Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Donald Trump Is In Florida And Preparation For Security Is Underway; Re. Jordan And Sen. Graham Defends Trump; GOP Lawmakers Defending Donald Trump On His Indictment; McCarthy Defends Trump On Classified Storage: "A Bathroom Door Locks"; Trump Vows To Appoint A "Special Prosecutor" To Investigate Biden If Elected President; Trump To Be arraigned Tomorrow On 37 Criminal Charges In Classified Documents Investigation. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired June 12, 2023 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[17:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Meanwhile, the city of Miami is bracing for crowds to show up in support of the 2024 Republican frontrunner who us publicly maintaining his innocence despite the Justice Department's hordes of damning blistering evidence. Let's get right to CNN's Evan Perez in Miami. Evan, walk us through how tomorrow's arraignment might play out differently than the one we saw in Manhattan two months ago.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, first of all, the fact the former president will be facing a hearing with his co-defendant, Walt Nauta, we know that the former president will be brought into the courthouse. There's an underground entrance where the Secret Service can drive him into the building and then bring him up to the upper floors where he'll be processed by the federal marshals.

He'll be placed under arrest once he comes into the building and then the processing begins. It's a standard thing. They're doing an electronic fingerprinting of him. These usually involve photographs. And certainly, for Walt Nauta, we expect he's going to be booked with a mugshot. The former president of course is very recognizable and so we don't anticipate that the marshals will take new photographs of him.

And then from there, he'll go to the courthouse and a judge will read him the charges and he'll have a chance to enter his plea. The question of his release, Jake, we known that we don't expect that he's going to be -- there's going to be any issues with him being released. The issue we expect, however, to come up is whether he can communicate with anybody who might be considered witnesses. That's of course is an issue of witness tampering which has been a concern in this case already. Jake?

TAPPER: Evan, you also have some new reporting on why the special counsel, Jack Smith, decided to bring this case in Florida rather than in Washington, D.C.

PEREZ: Yeah. The special counsel's team several months ago decided that they needed to prepare to bring this case in Florida simply because Mar-a-Lago is located down here. They were concerned, obviously, that one of the things of bringing this case in Washington was the issue of venue.

And the fact is, the former president left Washington several hours before Joe Biden became president, and one of the things the Trump lawyers raised was the issue that he was still authorized to have these documents for those several hours that he came down to Palm Beach and was still president before Joe Biden took the oath of office.

So, that was one of the things that they decided finally, again, in recent months, Jake, that they need to fix that situation by just bringing the case down here despite spending months collecting evidence and testimony from witnesses in the grand jury in Washington.

The question here, of course, is this is a -- perhaps a friendlier venue for the former president. He won this state, of course. And the other issue, Jake, is the question of whether they'll have to litigate again to use some of that really damning witness we saw or -- I'm sorry -- testimony we have from Evan Corcoran, his attorney, who recorded some of the things that the former president was saying to him. All of that, of course, will play out over the next few months. Jake?

TAPPER: All right, Evan Perez, thank you so much.

Let's turn now to the security measures being taken surrounding Trump's court appearance tomorrow in Miami. CNN's Carlos Suarez is live from Doral, Florida outside the Trump Doral Hotel. Carlos, city officials say they are working with all levels of law enforcement. We have heard that the Proud Boys, that far-right militia group, they are expected to be there. Are police preparing to handle any potential violence?

CARLOS SUAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, if you ask that question to Miami's police chief, he would tell you yes. According to the chief of police out here, he says they have enough resources and officers to deal with a crowd of up to 50,000 people that might show up to the federal courthouse tomorrow. Now, when pressed for specifics, the chief of police said that is something that his police department is not going to get into.

There is a growing concern at this hour whether law enforcement across south Florida is ready to deal with the possible crowd of both supporters of the former president as well as protesters who might show up outside of the federal courthouse in downtown Miami.

At this hour, there are few barricades outside of this courthouse, and it is still unclear whether Miami police plan to separate the supporters of the former president from the folks that are going to be out there protesting the former president. Here now is the chief of police at a news conference earlier this afternoon.

