Live Breaking News & Updates on National defense documents unexcusable

Stay informed with the latest breaking news from National defense documents unexcusable on our comprehensive webpage. Get up-to-the-minute updates on local events, politics, business, entertainment, and more. Our dedicated team of journalists delivers timely and reliable news, ensuring you're always in the know. Discover firsthand accounts, expert analysis, and exclusive interviews, all in one convenient destination. Don't miss a beat — visit our webpage for real-time breaking news in National defense documents unexcusable and stay connected to the pulse of your community

CNN This Morning

called his alleged mishandling of national defense documents unexcusable. cnn's omar jimenez is here. it was the political angle, the blaming of the losses that i thought was really interesting in terms of how he was framing things. what was your takeaway? >> that's right. he talked about policy. he talked about the future of america, more of what you would expect to hear in a town hall, but part of chris christie's strategy is to confront donald trump directly, and so that's why when he talked about the house being lost from republicans, the senate, and the white house under trump, he didn't just say trump hasn't won anything since 2016. he made a point to say trump is a three-time loser, and that's not all he said. >> i've known him for 22 years. the only thing he understands is force. the only thing he understands is coming right at them and making your case. >> reporter: chris christie didn't disappoint on his vow to take on republican front runner donald trump.

Things , National-defense-documents-unexcusable , Mishandling , Cnn , Terms , Losses , Blaming , Framing , Angle , Omar-jimenez , Donald-trump , America

CNN This Morning

good point, innocent until proven guilty. we've not seen or heard the full fleshed out defense of the former president at this point in time. appreciate your time, sir, as always. let's bring in former federal prosecutor laura coates here with us. what did you make of that? what stood out to you? >> let me speak very plainly here, when you left the presidency, you don't get to have all the same things you had when you were there. if i move out of my house,ky not have the key still and go back anytime i feel like it and say i used to live here. i liked the bed can i stay a little bit. the same thing is true when you're talking about classified documents. you do not have the authority, he's absolutely right about the word authorization. that's going to be the key to all of this. did you have the authorization? did you know you no longer had the authorization to have the documents. he did not have any longer. one other point, evan corcoran, that is going to be extraordinarily important testimony, and he is absolutely right that they're going to have to probably relitigate what is going to be admissible in an actual court of law in front of

Is-beach-defense , President , Point , Laura-coates , Sir , Things , America , Presidency , Key , Ky-not , My-house , All

CNN This Morning

of it. people generally were talking about that before because of the president's unilateral right to declassify documents when he's in office. however, i think it's relevant here based on the willfulness prong, that is did he know, should he have known something he was prohibited by the law, given the reading of the records act that his advisers have given him. it goes to the first prong whether he was authorized to have documents in the first place. one thing that's never really pointed out these days is traditional tli -- and you may say it's not directly relevant, but it's somewhat relevant, the tradition has been former presidents get regular intelligence briefings even well after they're out of office and all that. one thing we have to remember is there is something special and unique about the position of the presidency, whether it's a complete defense or not is a different question. there's something to remember about that. >> that's true, but they certainly have no right to show or talk about those national top secrets in front of people who have no classification, which is what's alleged here in terms of the audio of that meeting with the authors writing on meadows.

Donald-trump , Something , People , Documents , Office , Right , Willfulness-prong , Law-and-order , Thing , National-defense-documents-unexcusable , Records , Place

CNN This Morning

counts, 18 usc 793 e. i think they did that in order to get around the idea of whether the documents are classified or declassified because they don't have to be classified for one to be guilty under that statute. how far, there are several prongs, elements to the statute including whether the person was authorized to have the documents, and this is where their defense of presidential records act is going to play into it and so on. there are a lot of legal issues to be fleshed out -- >> can you just say, i'm very curious, it's not cited in the indictment, the presidential records act has nothing to do with agency documents taken by the president. he has no records of saying these agency documents are my personal records, even if he did try and do that. where does the pra come in here as a defense? >> right, i actually have not emphasized this point. i've heard many other people emphasize it. i think the reason it gets less emphasis, people were guessing before the indictment came out is, again, because this classified element isn't a part

One , National-defense-documents-unexcusable , Statute , Idea , Order , Counts , Usc , 31 , 793 , 18 , Is-beach-defense , Lot

CNN This Morning

specifically when judge jackson talks about, first of all, the lack of judicial review generally for issues that come up under the pra when nara makes their claims and all that. here's where i think it's relevant, whether it directly applies or not, i think it's relevant to the willful prong. the question here under 793 e, one of the questions is a third prong, whether the person being charged willfully did it. that means did something he knew was prohibited by the law. you're going to say to me, you can hear from the tape it seems that he knew, you know, what he was doing he wasn't allowed to do it and so on. tapes can be cross examined. what were the circumstances, you know, exactly what was the rest of the conversation, and so on. again, we have to hear from the defense about all of these things. but i think it plays into what was in his mind, what he understood from his advisers, right or wrong, about what he had the authority to do with documents. >> david schoen, and you make a

All , Issues , Amy-berman-jackson , Pra , Nara , Lack , Judicial-review , Claims , Something , Question , One , Law-and-order

CNN This Morning

snchts : the judge is going to ask you tomorrow how are you going to plead? are you going to say anything beyond not guilty? are you going to make a statement in court tomorrow? >> no, i doubt it. i just say not guilty. i didn't do anything wrong. >> that is the plea donald trump says he will enter today at his arraignment, adding that he will not make a statement during this initial court appearance. he does face 37 counts related to the alleged mishandling of national defense documents and an alleged scheme to conceal them from investigators. joining us now is attorney david schoen. he was one of trump's attorneys representing him during his second impeachment trial. he also represented ex-trump adviser steve bannon in 2022 after bannon was indicted for contempt of congress. it's really good to have you, good morning. >> thank you very much, good morning. >> would you agree that one of the biggest legal issues for

Jonathan-goodman , Snchts , Donald-trump , Supreme-court , Anything , Plea , Statement , Is-beach-defense , National-defense-documents-unexcusable , Arraignment , Attorneys , Mishandling

CNN This Morning

john avlon, sara murray, josh campbell, and laura coates. there are a lot of differences here. we don't know what robert hur is going to find. but there are so many differences, namely obstruction. >> that's the essence of this indictment. it's willful retention, right? the government said, hey, you've got these documents and then they seem to have kept been moving around willfully in a private club, notwithstanding speaker mccarthy's argument that bathroom doors lock. look, that's the fundamental difference. that's why pence who had documents, there's no charging involved. the biden case is still ongoing, but the attempt to draw parallels to say there's unequal judgment doesn't fit the facts o'thi of this case. >> i'm not going to make a judgment on whether speaker mccarthy's defense was well thought out or applicable in court, but i do want to play some sound from another trump ally that our good colleague,

Lot , Laura-coates , Sara-murray , John-avlon , Obstruction-of-justice , Josh-campbell , Differences , Experts , Robert-hur , Indictment , National-defense-documents-unexcusable , Government