defense. they may have decided, this is a foregone conclusion. we can go in there but not show our cards or show our defense because we don't trust it's a fair hearing and -- i don't know what the strategy was with todd blanch and the other lawyer, but it will be interesting the hear how much he was willing the share about on the merits what the defense would be. >> i think it raises a threshold question as to whether or not the defense was designed for doj or fox news. that's something we'll all keep watching together. it was a bizarre and wild and historic day of news. thank you all for watching and waiting with us and spending the hour with us. and thank you at home for letting all of us into your homes during this day of breaking news. "the beat" with katie phang in for ari starts now.

>> thanks for getting us started. it's been a wild ride. i'm in for ari melber. we start today continuing with that breaking news in the special counsel's mar-a-lago probe. a third defendant added to the classified documents case. carlos deoliveira, who helped trump's codefendant walt nauta move the boxes them shows that jack smith is not slowing down as he still also pushes forward in the january 6th probe. joining me now is maya wylie, ceo of the leadership conference on civil and human rights. and emily bazelon. i want to thank the both of you for joining us. you're getting this news in realtime like we are. maya, i want to start with you. this is pretty good news. i think it's a very big showing from special counsel jack smith that his investigation has not slowed down, that he's definitely moving forward, making sure if you're not going to cooperate or be a part of

this, then you're going to be facing charges. hoar's the caveat. maybe he is a cooperator. we don't know yet. what are your thoughts the about the news that there's a third defendant who's going to be part of this classified documents case in. >> i think you said it well, it's that the work continues and that jack smith is leaving no stone unturned, and no one with culpability potentially off the hook. so, you know, it's so interesting about mr. deoliveira is that we know the special prosecutor had another trump staff member come to be interviewed, apparently about a call from mr. deoliveira about whether or not he asked for the security tape footage to be tampered with that would record the comings and goings of the documents. we had reporting a a while back

that said there was something there. we obviously didn't see that in the indictment with mr. nauta. you i think what the real question is, how much is this going to help influence what is already an incredibly strong indictment in terms of the evidence it has already suggested it has, much more evidence than we're used to seeing in an indictment. so all i can say is buckle up, because it's going to be a ride. >> emily, to you, how important do you think it was to add somebody like carlos deoliveira to the equation? to maya as point, you have video evidence that could corroborate some of the testimony provided either to the special counsel's team or the grand jury that's been seeded in this case. do you think somebody like carlos deoliveira is going to be a critical piece of this puzzle considering all the evidence that's been made public thus

far? >> prosecutors make their cases strong and bullet proof as they can. if he has evidence about moving the boxes, he also add add lock to one of the doors at mar-a-lago, that is important to explaining the story of how these documents were hidden and not turned over to the government. if he called a i.t. specialist and asking questions perhaps on somebody else's behalf, perhaps on trump's maf about whether it's possible to delete the footage or edit or change knit some way, that would seem highly relevant, especially if it ties back to donald trump. >> maya, donald trump notoriously known for not keeping notes, meaning we're not texting, he's not emailing right? how damming do you think it could be to have yet another codefendant or defendant added to this classified documents probe that could impute direct

admissions or statements made by donald trump that could implicate donald trump even more so? >> well, very important, because of course as emily said, this is a really strong case. but you're always going to build for more. i would just say this. there already is so much evidence in the public record about what donald trump said and did, and even his own statements, even his own statements that were in some instances contradictory. so, the question is i think whether or not they're going for someone when's going to flip because they have been charged so that they will directly cooperate. again, i do think that this is a special prosecutor who's also shown that he is interested in making sure that justice is done, that the law is served, and it could be that it not only strengthens the case, but also others that this is just wrong, don't do it. this is national security at stake. let's remember that.

some of the secrets that we know that were at risk were things including our own vulnerability to foreign attack. so this is not a small case. it's not a lightweight case, and it's not a case that doesn't have significant consequences for the country in terms of the exposure that it potentially created for all of us. >> joining in on this conversation is renato mariotti and nick akerman. renato, this is not the first time we see a superseding indictment or an additional defendant that's added to a pending case, but what does this say to you about the fact that we've got a pending trial date in may of 2024 for donald trump and walt nauta and now we interject carlos deoliveira who may have a role that's bigger than just being a codefendant or defendant? maybe it's more than just being a witness. >> yeah, two words really come to mind for me, katie, and

that's walt nauta. i really think this is a lot about putting pressure on walt nauta who has thus far stuck with trump. there's all this video of him galavanting with trump all around the country, in philadelphia and elsewhere. he appears to be tied at the hip with trump, and he's represented by a lawyer who's very closely aligned with trump. they want to put pressure on nauta because right now, while i agree that the case against trump is pretty overwhelming, nauta, that's a different story, and i think they want to make him feel the heat. so i wouldn't be surprised if potentially this new defendant is a flipper or if pressure is put on him so he'll flip. but you're right, katie when you mentioned the time line, because i think this will impact that and slow that down. i think jack smith is more worried about putting the pressure on them than he is worried about the time line given that aileen cannon is the judge. >> nick, my question to you --