(BEGI VIDEO CLIP)

MANUEL MORALES, MIAMI POLICE DEPARTMENT: We're bringing enough resources to handle a crowd anywhere from 5,000 to 50,000. We don't expect any issues, right? So, we appreciate the public's help, everybody going out there and expressing themselves in a peaceful and civil manner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SUAREZ: And so, the chief of police really pushed back on some questioning there about exactly just where all of these resources are at this hour, when we might expect to see them outside this courthouse.

[17:05:05]

The chief ended up saying, look, a lot of these decisions we're going to make really will depend on exactly how many people turn out tomorrow. Jake, there was a crowd of about 100 Trump supporters outside of the Doral property out here earlier this afternoon. At one point this afternoon, some of those folks got out onto the street. However, police here were able to get everyone back on to a sidewalk. Jake?

TAPPER: Carlos, have any officials noted any concerning signs by extremist groups online of possible threats?

SUAREZ: Well, it's our understanding according to law enforcement sources that a group of FBI agents have been tasked with going across -- going through social media posts for any possible threats to the federal courthouse in downtown Miami. We're told that they're also taking a look at some communications between members of the Proud Boys because they were talking about traveling to south Florida ahead of tomorrow.

However, just about every law enforcement official that we've talked to, including the chief of police for the city of Miami, said that right now there are no credible threats to Miami.

TAPPER: All right, Carlos Suarez in Doral, Florida, thank you so much.

Joining us now to further explain the security concerns over Trump's arraignment is Jeh Johnson, former Secretary of Homeland Security during the Obama administration. Secretary Johnson, thanks for joining us. So, Miami officials say they're prepared for tomorrow, but some of the officials, former officials that we've had here in studio watching what's going on in Miami seemed alarmed, noting that there's just yellow tape in some areas, a few plastic barriers, but nothing like what we saw in New York.

Given what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, given the calls to violence that we've heard and the bellicose language from many, many Trump supporters including members of Congress, do you think that's sufficient or should they be barricading and preparing for the worst?

JEH JOHNSON, FORMER SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION: Well, the downside to all this, Jake, is there hasn't been a whole lot of time to prepare for this. The indictment just came down late last week. Normally in a situation like this, law enforcement wants a lot of time to provide adequate security. I am quite sure that right now as we speak, elements of the U.S.

government, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals, Federal Protective Service, Secret Service, the FBI, along with local law enforcement in Miami-Dade are thinking this through, are erecting hopefully the appropriate barriers. They know that community best.

As you touched on it, I'm sure they're actively monitoring social media. But we do have to anticipate a potentially large crowd here, particularly given some of the rhetoric from some of our so-called public officials over the last few days. But I've been down to Miami- Dade to oversee active shooter training exercises. It's a complicated jurisdiction, but there's a lot of resources down there.

TAPPER: Well, some of the rhetoric we've heard from members of Congress and also from the Proud Boys and others are rather alarming. Now, obviously people have a First Amendment right to express themselves. And the mayor of Miami, Francis Suarez, stressed the importance of letting people use their free speech. Is there a way, do you think, to keep this from getting out of control?

JOHNSON: Jake, that is probably my principal concern right now. Some of the rhetoric we've heard over the last couple days has been over the top, dangerously irresponsible. Some of these extremists in public life seek to outdo each other. That kind of rhetoric makes unacceptable behavior acceptable and, frankly, violence inevitable.

And, you know, I can understand the impulse of some of our leaders, some of our rational leaders to avoid engaging and responding to this kind of thing, but I do think there comes a responsibility, frankly, by federal officials who lead federal law enforcement to really speak out against this and call it out and say to those who are engaging in this kind of dangerous rhetoric, say if somebody gets hurt, we are going to, within the fullest extent of the law, seek to hold you responsible.

It is a federal crime to threaten a federal official in the conduct of their office. It is a federal crime to incite an insurrection. And so, we've got to look to not just the Proud Boys and those who are on the ground, who might be on the ground in Miami-Dade tomorrow, but also those who are frankly inciting and encouraging this kind of violence.

