basically how prosecutors are going to tear down trump's defense piece by piece. >> that is a devastating blow to the former president. >> the only time you want to hear someone say "the boss is not going to leave" is after the third encore of a springsteen concert. >> making sure that everyone that is involved in the criminal enterprise is held responsible. >> wow, this is what it's going to look like when his former allies turn against him in a fulton county court of law. >> it really should influence how we think about the election of 2024. >> it is bad when trump's own aides confirm the plan was that the boss was not going to leave. remember, he's awaiting a trial for stealing a race because the boss was not going to leave. pretty relevant. the sudden leak had many asking who released the footage be the d.a. criticizing that leak. >> i'm not happy that it was released and you and your colleague got to do your story. >> they were trying to figure out this week who leaked those videos. >> there's absolutely no reason for fani willis to release those. >> i think -- >> the last voice david kelly just last night suggesting the leaker might be in the defense camp. they would have to videos because prosecutors have to hand them over in fairness to the defendants that was an educated guess by kelly. the d.a. was suggesting the leak was from anywhere, somewhere other than her office, but nothing was confirmed, and leaks are a part of reporting, a part of public life. many leaks go unsolved for long times. the one and only leak of an internal draft supreme court opinion that's ever occurred in that case overturning roe, if you check in on that, it still has not been solved even though the group of people with access to those opinions is tiny, the judges and their aides. or take the most famous leaker in history, nixon's antagonist deep throat from the watergate scandal. that stayed secret for decades, even after bringing down a president and spawning books and movies. no one figured the leaker out until he ultimately unmasked himself when he was in his 90s. so, we know leaks can last and stay unsolved, but tonight we can report you don't have to wait that long. monday's unusual leak has now been solved by wednesday. tonight, the leaker has confessed. and mr. kelly was right last night, it was one of the georgia rico defense lawyers. a lawyer for actually one of the lesser known defendants, misty hampson who you see on the lower right. her lawyer took the videos he was given by prosecutors and leaked it to journalists. the background here, hampton was a georgia election supervisor indicted for conspiracy on election fraud. her lawyer obviously had a change of heart soft some kind. his ears must have been ringing with the leaks videos leading the national news, and this powerful d.a. in his jurisdiction where he works and practices blasting what he knew to be his leak. the d.a. said she was seeking answers and a binding protective order to stop these leaks. >> my team in the particular case that those got out we had already file of a protective order where discovery in the case would not get out, so surprising? no. disappointing, yes? in fact, today from here -- i made sure i wasn't late, but i was are my team making sure an energy motion got filed. >> the news coming at us fast. that was yesterday. the d.a. mentioning that emergency motion, so fast tracking it. we can report to you today the judge held a hearing on that protective order request. heat rising, the court hearing puts pressure on anybody in the case with something to hide. you can see the judge. this was today's hearing. and the whole virtual hearing going down today was dealing with whether there would be another order, rules to prevent leaks, and then -- i'm going to play this for you exactly as it went down --. during this very hearing today over this unusual leak, the lawyer confesses, turns himself in, and then tries to argue he's confessing now to somehow protect other people who maybe didn't do the leak. >> in being transparent with the court and to make sure that nobody else gets blamed for what happened and so that i go to sleep well tonight, judge, i did release those videos to one outlet. >> there you have it. confession. it was a virtual hearing so you are looking at part of it. we have the zoom up, but then you see the judge as mr. miller confesses. he did try to leak this secretly. his reasoning changed, he doesn't want others blamed. journalist welcome all kinds of leaks to get facts, and as a smatter of reality, tonight as a society we know more about the state's evidence than before this leak. the media and public interest in these obviously accurate real videos is obvious, and it is different and distinct from maybe what the court wants, its process and interests, because the court and d.a. clearly want more discretion and confidentiality in this process. we can also report tonight the judge did issue a protective order to prevent future leaks with a system parties can try to deem sensitive. that is part of the process. as for what they show, adding criminal evidence from those you see on the screen -- we hear trump's convicted lawyers talking, like ellis and kenneth cheseboro. >> he said the boss is not going leave under any circumstances. we are just going stay in power. i said, it doesn't quite work that way, you understand, and he said we don't care. >> all his instincts told him it was fraud. >> did he point to evidence he was getting from his other attorneys or experts? >> well, he talk about seeing the vote totals roll backwards on the tv, just general instincts that something wasn't right here. >> those are just some of the damning pieces of testimony we now have on video. there's also information about one of the rico proffer sessions with another convicted trump lawyer, kenneth cheseboro. he was a key planner of the fraud plot. the actual video has not surfaced so i can't play you the clips but "the washingtonost" received detail about what he sa in his session, how he brfed donald trump on the elector plot that was previously unreported, as well as writings about what he call an assemblg alternate states of electors. that's a euphemism for something we have been documentin the criminal plots use elector fraud to try to overflow what was president biden's win. in that session cheseboro admitting he tried to use them in the january 6th coup plot. that's big. that's a trump lawyer confessing and detailing a link from the plots on the ground, including some in georgia that may have seemed admittedly