i'm hearing from sources that it is going to be filed under the same case number at donald trump and walt nauta's case. to renato's point, what does that say to you then, nick? is this just an additional codefendant, meaning perhaps he hasn't had conversations about cooperating? or is this someone that could be identified as a codefendant in an existing indictment, nick, but could still be a cooperator? >> well, any of these people, nauta or this new defendant could be a cooperator. but the fact of the matter is putting needs two individuals in the same trial with donald trump is really a lode stone around donald trump's neck. when the jury looks at this, they have the look at the guilt or innocence of these two individuals that were moving bocks to hide them from trump's lawyer so he wouldn't turn them over pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. that's what the prosecutor wants the jury to focus on. this is the only reason that

donald trump was indicted in this case was because he had obstructed justice, he defied the subpoena, and this whole process of moving boxes around is critical. so adding another defendant who is involved in this whole matter just puts the jury's focus on that precise issue, and that's the issue that's going to bring donald trump down on this case. >> emily, i wanted to ask, some of the reporting at this guy includes that he was draining the pool at mar-a-lago, flooded the room where the computer servers and i.t. equipment was held. the reporting also includes that nothing got damaged in terms of, you know, not being able to produce information, but how does that actually hurt carlos deoliveira in terms of a potential charge of tampering with evidence or, you know, destruction or spoiluation of evidence?

you know, if the timing is suggestive, if it's at a time when it's clear the justice department is seeking documents, if there's suggestion it was done on purpose or at someone's direction, all that could be suggestive. it could be a real problem for deoliveira and potentially the codefendants in the case. another thing that occurs to me is sometimes you indict someone in order to push them to flip, right. they're facing charges. they have an incentive to testify against someone higher up the food chain. sometimes you indict someone to give them cover because they want to flip but they're worried about doing that in the hierarchy they're in. and we just don't know enough, but, you know, it's possible that either of these things could be the case here. >> renato, i wanted to ask you -- there's been a loft hay made over the evan corcoran notes and that there should be a pending challenge that we should expect to see from donald trump's lawyers in terms of the piercing of the attorney/client

privilege that was allowed to occur that resulted in the production of these otherwise privileged notes. the addition of somebody like carlos deoliveira to this calculation, do you think, renato that will strengthen jack smith's case even if something happens to the prior ruling about allowing evan corcoran's attorney client notes to be turned over for prosecution? >> for sure. cannon, that's one way he can muck up the case, but reversing the decision of judge howell. obviously the law enforcement officers were relaying in good faith on her ruling but she could say, i have a different view. i appreciate and agree with nick's point that this is really going to change the scope of the trial to some extent. it's going to refocus the jury. obviously donald trump has a big personality. he's a big name. he was the president and so on. but at the end of the day, this is about breaking the law. and i think the jury is going to

be focused on these very odd activities occurring before a grand jury subpoena. i spent much of my time as a lawyer, katie, responding to subpoenas and working with my clients and that. there's rarely shenanigans involved with the pool or moving boxes around. it's a pretty ordinary course. i think it's going to seem unyou shall to the jury. i think the potential could be to have both these gentleman, nauta and this other defendant, the new defendant looking at one another seeing who's going to flip first. >> a whole lot of consciousness of guilt going on with everybody involved. everyone please stay with me. there's still the looming specter of the third criminal indictment of donald trump. today the d.c. grand jury investigating january 6th convened behind closed doors. while trump's lawyers also met behind closed doors with special counsel jack smith's team. nbc news reporting trump as lawyers were told in that

meeting to expect an indictment. "the new york times" noting, these meetings are often used by defense lawyers as a last-ditch effort to argue against charges being filed. a trump spokesperson disputing prosecutors gave notice of a forthcoming indictment and trump himself posting, no indication of notice was given. but we do know trump has been sent a target letter, which outlined three potential charges he could face -- conspiracy, witness tampering, also known as obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights, a charge typically used in voter fraud cases. we may be able the look to the mar-a-lago case for a bit of timing guidance here. former fbi agency peter struck noting trump's attorneys met with doj prosecutors three days before he was ultimately indicted in that probe. this grand jury, the one in d.c., it typically meets tuesdays and thursdays, so we could potentially see an indictment next week.