[17:09:59]

TAPPER: When you look at the charges against Donald Trump in the indictment, as somebody once charged with the safety of the American people both at the Department of Homeland Security, but then also prior in your career when you were an undersecretary at the Pentagon, how alarmed are you at the -- those classified documents being stored in such a reckless way and being shown off to individuals that are just visiting Donald Trump?

JOHNSON: Well, in addition, Jake, I was also years and years ago a federal prosecutor hired by none other than Rudy Giuliani in Manhattan. It's surreal to know that there are TS level, highly classified, compartmentalized documents lounging around in bankers boxes, in storage bins at Mar-a-Lago that the former president it seems showed off to various people.

We handle classified information in Washington in the most secure fashion in SCIFs. We don't talk about it outside of SCIFs. And for Donald Trump to undertake to do this is alarming. I'm concerned about the fallout from this. You know, an interesting challenge, Jake, when this case goes to trial, and I'm certain it will, will be how do you share this information with 12 lay jurors who are randomly selected off the street so they appreciate the gravity of what former President Trump has done?

There's a procedure for doing this called CIPA, the Classified Information Procedures Act that -- to try to show redacted versions of this stuff or such I think is going to be a challenge in this case.

TAPPER: Former Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, thank you so much. Hope you're doing well, sir. Coming up, one Trump loyalist keeps --

JOHNSON: Thank you.

TAPPER: -- citing a Supreme Court case to defend the former president. There may be several problems with that example. We'll tell you what they are next.

Then a look at the real-world impact of classified material possibly landing in the wrong hands. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

TAPPER: Ahead of Donald Trump's arrest tomorrow, his most loyal allies are attempting to downplay the incriminating indictment including, of course, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): The standard is clear. The standard is Navy versus Egan, a 1988 case, unanimous decision from the court that Justice Blackman wrote both the opinion. And it said, "the president's ability to classify and control access to national security information flows from the Constitution." He decides. He alone decides. He said he declassified this material. He can put it wherever he wants. He can handle it however he wants. That's the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, it is true that suddenly off cited 1988 Supreme Court case does says it is the president's -- sitting president's authority to, quote, "classify and control access to information bearing on national security." But there are a few issues with what the chairman there is saying.

First of all, Navy versus Egan isn't really a case about a president's authority to declassify documents. That sentence is merely background in a case about a navy contractor who lost his job because his security clearance had been revoked. And that narrow case is what the court decided on unanimously.

And perhaps more importantly, Chairman Jordan conveniently glossed over the damning evidence that suggests that Mr. Trump knew he could, but did not declassify these documents while he was president. There's no evidence that we've seen at all that he declassified any of these documents while he was president.

Let's talk about this and other defenses with CNN legal analyst Carrie Cordero and former Watergate prosecutor Nick Ackerman. And Nick, let me start with you. What do you make of this Navy versus Egan argument from the chairman there?

NICK ACKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT SPECIAL WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's situation. All it stands for is this poor guy, Egan, who had a criminal record and a drinking problem, was denied a security clearance to work on the Trident submarine program. It has nothing to do with what Trump did. In fact, what it does say, it warns about giving untrustworthy people access to classified information which applies in spades to Donald Trump.

I mean, if you look at what he did with this material after he was president, that he held onto it when he had no right to do it, that he basically put it in his ballroom, in his bathroom and in his living quarters, and essentially lied and orchestrated a coverup to keep the government from getting this material back.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with any of these issues. In fact, it wasn't even unanimous, Jake. I think it was like there were four dissents in the case. But it all has to do with whether or not this poor guy who couldn't get a security clearance could appeal it to a special board.

TAPPER: Carrie Cordero, let's talk about Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He took a different route in trying to defend Donald Trump. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): You've got vice president, secretary of states and presidents handling this stuff. You had Bill Clinton with tapes in his sock drawer. I would like to review the system. But here is the point I'm trying to make. I think the espionage charges are completely wrong and I think they paint an impression that doesn't exist. This is not espionage.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I mean, these are lawyers, so, I mean, they know what they're saying is crap. But explain to us about the Espionage Act.

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Right. Okay. So, there is a set of statutes under federal criminal law generally known as the espionage statutes.

