ANDED A THE TABLE FOR THE HOUR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST AND DIRECTOR OF THE PUBLIC POLICY AT HUNTERS COLLEGE. YOU ISSUED A TANTALIZING AND NUDES WORTHY TWEET IN YOUR OWN RIGHT WITH YOUR CREDENTIALS, WITH YOUR RELATIONSHIPS AND YOUR EXPERTISE. I'M GOING TO READ IT TO OUR VIEWERS. "A ZILLION STORIES ABOUT TRUMP CASE, BUT BOTTOM LINE IS THAT HE'S GETTING CHARGED AND IT WILL BE IN D.C. AND THIS WEEK. OPEN ISSUES ARE WHETHER OTHERS MAY BE CHARGED AND WHETHER THEY WILL BE IN D.C. OR FLORIDA." PLEASE EXPLAIN. >> SURE. FIRST, IT IS REALLY TYPICAL TO SEE WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN TERMS OF DONALD TRUMP'S COUNSEL GOING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. WE SAW THE SAME THING LOOKING AT THE MANHATTAN D.A.'S OFFICE THAT PROSECUTORS IN CASE LIKE THIS, WHERE THERE'S NO NEED TO NAB THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF COMMITTING A CRIME OR A VIOLENT CRIME OR THEY'RE FLEEING, THEY GIVE DEFENSE COUNSEL AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO MAKE ANY AND ALL LEGAL, FACTUAL, DISCRETIONARY ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY THERE SHOULD NOT BE CHARGES. HERE, ESPECIALLY IF THE REPORTING IS ABOUT THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THAT'S JUST NEVER GOING TO STOP ANYONE FROM FINDING CHARGES ARE APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE HERE A JUDGE HAS APPROVED WHAT IT IS THAT HAPPENED HERE. I SHOULD POINT OUT THE CURRENT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WORK TOND MUELLER INVESTIGATION WHERE THE EXACT SAME THING WAS DONE IN FRONT OF THE EXACT SAME JUDGE. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOSER AND SOMETHING THEY'RE ARGUING IN ORDER TO MAKE A POLITICAL POINT HERE. SO WE REALLY ARE SEEING WHAT I ALWAYS VIEW AS THE HARBINGER OF, YOU KNOW, CASES BEING BROUGHT, SO THE EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED IN MANHATTAN. YOU SEE DEFENSE LAWYERS MAKING AN ARGUMENT AND YOU SEE CHARGES. THE OPEN ISSUE IS WHERE THE CHARGES WILL BE BROUGHT AND WHO, IF ANYONE, MAY BE CHARGED ALONGSIDE DONALD TRUMP, MAYBE CONSPIRATORS. THOSE CHARGES MAY BE ONES THAT CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT IN A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THERE'S CONSTITUTIONAL RULES ABOUT WHERE CHARGES CAN BE BROUGHT. I SHOULD SAY IN SPITE OF MY TWEET, IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT DONALD TRUMP WOULD BE CHARGED IN FLORIDA AND NOT D.C. I DON'T THINK THAT WILL BE THE CASE. BUT I DO THINK THE ONE THING I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT OF IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO SEE CHARGES WITH RESPECT TO THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE AND IT SEEMS BY ALL ACCOUNTS IT'S GOING TO BE THIS WEEK BECAUSE I THINK THAT DOJ WILL FEEL THAT INTERNAL PRESSURE TO MOVE THIS ALONG. >> I HAVE 378 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL START WITH ONE. WHAT I THINK YOU'RE ARTICULATING IS THAT THE AUSPICES OF THE MEETING, TO BATTLE THE PEERING OF ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE, MAY BE A TRUMP-DRIVEN ERRAND BECAUSE THE MATTER HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED. NOT SOMETHING WE SAW, IN SECRET, EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT WAS STRONG ENOUGH THAT A JUDGE SAID OH, YEAH, OOPS, YES, CRIMES, YES, CRIMES, AND THAT'S WHY WE GET TO SEE EVERYTHING. IS THAT HOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ARTICULAING? >> YES. AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER, THERE IS A MODEL WITH THIS HAVING BEEN DONE WITH RESPECT TO PAUL MANAFORT AND RICK GATES IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION. BEFORE HE RULED IN THAT CASE, MANAFORT AND GATES AND THEIR COUNSEL ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS NOT EX PARTE. THEY ALL GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE WHY THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN WRONG. SO THIS HAS BEEN FULLY LITIGATED. THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT DONALD TRUMP, AS THE PERSON WHO HOLDS THE PRIVILEGE, WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, SO THIS HAS ALL BEEN VETTED BY A FEDERAL JUDGE, A RESPECTED FEDERAL JUDGE, AND I'M CONFIDENT IT FOLLOWS THE -- WHICH IT SHOULD HAVE, THE EXACT SAME PLAN THAT WAS DONE AND THE REASONING THAT WAS DONE BY THE JUDGE IN THE MANAFORT CASE. THIS IS NOT ONE WHERE THE DOJ IS GOING TO SECOND-GUESS WHAT JACK SMITH DID OR WHAT THE JUDGE DID BECAUSE IT'S ALL BEEN VETTED. SO THAT JUST SEEMS LIKE A REAL LOSER. YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY MAY HAVE MADE AN ARGUMENT BASED ON VENUE. I KNOW THAT SOUNDS LIKE A REALLY WEAK TEA IN