and it looks like law enforcement may be gearing up for that. members of the u.s. marshalls today meeting with law enforcement outside the d.c. federal courthouse. down in georgia, where trump is also under criminal investigation, a new york reporter posting this video showing barricades erected outside the courthouse. fani willis' staff is prepared to work remotely next week, indicating a possible fourth indictment could come during that time. joining me now is garrett haake. garrett, what was the mood at the courthouse earlier today? >> reporter: katie, i spent part of my morning not at the courthouse, but at the special counsel's office where we were waiting on information about that meeting behind closed doors. it took about an hour. and afterwards we got pretty conflicting information, first from sources who indicated that the trump attorneys were told a dime was coming. then we got this push back from

trump and a spokesperson on the record saying that was not the case, the meeting was described by donald trump as a positive meeting in which his attorneys outlined all the reasons he shouldn't be charged and that it would be bad for the country. then tonight we got even more information from another source. it suggested, look, this is a meeting you would expect to have before charges are filed to try to change the direction of things, ands the not clear that's the case. i think that's the frame we should keep around it. once this target letter was offed, nothing we heard today either on the record or from sources who were briefed on this meeting suggested anything that was said behind closed doors between the special counsel prosecutors or trump's lawyers changed the trajectory we're on, which is moving toward an indictment. at the courthouse today, the jurors came and went as they have done for so many weeks now without comment, without document changing hand, without any indictment being handed up. which i think combining these two things is reminder that we

learned the hard way during the new york case and are learning still that the prosecutors are going to work on their own time line and that their idea of what might be imminent or soon is not our idea among journalists and the public of what might be imminent or soon, and they're going to worker carefully through this process, a process which as you outlined could be mirroring what we saw in the documents case. downtime, meeting with the attorneys, then a couple days before the indictment. we could be looking at a similar pattern here. we're just not going to know until the charging decisions are made. >> we won't know until we know. >> it's a frustrating situation for a reporter, but that's where we are. >> garrett, just one last question to you. the jurors, the grand jurors stayed a little bit longer today in the courthouse than is the norm. beginning i know it's reading tea leaves and we don't want to speculate too much, however you have this meeting with trump's

downs and the special counsel and grand jury meeting and you had them staying later than usual. was there any energy you were picking up when you learned they stayed a lot later than usual today? >> it's all speculationle i'll point out, they usually meet on tuesdays but didn't this tuesday, so maybe they're trying to make up for lost time and salvage their summer vacation. we just won't know until we know. >> thanks for joining us. right now we're going to turn back to the classified documents probe. we now know the charges in this new mar-a-lago indictment. they are the following. conspiracy to obstruct justice. altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing an object. corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating or concealing a document, record, or other object, and false statements and representations. let's go back to our team of maya, renato, and nick that have been standing by. maya, trump's lawyers just met

this morning with special counsel's team. unbeknownst to them, i'm assuming, that this was going on, that the southern district of florida was going to be doing this mar-a-lago superseding indictment. we heard trump is paying or his pac is paying for the lawyers that are representing walt nauta, et cetera. do you think that if that's the same fee arrangement we're seeing with this new guy, carlos deoliveira, perhaps that would influence what happens in terps of cooperation with carlos deoliveira? >> oh, yeah. certainly we know that's part of the reason that donald trump has made sure -- there's the only explanation -- to take care of folks. and look, he has a pattern of this behavior. we have seen even in new york in terms of the trump org cases, where allen weisselberg, his cfo would not flip on him and faced time on rikers island, a jail nobody wants to sit in, and he

did it. i just want to say that it works. donald trump has a history of showing it works, of finding ways to take care of folks. and that has worked to his benefit. remember, he's also the president that dangled pardons in front of people when he was facing impeachment. this is someone who we know will use whatever tools are at his disposal to ensure people's loyalty to him over, frankly, law and in some instances over country. so i expect that's exactly why they did it. we don't know. and we also don't know what impact it will have, because every individual is going to make their own decisions about whether they can do the time if they've done the crime. >> nick, let's talk about these charges that just were announced -- conspiracy to obstruct justice, altering, destroying, mutilating, concealing documents.

i know you haven't had the chance, nick, nor have we, to actually look at this part of the indictment in terms of a description, but what are your thoughts when you hear these types of offenses? >> i think this just goes back to what i said before. what the government wants to jury to focus on is this obstruction. and i think that this third individual was put into the indictment specifically for that purpose, because he brings out other aspects of the obstruction that the government is going to be able to prove, all of which the government wants the jury to focus on that, because they don't want him to focus on donald trump necessarily as much as just as an individual, as a former president. but they want to jury to see that donald trump committed the same crimes as these two other people and that they all should be treated the same way. that is a pretty powerful argument to put before the jury. >> actually, joining me now is

ken dilanian, nbc news justice correspondent. he has some breaking news. ken, fill us in on even more breaking news happening in the last minute or so. >> reporter: katie, the justice department special counsel's office has now released, issued the superseding indictment filed against now three defendants, donald trump, walt nauta, and carlos deoliveira and these include four additional charges and i'm going to read them to you. it add a new count 32, charging trump with one additional count of willful retention of national defense information. and then the superseing indictment also charges trump, deoliveira, and nauta with two new obstruction accounts, based on allegations they tried to delete surveillance footage at the mar-a-lago club in the summer of 2022. finally, the superseding indictment charges deoliveira with false statements and representations in a voluntary interview with the fbi on

january 13, 2023. now we need to go into that indictment, which includes the narrative that was in the original indictment and figure out exactly the facts related to these new charges. but again, trump is charged in an obstruction of justice conspiracy with new counts of attempting to delete surveillance footage, which adds a new depth to allegations. make it as much about obstructing justice as retaining information. >> willful retention of ndi. multiple counts against trump. but the obstruction is what stinks the most. that's the one that's going to be the most compelling arguments they have made. the fact that there's two obstruction counts, what does that say to you, because they add deoliveira and include nauta who was part of the original indictment? >> i've covered the intelligence community for more than a decade.

