Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Justice Department Opposes Trump's Plea for Special Master; Last Leader of Soviet Union Dies at Age 91; Mississippi's Largest City in Crisis as Water Supply Fails. Aired 12-1a ET

Aired August 31, 2022 - 00:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:00:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Quite clear that there were documents sort of scattered all over Mar-a-Lago that Donald Trump's team lies.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: (INAUDIBLE) punch in the face.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, that's a colloquial way of putting it. I'll agree with that.

But it shows there was documents all over the place. They're clearly marked top secret. DOJ tried everything before this search warrant. And essentially, they were misled.

I mean, it's really compelling to me that the subpoena was served and they got certain documents back and then they do the search for and they immediately find double the amount.

LEMON: Well, thank you, everyone. I appreciate it. Our breaking news coverage is going to continue. I'm Don Lemon. Thanks for watching. John Vause up next.

[00:00:40]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

JOHN VAUSE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, I'm John Vause at the CNN Center in Atlanta with more now on the breaking news on the FBI search of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

The U.S. Justice Department has just filed its response, opposing Trump's request for a special master to review all materials taken from his home.

The judge had already signaled her preliminary intent to allow a neutral third party, typically a retired judge to review the documents.

The former president's attorneys claimed a special master is necessary to ensure the Justice Department returns any of Trump's private belongings and documents covered by attorney-client privilege. But the Justice Department has indicated it's already using an

internal filter team to review everything which was seized by the FBI.

To Washington now, CNN's Political Correspondent Sara Murray live this hour. So, Sara just in broad brushstrokes, what are we looking at here in terms of the response by the DOJ?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we are looking at, you know, overall, in terms of the legal argument, the Justice Department opposing what Donald Trump is looking for, which is a special master, an independent third party to overview these documents.

The Justice Department is saying, look, after this search, they date on the president's residence at Mar-a-Lago in August, they've already gone through those materials. They've already had a filter team set up to move any potentially privileged materials and they're saying, a special master is not necessary in this case.

But they're also shedding a lot of light on what they took when they went to Mar-a-Lago. They said they seized over 100 unique documents with classified markings.

And this is important because this came after Donald Trump, we know there was already this subpoena issued for these documents to be handed over. They're saying that when the FBI went in, when they did this search in August, they recovered twice as many documents as the Trump team handed over in response to the subpoena.

So, the Justice Department is casting a lot of doubt on the fact that there was actually a diligent search on behalf of Trump and his representatives to hand over all these classified documents.

They included a photo in this filing that sort of shows these documents with these classified cover pages to give a sense of, you know, sort of the scope of what they found, when they went in in that search in August.

And they also pointed out in their filing that they believe documents were likely concealed or removed from a storage room in Mar-a-Lago in order to obstruct this investigation.

And you know, this is -- was an important filing for the Justice Department, they asked for additional pages when they put it before the judge because they wanted to sort of lay out not only their legal argument for why they do not think a special master is necessary in this case, but they also wanted to sort of lay out the timeline of events here.

And in particular rebut what the Trump team has been saying in their filings. The Trump team has been saying that the former president was very cooperative, gave the Justice Department everything they were asking for and what the Justice Department is saying in this filing is that was not the case when they showed up there in August.

VAUSE: Sara, thank you. Sara Murray there with the overview of what's in that filing and the important bits. Thank you, Sara. Let's bring in CNN Legal Analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot

Williams, also CNN National Security Analyst, Juliette Kayyem. Thanks to you both for being with us.

Elliot, I want to begin with you. When we looked at the filing, you know, it was extra pages that was requested, they had a maximum of 20, they went for 40. Double was normally allowed.

So, when you look at the detail, we've seen the summary of the -- of the filing, some of the details there. What's your immediate takeaway from the importance of this filing and the likelihood of success?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, well, so, it's not uncommon for parties to get a page limit raised on a -- on a filing in court, partly because in a situation like this, these are issues that have never come up before in American law, just think about how unique it is or the fact that it is unique that you have a former president accused of having mishandled documents, perhaps having broken the law.

