. >>> A MEETING WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL? >> DID THEY SAY WHY THEY WOULDN'T MEET WITH YOU? DID YOU MEET WITH LISA MONACO? >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT. PLEASE PART SO WE CAN GO TO OUR WAITING TAXI CAB. THAT WAS ALL WE GOT FROM LAWYERS OF DONALD TRUMP AS THEY LEFT A MEETING OF SOME SORT AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER TWO WEEKS AGO, THE TRUMP LEGAL TEAM PUBLICLY ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND. LAWYERS FOR THE FORMER PRESIDENT SAID HE WAS BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WHO IS LOOKING INTO TRUMP'S HANDLING OF PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS INCLUDING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS. THE FBI REPORTED FINDING THOSE DOCUMENTS IN A SEARCH OF MAR-A-LAGO LAST YEAR. WHILE THE TRUMP LAWYERS TODAY DID NOT GET THE MEETING THEY WANTED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR WITH THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, LISA MONACO, THEY DID MEET WITH A GROUP OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS THAT INCLUDED AT LEAST ONE CAREER PROSECUTOR AND THAT ALSO INCLUDED THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HIMSELF, JACK SMITH. MOMENTS AFTER THAT MEETING LET OUT, THE FORMER PRESIDENT HIMSELF POSTED A SHOUTY BARELY LITERAL MISSPELLED MESSAGE IN ALL CAMS ON SOCIAL MEDIA THAT SAID IN PART, HOW COULD THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POSSIBLY CHARGE ME? WHO DID NOTHING WRONG WHEN NO OTHER PRESIDENTS MISSPELLED WERE CHARGED. HE USED TO CHANNEL MORE OF HIS CHARGES INTO EXCLAMATION MARKS. NOW IT ALL GOES INTO CAPITAL LETTERS. PRETTY SOON IT WILL BE EMOJIS. VOLCANO, BUNNY, HAMMER. THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY IN D.C. IS EXPECTED TO COME BACK THIS WEEK FROM A SORT OF BREAK THAT THEY'VE BEEN ON. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO START AGAIN IN THE MAR-A-LAGO DOCUMENTS CASE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL TRAJECTORY OF THE CASE. THERE'S LOTS OF SPECULATION BUT WE WON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE GRAND JURY UNTIL THE GRAND JURY SPEAKS. ANOTHER FEDERAL GRAND JURY IS MEETING IN FLORIDA ON SOMETHING RELATED TO TRUMP. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT. "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTS THAT FEDERAL PROSECUTORS THERE ARE EXPECTED TO QUESTION A NEW WITNESS BEFORE THE FLORIDA GRAND JURY THERE THIS WEEK WEST DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON BEFORE THE GRAND JURY UNTIL IT SPEAKS WHICH IS ALMOST ALWAYS WITH AN INDICTMENT IF THEY ARE GOING TO SPEAK AT ALL. RIGHT ON TIME, BLOOMBERG REPORTS THAT TRUMP IS LOOKING TO ADD NEW LAWYERS TO HIS ALREADY LARGE LEGAL TEAM, SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR LAWYERS WITH FEDERAL TRIAL EXPERIENCE WHICH IF NOTHING ELSE MEANS THEY ARE PLANNING AHEAD FOR A FEDERAL TRIAL. IT IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL START TO A REPUBLICAN PRIMARY BUT AS THEY SAY, YOU GO TO WAR WITH THE POLITICIANS YOU HAVE. NOT WITH THE POLITICIANS YOU MIGHT WISH TO HAVE. JOINING US NOW, A FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIAL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FORMER PROSECUTOR ON ROBERT MUELLER'S TEAM. THANK YOU FOR COMING. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SPEAKING WITH YOU ON THIS. >> MY PLEASURE. >> SO THE GRAND JURY ONLY LETS US KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING WHEN AN INDICTMENT IS FILED ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE THEY HAVE COLLECTED. IT IS A SECRETIVE PROCESS. THAT IS NOT STOPPING EVERYBODY AND THEIR SISTER FROM SPECULATING AS TO WHAT THE PUBLICLY VISIBLE ACTIONS AROUND GRAND JURY ROOMS AND COURT ROOMS AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS MIGHT MEAN. DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE TEA LEAF READING GOING ON AROUND THESE ACTIONS IS ACCURATE GIVEN WHAT BUNK THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS? >> I THINK THE TEA LEAVES ARE ACCURATE THAT WE'LL SEE A CHARGING DOCUMENT VERY SOON. THAT IS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS REQUESTED A MEETING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO TRY TO CONVINCE THEM TO NOT BRING CHARGES AND THE FORMER PRESIDENT'S ATTORNEYS HAVE MORE TEA LEAVES. MORE SIGNALS THAN WE DO. SO I THINK IT IS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT