- is, he doesn`t know.
But he does know that he`s going to announce. So I don`t think it`s going to change Donald Trump`s plan to announce running for president. I think -- and I`m not saying he`s going to be charged and I`m not saying he`s going to be jailed.
JOHNSON: Right.
CAPUTO: But, even if he were in prison and he could run for president, he would be doing it. And he would probably win the primary, at least right now, if you look at the polling.
JOHNSON: Yes.
CAPUTO: I mean, the reality is, when he said, hey, I could shoot a guy on Fifth Avenue, and my supporters would still be with me, well, that`s true.
It`s also true of the primaries as far as getting elected.
JOHNSON: Right.
CAPUTO: I mean, he is the undisputed heart of the party. He knows that. He`s laid the groundwork to run for office. And he`s going to do it again, we believe. The question is, is when.
JOHNSON: Charlie, we`re coming up on a tight break.
But I have got to ask you this. Based on what Marc just sort of laid out for us, do you think this makes Donald Trump stronger in his attempt to run for the nomination in 2024? Does he now say, look, they`re coming after me, I`m on the cross, I`m being prosecuted by these terrible people?
Do you think this ultimately strengthens his position within the Republican Party? Or is it pretty much going to be the same?
SYKES: Short term, it probably will. There will be a rallying around, but ultimately is a whole different question.
What made Merrick Garland decide to pull the trigger? What made that federal judge go ahead? I mean, the ground is shifting under us right now. And we just don`t know. But, as Vaughn Hillyard said, Donald Trump has been saying: I am a political martyr. The deep state is out to get me.
He is comfortable running as a martyr. But I`m also guessing that he probably -- that he was taken very much by surprise by the aggressiveness of the Department of Justice, the aggressiveness of the FBI. And he`s got to be wondering what we are wondering: What are they looking for? What do they know? What are they going to do?
And that`s a big question mark for a guy like Donald Trump.
JOHNSON: Thank you, Charlie Sykes and Marc Caputo.
I am back with Barbara McQuade and Frank Figliuzzi. Also joining us is investigative reporter David Rohde. He`s executive editor for the news at "The New Yorker."
Dave, I will start with you.
With this news breaking now, I`m going to ask you just sort of a very simple financial question. Do you think that this raid -- and from perhaps sources up in New York, do you think this raid might have anything to do with financial crimes that the president has committed that began with investigations with the Southern office in New York? Or do you think this may have something to do with the insurrection?
What is -- what`s your sort of feeling and what are your sources telling you about the potential -- the potential focus of this raid?
DAVID ROHDE, "THE NEW YORKER": So, in the last few weeks, a government official told me that this issue of Trump mishandling classified documents was a major focus of concern, that there were news reports about this I think several months ago, but there were boxes of documents in the White House that were brought down to Mar-a-Lago.
And so this official said that was very unusual, that there were major concerns about what was in those boxes, and that that seemed to be a focus of inquiry. So, off the top of my head, that could be a primary focus.
Now, there were news reports, there were pictures of those boxes, and that Trump had just apparently taken things out of the White House, ignoring very clear laws about the mishandling of classified information.
And the irony of all this, Hillary Clinton was pilloried by Trump for her e-mail use and for mishandling classified information. And you could have Donald Trump facing the same exact sort of inquiry by potentially taking classified information to Mar-a-Lago without permission.
JOHNSON: Ah, yes, the but her e-mails explanation for why Trump managed to get in office in 2016.
Barbara, I`m going to ask you this. As we sort of learned over the last hour, it could be multiple things that the FBI is looking for within Mar-a- Lago. They could have multiple investigations.
Is it possible that the FBI could be acting on behalf of multiple investigations? Or are they only deployed for the specific case that the DOJ is looking after? So, could they be on multiple missions? Could they be on Archives? Could they be on January 6 and finances? Or can they only be deployed for one potential crime or one potential investigation?
MCQUADE: Now, it is possible that you could get a warrant that could be looking for evidence of multiple crimes. That happens frequently.
Say, for example, agents get a warrant to look for drugs and money laundering that is part of a money laundering operation, and child pornography is a part of a pornography ring, and it`s all part -- it`s all on the same premises.
[19:50:07]
You can get a warrant seeking evidence of each of those crimes, if there`s probable cause for it. So it need not be one or the other. But whatever it is, it must be specifically articulated that there is probable cause in that warrant to believe that evidence will be found.
