0:00
The last time we spoke
0:01
after the first indictment,
0:02
you said you didn’t necessarily expect
0:04
another indictment.
0:06
So what was your reaction
0:07
to the new charges this week?
0:09
Well,
0:09
when I read them, I was kind of wondering
0:11
why wasn’t that
0:12
in the initial indictment?
0:13
I mean, the information
0:14
that they’ve added
0:15
seems like things that they
0:17
would have known
0:18
or should have known at the time
0:19
that they brought the initial indictment.
0:21
So why did they decide to cut it up
0:23
and put it in a superseding indictment?
0:26
The other thing I was wondering is
0:28
why did they wait until
0:29
right after having this whole big fight
0:31
about the trial schedule
0:32
and saying, oh,
0:33
we want the schedule to be moved up?
0:36
I’m sure that the judge
0:37
is going to question them as to you know,
0:39
if you knew that you were going to amend,
0:41
you knew that you were going to add
0:42
another defendant.
0:43
You knew that this whole trial schedule
0:45
was not going to happen.
0:47
Why didn’t you reveal it at the time?
0:49
Yeah, it’s likely the judge can.
0:51
And I was in the hearing,
0:52
which was trying to get information
0:53
because timing is so critical here.
0:55
Right.
0:56
It will be really interesting
0:57
to see her reaction
0:58
because she put a lot of effort
0:59
into that schedule.
1:00
I think there are 30 different deadlines
1:01
they need to meet. It is one.
1:03
It is no,
1:03
it is the most detailed trial schedule
1:06
I’ve ever seen out of any federal judge.
1:09
And so I do think that it is something
1:10
that she’s going to take a look
1:11
at and say,
1:12
why did you have me go
1:13
through this exercise
1:14
if you knew
1:15
that you were going to do something?
1:17
You know,
1:17
this move
1:19
is very likely going to push this trial,
1:21
you know, just on its own out
1:22
much closer to or past the election.
1:26
Let’s talk about the
1:27
merits of the filing
1:28
Three new things, right?
1:30
We have obstruction of the obstruction
1:32
alleged.
1:33
A new codefendant and a new document.
1:36
Let’s start with the obstruction itself.
1:38
What do you think of the strength
1:39
of the case
1:40
here, the attempt
1:41
to delete the security footage so here.
1:43
It’s interesting
1:44
because they just have a conversation
1:46
that apparently wasn’t recorded
1:48
where he’s saying
1:49
the boss wants this deleted.
1:51
If they don’t really
1:52
have much more than that,
1:53
they maybe have enough to charge
1:55
Carlos with it.
1:57
But quite frankly,
1:57
if you charge Donald Trump
1:59
every single time
1:59
one of his employees says, you know,
2:01
the boss wanted something.
2:03
You know,
2:03
I think that it could go on forever
2:05
because so many of them, you know,
2:06
just use that phrase
2:08
And so
2:10
they would have to actually
2:11
make the connection
2:12
that he actually
2:13
communicated that to Carlos.
2:14
I don’t think that
2:15
they’re going to be able
2:16
to sustain their burden as to others,
2:19
even if they do have that employee
2:21
come in and say, yes,
2:22
you know, Carlos said this to me.
2:24
This is the obstruction
2:25
of the obstruction, though, right?
2:27
So we have a lot of obstruction alleged
2:29
here.
2:29
What is your assessment
2:30
of the overall obstruction case here?
2:32
Well,
2:33
I mean, the
2:33
the video that we’re talking about here,
2:36
the surveillance video, was something
2:37
that when the subpoena came in,
2:40
you know, we advised, you know, turn over
2:42
and it was turned over.
2:45
And it was something that was kind
2:46
of surprising to us at the time.
2:48
Of why were they even looking at this?
2:49
Because the deletion of footage,
2:53
DOJ had all the footage.
2:54
So they knew that there
2:55
was nothing missing.
2:57
But it really
2:59
is going to be a question
3:00
of what is on that footage.
3:02
The same thing
3:03
I told you
3:03
when the neighbor first came down is
3:06
what is it actually going to show of,
3:09
you know, Carlos
3:10
and Walt actually moving these boxes?
3:14
It’s something that
3:15
now I’m surprised
3:16
that they haven’t played clips of it yet.
3:18
I’m surprised
3:19
they haven’t put screenshots of it
3:20
into the indictment.
3:21
You know, they have,
3:22
you know,
3:23
pictures of boxes
3:24
on stage and boxes and bathrooms
3:26
but the single most damaging thing
3:29
in this indictment, the most, you know,
3:33
criminal thing that it appears
3:35
they didn’t
3:35
put the screenshots of that in.