IT WILL BE COMING DOWN SOON. >> I FEEL LIKE A LOT WAS MADE OVER THE FACT GO THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ATTORNEYS ASKED TO MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THEY DID NOT MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. ON THE ONE HAND, THAT MEANS THEY DIDN'T GET THE DIRECT THING THEY WERE REQUESTING. ON THE OTHER HAND IT SEEMS CORRECT GIVEN WHAT THEY'RE COMPLAINING GOING IS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION, AND BY THE VERY NAME OF A SPECIAL COUNSEL APPOINTMENT, THAT INVESTIGATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE SEPARATE FROM THE REGULAR EVERYDAY WORK OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERALS DIRECTLY OVERSEEING IT. IS THAT FAIR? >> THAT'S RIGHT. I WOULDN'T READ ANYTHING INTO THE FACT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DIDN'T TAKE THAT MEETING. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON AT THE END OF AN INVESTIGATION FORTUNATE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO INVITE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR A DISTRICT. THAT'S ALL THAT HAPPENED HERE. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS THE DECISION-MAKER AND THE DECISION HASN'T BEEN MADE YET. >> IN TERMS OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY PROCESS IS HERE, AND AT WHAT STATE IT IS AT, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A FEW DIFFERENT SLICES OF THIS TO LOOK AT. ONE IS THE FEDERAL GRAND JURY THAT IS MEETING IN WASHINGTON, LOOKING AT THE HANDLING OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS. THE STUFF SEIZED AT MAR-A-LAGO. BASED ON THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH WAS ASSIGNED, WE BELIEVE THERE WAS A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AT SOME STAGE LOOKING AT MATTERS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, FORMER PRESIDENT TRYING TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION RESULTS AND HOW THAT MIGHT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO JANUARY 6th. NOW WE'RE HEARING THERE'S A FEDERAL GRAND JURY AT WORK IN FLORIDA. IT WOULD SEEM THAT THAT IS RELATED TO THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS PART OF THIS INVESTIGATION. BUT AGAIN, IT FEELS VERY OPAQUE. IT FEELS HARD TO PARSE FROM THE OUTSIDE. WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF WHAT IS PUBLICLY KNOWN ABOUT WHAT, EXCUSE ME, WHAT GRAND JURIES ARE MEETING WHERE AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT? >> A COUPLE THINGS. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT OVERINTERPRETING WHAT PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WE GET. I THINK IN TERMS OF FLORIDA, IT DOES SEEM JUST THE FACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FLORIDA VERY LIKELY CONNECTED TO MAR-A-LAGO. AND I THINK THERE ARE PERHAPS THREE POSSIBILITIES. ONE IS IT IS POSSIBLE THE MAR-A-LAGO CASE COULD BE CHARGED IN FLORIDA. THERE WOULD BE VENUE, THE ABILITY TO BRING THE CHARGES THERE. I WOULD SPECULATE IT IS MORE LIKELY TO WRITE THOSE CHARGES IN D.C. THE SECOND IS THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL JUST SIMPLY WANTED TO OBTAIN THE TESTIMONY OF AN INDIVIDUAL IN FLORIDA AND FOR CONVENIENCE PURPOSES CHOSE TO GET THAT TESTIMONY IN FLORIDA. ONE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY PRESENTED TO ANOTHER GRAND JURY. AND THE THIRD POSSIBILITY IS THERE ARE OTHER CHARGES. THERE MAY BE OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND PERHAPS FLORIDA IS THE VENUE TO CHARGE THOSE INDIVIDUALS. >> FROM A PROSECUTOR'S PERSPECTIVE, IS THERE A DISADVANTAGE TO HAVING RELATED INDICTMENTS BROUGHT IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS? IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DECEMBER INDICTMENT AND A FLORIDA INDICTMENT. IS THERE AN ADVANTAGE TO BRINGING IT IN D.C. VERSUS IN FLORIDA? >> A FEW PIECES. THERE CERTAINLY WOULD BE A PREFERENCE TO BRING LIKE-CHARGES COMBINED INTO ONE. IT GETS TO ONE OF YOUR OTHER POINTS IN TERMS OF READING THE TEA LEAVES. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IT IS INCUMBENT ON THEM TO TRY THIS CASE IF THERE WILL BE CHARGES, PROBABLY BEFORE MARCH. AND WHENEVER EVERY WEEK THAT GOES BY, IT MAKES THAT INCREASINGLY CHALLENGING TO BRING ONE OF THESE CASES INVOLVING THE ESPIONAGE ACT IN SEVEN TO EIGHT MONTHS. THAT'S VERY CHALLENGING. SO EVERY WEEK THAT GOES BY, I THINK IT MAKES IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO MEET THAT