retaining classified information, especially at the level of classified information we're talking about here, is deeply significant. it's extraordinary a former president did this but a lot of regular americans out there are saying, didn't biden do that? didn't mike pence do it? of course that's not the same, but that's what a lot of people are saying because they're not delving into the details. the obstruction makes it different. what the government is saying here is donald trump, once he got caught taking these documents, did everything he could to stymy the federal government in their ability to investigate and get the documents back, up to and including now they're saying, trying to delete surveillance footage. that is something that every regular american can understand. they know that's a crime. it's been charged all over the place in cases large and small. very significant. it's been charged against prominent people. it's been charged against regular people. that's why i think this is very powerful. they're saying it was a conspiracy involving donald trump and two of his lower level employees who are now implicated

and facing years in prison, according to the allegations in this indictment, because of something donald trump wanted done. that's going to send a powerful message. these people are all presumed innocentle they'll have their defenses. but that's what the government is alleging in these new allegations. >> we're getting the superseding indictment as it rolls in. i'm intrigued by the false statements count that deoliveira's looking at. because that gives stand alone exposure to deoliveira like it did to walt nauta. deoliveira has his own personal exposure standing separate and apart because of what he said to the federal government when he was interviewed back in january, as you said, of this year. has there been any indication in terms of whether or not deoliveira has maybe participated in anything in term of meeting with special counsel jack smith's team more so than

this interview we're learning about from january of 2023? >> as you know, katie, if you were a cooperator they wouldn't be doing it this way. they would file a criminal information. and that's not what's happening, so my interpretation of that is he's not cooperating. it's tragic. he's facing years in prison, as is walt nauta when you know and i know -- you've litigated these case, i've covered them. they would be the first people that prosecutors would offer a deal to because they are lower level people in the conspiracy who have a lot of information about the defendant that prosecutors are most interested in, which is former president donald trump. but for whatever reason, both gentleman as far as we know now, are remaining loyal to trump. mr. nauta's lawyers are paid for by trump's political action committee. they're in lock step. appear to be working closely together and sharing information. as far as we can tell,

mr. deoliveira is in that same position. will he continue to hold that position as he starts to come to grips with the seriousness of these charges and the prison terms that they carry? we'll have to see. >> we haven't seen deoliveira getting cheese steaks with trump lately. we're going back to maya, emily, renato and nick. i have this. it's a doozy. breaking news from ken dilanian about new additional charges. donald trump facing another count for willful retention of ndi. two count deleting surveillance footage, and then deoliveira on his own having the false statements charge. renato, deletion of surveillance footage? how much more consciousness of guilt can you get from donald trump? >> i think that's the key. you mentioned donald trump. i think a lot of this is a way

of sidestepping some of the key defenses and arguments that trump is raising. if he keeps talking about the presidential records act, there's declassification nonsense. all of that is pushed to the side when you're talking about deleting evidence, destroying evidence, lying to the fbi. hiding evidence from the government sidesteps that. very hard for them in the jury room to justify that to their fellow jurors. one thing you focused on a moment ago was this false statement charge to the fbi. it's important to understand the context of that. this is after the fbi raided mar-a-lago. this is after there's a criminal investigation. and i will just say, in my experience, the jurors have a lot of trouble excusing people for lying and trying to cover up activity after they know that there's a criminal investigation. it's just very hard to claim you

weren't focused on it or you weren't mistaken because you know the stakes at that point. i really think that's going to be something where even if some of these other counts, it's more challenging for prosecutors, to me that's a real backstop, and i really think that if you're representing that new definite, you have to think hard about whether or not you want to go to trial -- >> i mean, emily, it's three -- three new counts against the former president of the united states, donald trump. again, one count for willful retention of ndi, but two counts along with his new codefendants involving walt nauta and carlos deoliveira for obstruction. how much does this become for jack smith a focus on the lower level defendants being walt nauta and carlos deoliveira in terms of a pressure campaign from donald trump to have them help commit obstruction. or is it, i'm going to treat

