plus what we know from the doj filing about who asked me have legal exposure. they don t have anything. there is just nothing there. and the legal, political and moral implications of a potential decision to indict the 45th president. all in starts right now. good evening from new york, i am chris hayes. it is a pm eastern, and we just hit the deadline for donald trump s legal team to respond to the department of justice filing that just passed. it looked like it just came in. we will monitor it, that you know, what it is and what it says. honestly, what it says is a little bit of a sideshow at this point, because the one thing we know for sure is that the department of justice is not messing around. they are not messing around with their investigation into classified documents that donald trump kept at his florida home. last night, they dropped the equivalent of a legal nuclear bomb on the ex president, and it came in the form of this 36 page court filing. no, th
been hunky dory. it s kind of in keeping with the original motion. it is not warden, and it is a word salad and should not hear the word a day. the special master seems a little bit even if you got a special master, special master s don t come a time machines, so they found what they found, it s been reviewed. in terms of the legal implications of what the department of justice asserts in its filing about the woefulness, the touchiness, the sketchiness, the deceitful-ness of donald trump and his lawyers, what does that add up to you? what does that mean? it means violations of law, and if it was you or me, we would be in handcuffs or in jail, that is what it means. it is interesting lawyer wise today, tonight, it came out that one of his lawyers in new york filed an affidavit in the new york case that she had personally searched mar-a-lago,