[17:20:01] Within those -- and those are the statutes under which individuals who actually engage in espionage, spying for foreign governments, that is the set of laws that they're charged under. It also has a set of provisions of law that individuals who are charged with mishandling classified information or in this case willfully withholding national defense information are also charged.

It's interesting the arguments Senator Graham makes. Sometimes there are individuals, defense attorneys or individuals who are whistle- blowers and reveal information to news sources who have later argued that this type of mishandling or turning over classified information shouldn't be prosecuted under the espionage statute.

TAPPER: And that's a legitimate argument.

CORDERO: And so that is an argument --

TAPPER: Yeah.

CORDERO: -- that some in the legal community or the advocacy community make. But in this case, former President Trump hasn't been charged with spying for a foreign government or espionage, as we normally think about it. But he has been charged with willfully withholding national defense information which is the way that a case like this is normally charged.

TAPPER: I mean, these very weak and misleading arguments right out of the bat by Lindsey Graham and Jim Jordan would seem to suggest they really don't know how to defend this if at all.

CORDERO: Well, and they're also -- there is no one arguing that a president -- going to Jim Jordan's point -- nobody is arguing that a president, a sitting president doesn't have the authority to classify --

TAPPER: Right.

CORDERO: -- declassify and classify information. Like there is no argument in the legal community about that --

TAPPER: Right. There is no charge.

CORDERO: -- that it's a commander-in-chief authority. The difference here is that there's no evidence it ever happened.

TAPPER: And Nick, there seems to be a pattern emerging of Trump's own lawyers leading investigators to key information. You had the Manhattan indictment with Michael Cohen. Now you have Evan Corcoran. Now, you say Corcoran was probably the source of the search warrant after he realized he was being played by Trump. That's a theory. We don't know that as fact as of now. But how --

ACKERMAN: Well, I think --

TAPPER: Go ahead. ACKERMAN: -- I think I'm right because there's no other way -- first of all, to put that into a search warrant, the probable cause for this obstruction had to come from an inside witness who laid it out. You don't conduct the search on a former president's residence without having a real solid probable cause. You're not going to put in circumstantial evidence.

And certainly, Corcoran was in a position where he had to realize at some point that there were 30 boxes that were hidden from him that he didn't get to look at. And so, he is the logical person that was the inside source that gave this to the FBI.

And I might also add in terms of lawyers and the reaction to Trump and what they've done, you've also got John Eastman in the Georgia case who also had one of his e-mails produced to the January 6th committee because of a statement in furtherance of a crime as opposed to attorney-client privilege where he admits that Trump knows he's filing an affidavit in federal court in Georgia that's full of lies about the election being rigged.

So, we do have this pattern running throughout these cases where one of the chief witnesses against Trump in each of these cases is really his own attorneys.

TAPPER: Nick Ackerman, Carrie Cordero, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

Coming up, Republican lawmakers returning to the Hill today. Who is staying mum on the Trump indictment and who is talking? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

TAPPER: In our "Politics Lead," lawmakers are returning to Capitol Hill for the first time since the federal indictment of Donald Trump on 37 criminal charges. House leaders have largely been rushing to Trump's defense, Republican ones.

But in the senate, it's kind of a different story with leading Republicans largely remaining mum. CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju joins us now live on Capitol Hill. Manu, you've been talking to lawmakers as they make their way back in that domed building. What are they talking about?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Some of them still don't want to comment like Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell who has not said anything about this indictment since the news first broke late last week. But I did catch up with the number two Senate Republican John Thune who has also been quiet about this up until now. He said that these are serious allegations and he did not align himself with House Republican efforts to try to discredit the special counsel and quite -- and go after the Justice Department even as others rush to Donald Trump's defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Well, they're very serious allegations and the burden of proof of the Justice Department will be high. I think there are a lot of people across the country who have skepticism about the standards of justice and how they're applied and wanting to make sure they're applied equally.

RAJU: It sounds like he may have obstructed this investigation, made false statements to prosecutors. Does that worry you?

SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): I don't know anything about that now. They obviously got what they wanted. I don't know whether he obstructed or not.

