SARA MURRAY BEGINS OUR COVERAGE
WITH THE VERY LATEST ON THESE
NEW CHARGES.
SARA, OUT OF SEEMINGLY IN
RUSSELL WESTBROOK.
WHAT DO WE KNOW?
>> JOHN, I THINK OBVIOUSLY THE
BIGGEST DEAL IS DONALD TRUMP IS
ALREADY FACING SEVERAL CHARGES,
NOW HE'S FACING SEVERAL MORE,
ANOTHER IS A WILLFUL RETENTION
OF DOCUMENTS CHARGE RELATED TO
THAT SENSITIVE IRAN DOCUMENT
THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE
THAT HE SHOWED TO MEETING IN A
MEETING BUT THE OTHER ONES IS A
PROSECUTOR SAID WAS A SCHEME TO
DELETE VIDEO, ALTERING,
DESTROYING, MULT LAGS OR
DESTROYING AN OBJECT OR
DOCUMENT, RECORD OR OTHER
OBJECT.
AS THEY LAY IT OUT IN THE
INDICTMENT ESSENTIALLY THERE'S
THIS NEW AIDE THAT WE'RE HEARING
OF, CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA, WHO IS
NOW A DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE WHO
TRUMP APPEARS TO TAP AS PART OF
THIS SCHEME TO TRY TO DELETE THE
SURVEILLANCE VIDEO.
IT'S AFTER THE GOVERNMENT HAS
BEEN TO MAR-A-LAGO, THEY'VE
SUBPOENAED HIM TO RETURN ALL
DOCUMENTS WITH CLASSIFICATION
MARKINGS AND WHEN THEY GO TO
PICK IT UP THEY NOTICE THAT
THERE ARE THESE SURVEILLANCE
CAMERAS OUTSIDE OF THE STORAGE
ROOM WHERE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE
BEING KEPT.
THEY SUBPOENA THE TRUMP
ORGANIZATION FOR THESE
SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS.
SO AFTER THAT SUBPOENA IT'S LATE
JUNE 2022 AND DE OLIVEIRA A
TALKING TO ANOTHER TRUMP
EMPLOYEE ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE
FOOTAGE AND ACCORDING TO THE
INDICTMENT HE ASKS THIS OTHER
TRUMP EMPLOYEE HOW MANY DAYS
THIS SERVER RETAINS THE FOOTAGE.
THE EMPLOYEE SAYS IT'S 45 DAYS.
DE OLIVEIRA THEN GOES TO THE
TRUMP EMPLOYEE AND SAYS, YOU
KNOW, THE BOSS WANTS THE SERVER
DELETED, AND HE ASKS WHAT ARE WE
GOING TO DO?
SO THAT'S REALLY THE HEART OF
THIS SCHEME TO THREE TO DELETE
THIS SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE THAT
IS NEW THIS THIS INDICTMENT.
LET'S GO BACK TO THAT ADDITIONAL
WILLFUL RETENTION OF DOCUMENTS
CHARGE BECAUSE THIS IS A
DOCUMENT WE HAVE TALKED A LOT
ABOUT.
DONALD TRUMP TALKED ABOUT IT IN
A MEETING HE HAD IN JULY OF 2021
AT BEDMINSTER WITH FOLKS WHO
WERE WRITING A BOOK ABOUT MARK
MEADOWS.
TAKE A LISTEN TO HOW DONALD
TRUMP TALKED ABOUT THAT DOCUMENT
AT THE TIME.
>> THIS WAS THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT AND HIM.
WE LOOKED AT SOME.
THIS WAS HIM.
THIS WASN'T DONE BY ME, THIS WAS
HIM.
ALL SORTS OF STUFF.
PAGES LONG.
WAIT A MINUTE, LET'S SEE HERE.
I JUST FOUND -- ISN'T THAT
AMAZING?
THIS TOTALLY WINS MY CASE, YOU
KNOW, EXCEPT IT IS HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL.
>> AND, JOHN, THIS IS SINCE THE
FIRST VERSION OF THIS INDICTMENT
CAME OUT, SINCE THE TAPE CAME
OUT TRUMP HAD SAID HE HAD NO
DOCUMENT IT WAS ALL BRAVADO, THE
GOVERNMENT MAKING CLEAR THIS
THIS NEW INDICTMENT THAT WAS NOT
THE CASE.
