All of the events and tickets online. A few tickets left in kingston, new york for saturday may 4th. That will do it for me for now. Now it is time for the last word with lawrence odonnell. Finally something to watch ly on tv on a saturday night before snl. Finally. Rachel, of course, the breakingh news of this minute is the celtics 102, miami one 88. They are up 31. I have arranged with adam silver, the nba commissioner, to make sure the celtics are not playing after 10 00 p. M. On any night of the playoffs so that i can watch. People ask is what we do with our political capitol we accrue by having television shows. I think that is a very noble use of it. Rachel, being the multitasker that i am, i was i watching you and the celtics and i loved that you went into detail. I just cant get tired of reviewing the detail of who has not shown up for donald trump and hes begging them to show ng up at this trial in manhattan and hes pretending there is some problem. I have been doing my credit reports, as you know, by walking down there and it is such a pleasant morning walk to go down to the courthouse and check it out and there is three, was my last count the last time i was down there last week. I do think it is an important story because we saw this horrible terroristic activity on january 6th that was inspired by donald trump and eight on by donald trump. Weve had a right to live in some fear of how might that recur and he promised us that it would recur at his indictment of more than a year ago. And it didnt. He is demanding that it recur. Hes telling, the relationship between him and his followers is a little hard to suss out. I still havent quite got my head around the fact that when he tries to brag about having green light the vaccines, operation warp speed, his crowd boos at him about that so he doesnt know, theres some weird dynamics in the relationship between him and his followers. In this case, is wenot just predicting to the normal people that his followers are going too go crazy, he is directing them to do it and they are responding by yawning and not showing up. That has to upset him in some sort of curdling way. I dont know how that results but it has to be just infuriating to him. There is an interesting term on twitter where when i mention that people dont show up for this, there is this common response now which says well, on we all have jobs. We Trump Supporters all have jobs so we can to be there. I dont ask them what jobs they have on january 6th. It is too easy. I dont want to go into that. The other line is that they seem to be trying to say to me, suggest to me that i am disappointed that there isnt a big ride down there caused by donald trump. What i said all along is i didnt expect it. My prediction was there will be nothing. No one will turn out. They will be very peaceful. And, they are. The people who do show up every peaceful. Theres very few of them. Everyone else is being very ne Peaceful At Home or work. The other 70 million who voted for trump are being very, very peaceful and their workplaces are at home, as i expected them to be. The criminal justice system, the workings of the criminal e justice system, it is not just a concept, it is a thing that is getting done every day, is a cooling saucer, in a way. In it is slow and boring and indoors. There isnt a big public er performance of this trial. The fact that you may or may not want cameras in the courtroom but the fact that people are having it describe a to them by people who have seen it or being sketched for them by artists who are sitting there and then they hear about it, it is kind of a slowed down, cool process that has a Grind Element to it that isnt something that lends itself well to hot emotions, despite how great it seems when you watch Law And Order or perry mason. This is going to take a long time. Hes never going to get that dopamine it from seeing his mi people out there going crazy for him the way he has commanded him to do. O. J. Simpson got a much bigger so turnout every single day of his trial. Donald trump is stuck without the crowd. Thanks, lawrence. Today, Donald Trumps favorite judge, who was appointed by donald trump, judge aileen canon, federal judge in florida, released the transcript of Donald Trumps codefendant testimony to the grand jury, walt nauda, which took place month before the fbi executed a Search Warrant at Donald Trumps florida club. The grand jury testimony differs significantly from What Walt Nauda had already told the fbi. Count 39 of the indictment charges walt nauda with making false statements to the fbi in his voluntary interview with the fbi a month before his grand jury testimony. This is one of the lies walt nauda is accused of telling the fbi in that interview. Are you aware of any boxes being brought to his home, his suite . Answer, no. The indictment says that that one word, no, was a lie and a crime. In his interview with the fbi, walt nauda told them that the first time he ever saw the boxes at the florida club was when he was helping to move about 15 of the boxes onto a truck to send them back to the government. Question, so, to the best of your knowledge, you are saying that those boxes that you brought onto the truck, the gh first time you ever laid eyes on them, was just today when trump employee to need you to answer . Correct. Help them with the boxes. T the indictment says that that word, correct, was a lie. Then the fbi asked walt nauda this more general question. Do you have any information that could, that would, that could help us understand where they were kept, how they were kept, were they secured . Were they locked . D . Something that makes the Intelligence Community feel better about these things, you know . Answer, i wish. I wish i could tell you. I dont know. I dont, i honestly just