them the same way, they're both culpable. >> i would doubt the prosecutors see them as equally culpable. it's obvious who the big fish is here. one thing i wonder about is why we're seeing the superseding indictment into the new charges now. why weren't they brought all long? they were out there. it was speculation whether this deletion of this security footage happened or not, but the idea he made a call to an i.t. specialist potentially asking about it, that was known. i just wonder if the government had more hope that he might flip, that he could depend on him as a witness so they didn't indict him until now, or develop these facts publicly in a superseding indictment and now they have to charge him to exert

pressure in hopes he'll testify against trump in the future. >> nick, what is the answer to emily's question in why now if special counsel jack smith had in his possession all of this information? would it be something as straight forward as, we wanted him to cooperate, to flip. he's basically declined, so at this point we're going to hit him with whatever evidence we have, which raises to the level of the charge wes brought and the superseding indictment? >> that's certainly possible. but i think it's more likely they've come up with admissible evidence they can use to actually prove this. what may have been reported before may have been hearsay, may have been other evidence that wasn't usable in the court. but let me just say, this whole business about deleting tapes, this is a complete repeat of history from watergate. this is exactly what richard nixon had his secretary do, rosemary woods, with the

18-minute gap in the tape, the most important tape that was going to be turned over to our office at the time. she just happened to hit the pedal at the wrong point to delete that portion of the tape. this is exactly watergate all over again on steroids. >> we are reading the superseding indictment in realtime here in the mar-a-lago probe. it contains new allegations again carlos deoliveira, who "the new york times" reports is the head of maintenance at mar-a-lago. the indictment alleges that the one point, deoliveira insisted to someone called employee four that, quote, the boss wanted the server deleted, and asked, what are we going to do? i mean, maya, how much more damning can it get, right? this kind of what we just read to our viewers dove tails with a question i posed a few minutes ago about having someone like

deoliveira and walt nauta -- although i'm leaning towards deoliveira at this point -- be the voice of donald trump. if we're not going to hear donald trump speak, we have these men say what donald trump told them to do. it's pretty explicit from what we've just read from the superseding indictment. your thoughts? >> you know, i just have to say this -- this was such a strong indictment before the superseded indictment. it really was. it was very hard to read this indictment and go, what's the defense here? i think your point is exactly right, katie, and everyone else's, which is lots of questions about why now, but certainly an indicator that this is just shoring up what is already a very strong indictment, and in a context which has also been noted by many, which is a judge that has proven to lean towards trump in ways that were pretty surprising to us earlier, but also a

district where they are a lot of people who support donald trump. so, you know, there's no prosecutor that's going the look at this case and not take all of those things into account and make sure every single bit of evidence that they can bring the bear come to bear in the trial, even as a very strong indictment. i think your point is a really important one -- just remember that i -- for all the reasons that we can guess but not necessarily know, donald trump has been very successful at keeping people quiet and keeping people loyal. and so in that, and no defendant is required to take the stand. so this is going to be one of those cases where it's going to be very interesting to watch how this evidence unfolds, but there's no question it's strong. >> renato, this entire case is about the intent of the defendants, and most specifically, the intent of donald trump to willfully retain classified documents, to

obstruct the government from obtaining those documents and getting them back. the addition of a superseding indictment, we spoke briefly about how it may materially affect the time line of the future trial in this case. if there end up being a cooperator, whether it's carlos deoliveira or walt nauta, do you think that creates a substantive grounds for delay to be able to push this trial even farther into 2024? >> i think it's something the defense will use to try to delay, and i think they're going to use the superseding indictment to delay. and that's why i think -- my analysis here is jack smith is more concerned about getting the conviction and making his case as strong as possible than he is about streamlining his case to rush to the finish line. maya mentioned a moment ago -- i respect her view on it. her point is, if you're a prosecutor you want all your bullets in your gun, right? you're going to throw all the evidence at the defendant.

and i think the point there is if you're going to do that, now there's a new defendant, a whole new defense attorney that comes into the mix, somebody else who has to get up to speed who has less time. i think jack smith made a calculus and decided he's not going to race in a case that's overseen by aileen cannon, initially set for may, he's not going to race to the finish line, so he wants to make sure he has every tool in his toolbox to get a conviction. we may see in the january 6th indictment a more streamlined indictment. but i think he's made a judgment call he'd rather have more evidence. >> also new in today's superseding indictment, the following language. employee 5 told nauta that deoliveira was loyal and deoliveira would not do anything to affect his relationship with trump. joining me now is lisa reuben, a msnbc analyst who's been speed reading this indictment with us and has some new thoughts.