REP. curtains for a new FBI building right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, that last comment from Congressman Kelly Armstrong about what the FBI has been pushing for, a new building, a new headquarters in the Washington, D.C. area. Both him and Speaker McCarthy, both indicating that that won't go forward. And expect other efforts to try to go after the Justice Department to come from the House side of the aisle, some of them trying to go after the Justice Department's funding.

But the leadership on the Republican side has not embraced the efforts to so-called defund the Justice Department or the FBI, but could go after the FBI headquarters.

[17:29:59]

This is all House Republicans of trying to call in, really get information from Merrick Garland about the communications that he had with the special counsel ahead of the search at Mar-a-Lago. But, Jake, a clear split between the top two Republicans on the Senate side who have stayed quiet. Durbin said these are serious concerns, as John Thune suggested, and Kevin McCarthy, who has defended the president vocally.

TAPPER: All right, Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, thanks so much. We are just a few hours away from a CNN presidential town hall with former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. And CNN's Omar Jimenez is following that for us.

Omar, Governor Christie's been rather scathing in his criticism of the front runner, former President Donald Trump. What are you expecting to hear tonight?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake, I'm told to expect him to be direct when it comes to Trump, but also to emphasize a theme that we heard when he announced his campaign, that the country has a choice between getting bigger and getting smaller. I was at that campaign kickoff event less than a week ago at this point, and he took voters through time after time in U.S. history, going back to the Revolutionary War, where he felt like the country chose to get bigger, under Trump, he feels the country would get smaller. And on Trump, who, of course, he was once allies with, he has not shied away from attacking him. Take a listen to why, because he's been very clear about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The reason I'm going after Trump is twofold. One, he deserves it, and two, it's the way to win. There are not multiple lanes to the Republican nomination, that is a political science professor's dream. There is one lane to the Republican nomination, and he's in front of it. And if you want to win, you better go right through him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JIMENEZ: Now, polling, at least up to this point hasn't shown Christie at the top of any GOP list. So, they obviously know they have work to do. But if part of the campaign strategy is to show why Donald Trump is unfit to run the country, I think this is over the past week, news of the Trump indictment has given the Christie campaign about as much ammo as you could ask for over the course of an indictment. I mean, you talked to him, Jake, after the indictment was unsealed, and he wasn't shy about saying that this shows why Trump is unfit to lead the country. So, we'll likely hear more of that in that town hall, but also some pro Christie positions, not just anti Trump in this environment that he's gotten very comfortable in the town hall.

TAPPER: Omar Jimenez, thanks so much. And you can hear more from Governor Chris Christie during his town hall here on CNN this evening. Join Anderson Cooper. It starts at 08:00 p.m. Eastern only on CNN.

Let's talk about what's going on in politics now with Charlie Savage of "The New York Times" and Jackie Kucinich of The Boston Globe, also a CNN Political Analyst.

Jackie, take a listen to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy earlier today addressing the criminal indictment. I want to get your reaction to part of what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Was that a good look for the former president to have boxes in a bathroom?

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER): I don't know. Is it a good picture to have boxes in a garage that opens up all the time? A bathroom door locks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The garage, obviously, that's a reference to some documents that were found in Joe Biden's home.

JACKIE KUCINICH, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.

TAPPER: A bathroom door locks. That's the security we need for our national security documents? KUCINICH: Well, I think he's not addressing what the indictment says, which is why you hear Republicans like Kevin McCarthy attacking the DOJ, attacking the FBI, attacking everyone else, so they don't have to address what are some pretty damning allegations throughout that indictment. And it's one of these things if you do that old test, if this was a Democrat, they would be screaming from the ceilings. And of course, we should say the difference between Biden having those documents in his garage and what Trump did, according to this indictment, is he tried to keep them and lied about it.

TAPPER: Right. And we did hear, Charlie, a lot of outrage from Republicans like Kevin McCarthy, like Elise Stefanik, like Steve Scalise, and on and on and on when it came to Hillary Clinton having classified documents on her private e-mail server, this case is significantly different, it's significantly worse, and yet they have a completely different standard.