And this presents a number of very complex legal questions of number one, how -- sort of what to do with documents once they're taken back from the president, or who's entitled to them, and so on. It's quite complex. So number one, that's on the page limits point.

Number two, as Sara Murray had just noted a moment ago, this suggestion of obstruction of justice, which they really in clear terms lay out. Now, it's certainly this is not an accusation of a crime against the president or anyone else, but they do define and lay out instances where they believe that someone at Mar-a-Lago, whether it was the president or someone else sought to form an active open criminal investigation and that is incredibly serious. And perhaps it ends in criminal charges. We'll just have to see.

[00:05:26]

VAUSE: So, Juliette to you on that point, on the obstruction of justice point, if someone at Donald Trump's residents tried to obstruct justice on the investigation here. Ultimately, does that mean that Donald Trump is responsible for this?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: No, not necessarily. As Elliott was saying, it's who that allegation is against, we don't know. It's just the reason why the Department of Justice raised it was because -- was to essentially justify to the magistrate why they had to go in with a search warrant, because they no longer had confidence in Trump's legal teams representations that they had handed over everything.

And you know, you don't have to second guess it, it ends up being true, right? They then go in, FBI goes in with a search warrant, and finds twice as much stuff as they anticipated, because of either misrepresentations, lack of knowledge, or obstruction of justice by Trump or his lawyers about what was still at Mar-a-Lago after that initial series of conversations in which some of the information was given back. So, in many ways, you know, this picture that's at the very end, I

know, we've shown it of the filing. It's sort of shocking and the carelessness, right? I think it's -- I think the Department of Justice wanted to show look, this is at best, this is a very careless person.

But also, if you look at the markings on the documents, these are the most sensitive documents that the American government retains and holds. They are -- what people have to remember is, you are only really supposed to view them in either skiffs or secure facilities or the Oval Office places in which are that are highly secure. And the reason why is because it's not simply the content of them sources, methods, foreign intelligence, assistance, you know, things that will implicate America's national security interests, is that you also don't want them duplicated.

And so, I actually went away from this picture, just thinking, you know, we don't know who had an iPhone, and is texting this difference, right? It's not just these documents, it's the -- it's the pictures, the potential duplication of these documents, that then makes it almost impossible to control sort of who their distribution is.

So, this is a big -- this is a big national security challenge for the Biden administration. Because if you're an ally, if you're an intelligence agent, if you're an enemy, you're looking at this at the filing which is disclosing a very, very, as I say, at best careless retention of classified information.

But you're also wondering, you know, what kind of damage has been done to our capabilities and to plans and programs that help protect not just the United States interests, but our allies interests.

So, this is a pretty strong document against all the claims being made by Trump and his team that you've heard over the last couple of weeks.

VAUSE: Yes, and I came to you as if anyone knows that Harry Litman, former U.S. attorney has joined us here. So, good to have you with us, Harry.

I want to get your take on this because it seemed that before the filing was made the Department of Justice, you know, in a way Juliette touched on this wanted to set the record straight from some of the erroneous and misleading claims that were coming from the Trump legal team.

If you look at this filing, how successful -- how successfully have they been at doing that?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: I'd say pretty successful and half of the whole filing goes to facts.

And by the way, once again, it's because Trump led with his chin. What they say up front is you're a new judge that Trump just plucked, you know, and dumped a new filing on, you hadn't seen the affidavit, for that reason, we've got to develop some of the facts and give them to you.

So, their whole justification for revealing more of the record is that Trump himself went sort of forum shopping.

And yes, the fact -- I mean, Juliette, the picture does speak a thousand words. But imagine that we're all done. And you go back in the search and find twice as many as they gave you in the first place.

So, the facts I think, are very strong and put the lie to what is the leading kind of factual claim in Trump's submission to the court. We were cooperative all the way through it basically blows that factual submission to smithereens. Then there's the whole legal argument, which in if anything is even stronger.

