JOINED BY CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND NBC NEWS ANALYST KENNY CEBALLOS. WHILE THIS FOR THESE COUNTS. WHAT IS THE FORMER PRESIDENT FACING IN THIS INDICTMENT? >> IS FACING A DEVASTATING PORTRAIT OF WILLFUL MISUSE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. I HAVE COVERED A LOT OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT CASES. I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN INDICTMENT AS DETAILED AND AS POWERFUL AS THIS ONE. YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD MENTION OBVIOUSLY DONALD TRUMP IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, BUT THE DETAILS IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE AMAZING. FIRST OF ALL, THE IMPACT IN THE MOMENT OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT HE HAD AND IN PARAGRAPH THREE OF THE INDICTMENT IT SAYS THE DOCUMENTS TRUMP HAD INCLUDE INFORMATION REGARDING DEFENSE AND WEAPONS CAPABILITIES OF BOTH UNITED STATES AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES, THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR PROGRAM, POTENTIAL VULNERABILITIES OF THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES TO MILITARY ATTACK AND PLANS FOR POSSIBLE RETALIATION IN RESPONSE TO A FOREIGN ATTACK AND THE POSSIBLE EXPOSURE OF THESE DOCUMENTS RISKS YOUR SECURITY, FORCES AND METHODS. IT SAYS THAT ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS DONALD TRUMP DID DISSEMINATE CLASSIFIED MATERIALS AND TO PEOPLE WHO DID NOT HAVE CLEARANCE TO SEE IT. IN ONE CASE THERE IS A RECORDING OF IT AND A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT RECORDING LAID OUT IN THIS INDICTMENT. THERE'S ALSO A TRANSCRIPT WE KNOW WAS MADE BY ONE OF DONALD TRUMP'S LAWYERS SO THERE'S SO MANY REMARKABLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE IN THIS THAT YOU DO NOT NORMALLY SEE IN A CASE LIKE THIS. JUST FOR CONTEXT, LAST WEEK IN AIR FORCE COLONEL WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN PRISON IN A CASE WHERE HE WAS CONVICTED OF TAKING ABOUT 300 CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS HOME OVER A COURSE OF YEARS. NO ALLEGATIONS THAT HE SHARED THE DOCUMENTS WITH ANYONE. NO ALLEGATIONS THAT HE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE. HE GOT THREE YEARS. THIS CASE IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CONSPIRACY IS A WHOLE PART OF THE CASE THAT ALLEGEDLY DONALD TRUMP CONSPIRED WITH HIS BODY MAN, WALT NAUTA, TO CONCEAL AND ENLISTED LAWYERS IN THE SCHEME TO CONCEAL THE FACT THAT HE HAD THESE DOCUMENTS EVEN AFTER THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAME AFTER HIM WITH A SUBPOENA AND WHAT YOU SEE AS YOU READ THROUGH THESE INDICTMENTS IS THAT NONE OF THIS HAD TO HAPPEN. IF DONALD TRUMP AND SIMPLY GIVEN THESE DOCUMENTS BACK THE FIRST TIME HE WAS ASKED, THIS CASE WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED AND WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY. >> AND THIS IS CALLED A SPEAKING INDICTMENT, OF COURSE, AND AS YOU LOOK FORWARD IT REALLY TAKES A LOT TO TELL THE STORY HERE. HOW DOES THIS FEEL DIFFERENT THAN THE HUSH MONEY INDICTMENT UP IN NEW YORK? >> NOT TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM THAT INDICTMENT, THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE, IT'S AN IMPORTANT ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULE OF LAW IN NEW YORK, BUT THAT WAS VERY TECHNICAL. IT WAS HOT I A DEMOCRATIC ELECTED PROSECUTOR AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, EVEN THE MOST MODERATE ANTI-TRUMP REPUBLICANS DISMISSED THAT INDICTMENT AS A POLITICAL ATTACK. WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THAT WAS