Stay updated with breaking news from Gravitas. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
air? >> i don't know what's creepier, and tom cruise is 5'7", he's a big action star, wrap me in your big strong arms. >> the characters embody the whole man, oo7, i understand the thor superhero but a gravitas. >> tom cruise had the top grossing movie last year, almost by double, "top gun." >> viewers will decide. tom cruise clearly rewarded, "top gun" the movie did not have an agenda, same with the presidency. people want age limits, voters will decide. viewers, voters, they will decide. it's the market. >> that's right. and 007, who is the next --
could be a bad night for him? what do you think? >> neil: neil, look, i don't expect it to be a bad night for governor desantis. i'm not in the business of giving the trump campaign advice. if trump doesn't show up, it will highlight that the only potential president on the stage is governor desantis. if desantis is taking the shots, it gives him the ability to show what he's going to do and he can take the fire. when the debate is over, governor desantis will look like a serious presidential -- a serious potential president. if trump doesn't attend, it's to his own folly. i don't think these other candidates have the gravitas or the core support, critical mass to be president and to win the republican nomination quite frankly. >> neil: we were just showing an image of chris christie. he zinged your candidate. is that the strategy now and how your big money backer, how you think the governor should reply?
gravitas and the potential risks and the depths the ocean. the waiver can give you protection as the company owner who is handing it out and requiring it to be signed is, but there is no protection if there is gross negligence involved and the person signing waiver and the liability was either misled in some meaningful way, and not told about the potential risks or the risks that were apparent to the position in power, ie, the people navigating it, were not forth coming about the risks or acted in spite of potential for grave, serious bodily harm or even death. so you have a concept of, yes, you can sign your life rights away, quote, unquote, but there are limitations in the united states about this. what is complex is competing different jurisdiction, and citizens is of different co countries, and departure from a different country as well. so the laws of what it requires
mayor elected president. people like bloomberg have tried. in miami, this is a ceremonial role. does he have the gravitas to make a showing on the debate stage let alone be president of the united states? >> well, look, i welcome him as a candidate, you know, and my job is to just be a referee here, an umpire, call them like i see them. he's a young guy. miami is happening. if you haven't been there for a while, you need to go. it's really cooking, and i heard early on about the fact that many of the tech giants from california, tech moguls decided they liked miami, it was a place to go. and he's been thinking about the future of business, and he's been promoting companies that represent the future of the digital types, the ones that understand ai and machine learning, and at the same time, you know, he's got low crime, and he's got relatively low homelessness in miami, which is all interesting.
so jake, very easy to get a sense of how seriously doj and the government view this case. >> yeah. oren liebermann at the pentagon for us. i want to bring back cnn chief legal analyst laura coates along with former acting attorney for the district of columbia michael sherwin. laura, how serious are these charges against teixeira? >> extremely serious. he actually was alleged to have disseminated images of classified documents at a variety of different levels on this chat room called discord. there is some statements about him maybe doing it for bragging rights or otherwise. obviously, that was not persuasive to avoid any charges because it is the core of the espionage act. we're talking a lot about the title of that statute. people think about the james bond or ethan hunt of "mission impossible." really it's about preserving the sanctity of documents we want to keep close to the vest that are defense-related information that should not be exposed to the outside world and if they do they're harmful to the united states or could aid our foreign allies or adversaries' work. this underscores the gravitas
had -- >> felon charged with legally possessing a gun. >> why didn't that person plead guilty on that question. so she's had 14 days. it's almost like zero days. and so the case that she's about to get is a sophisticated case. you would in fact want a judge that's not just had a lot of experience but is also headed in the national security realm. this is going to be a lot of motions about whether or not classified information can be entered at trial and in what form. that's, i think, it puts u.s. national security at risk if there's too much information shared and you really want somebody that has both the gravitas to control the courtroom but also that experience. >> when are we going to know if she's recusing or getting recused or someone's stepping in? do we have any sense of a time line when we're going to get answers to these crucial questions? >> no. and the problem is in some ways is that the legal community is divided should the justice department go right away and ask for a recusal for her to step aside. and if she says no, then they
>> he may or may not be present in court. he is directing what happens today, and he hand picked the prosecutors himself. it is a carefully choreographed, and they are not going leave anything to chance arraignment that jack smith has done, and he may or may not appear adds you saw at the last arraignment, alvin bragg did come to watch the arraignment, but i don't know if jack smith will or will not be there. >> and laura, whether he is there or not, but obviously, he is still in charge of it, but we will get a better sense of it of who is in the weeds here, right? >> of course, we saw him present, but he did not speak much when he was in a meeting with trump's attorneys prior to the indictment coming down, and part of the gravitas here, but this is how routine and mundane this part of the case can be is the reading of the charges. it is going to be very anti-climatic to know what the charges are, but it does not take away from the fact that it is monumental occasion of a
very long time, and people are looking at now the presumption of innocence, meaning the corruption by the doj. every single word he says will be used against him in a court of law. not might, not there's a chance. will be. the indictment itself already lists from 2016. they are intending for him to make some missteps. all of this has been a self-inflicted wound. and guess what, there will be predictably others. so the focus has to be on the gravitas of this but also about how do you work with your counsel to, on the one hand, have the bravado you're speaking about, to follow his own blueprint, and also be able to defend his actions. >> i just want to read something. this is a little game, i'm going to ask you who said these things. are you ready for my little game? i mean, she should be going to jail, i don't know what the hell's going on. she did so knowing full well it would put american lives at risk
retentions, and no one's being dismissive. when i hear that phrase, document retention, that you heard on the other panel, about this being something relegated to a minor thing. these are current laws on the books involving the presidential records act, involving congressional legislation to say, we as a society do not want documents that are classified or of national security interest or otherwise or defense information to be out and about, retained, released, disclosed, in some way. so, when you're talking about the document retention aspect of it, do you think that people see it as minimized based on the fact that these are documents and the fact that the information itself, yes, it's in trump's head. but if you disclose the information, there is validity and gravitas about what that means for our national security and our way of legislative life, don't you think? >> no, absolutely. it's not to minimize, again, by calling it document retention. it's really going to come down
released, disclosed, in some way. so when you are talking about the document retention aspect of it, do you think that people see it as minimized based on the fact that they are documents, and the information itself -- yes, it's in trump's head. but if you disclose the information, there is validity and gravitas about what that means for our national security, and our way of legislative life. don't you think? >> no, absolutely. it's not to minimize, by calling it documentary tension. it's really going to come down to what is in those documents. classification is not something that is part of the elements here, it is whether it constitutes national defense information. meaning the contents of this document, if disclosed, would be damaging to the national security of the united states. -- to the enemy. so really, it is definitely going to come down to which documents were we talking about, what are the severity of these, and simply being classified is not going to be enough. for example, one potential