[00:10:05]

VAUSE: There's also the point that was made by in his filing that essentially the work of the special master has already been done. And this is from the summary of the filing.

LITMAN: Right.

VAUSE: In any event, the government's filter team has already completed its work of segregating any seized materials that are potentially subject to attorney-client privilege. And the government's investigative team has already reviewed all other remaining materials.

In other words, it's already done. So, Elliott, does this sort of go to the part of the argument that by making this request, the Trump team is essentially engaging in delaying tactics?

WILLIAMS: Yes, I think that's exactly right. So, backing up a little bit for our international friends who are -- who are viewing this right now, the way a special master typically works is that when a search happens, and they uncovered what are called attorney-client privilege documents, communications between an individual and their attorneys, they will figure out some way of dealing with those documents, so law enforcement can't really use them in a criminal proceeding.

This is a little bit different. This is what's called were what the president is asserting is what's called executive privilege, somehow that by being a former president, his papers or documents or things that he touched cannot be made available to other areas of the government. It's an odd argument.

Needless to say, even if he had a point here, and even if he were correct on this executive privilege point, the Justice Department has had these documents since August 8th, and they've been reviewing them, and filing them, collating them, whatever it might be. Any request for some other party to come in and start segregating documents and taking them apart is moot. Because the Justice Department has already gotten access to them.

So, yes, it does appear like this is, at best, an attempt to delay and slow down the proceedings here.

VAUSE: And we also heard from Trump's lawyer speaking to Fox News on apparent issues they have with the Department of Justice here he is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM TRUSTY, ATTORNEY FOR FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have a lot of problems really accepting everything at face value that's coming out of DOJ these days. It's a very politicized place. I'm sad to say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: Juliette, to you, Jim Trusty, I think his name is. You know, that is his claim which is sweeping and damning at the same time, backed up there you know, with absolutely no evidence at all. Where does it come from?

KAYYEM: Well, I mean, they don't -- it's very interesting to see how the Trump team is trying to defend him. I mean, a lot of it is just sort of throwing everything at the wall. And the DOJ's political Biden, why didn't they do Hillary? All the things that you know, that you've been hearing over the last couple of weeks.

So, he can -- he can declassify anything he wants, regardless of who it might harm or who might be dead because of it. I mean, just everything at the wall, because, they knew -- let's just put it this way. They knew that the information we're learning tonight would eventually come out. And there was the ways in which they hid, denied, delayed the appropriate re-retention essentially by the United States government of its most secret documents.

And so, I don't really take much from those kinds of arguments about whether DOJ is being political. This is all being overseen by judges, some Democrat appointed, some Republican appointed.

But I think it goes to a different issue, which is that the national security implications of this, the substantive issue that we're talking about is impossible for Trump team to defend.

It is at this stage, they know it, you can't -- you can't say these documents don't mean anything. You can't say documents that retain information about human intelligence assets, who are helping us, documents about our allies, and our enemies aren't important.

So, instead, they're going after, you know, well, this is just political. So, it's very important that this brief tonight is finally today, as well as talking about the consequences of what Trump did really focus on this is about the United States national security interests today.

And I think there's a line in the filing that was so straightforward that, you know, you just have to -- but truthful which is essentially says these are not Donald Trump's documents.

I mean, this is not a question of he had something and we want it. He has something that's not his and we need it back because it contains the secrets to protect Americans, to protect us and our allies who are watching right now wondering what their what -- how their intelligence capabilities also been made vulnerable by what Trump has done. VAUSE: And Harry to you, you know, the old saying, if the law is on your side, argue the law, if the facts are on your side, argue the facts, if you don't have either one, bang the table. Trump's team has been banging the table fairly loudly.

And now, we've got this filing for the DOJ, which sort of puts everything into perspective about exactly what has been going on for the last what year or so.