CHARLIE SAVAGE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LEGAL REPORTER, "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Well, I think the way to understand why the House leadership in particular, as opposed to the Senate leadership that we just heard Manu talking about being more circumspect is so forward leaning here. Has to do with the fractures within the Republican caucus right now in the House. Kevin McCarthy cannot do anything on the House floor because his hard right flank is in open revolt, is punishment for how he muscled through the debt ceiling lifting deal with Biden. They're furious about it, they won't let anything happen, the whole House is shut down. So this is a way in which he can try to get right with the right wing by being out there really, you know, waving the bloody shirt on the Trump indictment, but it doesn't really speak to the substance of what's going on here and the real legal peril that Trump is in in that courtroom in Florida.

TAPPER: Game it out for me, Jackie. If Kevin McCarthy said anything along the lines of what we heard from Senator John Thune, these are serious charges, this is very serious, I take this seriously like, you know, nothing excusing the behavior, et cetera. What would happen to Kevin McCarthy?

[17:35:00]

KUCINICH: I can only imagine that the former President would not be pleased with this. This is the speaker of the House whose future is very much tied with the former president, which is why he was one of the first major public officials to go down to Mar-a-Lago after January 6. He asked for his help to become speaker. He needs Donald Trump as much as Donald Trump, I guess, he needs Kevin McCarthy to push what he needs him to say at this point. Well, you can't have one without the other.

TAPPER: So, Charlie, one of the main arguments that we hear from Trump and some of his rivals for the Republican nomination, not to mention Trump's allies, is that the Biden administration has weaponized the Justice Department against him. There's a whole committee that the Republicans started to talk about the weaponization of government. Trump today posted on Truth Social, quote, "I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the USA, Joe Biden." So, I guess they don't really have a problem with the weaponization of government. Is that how I'm supposed to read that?

SAVAGE: Your representation is my ally, I guess. You know, this is part of the Trump playbook going back to the, you know, Russia investigation, the original stuff there, there's nothing legitimate here, there must be politically motivated, there was no reason to open this investigation, it's a witch hunt. I mean, he says it openly. This is just a continuation of the witch hunt. And at the same time, back when they were in charge of the Justice Department appointing John Durham, who ends up trying to, you know, say that Hillary Clinton somehow framed him for Russia in the report, that didn't actually bring charges for that.

So there's a what aboutism or, you know, I'm rubber and your glue element to all of this noise that is just filling the airways right now, but it doesn't really get to what's happening.

TAPPER: And, Jackie, after the Alvin Bragg New York DA charges and indictment against Donald Trump, we did see a real rally round the flag sentiment among Republicans. And you know, to be frank, you know, it's not the strongest case in the world. We've noted that on this show before. A lot of legal experts talking about how they didn't think it was that strong, how there are questions about politicization.

Do you think we're going to see that even more with this? Or the charges here so serious it's going to be perceived differently?

KUCINICH: I mean, look, no further than the Republican field, other than perhaps Chris Christie or Asa Hutchinson.

TAPPER: Asa Hutchinson, Nikki Haley.

KUCINICH: And Nikki Haley. But I think the vast majority are not coming after Donald Trump for this. But also, we had reporters, the Boston Globe reporters in New Hampshire over the weekend, and you had voters there, again, small sampling, but you had voters there saying, I was thinking about DeSantis, but now I think I'm back with Trump because the DOJ is going -- because the government's going after him. So, you might see a bit more. It's early polling at this point, but looks like we're seeing it again.

TAPPER: We did see, again, not the same thing, but we did see some rally around the flag with Bill Clinton also when charges were brought against him, when the impeachment, et cetera. Again, I'm not saying it's the same thing.

All right, Charlie and Jackie, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Just how damaging could it be to the United States if those classified documents, such as the one you're looking at right now got into the wrong hands? We're going to explore that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:42:19]

TAPPER: And we're back with our law and justice lead in the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump. Trump is, of course, accused of mishandling classified documents after leaving office, he allegedly stored secrets on topics such as the country's nuclear capabilities in places such as this bathroom in Mar-a-Lago, a hotel and resort.

Joining us now to discuss the seriousness behind it all is Jamil Jaffer. He's the executive director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University.