3:37
So do you think a screenshot
3:39
of what not and Carlos,
3:40
still a very moving
3:41
boxes would hit harder than
3:43
those pictures
3:44
of alleged
3:45
classified documents
3:46
in a ballroom,
3:46
in a bathroom, in a bedroom?
3:47
Oh, sure. It’s damning.
3:49
If they are
3:50
if they moved 60 boxes out,
3:52
like that’s like a saying
3:54
and they can show
3:56
you know,
3:56
a video
3:57
or a screenshot of them
3:58
moving 60 boxes out
4:00
right before Evan
4:02
Kirkland goes in to do a search.
4:03
I mean, that’s
4:04
an extremely damaging video.
4:07
And I would be expected
4:09
that’d be something they’d be showing.
4:11
Does it surprise you
4:12
that Trump would allegedly lean
4:15
on a lower level employee to
4:18
do his dirty work?
4:20
Well, and again, if this
4:22
if the allegations are true,
4:24
for him to ask somebody else
4:26
to move the boxes
4:27
as opposed to moving them himself,
4:28
obviously that’s not
4:29
something that’s surprising. I wouldn’t.
4:32
That would be the screenshot
4:33
to put in his view of Donald
4:34
Trump moving boxes himself.
4:36
But that doesn’t surprise me
4:39
that he has people that do this
4:41
these things for him,
4:42
whether appropriate or inappropriate,
4:45
One of the themes that keeps coming up
4:47
is sort of an effort to go around.
4:48
The lawyer
4:49
said the effort
4:50
to destroy
4:51
surveillance footage, as we understand
4:52
it, was nixed eventually
4:54
when it reached
4:55
sort of this reached lawyers
4:57
at the Trump Organization.
4:58
We know the other alleged obstruction
5:01
to moving the boxes in and out
5:02
was allegedly to hide
5:04
these documents from his lawyers.
5:05
I mean, what do you think of this?
5:07
This keeps coming up. Right.
5:09
Let’s try this.
5:10
But don’t let the lawyers know
5:11
because they could
5:12
get in the way of my plans.
5:14
It is.
5:15
You know,
5:16
if these things are true,
5:17
that is definitely damaging.
5:19
You know,
5:20
if it is true that they did do that
5:22
and I haven’t heard about the
5:25
the attempted deletion of footage
5:27
got stopped by lawyers.
5:28
That’s not something I’m aware of.
5:29
You know, my understanding is that
5:32
it was
5:32
it was something that they couldn’t
5:34
avoid.
5:35
Do you know Carlos deliver?
5:37
I don’t I don’t I never met him.
5:39
And he’s certainly represented
5:40
by counsel.
5:41
Said it would’ve been inappropriate
5:42
for me to talk to him directly anyway.
5:45
And I want to run
5:46
some new reporting by that.
5:47
We just have now
5:48
there’s another employee
5:49
you sell, Tavares.
5:51
This is someone who is referred to
5:53
in the indictment
5:54
as Trump employee number four.
5:56
And what’s interesting about Tavares
5:58
is that this individual received
6:00
a target letter,
6:02
which we know Carlos and Walt not.
6:04
They were both sort of put on notice
6:06
that they could be could be charged here.
6:08
Neither one of them has cooperated
6:10
Capital C with the Justice Department.
6:12
They’ve both been charged.
6:13
But interestingly,
6:14
after Tavares received a target letter,
6:17
he changed lawyers.
6:19
He had previously been represented
6:20
by the same person
6:22
who represents Wall, not us.
6:23
And Woodward,
6:24
he represents a lot of people
6:24
in this investigation.
6:26
What do you make of this?
6:26
That this individual received
6:28
a target letter, decided
6:29
they no longer wanted a Trump
6:30
affiliated lawyer
6:31
and appears
6:31
to have provided
6:33
some of the information
6:34
in this indictment.
6:35
That is a classic example
6:37
of what a target letter is used for.
6:39
You know, you provide somebody
6:41
with notice
6:41
that they could be charged
6:42
to give them an opportunity
6:43
to come in and cooperate.
6:44
And so, obviously,
6:45
he made a decision to switch lawyers
6:47
and to go in and tell prosecutors
6:49
something that would allow him
6:51
not to be indicted.
6:53
Whether it’s true or not, I don’t know.