[00:15:09]

LITMAN: Yes, and look, the number one point is what Juliette just said, and it's really the leading legal point for DOJ too. He's a citizen. He has zero entitlement or at least no entitlement superior to anyone else. So, it's -- he's trying somewhat casually, his motion doesn't exactly say what sort of privilege he's even seeking.

But it just cannot be, it fails as a matter of logic for all the reasons that Juliette says it fails blatantly as a matter of law. The law is really clear, these documents, not just -- not just our public documents, they belong in the Archives for -- because of their -- and you know, and they're classified that could do damage.

So, it doesn't -- the danger of this of his motion and her odd kind of indication maybe I'll grant a special master is that it would up end and put back on the footing that Trump has been seeking the whole time of executive privilege.

And the DOJ just slices through that legally and factually. And legally, it says, look, they're not his, he can't even bring a lawsuit. There's -- he has no interest in these. They don't -- they don't belong to him at all.

If and when he's charged, he can make any claim he wants to, you know, under the law, but for now, he's a guy who has documents, he's a citizen who has documents that he has no business having, period.

VAUSE: OK, with that, we'll take a short break. Elliot Williams, Juliette Kayyem, Harry Litman, thank you so much for being with us.

We begin our coverage here, we will take a short break, back in a moment. You're watching CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:20:59]

VAUSE: 20 minutes past the hour. Welcome back, everyone. We are following breaking news about the Justice Department's filing on why a special master, an independent review of evidence seized by the FBI from Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate is not needed. This is the response to a filing by the Trump team.

Let's go back now to CNN National Security Analyst Juliette Kayyem, former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, thank you for staying with us. And Juliette to you, the prosecutor has included a photo of the front

cover of the documents with markings classified. What was your initial reaction when you saw that? And do you have an example of what sort of intelligence or information in a general sense would be marked that way?

KAYYEM: So, OK, so I mean, we don't know what those documents were laid out for the picture. But what we do know is that they're not in a protected facility or in any ways protected. The way it's described is that these documents are essentially just lying around is really the technical term to put it.

So, those documents just from my experience, the red ones, and they're careful to protect what the markings on would be the sort of top secret and colloquial terms, there's different markings. But the information that would disclose sources and methods. Why is that important? Because a lot of information that's classified, lower classifications levels might be about sort of intelligence concerns or generic fears about you know, there's a rising terror threat, or we're concerned about China, X, Y and Z.

What these documents contain is information that would be relevant for president to know that say things like, you know, we have 12, you know, human assets that have infiltrated al-Qaeda or ISIS, they are doing this and telling us that, right?

So, in other words, it gets to the sources and methods or it might describe an intelligence gathering method we have, were able to capture the telephone communications of Putin, or whatever it is, right?

These are the things that you don't want to disclose your enemies or even to us, even to the public, because they go to sort of how are we collecting this information?

So, that's what those documents are just to tell you. You wouldn't see those documents in the light of day at any stage, you wouldn't see them in a way in which they could be duplicated, which is a primary concern, you wouldn't see them with your phone. In other words, you have to give up your phone to see information like this.

And then, the rest of the stuff in the picture is somewhat redacted. You really can't see its classification level. But the picture is -- you suddenly can't justify it. Right?

This information does not belong to Donald Trump. He is a private citizen, you should not retain this information. The information contains the highest levels of secrecy about America's sources and methods and our intelligence gathering capabilities. And here they are at a hotel that is open to the public, being held by a former president whose lawyers had already told us that they retained none of this information. It's a -- it's a -- it's a narrative they'll try to get out of but that's basically what DOJ is saying.

VAUSE: And Harry, there are a range of reasons we can speculate all day long as to why these documents would end up at Mar-a-Lago. But in terms of prosecutions and crimes which have been committed, what's on the far end of seriousness and what's on the low end of maybe not so serious in terms of prosecution?

LITMAN: It's all serious. Once he knows that he has them and refuses to return them. Yes, it would be even -- your head spins to see this in the first place. And maybe it spins two times if he's actually trying in some way to parlay this into an advantage or sell it, you know, but it's absolutely unnecessary in terms of the crime. The crime is just what Juliette said.