One other thing that`s important is, even if this is only limited to one crime, like these classified documents that were reportedly mishandled and taken out of the White House, once agents are lawfully in a place, they may seize anything in plain view that constitutes contraband or evidence of a crime.
So, as they`re gathering up these documents, it could very well be that they also find evidence of other crimes, like election fraud. As long as they are there lawfully, they can seize any evidence in plain view.
JOHNSON: "The New York Times" is reporting that the search, according to two people familiar with the investigation, was prepared -- according to people familiar with the investigation, appeared to be focused on material that Mr. Trump had brought with him to Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence, after he left the White House.
Those boxes contain many pages of classified documents, according to a person familiar with their contents. Mr. Trump delayed returning 15 boxes of material requested by officials with the National Archives for many months, only doing so when there became a threat of action being taken to retrieve them.
So, Frank, let me ask just really quick. What we`re looking at is a situation where, basically, he`s got a whole bunch of library books or VHS tapes that he hasn`t returned. Do you think this is a situation where Trump is going to potentially send somebody down to the house and say, hey, they`re here, don`t look at the other things?
What are the potential actions of somebody under this investigation right now? What are their opportunities to defend themselves? Or are they basically locked out of their own home until the FBI is done looking?
FIGLIUZZI: So, he has already issued a statement. I have just read through it quickly. As you alluded to earlier, Jason, he`s, of course, made a reference to Hillary Clinton and her legal issues.
But, to answer your question, agents will need to secure the search site. So you don`t allow somebody to wander around. And I understand he`s out of town, and maybe he`s headed there or maybe he will have his aides try to do something. But, rest assured, they will keep the site secure and free from anyone tampering with what they`re doing, obstructing with what they`re doing.
No one will be allowed to destroy any evidence. So that won`t happen. And people risk being charged if they attempt to interfere with what`s going on.
Now, I will share with you that, having put together information, talked to some folks, Jason, I`m going to use a phrase that`s common in among amongst intelligence analysts, which is I`m going to say that I have a medium to high degree of certainty that this, at least in part, is focused on the National Archives case, and that they are trying to make sure that there are no further secret or top-secret documents from the White House days, and that the time for talking is over.
The time to negotiate and turn everything over is now -- is long gone. And now we have reached the point where agents are convincing a judge that they have evidence of a crime.
JOHNSON: Now, I`m curious about this, Barbara, because if it is something as -- I wouldn`t say this is simple, because, clearly, the National Archives have asked for it.
But, Barbara, if it`s simply a matter of retrieving these documents and coming back, does that mean that those charges could simply be forthcoming much faster? Because if this was part of the January 6 investigation, we know there`s information that would be part of the ongoing investigation. If this was financial crimes, it`s probably just data.
But if the concern was, hey, we think you have these library books. We think you have these archives, and we found them in your house, after you refused to give them back to us for the last several months, isn`t that sort of an open/shut case with him getting convicted, or at least having charges and being indicted?
MCQUADE: Well, it`s absolutely a much smaller universe of evidence than would be a case involving election fraud for the January 6 insurrection. It`s a much tighter case based solely on these documents.
But, as we said before, it`s rare that the Justice Department -- in fact, it`s unheard of that the Justice Department charges somebody unless there is some intent to either harm the United States or help a foreign adversary.
And so the mere possession of these documents would surprise me that would result in charges. I think you would have to look for some level of willfulness here, that he took them and he kept them, and he did so for some improper purpose.
Now, it could be, as Frank said, that they have -- the time for talking is over, that they have tried to negotiate with him to get these back, and they have gotten silence, the back of the hand. And that could have prompted this raid. That alone could constitute willfulness, if you have these things and refuse to turn them back to where they belong, because every day that they`re out, they do create a national security risk that they could fall into the wrong hands.
JOHNSON: So, I`m going to follow up on this real quick, because this is kind of a key thing. Are you suggesting that there`s a possibility that this wouldn`t necessarily end up resulting in charges?
[19:55:03]
I mean, is that possible? Is it possible that, if these documents are found, these archival documents are found in the White House, after Donald Trump took them out, he wasn`t supposed to have them, took them down to Mar-a-Lago, you`re telling me there`s a chance that he won`t necessarily get indicted for this, that he could get a slap on the wrist or a fine?
Is that what you`re suggesting is a possibility?
MCQUADE: Yes. Yes, that is a possibility.
Prosecutors exercise discretion all the time. They don`t always bring charges just because they can. I think it`ll matter quite a bit what`s in these documents. Just how sensitive are they? What was President Trump`s knowledge that he -- if he had them, that he had them? And what was in them? And why did he have them? Did he have them for some improper purpose?