THEIR REACTION. THIS IS GOING TO BE MUCH HARDER TO DO WITH THIS FEDERAL INDICTMENT ALTHOUGH PEOPLE OBVIOUSLY ARE DOING IT BECAUSE THIS WAS AN INDICTMENT WROUGHT BY A CAREER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR WHO IS NOT UNDER THE DAY-TO-DAY SUPERVISION OF MERRICK GARLAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. HE COULD'VE BLOCKED ANY ACTION BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR JACK SMITH IF IT WAS SO'S OUTSIDE THE ACTION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT IT SHOULD NOT GO FORWARD. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. THAT IS WHY YOU SAW JACK SMITH TODAY, NOT MERIT GARLAND, GIVING THAT STATEMENT AT HIS SEPARATE OFFICES AWAY FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THAT IS WHY THIS FEELS DIFFERENT AND ALSO, IT IS A FEDERAL CASE AND SO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE DONALD TRUMP SURRENDERS ON TUESDAY IS THIS REMARKABLE PICTURE OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT, THE MAN WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOW BEING FINGERPRINTED AND HIS MUG SHOT BEING TAKEN AND HIS PASSPORT TAKEN AWAY BY THE VERY GOVERNMENT HE IS TO LEAD. >> CAN, WALT NAUTA, THE BODY MAN, HE HAS ALSO BEEN INDICTED. >> WHAT THEY SAY IS THAT HE HELPED DONALD TRUMP CONCEAL THE FACT THAT HE HAD MANY MORE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS THAN HE WAS WILLING TO LET ON, AND MOVED DOCUMENTS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT WAS TRYING TO FIND THEM, SO BEFORE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CAME DOWN TO VISIT, THIS INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT WALT NAUTA TOOK MORE THAN 60 DOCUMENTS OF BOXES OUTSIDE OF THAT FAMOUS STORAGE ROOM IN MAR- A-LAGO AND WE KNOW FROM OUR OWN REPORTING THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GAVE WALT NAUTA AND HIS LAWYERS A CHANCE TO COME CLEAN AND COOPERATE AND HE REFUSED TO DO IT AND HIS LAWYERS ARE BEING PAID BY A DONALD TRUMP POLITICAL ORGANIZATION SO RIGHT NOW HE'S FACING SOME SERIOUS CHARGES. WHETHER HE STAYS ON TEAM TRUMP AND MAINTAIN SOLIDARITY REMAINS TO BE SEEN. THAT IS WHAT THEY SAY. THEY ALLEGE A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN DONALD TRUMP AND HIS BUTLER AND BODY MAN TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. >> RENATA, WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THIS INDICTMENT? IS THIS THE BEST POSSIBLE CASE THE DOJ COULD'VE BROUGHT? >> NO QUESTION. IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS INDICTMENT IS MORE PROBLEMATIC FOR TRUMP, MORE SERIOUS THAN ALL OF HIS OTHER LEGAL PROBLEMS TOGETHER. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING INDICTMENT, VERY DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME AND I THINK A BIG PART OF HIS STRATEGY HERE WOULD HAVE TO BE TO CREATE SO MUCH DELAY, THAT HE IS IN POOR HEALTH OR ENDS HIS LIFE BEFORE IT GETS TO TRIAL BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE VERY CHALLENGING TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE OBSTRUCTIVE STATEMENTS WITH HIS ATTORNEY, IN PARTICULAR. IT WILL BE VERY CHALLENGING TO EXPLAIN WHY HE IS SAYING THAT THEY SHOULD LIE TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, SAYING THEY HAVE NO DOCUMENTS TO SUGGEST THAT HE IS CRAZED, THAT THE ATTORNEY WOULD DESTROY DOCUMENTS ALLEGEDLY, SO DOES JUST SOME COMMENTS THAT ARE VERY CHALLENGING TO EXPLAIN AND CAN MENTION, OF COURSE, THE RECORDING WHERE HE IS TALKING ABOUT A DOCUMENT THAT HE COULD HAVE DECLASSIFIED THAT HE DIDN'T END IS NONETHELESS SHARING IT, VERY CHALLENGING AND ALSO, THE BREADTH OF DOCUMENTS AT ISSUE HERE, 31 COUNTS OF WILLFUL