I want to make one point about a skiff, anyone who's ever been in them sees this picture and like has a heart attack, you have to leave your phone out. You can't bring it in not simply so you don't take pictures.

[00:25:02]

A good -- a skilled adversary potentially, if you bring your phone and can themselves take pictures or overhear things. I mean, we are talking about very wicked and ingenious adversaries and you know, documents strewn around on the floor. Just leave it with you know in a complete cold sweat thinking about it.

But to get to your question, it doesn't matter, the crime here, the obstruction is he took them, he knew he didn't have a right to take them. He lied about having given them all up. That's the -- when he knew there was an investigation afoot, that's serious enough, that's obstruction, an actual 20-year maximum in the federal code. That's -- you know, whether or not there's a further like crazy Manchurian Candidate scenario here or not, it doesn't matter.

VAUSE: And Juliette, one of the things that's been raised by Republicans and supporters of the former president is the timing here. 100 days before midterms, now suddenly, this all comes up into the watch.

When you look at the filing by the DOJ, do they kind of address the why now factor here? The fact that it's taken so long and why it's happening at this point, so close to the midterm elections?

KAYYEM: Yes. And so, I think that that's important, because one of the narratives that you're hearing by Trump team is, is both it's closest to a midterm election.

But if the stuff were that important, why did they wait that long? And so, what DOJ does is in the filing is it extends the lens a little bit and says, wait a second, this just didn't happen on some day. And we decided we were just going to show up, it shows months and months of a couple things of negotiation or discussion, but also just a clear statement that they were essentially lied to, and that we don't know who lied to them. But they were essentially told that all the -- they had the documents, they then came to learn that there were plenty of classified documents that were still at Mar-a-Lago that then started a new round, that round then comes up short, and then they go to the judge. Once they decide to go to the judge, though, then everything happens fast. There's no delay. Judge returns the search warrant within hours that they wait a few days to go in. It's a weekend. They clearly did that, people are forgetting this.

They clearly did that because they wanted Trump not at Mar-a-Lago. Trump at that stage has gone up to New York, because he has another court case he had to deal with in terms of a deposition.

So, they were being smart. You don't want Trump there. It's not -- they wouldn't help anyone in terms of what was happening, and then everything moves quickly.

So, I think it's really important that both the DOJ started as it should or National Archives started as they should start it. They're essentially denied, delayed, lied to, obstructed. Then, they go to a court and then everything happens quickly.

So, and once again, the documents are not Trump's to keep. This is not a question of he has something that they want. This is a question of he has something that he has DOJ makes clear that are not his.

VAUSE: I think it's important once again to hear from Trump's lawyer trying to explain why they believe a special master or an independent reviewer or counsel or whatever third party is actually needed from their point of view to review this evidence, here he is again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUSTY: There's still a need for a judge to get involved on every aspect of this checking. There's assertions of privilege, but also giving us fair timely access, letting us build a case for why this search warrant was not only essentially morally wrong, but legally wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: Harry, that was 39 words. Is anything in there actually correct, or is this mostly wrong and misleading?

LITMAN: No luck. So, two points, they have plenty of time to do it. If and when they're charged. That's first.

Second, there is a person who does that thing that is called the magistrate judge. And there are a small number of documents and the affidavit itself actually gives the procedure, it's very simple.

Finally, I just say it's not a matter of trust. If the DOJ were to mess up here and somebody on the trial team as opposed to the taint team were actually to be exposed to attorney-client privilege. It's a death rate, that person is off the case, there's every incentive for the department to do it right.

So, you know, I think it's -- I think it's sort of wrong about six different ways.

VAUSE: Harry Litman, Juliette Kayyem, thank you guys for staying with us, we appreciate it.