TERMS OF, LIKE, I GET WE'RE GOING TO GET CHARGED BUT CAN WE PLEASE DO IT IN FLORIDA AND NOT IN D.C. AND I THINK FLORIDA WOULD BE A BETTER VENUE FOR TRUMP THAN D.C. HE MAY HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT ARGUMENT AS WELL. >> WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT A GRAND JURY IN FLORIDA HAS HEARD EVIDENCE? DOES THAT -- YOU KNOW, US NON-LAWYERS SPITBALLING, WHICH IS ALWAYS DICEY, AND WONDERED IF PERHAPS SOME OF THE EARLY REPORTING ABOUT HOW EVERY SINGLE PERSON AT MAR-A-LAGO, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, MAINTENANCE STAFF AND INCLUDING PEOPLE THAT WORK ON THE GROUNDS HAS BEEN INTERVIEWED THAT MAY BE A CONVENIENCE, BUT MAYBE THAT'S A CRAZY STUPID WAY OF THINKING ABOUT IT. COULD THAT GRAND JURY THERE HAVE BEEN CONVENED FOR SOMETHING ELSE? >> SO, JUST SO YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULDN'T FEEL TOO BAD BECAUSE A LOT OF LAWYERS DO A LOT OF SPITBALLING ALSO AND WE CAN GET IT WRONG AS WELL. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT UNIQUE TO NONLAWYERS TO BE DOING THIS SORT OF EDUCATED GUESSING. I THINK THERE ARE TWO POSSIBILITIES WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE'RE HEARING ABOUT ALSO GETTING A FLORIDA GRAND JURY. ONE POSSIBILITY IS ALL OF THE CHARGES AGAINST DONALD TRUMP WILL BE BROUGHT IN FLORIDA. IT SEEMS BY ALL ACCOUNTS THERE WOULD BE VENUE FOR ALL OF THE CHARGES. JUST TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A NERD, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THAT A CRIME BE CHARGED WHERE IT OCCURRED, BUT A LOT OF TIMES CRIMES HAPPEN IN MANY, MANY JURISDICTIONS. FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAVE A CONSPIRACY CHARGE, THAT COULD HAPPEN IN MANY, MANY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, AND ANY ONE OF THOSE WOULD SATISFY THE CONSTITUTION FOR BEING BROUGHT IN A LOCATION WHERE THE CRIME OCCURRED. BUT THERE'S NO QUESTION I THINK THAT FROM EVERYTHING WE'VE HEARD THAT FLORIDA WOULD BE A PLACE WHERE ALL OF THE CHARGES COULD BE BROUGHT. IN D.C., IT'S NOT CLEAR IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ALL OF THE CHARGES COULD BE BROUGHT BUT I THINK SOME COULD BE BROUGHT THERE. THE OTHER POSSIBILITY IS THAT THE REASON WE'RE HEARING ABOUT A FLORIDA GRAND JURY IS THAT IT'S NOT SO MUCH WITH RESPECT TO DONALD TRUMP, BUT IT MAY BE WITH RESPECT TO, FOR INSTANCE, IF AN UNDERLING LIKE MR. NODA, SOMEBODY WHO ALLEGEDLY MOVED BOXES FOR DONALD TRUMP AT MAR-A-LAGO, IF HE MADE FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE GOVERNMENT IN FLORIDA, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MAY BE YOU LEEKLY BE CHARGED IN FLORIDA SO THAT IF THE GOVERNMENT IS THINKING I'M GOING TO CHARGE DONALD TRUMP IN D.C., THEY MAY AT THE SAME TIME DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO CHARGE HIM TO PUT MORE PRESSURE ON HIM AND ALSO BECAUSE HE SHOULD BE HELD TO ACCOUNT IF HE LIED TO THE GOVERNMENT, AND THAT CHARGE MAY BE BROUGHT IN FLORIDA. THAT MIGHT BE A SECOND REASON FOR WHY WE'RE HEARING THAT THERE MAY BE GRAND JURY ACTIVITY IN THAT STATE. >> ONE MORE FOR YOU. IT FELT LIKE JIM COMEY'S, YOU KNOW, PAYOUT FROM THE POLITICAL GRAVE, THE TAPES, AS MICHAEL COHEN BEFORE HIM, AND DONE McGAHN WITH HIS COPIOUS NOTES AND HIS NOTE TAKER, WHO BECAME THE NARRATOR OF THE MUELLER REPORT, TRUMP HAS ANOTHER LAWYER WHO DIDN'T JUST TAKE NOTES BUT WHO NARRATED A NOVEL-LIKE VERSION OF HIS MONTH-LONG LEGAL SERVICE FOR TRUMP. IS THAT NORMAL? >> NO. SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE LAWYERS AND THE CALIBER OF LAWYERS WHO HAVE REPRESENTS PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, WHETHER DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS, I DON'T THINK THAT IS NORMAL. AND THAT'S JUST -- THAT'S NOT EITHER THE CALIBER OF THE LAWYERS THAT WE'VE SEEN. USUALLY, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST REVERED AND AT THE VERY TOP OF THEIR PROFESSION, THINK DAVID KENDALL OR BOWER OR PEOPLE WHO ARE JUST AT THE VERY TOP OF THEIR LEGAL GAME. AND THERE'S NO REASON, WHETHER YOU'RE REPRESENTING GEORGE BUSH OR BARACK OBAMA OR JOE BIDEN TO BE TAKING COPIOUS NOTES BECAUSE YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT YOUR CLIENT OR THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO BE LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED. BUT WE KNOW FROM STARTING AS YOU MENTIONED WITH DONE McGAHN, THAT IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING DONALD TRUMP, IT IS A GOOD PRACTICE TO TAKE NOTES SO THAT YOU HAVE A MEMORIALIZATION OF WHAT YOU DID DO AND WHAT YOU DIDN'T DO TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THESE KINDS OF CLAIMS. SO, IT IS REALLY ABNORMAL, AND THESE ARE LAWYERS WHO REALIZE WHAT THEY NEED TO