small or random, and stretching it all the way back to january 6th itself. and we know as pence walked into the session that day, there were still efforts to stuff or jam these false or fraudulent documents into his hands. you may recall january 6th investigations exposed how staff were going back and forth furtively about this against their own self-interest or credit were resisting fraud documents getting into his hand. all this is putting evidence in place, complete with the intrigue of a mystery leaker turning himself in, and lawyers like ellis and cheseboro now in this key spot, which makes this a very interesting time to look at exactly how prosecutors will use this evidence, testimony, this testimonial evidence and what these trump lawyers like cheseboro will do with the vow they have made to be cooperating witnesses in pending rico cases. so tonight at this inflection point, we turn to veteran mueller prosecutor andrew weissman who will be joining us in this segment coming up. but first, i can tell you we'll hear right now from one of the most pivotal and involved guests you can have on a night like tonight. trump aide cheseboro's lawyer manny aurora. appreciate you joining me. >> thank you for having me. >> big picture, do you think the rico case against the remaining codefendants is strong, medium, or weak? >> well, having watched the introduction before i got to speak, i think a lot of folks that are pontificating on what's going on, i think they're trying their best, but the reality is it's not how it seems because we're actually the people on the ground, and i can tell you if they're going to use cheseboro as a witness, it may not be helpful as it applies to donald trump. >> why not? >> because everything that we did and that we argued, if you go back and watch some of the arguments that we made and things i wrote talk about supremacy issues, how the eca worked. there is not a fake elector issue. the electoral count act in five occasions talks about alternate electors, and in fact that was the reason the eca was passed. there were issues with the eca in 2020 which has been amended by congress in 2022 to take care of issues but the alternate electors are legal in georgia and throughout the country under the eca. >> let's jump into it a little bit. you're making a legal contention or argument that all of that was valid and legal and not a crime. if that's the case, why did your client plead guilty? >> well, it's not a crime as far as the rico goes or the supremacy clause. we pled guilty to count 15, which essentially had not a lot to do with the sexiness of this case, and that's why we took it. in essence you're looking at a two or three-year probation deal where the case is already sealed. guilt or not it's a good deal i recommended the client to take that you can't pass up based on the ramifications and a five-month public trial. do i believe there's a rico case that's going to be valid? no, because everybody that's taken a plea has not pled to rico. >> i understand the distinction you're making. this is why we want to talk. we want to hear directly from people involved, and you're making a distinct that no one has stood up to the heavier charge, although that's common you plead to lesser charges. but specifically with mr. cheseboro pleading guilty, he under oath and you as a lawyer in good conscious have to say he's a convict and he did do illegal activity, and in his proffer session he says he briefed donald trump on that. >> there was a single meeting with donald trump, and it was just a photo op. i think things have been exaggerated to make it sound sexy. >> well, let me slow you down and i'll let you finish. you're saying exaggerating photo op. according to "the washington post" account he says it was a briefing. are you disagreeing with your client or saying the post got it wrong? >> i don't know who it is telling the post these issues. i know mr. cheseboro's never spoken to the media. we have a request he not speak to the media, so i'm not sure who the, quote, leaker is or who told them that information. >> do you have reason to believe that information is false? >> i'm sure he talked to the president when he was there. i'm not here to say one way or the other. >> were you in the proffer session? >> yes. >> okay, well, "the post" reports the source for that is the proffer session where he spoke and you attended. does it meet your recollection of that or not? >> absolutely not. there were two defense attorneys in there, mr. cheseboro and seven prosecutors and investigators, and that's been the case in almost every setting that's happened. i don't want to quibble. we took the plea, but there's semantic that go with it, and there's a lot of things that folks don't talk about -- >> but you don't dispute -- i want to get that buttoned up. you don't dispute that the post, based on a video we may see, is that mr. cheseboro said he did -- whether it's rico racketeering haven't been proven in court, but whether it's an election crime has been convict, and now they've got that line drawing back to the former president donald trump. so i guess a question a viewer would wonder is why do you come to the conclusion that would be so helpful to trump? at a minimum, it's not good and it sounds like it might be bad. >> the reason it's helpful is you have to understand what the eca is, and that's something the government doesn't talk about. the government position is the georgia governor certified the democratic slate, and that's the only thing that goes up, and that's just not the law. under georgia law, which is what we argued, and unfortunately because of our speedy trial demand we couldn't do an appeal pretrial. some of the other defendants will probably get the ability to do that when the time comes. but the issue is the governor's certification doesn't mean anything as far as this goes. when all the alternate slates of electors go to congress under the eca, the congress decides which elector's slate is valid unless the courts ruled on that prior to the drop dead date listed in the electoral count act. the nuances are boring and constitutionally rigid. it's like taking a class. people don't understand it. so we jump to conclusions saying fake and things like that. it's not the situation. that's why rico isn't standing up and court and they're not making team plead. >> i can't speak for anyone else, i don't feel bored. >> i guess i'm not talking to my wife or family about it because they get bored. >> you know donald trump lost the election, right? >> absolutely. i'm