In the meantime, we'll take a short break. When we come back, we'll have a lot more on the U.S. department's response to Donald Trump's special master request to review evidence seized from Mar-a-Lago by the FBI. We're following this slightly breaking story right here on CNN. We are live 29 minutes past the hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VAUSE: Welcome back, everyone. Coming up to 34 minutes past the hour. I'm John Vause. You're watching CNN NEWSROOM.

[00:34:13]

More now on breaking news. The new details on the FBI search of Donald Trump's Florida home have been revealed in a court filing by the Justice Department, which argues against a request by Trump's legal team to appoint a special master to review documents and evidence which was seized from his home.

The Justice Department lawyers argue Trump lacked standing over presidential records, because they're the property of the U.S. government and do not belong to him.

In addition, lawyers say the documents were likely concealed and removed from a storage room at Mar-a-Lago as part of an effort to obstruct the FBI's investigation.

For more, we go to Los Angeles. Civil rights attorney and CNN legal analyst Areva Martin is with us this hour. So Areva, thank you for being with us. If we look at the new -- new details here, there's that claim of both possible obstruction of justice that these documents were taken from somewhere and moved to another place, so the FBI wouldn't find them. How serious is that?

[00:35:05]

AREVA MARTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Very serious, John. And we are hearing in great detail about what happened to those documents. And we know that FBI agents went to Mar-a-Lago, and they didn't find all of these documents in some sealed location. There were actual documents found in the private office of Donald Trump, inside desks, in that private office.

We also know that the statement submitted to the Department of Justice in June by Trump lawyers is completely false. The statement that said that they had done a search and review and that they were turning over all of the top-secret documents.

We know that the FBI went in and recovered over 100 documents, more documents recovered by that search than what were turned in by the attorney, who submitted that there had been this diligent search.

So it just appears that documents were everywhere in this private residence, documents that do not belong to Donald Trump. These are government documents, many of which should have never left certain locations inside the White House.

And this long, prolonged period that Donald Trump and others engaged in, in obfuscating and refusing to turn over documents, have all been laid out now in this 36-page filing by the Department of Justice.

VAUSE: Yes, and within that 36 pages, there was expected to be a very lengthy filing. And one of the main points from the summary seems to be this. "Plaintiff," as in Donald Trump, "is showing no basis for the court to grant injunctive relief. Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits; he will suffer no injury absent an injunction -- let alone an irreparable injury; and the harms to the government and the public would far outweigh any benefit to the plaintiff."

So that's the pushback, right, in terms of the law. There's no real argument here, legally, for this special master.

MARTIN: Absolutely, John. And underlying that argument by the Department of Justice is basically, hey, look, we've already gone through these documents, a very detailed process of review of the documents was laid out when that search warrant was granted by the original judge.

An affidavit was submitted along with the request for a search warrant, laying out a process that would be used by various teams within the Department of Justice to review those documents.

So, the Department of Justice is saying the train has already left the station. We got these documents over two weeks ago. We've already reviewed them, and there is just a small portion of these top-secret documents that, arguably, may be attorney-client privilege. And they were already separated out. Those documents have already been identified.

So, the Department of Justice has said, This is just a complete waste of time. It's unnecessary. And it's not going to change the results, because the review of the documents has already occurred.

VAUSE: We don't know specifically what the classified information is within these documents. We just know it's marked classified. If there is a possible way of linking these missing documents, that were taken, allegedly, by Donald Trump and found at Mar-a-Lago, to some kind of breach of national security, what happens then?

MARTIN: It just makes the legal jeopardy that Trump and others are even more significant. We already know from this 36-page filing, John, that the department believes there's been obstruction of justice, that the department believes that there have been efforts to conceal, to hide, to not cooperate with a legitimate DOJ investigation.

So, if there is some risk assessment done, and we know that's actually being done inside the government at this moment, and there's a determination that somehow those documents ended up in the hands of some adversary, or that they put some of the U.S. assets at risk, it only increases the legal jeopardy that Trump is, apparently, from this filing, already in. VAUSE: And according to the former Nixon White House counsel and CNN

contributor John Dean, the DOJ response, apart from anything else, was this attempt, essentially, to set the record straight. Here he is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: They felt that they had to address the facts that were not properly laid out in the Trump brief, and the law was not properly laid out.