lisa. >> katie, good to see you. i think one of the things that we're learning from this new superseding indictment is how many other trump employees have either been interviewed by the department of justice or have been subpoenaed by the special counsel's office for their testimony. this new superseding indictment obviously talks about trump employees 3, 4, and 5. those are people who either communicated with nauta and deoliveira or with each other. the superseding indictment is citing text messages between the folks or conversations with these folks that indicate as donald trump was about to get a new subpoena for security footage at mar-a-lago, he was also taking steps to ensure that deoliveira and nauta were both completely with him and that they would do whatever it took to try and obtain some of that security footage, which is reflected in two of the new

charges here. >> so, lisa, as you have been reading through the superseding indictment, you mentioned a minute ago text messages. what does that say about the work that's being done behind the scenes, about which the public has no knowledge, to which we're not privy that jack smith obtained things like text messages and weighs that are in writing, frankly the argument would be made they're more reliable about oral communication made. >> sure. some of our colleagues earlier this week revealed there were at least eight search warrants issued before the indictment in this case, at least one of which was the search of mar-a-lago itself. but we know that one of them was for walt nauta's devices, and we know that because his lawyer stanley woodward at last week's hearing announced in open court that rather ask for devices or end send him a grand jury subpoena, the special counsel's office took the step of issuing a search warrant for walt

nauta's phones. in the indictment we see text messages back and forth between people. did that come from nauta's phones? others' phones? there's a series of texts from nauta and deoliveira. they could have come from both. the other thing is there's a long recitation of deoliveira's conversations with someone, trump employee number 4. that isn't from texts but indeed must be from trump employee 4 having extensive conversations, whether compelled or not, with the special counsel's office. so i think you're right to say behind the scenes they've gotten hard evidence but soft evidence as well in the form of firsthand witnesses that have communicated with each of these defendants. >> your review of the superseding indictment, lisa, how direct is trump's involvement in this conspiracy to delete the surveillance footage? is it something as explicit as trump ordering it to be deleted?

is it hey, wink, wink, nudge nj, that would really be terrible if someone got their hands on this footage? >> i'm still in the process of processing this document as we all are, but one of the things that's most damming is paragraph 76 for those following along at home, is june 23rd, they shared with trump's lawyer a draft subpoena for security footage. that next night he calls deoliveira and they spoke for 24 minutes. what are they speaking about? he's the head of maintenance at mar-a-lago. i don't think that's a 24-minute conversation about the state of road den drons at mar-a-lago. certainly we'll wait to see what we learn further after this superseding indictment. >> lisa reuben, i'll let you get back to that speed reading so we can all benefit from what you uncover later on.

thanks for joining me. >> thanks, katie. the indictment also says the following. quote, deoliveira was asked the following questions in a voluntary interview with the fbi and gave the following false answers. question, when after the end of the presidency boxes arrived to mar-a-lago, were you part of any group to help? answer, no question, unload and move them? the boxes. answer, no. let's go back to maya, emily, renato, and nick. i know you guys also haven't had a chance to speed read the indictment in this case, but you heard what lisa reuben had to say. we have more employees being identified and we have our hands on text messages. emily, the more corroborating evidence that we get that proves corrupt intent, does this mean that the case gets more complex, or does it mean the case gets easier for somebody like jack smith to prove? >> it means there are more

people involved, there are more witnesses, but that can improve a prosecutor's case, not necessarily complicate it. you have more people piling on evidence, trying to prove the same set of allegations. and, you know, i'm struck also in the comparison to watergate. it's so often -- it's about the cover-up. if they were deleting security footage after the government made it clear they were trying to figure out what happened to these documents and whether these boxes were moving around, that looks relevant. >> renato, we were thinking we were going to be talking about the january 6th probe special counsel jack smith's investigation and the possibility of an imminent indictment. that's still clearly on our minds. so that's the basis of my question to you. assuming we do get that indictment in the 1/6 investigation from jack smith as early as next week, tuesday for example, how does that factor in then in terms of the bigger

chess board of somebody like jack smith? because that's just the next indictment that is now added. fourth indictment against donald trump on the third indictment which is now superseding against donald trump. how does that affect jack smith's determination of how he proceeds? can he ledgely, as you said before we talked to lisa reuben, can he argue to move one case faster than the other? >> that's a really good question. i think yes he can. these cases are essentially on their own tracks. obviously the defendant can't be in two courtrooms at the same time, okay, so judges do take into account other courtrooms and what's going on in other courtrooms for scheduling purposes. but i think the big question once an indictment comes down in the january 6th matter is, who's the judge? that's often a very big question in a criminal case. it really depends -- a lot depends on that. and then in d.c. you have a lot of judges who have prior experience with donald trump.

i think that's -- these people in january 6th cases, i think that's so important. because a typical judge -- you pick a judge anywhere in this country, a typical federal judge and typical defendant, they usually give the defendant a lot of rope to take their time and learn and conduct their own investigation, get familiar with the facts, because they presume the person isn't trying to waste their time, isn't trying to abuse the process. but if, for example, barrel howell or amy berman jackson or someone like that who has extensive experience with donald trump, his associates, january 6th defendants and so on, they may take a very different view of this, and jack smith may suddenly be in a situation where a judge in d.c. is more interested or motivated to move that case quickly. it's possible especially with the superseding indictment in florida that case ends up moving faster, the d.c. case, than the mar-a-lago documents case, even though it was charged first.