Jamil, thank you so much for being here. So, let's go over this. In the indictment, there's a table listing out 31 classified documents Trump kept at his Florida Mar-a-Lago property. Twenty-one of those were marked top secret, which the federal government defines as exceptionally grave damage to national security should the information be exposed. What types of consequences are we talking about here?

JAMIL JAFFER, EXEC. DIR. NATL. SECURITY INSTITUTE, GEORGE MASON UNIV. SCALIA LAW SCHOOL: Well, you think about it, right? It's not just the top secret documents. There's another 10 of them that were compartmented, sensitive compartmented information, that means signals intelligence, human intelligence, and the like. On top of that, another eight in special access programs so sensitive that the actual trigraph, the descriptor of what kind of classified material it was is redacted out of the indictment. So we're talking about some of the most sensitive secrets the government has, some most sensitive collection methodologies.

So, simply putting those in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago, putting them on a stage at Mar-a-Lago, any of that, that's all crazy. These things must be kept in a sensitive compartment information facility under a locking key with an armed guard response right outside.

TAPPER: And that we should note, the classification codes on these documents included NF, which means no foreign, which means informational -- information cannot be released to foreign nationals, anyone not American. SI, special intelligence, these are some of the -- just some of the codes listed next to the 31 documents. Are there any that jump out to you in addition to the one that you couldn't even give the whole name of the file because of the top secret code word that could really harm national security, could actually put people's lives in danger?

JAFFER: Sure. There are some that are marked HCSP, Human Control System Product. That means the product of some human intelligence source. It's something a human who is in place in a foreign country giving us secrets from that country that is included in there. That means if that information is revealed, that country could know who that person is, take action against them, arrest them, even kill them.

TAPPER: We don't know anything in terms of who saw these documents other than what's in the indictment, in terms of him showing the document that supposedly shows battle plans, U.S. battle plans for attacking or invading Iran, and then another document that was a military map of some way, but obviously this was not a secure area --

JAFFER: Right.

TAPPER: -- Mar-a-Lago, and we know just from news reports of two Chinese nationals that were caught on property. One of them, I think, was deported to Hong Kong. We know of a woman who was like a con woman of some sort pretending to be a member of the Rothschild clan. I mean, I would think if I were a spy with North Korea, Russia, Iran, China, and Donald Trump went down there, I would think this is a target rich environment. I don't think it's a coincidence that two Chinese nationals showed up there.

[17:45:22]

JAFFER: No, I think that's exactly right. And I think that as we look at this, we'll see that there is evidence of foreign nationals trying to access the facility, not necessarily but they knew the classified documents were there. We didn't know. They may not have known, but they saw this as an opportunity to talk to people who had clearances, talk to people who might have had sensitive information and the like. And so I think we'll find that out that that was actually the case that intelligence officers targeted the Mar-a-Lago compound going forward.

But even beyond that, the real problem here, this is the kind of material that you store in a room under locking key inside a safe, inside a room that's alarmed with baffles around to prevent signals from getting out, and an armed guard response right outside if the room is breached, none of that. Not even close that was present at Mar-a-Lago.

TAPPER: And I mean, we saw Nikki Haley today talking about how her husband, who's in the South Carolina National Guard, he's going off to Africa.

JAFFER: Right.

TAPPER: And, like, this is the kind of thing that could put -- I mean, she implied his life in danger. That's true.

JAFFER: Absolutely. These special access programs are just the kind of programs that protect information about deployments just like that. These military maps that the president apparently showed people who didn't have security clearances, these military battle plans, these are exactly the kind of things that put American service members lives and intelligence officers lives at risk. Not to mention the human control stuff that puts our assets, people who are spying for us in foreign governments, at risk as well.

TAPPER: All right, Jamil Jaffer, thank you so much. Good to have you on.

Also, in our law and justice lead, a multimillion dollar settlement, a major bank will pay Jeffrey Epstein's victims. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [17:51:04]

TAPPER: JPMorgan Chase has tentatively agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by the survivors of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein for $290 million. Epstein died in prison soon after he was arrested in 2019. His death was ruled as suicide. The class action suit claims that the bank did business with Epstein for years despite internal concerns that he -- and reports that he was sex trafficking teenage girls and young women. CNN's Kara Scannell is following this case.