And I think the other thing they want to do is knock down the idea that there is executive privilege here. There is none under the law. And it is a fantasy that Trump doesn't seem to understand that you can't invoke executive privilege against the executive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VAUSE: So, just on that last point, just explain, essentially, what he's talking about about executive privilege, and you can't claim executive as an ex-executive. Over to you.

MARTIN: Yes, two kinds of privileges come up frequently when we're talking about Donald Trump and his legal filings. And one is attorney- client privilege.

And those are communications between an attorney and the client. And those are sacrosanct. Those are absolutely confidential, and the government said there were a small number of documents that may fall into that category.

And then there is this broad term that Trump likes to use -- or he likes to use it broadly, is the concept of executive privilege. The problem that Trump has is that the executive privilege that belongs to the president is not applicable to the former president.

[00:40:15]

That privilege belongs to the current president, which happens to be Joe Biden, not Donald Trump. And when he left the White House and was no longer president, he lost his ability to claim executive privilege.

And that's a privilege that allows the president to talk to his top advisers and to be able to have communications that are open and honest and not have to worry about those communications being shared with others outside of the close-knit circle of the president.

But that exists for the sole purpose of the president of the United States conducting business on behalf of the government. Donald Trump is like any other former employee of the U.S. government. He no longer enjoys any rights and benefits or privileges that would prevent him from being held accountable for criminal activity in the same way that others who have left the government are not above the law and are subject to penalties if they engage in criminal activity.

VAUSE: Areva, a good point to finish on. Thanks for being with us. Areva Martin there, civil rights attorney and a CNN legal analyst. Thank you.

MARTIN: Thanks, John.

VAUSE: We'll take a short break. When we come back, one of the most important figures of the late 20th Century has died. We'll take a look back at the life and legacy of the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:45:27]

VAUSE: The last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has died at age 91. His policies at times were radical, like glasnost, meant to increase openness and transparency in society and government, a society which became old and stale under the Soviet system. And perestroika, restructure and reformed a stagnant Soviet economy.

He also engaged with then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan. He also allowed Soviet satellites and republicans to break away, setting up the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Cold War.

U.S. President Joe Biden paid tribute to the late Soviet leader, writing this: "Few high-level Soviet officials had the courage to admit that things needed to change. As leader of the USSR, he worked with President Reagan to reduce our two countries' nuclear arsenals, to the relief of people worldwide, praying for an end to the nuclear arms race."

Gorbachev led the way to opening up the USSR to the world. He ended the ongoing threat of nuclear annihilation. CNN's Matthew Chance has more now on a transformative Soviet leader.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With that port stain birthmark on his forehead, Mikhail Gorbachev was one of the most recognizable figures in 20th Century politicians.

His attempts to reform the Soviet Union and his role in ending the Cold War made him one of its most influential, too.

As a Young man, Gorbachev studied law at Moscow State University. It's there he met and married fellow student Raisa Titarenko. He went on to forge a career in the Communist Party, eventually, age 54, becoming its general secretary, the leader of the Soviet Union.

It was in this role that Gorbachev and his wife broke the mold. He for his outgoing, charismatic nature; Raisa for her stylish outfits and for the unheard-of elegance she brought to the role of Soviet first lady.

The vast communist nation they ruled was on the brink of crisis amid shortages of food and consumer goods. The Soviet command economy was grinding to a halt. There was also alarm at the apparently slow response of the Soviet authorities to the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl.

Gorbachev tried to fix things with what he called perestroika and glasnost, reforms that were supposed to revolutionize the Soviet system.

GORBACHEV (through translator): I began these reforms, and my guiding stars were freedom and democracy, without bloodshed. So the people wouldn't cease to be heard. Led by a shepherd, they would become citizens.