>> nick, you did say that this is reminiscent if not mirroring watergate. this is apparently trump's watergate with this superseding indictment. nick, it never got tested, right? the evidence that was in the watergate case never got tested because it never went to trial. we saw nixon bow out disgracefully. we're not going to see that happen with donald trump. so, in your opinion, nick, when it comes to the preparation of this case, considering what you've heard so far, what are your thoughts the about this case for special counsel jack smith with these additional new counts, plural, against donald trump, but specifically those obstruction charges against donald trump in. >> first of all, the case in watergate did go to trial. just didn't go to trial against richard nixon. >> touche. >> it went to trial against his former attorney general, two of

his top aides, and they were all convicted. they were convicted of covering up, of obstruction of justice, and of lying to the grand jury. so i think what we're looking at here is a very similar situation. and what we really have here is jack smith, because of the defendant that's involved, because of the importance of this case to the country, the standard is not simply proof beyond a reasonable doubt. but he's putting together a case that is beyond any doubt. the evidence here is so overwhelming now that when you tie these three defendants together, there's no way a reasonable jury cannot convict on the obstruction counts. it's just impossible, because they all play off each other and all of these defendants and what they did all play off each other that make this an extremely strong case. i mean, i think what we're going

to be looking for in the january 6th indictment is who are the other defendants besides donald trump? is there -- and i'm sure it will be -- the same standard of proof beyond any doubt in i'm sure jack smith is going to be putting together a case that is basically has no defense to it, just like this case has no defense to it, and i think that's what we're going to be looking for. and how far can he go improving the complete scope of what occurred leading up to and what happened on january 6th? >> i appreciate the grace, nick akerman, from you, concerning the clarity on the watergate analogy. and this indictment, the superseding indictment has some more specific information on numbers here. the indictment alleging nauta and deoliveira moved approximately 30 -- 30 boxes from trump's residence to the

storage room. let's go back the ken dilanian, nbc news justice correspondent. ken, some more thoughts about this superseding indictment, and once you have had the chance, which i know you have, to look it over? >> reporter: i have been reading the section which describes the attempt to delete security footage. and while nick and others have made the analogy to watergate, in a sense this also reads like a mafia plot. it's really remarkable. again, these are allegations, and they're based in part on anonymous trump employees designated as trump employee number four, for example. but the narrative as the special counsel lays it out is that in june of 2022, donald trump gets a subpoena for surveillance footage and that same day walt nauta is making plans to go down unexpectedly to mar-a-lago, to florida. and three days later, he's in a conversation with deoliveira

where he says, the boss wants this server deleted. again, according to employee number four as quoted in the indictment. what are we going to do? boss wants this footage deleted. he also asked how long the footage was retained. again, this is after grand jury subpoena demanding this footage. it could not be more clear. now, what's missing from this, though, first of all, is any description of an actual attempt to delete the footage. stuff we read in "the new york times" about the flood that may have impacted the servers, that's not in here. what's also missing is direct testimony, someone saying, i was in the room with donald trump when he ordered me to delete the footage. that's presumably what walt nauta could say or deoliveira could say, because both are alleged to have conversations with trump, but they're not cooperating so they're not going to say it. just to round that out, weeks after the fbi discovered the classified documents and conducted the search at mar-a-lago, nauta is alleged to

have called another trump employee, trump employee number phi and say words to the effect of, someone just wants to make sure carlos is good. so people getting their stories straight. you and i have seen this in criminal cases for years. classic cover-up behavior, and it's really remarkable these allegations have been levried against a former president of the united states accused of obstructing justice. >> our thanks to ken dilanian for getting us more information from this superseding indictment. let's go back to maya, emily, and nick, and we're going to add bill kristol to the conversation. bill, you have an indictment charging former president of the united states not only with an ndi count, but two counts as a coconspirator to delete footage. could it get any worse for

donald trump at this point? >> it could, because he's going to be indicted for january 6th as well. what strikes me looking at the indictment, jack smith has done more in eight months to hold donald trump accountable than the republican party has in eight years, and i would say

the point they just raise, was the superseding of the indictment about any delay in an actual attempt to delete. in your opinion, do you think that is necessary considering the fact thus far that we have heard? do the actual attends have to be made? is it simple enough for the conspiracy to obstruct justice? it was this plan that they were trying to delete the surveillance footage. >> in the context of conspiracy, you have to make an act. you don't have to go through all of it to be guilty. as you well know, we were looking at this indictment. my ears did pick up when they said that. we are trying to supersede the indictment. you are right, you don't need it. to that point also, we have all

of this other evidence. we have stated it in the indictment. we are relating to the witnesses that we are going to share. presumably, we will see witnesses as well as text messages. they will show a plan. they will possibly show some steps to achieve that, even if they didn't follow through all the way with it. we are moving 30 boxes after a subpoena. it means that they had every effort to ensure. they had obstruction. the whole picture that is being painted from what we are hearing, as part of the superseding indictment's. this is continuing as some of you have already said tonight. we are painting a picture. the picture is dark for those who have been dark and charged. in case, donald trump, and his two henchmen. >> we have more news from