>> AS WE SAID, A BIG DEVELOPMENT
AMID SO MANY OTHERS.
SARA MURRAY, THANK YOU FOR
BRINGING US UP TO SPEED ON THIS,
I EXPECT WE WILL BE SPEAKING TO
YOU AGAIN SOON.
THANK YOU.
RAHEL?
>>> JOHN, LET'S GO OVER NOW WHAT
WE KNOW ABOUT THIS NEW
DEFENDANT.
RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT A LOT.
CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA AS WE SAID IS
HIS NAME AND HE IS THE PROPERTY
MANAGER AT MAR-A-LAGO.
HE WAS PREVIOUSLY A VALET THERE.
WE KNOW THAT HE'S 56 YEARS OLD
AND HE'S NOW ACCUSED OF HELPING
MOVE BOXES OF DOCUMENTS AFTER
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FIRST
SUBPOENAED THE FORMER PRESIDENT,
THIS HAPPENED IN MAY OF LAST
YEAR.
DE OLIVEIRA SPOKE WITH THE FBI
EARLIER THIS YEAR IN JANUARY AND
THAT'S WHEN INVESTIGATORS SAY HE
LIED ABOUT HELPING OR KNOWING
ABOUT MOVING THE BOXES.
WELL, HE HAS NOW BEEN CHARGED
WITH CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT
JUSTICE, DESTROYING OR
CONCEALING A DOCUMENT, RECORD OR
OTHER OBJECT, AND MAKING FALSE
STATEMENTS.
NOW, WE SHOULD SAY THAT CNN HAS
REACHED OUT TO HIS LAWYER, JOHN
IRVING.
WE HAVE NOT HEARD BACK, BUT
IRVING IS AMONG THE LAWYERS
WHOSE FIRM RECEIVED NEARLY
$200,000 IN PAYMENTS FOR LEGAL
SERVICES FROM DONALD TRUMP'S
SAVE AMERICA PACT.
DE OLIVEIRA IS SCHEDULED TO BE
ARRAIGNED IN FEDERAL COURT IN
MIAMI AND THAT IS EXPECTED TO
HAPPEN THIS MONDAY.
>> SO MANY MORE THINGS TO WATCH.
>> WE WILL BE WATCHING THAT.
OKAY.
WITH US NOW FORMER FEDERAL
PROSECUTORS RENATO MARRIIOTTI A
JOHN MILLER.
RENATO, LET ME START WITH YOU,
WHAT'S DIFFERENT THIS MORNING
THAN WAS YESTERDAY?
YES, DONALD TRUMP FACES THESE
ADDITIONAL CHARGES, BUT WHAT IF
ANYTHING ABOUT THESE CHARGES
MAKES HIS LEGAL PREDICAMENT
DIFFERENT?
>> WELL, ONE THING, JOHN, IS
THEY NOW HAVE FOUND THE DOCUMENT
THAT WAS BEING REFERRED TO IN
THAT RECORDING WE JUST HEARD.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
ULTIMATELY THAT IS SOME OF THE
BEST EVIDENCE THAT JACK SMITH
HAS.
IT'S EVIDENCE THAT MAKES IT
CLEAR THAT TRUMP ADMITS THAT THE
DOCUMENT WASN'T DECLASSIFIED.
WE NOW KNOW IN THE INDICTMENT
THAT DOCUMENT WAS TOP SECRET.
HE'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO SHOW
THAT DOCUMENT TO THE JURY.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
AND, LOOK, TRYING TO DELETE AND
DESTROY SURVEILLANCE FOOTAGE,
THAT IS VERY EXPLOSIVE AND IT'S
JUST GOING TO BE HARD TO EXPLAIN
AWAY.
ALL OF THE STUFF ABOUT
CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FOR A LOT
OF PEOPLE MIGHT BE HARD TO GET
THEIR HEADS AROUND, BUT IT'S
VERY HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT
JURORS ARE GOING TO NOT BE ABLE
TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU'RE
DELETING FOOTAGE WHEN THE FBI IS
INVESTIGATING YOU, YOU KNOW,
THAT MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'VE DONE
SOMETHING WRONG.
>> RENATO, STAND BY FOR A MOMENT
I WANT TO BRING JOHN MILLER INTO
THIS CONVERSATION.