CHANCE (voice-over): There was revolution, too, in relations with the West. Face-to-face with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev made the stunning proposal to eliminate all nuclear missiles held by the two superpowers.

It was the beginning of the end of the Cold War. Soon, the Berlin Wall would fall. And after a failed coup by hard-liners in Moscow, the Soviet Union itself was dissolved, and Gorbachev resigned.

GORBACHEV (through translator): I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of president of the USSR.

CHANCE (voice-over): In 1999, he lost the love of his life, his wife for 46 years, Raisa, who died of leukemia.

But there was no love lost between many Russians and Gorbachev. To many of his countrymen, he would always be the man who allowed the great Soviet empire to collapse, exposing millions to hardship and humiliation. Even Gorbachev himself expressed regret.

GORBACHEV (through translator): I fought the best I could to defend the Soviet Union, but I failed.

CHANCE (voice-over): But in the West, he was revered and celebrated as a great statesman. A Nobel Peace Prize winner who played a decisive role in ending the Cold War, peacefully defusing the most dangerous standoff of the 20th Century.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAUSE: Matthew Chance with that report.

Now, in the Mississippi capital, they lined up for hours waiting for clean water, only to be turned away. When we come back, why Jackson, Mississippi, now being described as the next Flint, Michigan.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[00:53:45]

VAUSE: Right now, the biggest city in Mississippi does not have enough clean water for drinking, or enough water for sanitation, and not enough water to fight fires.

Residents of Jackson waited in a mile-long line for hours Tuesday for bottled water, only to be turned away. The main water treatment facility has failed, finally giving out after years of systemic issues, all made worse by torrential rain in recent weeks.

Details now from CNN's Ryan Young, reporting in from Jackson, Mississippi.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not safe to brush your teeth with it.

RYAN YOUNG, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A dire situation in Jackson, Mississippi.

GOV. TATE REEVES (R-MS): We were told on Friday that there was no way to predict exactly when, but that it was a near certainty that Jackson would fail to produce running water sometime in the next several weeks or months, if something did not materially improve.

YOUNG (voice-over): Water issues are not new to Jackson, Mississippi. Years of neglect at the aged water system have led to numerous problems. And residents have been under some sort of boiled water notice or advisory several times in the last year alone, after a 2021 winter storm shut down the entire system.

This time, the recent flooding in the South bringing their system to the brink. The city maintains they just don't have the financial resources to make repairs on the antiquated system.

MAYOR CHOKWE ANTAR LUMUMBA (D), JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI: We don't have the funds in order to deal with 30 years of neglect.

[00:55:06]

YOUNG (voice-over): Damage to the main water system this summer led officials to believe that it would lead inevitably to the system's complete failure. Monday, it did. Back-up pumps are running, but the governor says they lack enough water to fight fires or flush toilets.

Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves tweeting today that the state has requested a federal declared disaster and offered the state to pay half of the repairs needed, if the city covers the other half.

He also declared a state of emergency for the city and up to 4,500 National Guard members have been activated, scrambling to distribute water to residents who are frustrated and scared.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's just something that's an ongoing problem that needs to be corrected, and we're hoping we're headed in the right direction.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's almost always something going on with the boil water notices, or now with us, all of a sudden shortage. It's just kind of scary, because we don't know if anything is going to get done or when it's going to get done.

YOUNG (voice-over): Now, a possible special meeting of the legislature to try to come up with the funding to fix the situation.

LUMUMBA: I don't want to hypothesize on why it has taken this long. I'm just grateful that the relief has -- has arrived.

YOUNG (voice-over): Frustrated residents hoping that this time, it's true.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So I mean, whatever Jackson got going on, they need to get that right. It's very frustrating. It is very frustrating to have to fight for some water.

YOUNG (voice-over): Ryan Young, CNN, Jackson, Mississippi.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

VAUSE: Thank you for watching CNN NEWSROOM, I'm John Vause. Please stay with us. I'll be back with a lot more news after a very short break. You're watching CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)