6:55
But that is exactly what the purpose
6:58
of a target letter is,
7:00
which why was so surprised to me
7:01
that they are sending one
7:03
to Donald Trump,
7:03
because obviously he’s not going to,
7:05
you know,
7:05
switch lawyers
7:06
and come in and cooperate against Walt.
7:08
True.
7:09
But it does help put him on notice.
7:10
Right.
7:11
And then it puts us on notice.
7:12
In an indictment is coming
7:12
because it’s an untruth. Social. Exactly.
7:14
And that’s that’s the point.
7:15
Is that a target letter
7:17
to somebody
7:17
like Donald Trump serves
7:19
no legitimate litigation
7:20
purpose is more of a public
7:21
relations purpose,
7:22
whereas a target to letter to somebody
7:25
like you.
7:25
Still, you see exactly how it works.
7:29
The target letter gets sent.
7:31
The individual makes a decision.
7:33
They come in
7:34
and provide information
7:36
to avoid getting charged themselves.
7:37
So we know that Walton
7:39
data was on notice for a while
7:40
that he could be charged here.
7:42
He was under a lot of pressure
7:43
for a long time
7:43
before he was charged to cooperate
7:46
with the Justice Department.
7:47
He did not do that.
7:48
He currently has a Trump affiliated
7:50
PAC funded lawyer.
7:52
We also know Carlos de la Vera also
7:55
knew that he could be charged
7:56
with false statements or other crimes.
7:58
He also has not cooperated.
8:00
I think his legal situation
8:01
is a little in flux right now,
8:02
but has a Trump aligned lawyer.
8:04
But you still Tavares
8:05
when a different way.
8:06
How big a problem is this for Trump?
8:08
Is this a possible break in the dam?
8:10
Well, it is somebody who you know, it’s
8:13
the first person that we’ve heard of
8:15
that has come in
8:16
to give eyewitness testimony.
8:17
This directly contradictory
8:19
to Donald Trump. Story.
8:21
Now, that
8:21
being said,
8:22
he’s also not able to point the finger
8:24
directly at Donald Trump.
8:26
You know, he’s
8:26
pointing the finger at Carlos
8:27
and saying Carlos said this,
8:30
but that’s not something that can even
8:31
really be used
8:33
to show that Donald Trump said it.
8:35
So it is the first instance
8:37
of the so-called cooperating witness
8:40
that we’ve seen in this case.
8:42
I want to move on to another part
8:43
of the superseding indictment,
8:44
and that is the fact that they added
8:46
another document,
8:48
another charge of willful retention
8:49
in this document, a significant
8:50
because this is the one
8:51
that is allegedly mentioned
8:53
in that recording.
8:55
What is your reaction
8:57
to the fact that this has been added
8:59
now in a superseding indictment?
9:01
Similar to what I said earlier?
9:03
It’s surprising to me
9:04
that it’s been added now.
9:06
If you look at the dates
9:07
on that charge, it
9:08
indicates that it was
9:09
something that was retained up
9:11
through January 17th of 2022,
9:14
which indicates
9:15
that that’s in the original boxes
9:17
that were sent back to there.
9:18
That is correct.
9:18
We have a we have that report.
9:19
So if special counsel had this document,
9:23
you know, since the initial referral,
9:26
why didn’t
9:26
they put that in the initial indictment?
9:29
And why did that take so long to put in?
9:33
But also,
9:34
from a legal standpoint,
9:35
if you’re charging somebody
9:36
with willful retention of a document
9:38
and that document is one
9:40
that he returned
9:41
before the investigation even commenced.
9:44
You’re also going to have
9:44
structural problems with it there.
9:47
One idea that has been floated
9:48
to one is the level of classification.
9:51
Perhaps there was some conflict
9:52
in the intelligence community.
9:54
What do you make of that explanation?
9:55
I don’t see that.
9:56
I mean, this is a
9:58
you know, what they’re alleging
9:59
is that it was a plan
10:00
to attack the country that was rejected
10:03
and it’s a couple of years old.
10:05
That’s not something that would.
10:08
That’s still an active plan.
10:10
After the original indictment,
10:11
the former president said publicly
10:13
there was no date, no document delay.
10:15
This could be a response to that.
10:17
It could be.
10:18
It certainly could be.
10:19
But again,
10:20
why why didn’t
10:21
they put it in the original and determine
10:24
did they not put it in
10:25
to see if they could beat him into saying
10:27
it doesn’t exist? Then Aha.
10:29
Here it is.
10:31
Or was they just sloppy
10:32
and they didn’t find it the first time?
10:33
Or are they taking another document
10:35
and putting it in there? I don’t know.