So all of those things will matter. The mere fact that he has them alone is probably not going to be enough for criminal charges. But all those other questions will need to be answered. And if they are answered in a way that is troubling to national security concerns, then, certainly, criminal charges have to be on the table.
JOHNSON: I`m joined now by NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian.
And, Ken, thank you so much for joining us this evening.
As Barbara just said, there`s -- we -- Frank pointed out, Barbara added, we now know that this is sort of an archival search. This is -- this is national treasure. We`re trying to get this sort of information back from Mar-a-Lago. She also said there`s a possibility that simply being in possession of these documents may not be enough to lead to an indictment.
What`s your assessment and what are your sources telling you right now are the possible consequences if these archives are found, if these documents are found in Mar-a-Lago?
KEN DILANIAN, NBC NEWS INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jason, the first thing they`re telling us is, we should be careful about what we think we know and we think we don`t know. We should be very humble about this.
This is a major, major development. The FBI has convinced a judge that probable cause existed to believe that there was evidence of a crime at this location. And, essentially, what I can tell you is that the FBI is not disputing that they were there and that there were a lot of -- there were there was no indication, as we were planning our weeks around Washington here in law enforcement world, that anything like this was about to happen.
So there may have been some people who were surprised by this in Washington and elsewhere. And I have been listening to our guests talk about the fact that this may likely relate to the National Archives case. That may well be true, I have no reason to dispute that.
We should all just consider, though, what a dramatic step this is that the FBI has taken here if it`s a case about some records that were taken from the White House.
So while we know everything else that is going on, with a grand jury calling witnesses about election interference, people close to Donald Trump, so I think we should just be very humble and understand that we don`t really know what this is about, other than that it`s an incredibly dramatic and provocative step that the FBI have taken tonight.
JOHNSON: So, Ken, you use a very important tense there. You said they were there.
Are you saying that the FBI has obtained what they wanted and they already left? Do you know if they are still on the ground in Mar-a-Lago still sort of searching for materials, or has this sort of raid come and gone?
DILANIAN: I don`t have that information, Jason.
All I`m being told is that the FBI is not disputing Trump`s assertion in his statement that they were conducting this raid.
JOHNSON: I want to go back to Frank very quickly.
Frank, I can`t stress enough how shocking this is. And, as Ken sort of pointed out, there was nobody in Washington who sort of had a clue about this one way or another. Do you think -- and I have sort of asked this question of previous guests, but I want your thoughts, just given your insight about the FBI.
Do you think that the success and the public attention on the January 6 hearings had any impact on the sort of aggressiveness and the public nature of this raid? Do you think the DOJ saw, all right, look -- it looks like we`re getting laps run around this right now by a congressional investigation, we got to make sure that we`re doing something?
Do you think that had any role in this? Or do you think that this was all sort of planned all along, and that we were going to see this raid in the first week of August no matter what happened in Congress?
FIGLIUZZI: So, I like to think and I believe that DOJ moves with facts and law in their own timing. We certainly heard that repeatedly from the attorney general, right?
Yet they`re not an island. They`re aware that there are certain time constraints. There`s certain pressure. They have been -- even Merrick Garland has said he`s watching the hearings. So he sees that evidence develop.
But, really, the way -- the way it works, Jason, is, they -- they watch far less television than the rest of us do. They`re very busy. And when the prosecutors say they`re ready, and the attorney general says I`m ready to sign off on something, they`re going to do it.
Now, if indeed it`s accurate that at least part of this is the National Archives documents case, it`s a fairly straightforward case. Now, as Barbara correctly pointed out, it doesn`t mean he`s going to get charged with it.
I would predict, by the way, if that`s what this is about, that he`s going to blame it on somebody else. Some administrative clerk squirreled something away. I thought I gave you everything I had. Who knew that this stuff was in my safe or whatever?
(LAUGHTER)
FIGLIUZZI: But then it gets -- details become really important, right?
You -- Barbara alluded to, what kind -- what kind of documents are they? What do they relate to?
JOHNSON: Well, Frank, I...
FIGLIUZZI: That could go toward intent.
JOHNSON: I`ve got to cut you there. We -- we`ve got to go to the next show.
Thank you so very much for this breaking news. Thank you, Ken Dilanian, David Rohde, Frank Figliuzzi, and Barbara McQuade.
That`s it for tonight`s REIDOUT.
"ALL IN WITH CHRIS HAYES" starts right now.