dont know. The indictment says that answer was a lie. A month later, walt naudas testimony to the grand jury also in effect says that his interview with the fbi was a lie. Walt nauda admitted under oath to the grand jury that he moved boxes before he helped move boxes to be sent back to the government. Question youve taken multiple boxes rnsince january 2022 to t president s private residence. Answer correct. That is What Walt Nauda, under oath, that is him directly contradicting What Walt Nauda told the fbi a month earlier. Another question in the grand jury, question, it is your testimony before the grand jury today that in fact, you moved boxes up from the basement to pine hall, right . Answer, weeks prior, yes. That under oath answer is, again, a direct contradiction to What Walt Nauda said in his interview with the fbi. At the end of his grand jury testimony, the grand jurors hadm some good questions. Grand jury, was pine hall a skiff . Witness, no. It is a very important question. Important point to establish, get on the record that the room called pine hall where many of the boxes were was not a secure location. Another grand jury asked, before you said that some of that you did not know what was in any of the boxes but some of them were labeled. I guess what im confused about is how is it that only the specific boxes with label pens are labeled but none of the others were . Walt nauda did not give an answer that made any sense and it remained a mystery how he knew what boxes to bring upstairs to the boss when the boss asked for boxes. So, another grand jury were picked up on that point. Grand jury room. So, youre instructed to take some of these boxes up to pine hall . But you are not instructed to take any particular boxes . Witness. Correct. Grand jury. You just pick some off of the top . Witness. Yes. Grand jury. So, you dont know what the contents of the boxes you are taking . Witness. I do not. Walt naudas credibility as a witness in his own defense under oath, during trial, if he takes the witness stand, appears now to be a major challenge for him. Another document released by judge aileen canon shows walt nauda promised a pardon, was promised a pardon for lying to the fbi, according to person 16 in a heavily redacted 10 page fbi report of an interview with the witness identified as person 16 in this heavily redacted fbi report. Y donald trump is referred to as former president of the united states. The document says person 16 has not spoken to walt nauda since the white house and did not e know him. Walt nauda was told by Fpotus People that his investigation was not going anywhere, that it was politically motivated , and much ado about nothing. Walt nauda was also told that even if he gets charged with lying to the fbi, fpotus will pardon him in 2024. Walt nauda still speaks to person 34. Person 16 is clearly someone who worked in the Trump White House and told the fbi of the great risk for him and thought trump world, because he was secretly doing a voluntary interview with the fbi. The entire second page of the report is redacted. Most of the names of the people in the report are redacted. In addition to present 16, there is person 14, person 34, person 37, person 47, and so on. The report says while at the white house, person 16 was generally aware through conversation with person 14, person 34, person 37, and the n redacted was not getting records back. There was no process for fpotus to designate records as personal records. Fpotus routinely took documents from the oval office to the residence. Person 16 was not aware of Fpotus Declassify in any records other than the crossfire hurricane documents. According to person 16, there was no standing declassification order. Person 16 believed no one in the white house would testify that there o was such an order, with the exception of possibly person 24. Person 24 was unhinged and crazy. Present 16weekold the kim jongun letters, the obama letter, and the Hurricane Map being specific records that the National Archives and Records Administration was missing. At some point person 16 learned that fpotus had not returned them and multiple people tried to convince fpotus to return the records in late october, early november 2021. Person 16 made his own appeal to fpotus. Person 16 was on a Conference Call with fpotus, told fpotus, whatever you have, give it all back. Fpotus wanted to know how anyone knew about the issue. Fpotus was informed it was all documented in writing. The response was essentially, well check and think about it. Person 16 spoke to multiple people around fpotus to send the message that he needed to give the stuff back , that it belongs to the u. S. Government and was not worth all of the aggravation. On 21 november, 2021, person 16 visited fpotus at maralago. Fpotus was dressed in golf attire. Person 16 told him whatever you have, give everything back. Let them come here and get everything. Dont give them every a noble reason to indict you because they will. Person 16 walked away from the 50 minute meeting with the impression that fpotus was going to return the records to the National Archives and Records Administration. Not once during any of rcthese discussions did fpotus or anyone else say these records had been designated as personal records or had been declassified by fpotus. Leading off discussion is andrew weissman, former fbi General Counsel and former chief of the Criminal Division in the Eastern District of new york, he is a msnbc legal analyst and coauthor of the New York Times bestselling book the trump indictments, the historic Charging Document with commentary. Also with us, bradley maas, w National Security attorney rep since people who the Intelligence Community. Andrew weissman, what are we learning by this document released . This is just a