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
department argument. and they don t respond to that very well from what i can see here. they basically say, normally, in a search warrant, you got to challenge a search warrant, but what they are asking for here is for a special master to go through this stuff and there is nothing to go through. it s all in the hands of the archives. the law grants the archives the power to control the documents. your point there about the presidential record, this is a key point. they are not his. he took things that don t belong to him. that is the core of what happened. of all people, carl rove, played this out fairly simply earlier today, who, again, anyone who has had and got through this nose this. every staffer, this happens all the time. you get documents over, it was passed in the week richard nixon attempted to weaponize and monetize his own records, right? here is carl rove laying out the fact that they do not
central tenet of the rule of law is that we don t do our investigations in public. this is the most wide ranging investigation and the most important investigation that the justice department has ever entered into. we have done so because this represents the effort to up and a legitimate election, transfer of power from one administration to another, because at the fundamental cuts at the fundamental america democracy. we had to get in this fight. could be clear, garland is talking about the department of justice s investigation into january six. don t forget about that, there is still a grand jury in d.c. that has popped to a bunch of trump world lawyers. the procedure he outlines it depends there, we don t investigate public, plus across the board, is certainly applies in this case. the department of justice did not put out a press release saying, we are at mar-a-lago today, we are looking at the president stuff. no, donald trump did not, right?
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,
there, but it is fascinating even declassification markings themselves are solicited that the government can show them to you. there could be some controlled air that in itself is exceptionally sensitive that the government does not want to risk it being made public. i would not be speculating about what it is. let me ask you this quickly. the government has advised a lot of stuff, and i covered cases in which people get busted or in trouble first of that indy and is not actually that sensitive. those exist inside the millions of classified documents of the united states government. these don t seem to be that just based on what is available to know. is that a fair assessment? we don t know what the subsequent information of the classified information is, but suffice to say it is not shoplifted that the fbi found scores of alec ossified material in and on authorized location, where the whole voters so to speak, were an obvious notice. that he was in possession,