RETENTION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE INFORMATION INCLUDING NUCLEAR SECRETS, FOR EXAMPLE, IS VERY CHALLENGING FOR TRUMP AND HIS TEAM TO EXPLAIN TO THE JURY WHY THOSE ARE NOT IMPORTANT SECRETS TO KEEP. ON ITS FACE THIS IS NOT ONLY A VERY DEVASTATING CASE, BUT A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD TYPE OF CASE TO PROVE AND A VERY DIFFICULT CASE TO EXPLAIN AWAY AND IT IS A BIG HOST OF PROBLEMS ALL IN ONE FORMER PRESIDENT. >> IS A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, YOU TOUCHED ON THIS JUST NOW, DO YOU THINK THE RECORDINGS ARE IMPORTANT EVIDENCE HERE? >> IT DEPENDS ON THE WAY YOU LOOK AT IT. THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS THE CLASSIFIED PIECE OF INFORMATION FOUND IN HIS RESIDENCE. I THINK IN MANY WAYS, THIS CASE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER LEGAL PROBLEMS WE HAVE SEEN TRUMP HAVE. A LOT OF THE TRUST MATTERS HAVE BEEN WHITE COLLAR CASES WHERE THERE IS A FOCUS ON HIS DATE OF MINE. DID HE HAVE THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD, DID HE HAVE THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD AND OBSTRUCT? IF YOU HAVE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS IN YOUR HOUSE OR YOUR OFFICE THAT THE CRIME AND EVERYONE KNOWS IT. IT IS APPARENT THAT HE IS NOT LAWFULLY POSSESSING THE DOCUMENTS, PARTICULARLY, AND I AGREE WITH KEN ON THIS POINT, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS TRYING DESPERATELY TO GET THAT STUFF BACK AND YOU ARE JERKING THEM AROUND. AND OF COURSE WE SEE FROM THIS INDICTMENT THERE ARE LIES BEING FED AND AN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE. I JUST THINK IT IS VERY CHALLENGING TO EXPLAIN AWAY AND THAT IS THE CORE. PUTTING ASIDE THE FACT THAT HE WANTED THOSE DOCUMENTS VERY BADLY, THAT HE SHARED THEM, THAT HE'S DESPERATE TO KEEP THEM UP, I THINK THAT'S VERY CHALLENGING. >> I WANT TO BRING IN DANNY CEBALLOS NOW. PUT ON YOUR DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAD HERE. HOW DO YOU EVEN GO ABOUT DEFENDING THIS? >> THIS IS A RARE CASE WHERE WE HAVE GOTTEN A PREVIEW OF HOW THE DEFENSE MIGHT APPROACH THIS CASE. WE HAVE GOTTEN IT IN A LETTER THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WROTE TO CONGRESS AND WE HAVE GOTTEN IT IN INTERVIEWS THE DEFENSE COUNSEL AND FORMER DEFENSE COUNSEL HAVE GIVEN ON NETWORK NEWS SHOWS AND IT MAY GO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. WHETHER IT IS EFFECTIVE OR NOT REMAINS TO BE SEEN, BUT YOU MAY SEE A NARRATIVE WHERE THE DEFENSE DEVELOPS THE THEME THAT EARLY AND OFTEN, TRUMP, WHEN HE WAS APPROACHED BY THESE AGENCIES, HE MAY NOT HAVE TURNED OVER DOCUMENTS IMMEDIATELY, BUT HE WANTED TO SEE WHAT DOCUMENTS HE COULD TAKE AND NOT TAKE, AND THAT INITIALLY, WHEN THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES ONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, THAT TRUMP'S TEAM WAS WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM. AND, THEY WILL PROBABLY DEVELOP THE THEME, IF THERE ABLE TO MAKE THIS INTO EVIDENCE, THAT NATIONAL ARCHIVES WITH OTHER PRESIDENTS SET UP AN INFRASTRUCTURE TO HELP THEM WITH THE PRESIDENT TO EX PRESIDENT TRANSITION AND THE MOVING OF DOCUMENTS. HIS DEFENSE TEAM MAY ARGUE THAT TRUMP DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT, AND IF THERE WAS A HAPHAZARD REMOVAL OF DOCUMENTS, IT WAS INADVERTENT. THEY WILL PROBABLY ARGUE THAT WHEN THE GOVERNMENT SET A DEADLINE FOR THE SUBPOENA, THEY WERE INFLEXIBLE. THEY DID NOT ALLOW ROLLING PRODUCTION. THEY SET AN ARBITRARY DATE. BUT REALLY, WHETHER OR NOT ANY OF THAT IS EVEN ADMISSIBLE, LET ALONE PROBATIVE OF THE DEFENSE, IS NOT A SURE THING. AT LEAST IN TERMS OF THE GENERAL NARRATIVE THEY MAY TRY TO PUT OUT THERE, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO CENTER AROUND INADVERTENT AND THEN THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE THE BURDEN TO PROVE THIS WAS MUCH MORE THAN AN ACCIDENT. THIS WAS MUCH MORE THAN AN OOPS. THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DELIBERATE AND THEY HAVE MADE A LOT OF THOSE FACTS OUT IN THE INDICTMENT. >> ON PAGE 19 IT SAYS IN A MESSAGE BETWEEN TRUMP EMPLOYERS, AND ONE OF THESE EMPLOYEES IS SAYING QUOTE, HE IS TRACKING THE BOXES. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT -- EARLY ON, MIGHT THE DEFENSE OF SAID HE IS A FORMER PRESIDENT. HE HAS A LOT ON HIS MIND. HE MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY KNOWN THE DETAILS OF WHERE THESE BOXES WERE. HE WAS NOT PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO IT. HE COULD PERHAPS SAY THIS WAS SOMETHING HIS EMPLOYEES DID BUT ACCORDING TO PAGE 19 OF THE INDICTMENT IT APPEARS THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT KNEW EXACTLY WHERE THEY WERE AND WAS ASKING FOR THEM TO BE MOVED. >> I THINK YOU HIT ON THE MAJOR THEME. WHY ARE WE HERE WITH THIS DEFENDANT? AND IT GOES BACK TO EARLY ON. I SUSPECT THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED IF EARLY ON, THE TIME WHEN AGENCIES OTHER THAN THE DOJ WERE INVOLVED, THE TIME WHEN NATIONAL ARCHIVES WERE SAYING WE WOULD LIKE OUR DOCUMENTS BACK. I FULLY BELIEVE THAT HAD DONALD TRUMP NEGOTIATED AND GOTTEN THOSE DOCUMENTS BACK BEFORE OTHER AGENCIES FELT IT NECESSARY TO MAKE A REFERRAL TO DOJ, WE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE. IN FACT, THAT IS AN ARGUMENT THE DEFENSE IS MAKING. THEY ARE MAKING AN ARGUMENT THAT THIS STARTED OUT AS NATIONAL ARCHIVES USING A FEDERAL STATUTE THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PUNITIVE MEASURES BUT THEY JUST WANTED THE DOCUMENTS BACK. MAYBE THE DEFENSE DOES NOT REALIZE THEY ARE INADVERTENTLY MAKING THE PROSECUTION'S ARGUMENT THAT ONLY BY ESCALATING TO THIS POINT, THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND OTHER AGENCIES FELT THEY NEEDED TO REFER THIS TO DOJ, THAT IS A LINE THAT WAS CROSSED. THAT WAS THE POINT OF NO RETURN. THAT WAS THE EVENT HORIZON. AFTER THAT POINT, ONCE DOJ WAS INVOLVED, YOU ARGUABLY ALREADY HAVE THE INTENT OF ALL OF THESE OVERLAPPING ELEMENTS. CONCEAL SHARES A LOT IN COMMON WITH HIDING DOCUMENTS OR RETAINING DOCUMENTS OR SO MANY OTHER OVERLAPPING VENN DIAGRAM ELEMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS INDICTMENT. >> CAN, BACK TO YOU, AND AS I AM GOING THROUGH THIS INDICTMENT SOMETHING THAT REALLY JUMPS OUT AT ME -- THERE WERE SEVERAL INSTANCES THROUGHOUT THE INDICTMENT THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE DECIDED TO PUTEND QUOTE, SOME THINGS THAT DONALD TRUMP HAD SAID BACK IN 2016 WHEN IT CAME TO THE HANDLING OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. OF COURSE, BACK THEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON BUT WHY DO YOU THINK A SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE FOUND IT NECESSARY TO PUT THOSE SPECIFIC QUOTES THROUGHOUT THIS DOCUMENT? IS IT A TYPE OF STORYTELLING DEVICE OR IS IT PERHAPS TO SHOW THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT SHOULD'VE KNOWN BETTER? >> I BOTH. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE SPEAKING INDICTMENT, AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT NEW THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST SPEAKING TO AN AUDIENCE HERE OF JURORS OR THE MEDIA. THEY ARE SPEAKING TO THE WHOLE COUNTRY, HALF OF WHOM IS PREDISPOSED TO DOUBT THIS CASE AND SO THEY NEED TO PUT AS MUCH INFORMATION THERE AS POSSIBLE. THE AVERAGE PERSON DOES NOT REALLY DEAL WITH CLASSIFIED OR TWO MONTHS AND DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE SO SENSITIVE AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE OF TAKING THEM OUTSIDE A SENSITIVE FACILITY. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT MAYBE WE WILL INJECT SOME OF WHAT DONALD TRUMP HIMSELF HAS SAID ABOUT THIS TO HELP FILL OUT THE PICTURE, AND THEY DID A LOT OF DIFFERENT DEVICES IN THIS INDICTMENT TO TRY TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS MATTERS AND THEN YOU HEARD JACK SMITH. THAT WAS THE THEME OF HIS REMARKS. THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY RISKED THEIR LIVES TO PROTECT THIS INFORMATION. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT AND IF I COULD TOUCH ON SOMETHING YOU SAID, GABE, NOT ONLY DID TRUMP KNOW WHERE THE BOXES WERE, ALL THROUGHOUT THIS THING MANY DEFENDER SAID IT'S NOT LIKE THE PRESIDENT PACKED HIS OWN BOXES WHEN HE LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE. ACTUALLY, HE DID IN SOME CASES. ACCORDING TO THIS INDICTMENT HE WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN PACKING HIS OWN BOXES AND TAKING SOME OF THIS MATERIAL FROM THE WHITE HOUSE TO MAR-A- LAGO. >> INCREDIBLE DETAILS WE LEARNED A FEW HOURS AGO WHEN THIS INDICTMENT WAS UNSEALED. RENATO , I WANT TO BRING YOU BACK IN AND MENTIONED THAT THE INDICTMENT INCLUDES A RECORDING OF TRUMP SAYING THAT AS PRESIDENT, I COULD HAVE DECLASSIFIED THEM. NOW I CAN'T, BUT THIS IS STILL A SECRET AND HOW KEY IS THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE? >> IT MAY VERY WELL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN THE WHOLE INDICTMENT. THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT IT. WE OFTEN TALK ON SHOWS LIKE THIS ABOUT THE DOWNSIDE OF A PERSON WHO IS UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SPEAKING OUT IN HERE IS HEART OF THE DOWNSIDE. DONALD TRUMP, WHEN HE REALIZES THE FBI HAD RAIDED HIS RESIDENCE, COULD HAVE KEPT HIS MOUTH SHUT. INSTEAD, HE WENT ON EVERY PROGRAM POSSIBLE, HE WENT ON PODCASTS AND RECORDINGS, AND HE TALKED ABOUT WHAT HIS DEFENSE WAS. HE IS TELLING SEAN HANNITY HIS DEFENSES THAT HE DECLASSIFIED THESE THINGS IN HIS MIND AND HE LOCKED HIMSELF IN TO WHAT THE DEFENSE MIGHT BE IN THE PROSECUTORS WISELY HAVE DEVELOPED EVIDENCE THAT TOTALLY UNDERCUT THAT DEFENSE AND BY THE WAY, ACTUALLY PROVED SOME OF THE CHARGES. FOR EXAMPLE, HE SAID THAT HE KNOWS THIS INFORMATION [INDISCERNIBLE] THAT'S TRANSMITTAL OF INFORMATION. THAT'S KNOWLEDGE OF SECRETS. THE FACT OF THE INFORMATION IS THAT IT'S INCREDIBLY CHALLENGING. DANNY DID A VERY NICE JOB OF SENDING OUT A POTENTIAL DEFENSE AND OFTEN AS A DEFENSE YOU'RE TRYING TO THROW MUD AGAINST THE WALL AND SEE WHAT STICKS BUT IT IS VERY CHALLENGING TO RUN TOGETHER A THREAD THAT RESEMBLES AN ACTUAL CREDIBLE DEFENSE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GET YOU OUT FROM UNDER THESE CHARGES. I WILL SAY THAT IT IS VERY CHALLENGING AND I KNOW THIS FROM EXPERIENCE ON THE DEFENSE SIDE. IT IS VERY CHALLENGING TO GET THE JURY TO SELECT NOT GUILTY 37 TIMES, EVEN IF ONE TIME THEY SELECT GUILTY, THAT IS THE END FOR DONALD TRUMP. >> BEFORE WE GO, SENATOR MARCO RUBIO SAYS THE DNI HAS NOT DIVIDED CONGRESS WITH A POTENTIAL THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY FROM THESE DOCUMENTS. WHY NOT? >> ONE THEORY IS THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO CREATE A DISCOVERABLE DOCUMENT THAT GETS INJECTED INTO THE TRIAL BECAUSE THEN YOU COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT DONALD TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS HAD A RIGHT TO HAVE IT I