portion of 400 pages of io material that judge aileen canon has released. A number of things. First, if walt nauda had been represented by mr. Maas, he would have asserted the Fifth Amendment in the grand jury and not given testimony that was going to be extremely helpful to convicting him. And, i think the answer is that in public corruption cases, very often people speak when they should not because of the general repercussions, it be known that they took the fifth or they think they can get away with it. And, something that i saw in the mueller investigation, which is the pernicious waving around of the potential for pardons, which makes it very hard to flip people to get them to cooperate. Here, it is, there is at least one witness who is going to sing there was an overt use of pardons to do just that, to sort of toward the ability of the Department Of Justice to be able to bring a case in its normal course. Normally, somebody like walt nauda would be somebody who would cooperate and just tell the truth and would rarely be charged for what he knows because, given how lowlevel he is, but, you know, he would plead and not to jail time. So, this, to me, everything you read is sort of a real sense, it gives people an inside look not just at corruption in ju public corruption investigations but really, a window, another window into the Trump Presidency and post presidency and it makes you understand why there are so rs many people who work there who would never endorse him in 1 million years. Bradley maas, andrew has just raised a great question r for you, which i hadnt framed and i just heard him say this, which is that, so, lets put you in the position of Defense Counsel presenting walt nauda. Walt nauda has gone in to do that voluntary interview. And, he has said what he has said. Now it is time for the grand jury. And, you know he cant say that again. You know he cant go in there again and say hey, i had no idea about these boxes until i was loading them on the truck. I knew nothing. That story is not going to hold up. Obviously, he gets into this, sl what he did choose to do is go into the grand jury and give different answers. Is there a way to do that, is there a way to go into the grand jury and steer away from the answers you gave before in a way that will avoid this kind of indictment by saying now that i have thought about it, in some way, ive refreshed my memory, or, as andrew suggests,y given what he said in the fbi interview, was this a case where you go in there and just hang onto the Fifth Amendment in the grand jury and see what happens . It is difficult. Looking back on this, trying to imagine putting yourself in the shoes of the lawyer, you have to almost wonder how much did his lawyer actually know about what his client had or hadnt done . You can assume they were confident they would ask questions but did they know the full extent of what had ll actually occurred compared to What Walt Nauda had told the fbi a month before . Based on what we know now, theres no way i could ever imagine a great intellect that client walk in there and testify without some kind of arrangement or agreement in advance with the Justice Department waters coming back and saying look, i have been retained, here is what we want to clean up, we want immunity discussion, we are not going to talk to the grand jury at all unless we have something in place. Otherwise, you bring him in there, hes going to plead the fifth and you get nothing. We dont know what was told to the lawyers back then but it was certainly risky to put walt nauda saying what he did. G he read to the grand jury testimony, it, all i could think of was Sergeant Schultz k from hogans heroes. Is like i heard nothing, i saw nothing, i know nothing. Of course, as we know from text messages, from photos, he knew a lot and he wasnt providing accurate descriptions. Andrew, this goes straight to the problem of how walt nauda is being represented and that it is basically a trump provided defense, trump provided Defense Counsel that is doing this for him. That raises questions of where the attorneys interests are because it does seem, as bradley says, this is a classic case of where you would want to go to the prosecutors and say, look, he can be helpful and he can be helpful in a grand jury but he needs immunity right now. That balances against this talk about Walt Nauda Being offered a parting. If you are offered a parting and if you are naove enough to trust that over immunity from prosecutor, maybe that is why ec you go into the grand jury this way, knowing how much trouble k you are in. E but, you see the pardon at the end of the line. That is a very risky strategy to do that. Obviously, a lawyer could not advise that if they knew that her client was planning on lying for a higher up. You are ethically precluded. One thing i can tell you that is a little bit of Insider Information about how the law rm developed for grand jury secrecy, because what happens in a grand jury is a secret under federal Rule Of Criminal Procedure six and two of the justices who people may have heard of who were real fans of Grand Jury Secrecy Where justice neil brennan and justice marshall, who are very well known for being liberal justices and people might think well, why is that . One of the reasons that they gave for grand jury secrecy is they were very concerned about lowerlevel people being able to tell the truth and be able to speak truth to power and the thought that if there was grand jury secrecy, it would encourage that ability for people like a walt nauda to be able to go in and do that without the fear of their higherups monitoring what they were doing. Obviously, that is something that ideally could work but obviously, if you are a lawyer, is compromised and not saying thats true with respect to s