Welcome to the beat. I'm Ari Melber and we are tracking some major stories on this Friday night, including Kevin McCarthy's new problems.

On Obamacare Surge and what that means out in the real world for real people and by the end of the hour,

we're going to turn to culture with Ellie Mistal and the artist Ransom.

But right now, I want to begin this hour with you with one of our special reports about law and justice and fairness.

It involves a dilemma that many have warned about. That the end of the Trump presidency would not be the end of Trump's impact or damage,

especially given the many documented ways that he tried to corrupt the government, politicize DOJ investigations and alter the traditions and norms that at times have been guardrails for the United States.

Now, everything just changed for President Biden because he's now facing this new special counsel probe from the DOJ.

Unlike, say, President Obama, who actually went eight years with no special counsel probe, Biden and his staff are facing that kind of high stakes review and wherever it may go,

because the Attorney General appointed a dedicated prosecutor to probe how classified documents ended up in Biden's office and home before he was president.

And not just any prosecutor, we'll come back to that.

But this week's news is a project of an unusual decision Garland made about two months ago when he appointed a different special counsel for Trump's classified documents.

In certain extraordinary cases, it is in the public interest to appoint a special prosecutor based on recent developments, including the former president's announcement that he is a candidate for president in the next election,

and the sitting president stated intention to be a candidate as well. I have concluded that it is in the public interest to appoint a special counsel.

That was odd. We reported that point at the time. How these type of councils are not usually used in that situation.

Legal experts said so back then. It was not necessary, Garland didn't need to do it. He suggested that adding more review would increase confidence in the process.

And the question then was, confidence among what people? Because people focus on facts will respond to the facts of the case, not bureaucracy or personnel.

Right wing Trump defenders, they won't be accepting any Trump indictment were one to come out of that process, whether Jack Smith is involved or not.

So it seemed like a tell. Anyone thinking that just swapping in a different lawyer will appease the entire right wing machine has not absorbed the last six years.

Sounds a lot like the pre-Trump era machinations of another old school legal figure, James Comey, who stumbled into several questionable decisions, not because he was an incompetent lawyer.

Comey was a veteran and skilled prosecutor when he took over the FBI. But because he tried to game out politics and bargain in public with right wing and bad faith actors.

He made calls clearly based on what he predicted they might say in politics instead of just following the law and ignoring whatever heat may or may not come.

That was then. This is now. And then there's a tell that this can also be for the Justice Department about more optics because of who Garland picked to lead the Biden probe.

...