Kara, how will this money be split up?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, yes, $290 million, that's the amount that the bank has agreed to pay in this settlement. And this stems from a lawsuit brought in November by a Jane Doe. And she alleged that the bank turned a blind eye to a number of red flags, among them large cash withdrawals which in one year totaled more than $750,000. That is how authorities have alleged that Epstein paid both the minors, the underage girls that he abused, as well as those who recruited them.

So David Boyce, a lawyer for one of the victims, has said that he expects more than 100 survivors to seek compensation as part of this settlement, but the exact number is not yet known. That is all something that will be worked out. Boyce did call this a great day for survivors of Epstein and for justice. Now, a federal judge still has to approve this settlement and as part of it, the bank will not admit or deny any wrongdoing. Jake.

TAPPER: Well, that's the thing, because JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, he denies any real time knowledge about his bank's internal concerns over Epstein. But the bank still faces legal problems despite today's settlement, right?

SCANNELL: Yes, that's right. I mean, Dimon sat for 8 hours of a deposition last month saying that he did not know anything about this real time. But there is also still a lawsuit brought by the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, that's where Epstein owned an island in a property where a lot of this alleged sex trafficking took place. So they have sued the bank for the same thing, saying that they overlooked all of these red flags and that they didn't flag any of these suspicious transactions to authorities where if they had, it's possible the authorities might have been able to stop the sex trafficking operation. So that lawsuit still goes forward.

It's pretty heated back and forth in the court filings there, but that one is moving forward as well. And the bank is also suing one of their top executives who at the time had had a connection, a friendship with Epstein. So a lot of litigation here still continuing, Jake.

TAPPER: Yes. The question, of course, did they overlook it or was there just a lot of money that got in their eyes? Kara Scannell, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

A gruesome Google history is emerging in the case of that Utah mom accused of murdering her husband and then writing a bestselling children's book about grief. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:57:49]

TAPPER: Also in our law and justice lead, a judge today denied bail for the woman who, following the death of her husband, wrote a nationally respected children's book about dealing with grief. Authorities now say that Kouri Richins' husband, Eric, died because she murdered him. CNN's Camila Bernal has been through the latest court documents and watched today's court session. Among other things, Richins used her iPhone to search for, quote, what is a lethal dose of fentanyl. Really?

CAMILA BERNAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And that is just one of the many chilling searches that were revealed. Prosecutors say that this all happened after she gave her husband a lethal dose of fentanyl. And among those searches were not just the question that you just asked, but also things like, can cops force you to do a lie detector test, or luxury prisons for the rich in America, or death certificates say pending, will life insurance still pay? There were many, many of these questions.

And the prosecution put a number of witnesses on the stand today, including the people that went over the searches that looked at the data, that looked at her movements the day that he died. And also a financial expert was put on the stand to talk about the death, to talk about the life insurance policy money, the fact that she got about $1.3 million after Eric's death. So the prosecution pointed to that as essentially the motive here for his death, for the killing of Eric. And the defense also putting essentially their arguments out in the open for the first time through these documents and this hearing, saying essentially that being bad with money doesn't force someone to kill someone or doesn't make you a killer. Also saying that the testimony from the drug dealer has evolved and saying, look, she essentially doesn't make sense and she's being told what to say by officers.

And it was really interesting to see here the judge denying her request for bail, but also saying and citing a lot of the prosecution arguments and evidence. Now, it is important to point out that Eric's sister also gave an impact statement and she just said that she is devastated as well as her family and ask the judge to protect their children, Jake.

TAPPER: Just a horrifying story. Camila Bernal, thank you so much.

You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Bluesky, if you have an invite. And I'm back on the TikTok. That's all @jaketapper. You can tweet the show @theleadcnn.

Our coverage continues now with one, Mr. Wolf Blitzer, in the Situation Room. I will see you after the twon hall with Chris Christie, which is tonight at 8:00 with Anderson Cooper. See you then.