not a republican lawyer, democratic lawyer, i'm just a regular guy. >> but you're referring to a legal process that accompanies the certification in the electoral college, and once these things are certified and the electoral college votes, you are referring to the fact that if you start early enough, the idea there is a potential alternate elector itself isn't a crime. we've reported on that on this program. but past a certain point of time it does become fraud. let's move past january 20th. you agree submitting false election materials on january 20th, you would -- >> jan 21, that would be fraud gt right? >> certainly. >> so when we backdate -- i just want to keep the conversation on this point, and i'll let you respond. as we backdate, right, you say, well -- you're saying early enough it's not a crime. late enough, anyone -- there's no reasonable legal argument that january 20, '21 it's not fraud. you're saying there might be more wiggle room. we have your client's memos. people make all kind it was of arguments. the question i want to get to you on is are you saying you would have to and your client and other codefendants would have to win, a court would have to agree with this view, which is not the mainstream historic view about how late you can quibble with this. if you're wrong about that you do have elector fraud, and if donald trump was briefed and asked him to go forward, does that make him separately liable from rico? >> let's back it up and take it in context. the memos were done prior to the 14th, which is when the deadline would be for the electors to actually meet and vote. the memos were done in anticipation of that date, and on that date any party in georgia that gets 1% of the election could submit ballot moving forward. doesn't matter who the governor certified at that point. those ballots could go up to congress and congress could make the final decision unless there's been some court ruling. in georgia there's been no court rulings, so anything that happened on the 14th, was legal because those are valid republican electors. >> if the court agrees with you then anyone on the hook has a problem, and your client took a plea. >> right, if the court disagrees with you, but if you go back and look at some of the arguments, the court agrees. might be direct ballot or verdict 27 rule in court dismissing the case after the facts come out. what i'm trying to explain is i'm not championing one side or the other, who won the election. i could care less. this is a purely legal issue why we took this case under constitutional law that isn't established and people say it's well known. except for hawaii 1960 and perhaps the gore case there haven't been any interpretations. >> and lawyers can go both ways as you know. sometimes the absence of a lot of litigation is because something so obviously the case that it doesn't need to be litigated. everyone's familiar with this magic theory that trump wanted pence to steal the election for him. there's no case law on that because it's so bananas, bonkers and out of the realm of democracy they never had to have it litigated, so that is a reason why the argument you described could fail. in fairness to you -- let my finish and i'll give you the final answer. it is true that what you refer to is there are other cases where ambiguity in the criminal law context becomes a type of defense. hey, this was a clear enough high criminal standard. i understand the point you're raising. i would just caution listeners your -- the team of people on this beat -- powell, cheseboro, ellis, they're all convicted lawyers, so i'm not sure you're going to get a lot of strong precedential argument from that. is your basic take-home point while mr. cheseboro has been described as a cooperating witness, you are under the belief what he'll ultimately say will not hurt donald trump at all? >> right, so everybody that takes a plea generally in any criminal case will end up being a potentially cooperating witness because they don't have to rights to them anymore. the government can call them doing it kicking and screaming or otherwise. he never talks to the press, he's got his memos. the alternate slates in georgia didn't write out, this is only valid if there's valid legal basis for us to submit the state of electors, that could be potentially illegal. they put that in pennsylvania and other states and that's why there's no charges there. folks don't hear from smart people on the shows is that the eca is a bizarre statute -- >> i'm going let you finish, but if you're saying there aren't smart people on these shows, i don't know -- >> no, i'm saying there are smart people, i'm saying they haven't discussed this. sorry if i misspoke. much more intelligent than myself and more accomplished as far as that goes, but under eca we argued vagueness. >> understood, and the point, is he's not going hurt trump, though? all these guys cooperating, that's a misread? >> it's a misread. we're talk about what the memos mean and what the memos are, and a lot of constitutional witnesses may testify we may not agree with it, but legally it's not improper what he put forward. i'm not speaking for powell or anybody else. >> understood. really interesting. we went even longer than we planned but i really appreciate you being here and taking the questions, as well as disagreeing with the interpretation. i thinks it's useful to hear from the people involved. mr. aurora, i hope you come back. that is from an experienced defense lawyer. we turn to andrew weissman for context. we're back in one minute. nute io. like my morning ride, will it help lower my glucose? with the freestyle libre 2 system, you can know where your glucose level is and where it's headed without fingersticks. know what activities work for you. manage your diabetes with more confidence and lower your a1c. ask your doctor about the freestyle libre 2 system. it's covered by medicare for those who qualify. visit freestylelibre.us/medicare to learn more. ♪♪ if you've had enough of the uncontrolled symptoms of psoriasis that have you worrying about covering up, it's time to get real with your dermatologist. make an appointment, and ask about real clear skin. visit letsgetrealclear.com. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire if they're going to use cheseboro as a witness, it may not be helpful for the government as it applies to donald trump. >> why not? >> because everything that we did and that we argued, if you go back and watch some of the arguments that we made and the things i wrote in this case