today's superseding indictment. just over two weeks after the fbi discovered classified documents in the storage room, and in donald trump's office, he told him that he would get him an attorney. in this conversation, the washington bureau chief is something that we have talked about. it is about his shameful legacy. many times, we have said it is a doozy. two more counts added to the superseding indictment. this is for obstruction of justice. this is for his active conspiracy to be able to delete surveillance footage. obviously, it would have been damning. they were making sure that it wasn't going to be caught on tape and what are your thoughts? >> we have talked about this before. he behaves like a mop boss. not an ex-president or a president. he's trying to get rid of

evidence, trying to cover up his tracks. lots of people have talked about this. it is this mob boss language. you are making sure this guy is straight with us. the destruction of evidence. if that is not an indication of guilt, and knowing guilt, we know the crimes that they are accused of. they have the intent side to it. he has asked for these documents. he is hanging onto them. he is trying to destroy evidence about the manner in which they were kept. he basically swiped them from you and me. they belong to the american public. this is really reinforcing what we know about donald trump. i almost feel sorry for the people falling into his net. i still wonder if jack smith

has any surprises up his sleeve and in some ways, i think this is a wonderful prelude to the indictments that we see coming. this is a guy that had no respect for american democracy. here he is, obstructing justice deliberately. he was conspiring to basically undermined american legal system rules. it is all part of the same mob boss mentality. >> if it is any indication of what he has up his sleeve, doing what special jack smith, councilmember had, has done in terms of trying to get our democracy right, thank you for being with us. we are going to bring lisa ribbon back in. nbc legal analyst. you have been going through the superseding indictment sprayed you have been listening to the

conversations. what is the latest that you can bring us in terms of a review of this indictment? >> in the back of the indictment, there is a description. you had asked me earlier what kind of evidence he had been gathering behind the scene. we have a better handle on just how extensive and far-reaching that evidences. jack smith, is showing us in the superseding indictment, he has collected texts and phone records. he has collected surveillance footage where he sees them together at other portions of the property, where we didn't understand he had surveillance footage before. in an audio closet, where they have a private conversation. on the grounds, where they are going to a security booth. they must have security footage all over the rounded to place these two together. we have another conversation that we were talking about earlier. he was explaining to donald trump employee number four, that the boss wants the security footage erased. he says he is not sure if he knows how to do that, nor if he can or do know how to do that.

the way the conversation is limited, these are quotes from an extensive interview that he gave to the special counsel's office. that audio closet in which they had this exchange, was taping their conversation. it is not entirely clear which is happening. i just have a new appreciation, as they said earlier, how much jack smith has done in eight months. he has done quite a bit to collect a far ranging group of evidence, going from three new witnesses, to a whole bunch of hard evidence text messages and phone records. >> we have been listening to other guests who talked about it not being the first time it has been compared. donald trump, acting like a mafia boss. this is a mob guy. in these situations, these are mob leaders. they are smart enough not to directly advocate themselves. go and kill that guy.

they are going to give us problems. it would be terrible if we have problems. have you picked up anything on the superseding indictment's? do they have strong, circumstantial evidence of donald trump's direct culpability in this plan to obstruct in terms of the surveillance footage? >> i'm not sure we have. donald trump, is good at educating themselves. it is at least the evidence. june 23rd, for 24 minutes, have some strong, circumstantial evidence of his efforts to insert himself in the destruction of evidence that the department of justice and special department wants. we are trying to play a little bit cute. we know this from the prior version of the indictment. it is still there. we are indicating to corporate, maybe it would be convenient to use the supporting evidence

that were part of these documents on january 3rd. i'm messing anything that implicates donald trump more directly. it is the fact that after talking to donald trump for 24 minutes, goes and says this donald trump employee, wants this deleted. that is a pretty good sign of circumstantial evidence when you can have building blocks of evidence needed to show a person's intent. >> may be donald trump told him go and delete it. maybe they were passing along the obstruction for donald trump. i want to ask you the following. they were posting about the january 6th probe. we have the pending indictment coming from that. i was listening to my lawyers. i really wasn't doing anything criminally wrong. do you think it is possible that donald trump could raise that as a possible defense? i didn't tell them to destroy anything. they were trying to act on their own, and help themselves

out. >> he has raised privilege. i think we were headed down that road. >> thank you for taking the time as a legal analyst to go through the superseding indictment, and to make us smarter. i appreciate it. thank you. that does it for me. i want to thank all of our experts that we are recovering from his breaking news readout. this is all coming up next. good evening, everyone. we begin with breaking news in the multiples of accounts regarding donald trump. in the last hour, there have been big development in the classified documents case. they added a new charge against donald trump. one additional account of willful intention of hiding national information. this is alongside donald trump, and his longside