JOHN, JUST THE PURE AMOUNT OF
INVESTIGATION THAT WENT INTO
THIS, THINKING ABOUT POTENTIALLY
PUTTING THIS IN FRONT OF A JURY
WHEN YOU HAVE SO MUCH AUDIO,
PHOTOS, SURVEILLANCE.
I MEAN, IN TERNLS OF THE
PROSECUTORS BEING ABLE TO SAY,
HEY, DON'T EVEN I THINK LISTEN
TO WHAT WE'RE TELLING YOU HE
DID, YOU CAN HEAR THIS AND SEE
THIS FOR YOURSELF.
TALK ABOUT HOW POWERFUL THAT IS
POTENTIALLY FOR THE PROSECUTORS.
>> WELL, THE TIMELINE THAT WAS
JUST LAID OUT ON THIS BROADCAST
REALLY TELLS A STORY, BUT IF YOU
DIG JUST ONE LAYER DEEPER, THE
ORIGINAL INDICTMENT'S FOCUS WAS,
FIRST, YOU HAVE THESE DOCUMENTS
YOU SHOULDN'T -- THEY SHOULDN'T
BE THERE, THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN
YOUR POSSESSION.
THE SECOND PIECE IS THE
OBSTRUCTION, WHICH IS WHEN WE
DEMANDED THESE DOCUMENTS BACK,
WE SEE ON VIDEOTAPE PEOPLE MOVED
THEM AROUND.
SO YOU'RE TRYING TO HIDE THEM
AND YOU LIED TO YOUR LAWYER
ABOUT IT WHO MADE FALSE
REPRESENTATIONS TO US BECAUSE HE
BELIEVED IT COULD BE TRUE.
BUT THIS IS A LAYER DEEPER
BECAUSE WHEN YOU BRING A CHARGE
THAT SAYS THAT MULTIPLE PEOPLE
CONSPIRED, ALLEGEDLY ON
INSTRUCTIONS FROM DONALD TRUMP,
TO NOT JUST OBSTRUCT JUSTICE BY
MOVING THE THINGS AROUND, BUT
THEN TRIED TO FIND AND DELETE
THE VIDEOS THAT SHOWED THEM
MOVING THEM AROUND, YOU ARE IN A
NEW ZONE HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE
AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE BEING
COMMITTED TO CONCEAL THE
ORIGINAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
CHARGE.
>> AN OBSTRUCTION ON TOP OF
ANOTHER OBSTRUCTION.
>> IT'S AN OBSTRUCTION OF AN
OBSTRUCTION.
YOU KNOW, THAT REALLY KIND OF
FILLS OUT IN THE SUPERSEDING
INDICTMENT THE CONSPIRACY WHERE
DONALD TRUMP REACHED
DELIBERATELY PAST HIS LAWYERS
WHO PRESUMABLY WOULD HAVE SAID
YOU CAN'T DO THIS AND LITERALLY
TO THE LOWEST LEVELS OF THE
ORGANIZATION, PEOPLE WHO MIGHT
BE EXPENDABLE, HIS VALET, THE
HEAD OF MAY NOT JENS AND SAID,
YOU KNOW, TAKE CARE OF THESE
THINGS.
THERE IS A REASON HE BYPASSED
ALL OF THOSE ATTORNEYS.
>> DOES IT GET TO DOUBLE SECRET
PROBATION, OBSTRUCTION OF
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A FORM
I THINK OF DOUBLE SECRET
PROBATION.
DOES THAT GET, RENATO, TO
CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT?
DOES IT AFFECT SOME OF THE OTHER
ASPECTS OF THE CASE?
>> I THINK IT DOES.
I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S
GOING TO AFFECT THE EVIDENCE
THAT CAN INTRODUCED UNDER THE
LAWS OF EVIDENCE, A LOT MORE
STATEMENTS I THINK WILL COME IN.
I THINK IMPORTANTLY I THINK
ULTIMATELY AT THE END OF THE
DAY, JOHN, THAT JURORS WHEN THEY
LOOK AT A CASE LIKE THIS OR ANY
SERIOUS CASE, WHAT THEY'RE
REALLY INTERESTED IN WAS WAS THE
DEFENDANT IN ON IT?
WAS HE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL,
WRONG AND FOR SOMEONE LIKE
DONALD TRUMP WHO WAS THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
YOU KNOW, HE'S GOING TO BE
TRYING TO ARGUE THAT HE THOUGHT
WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS FINE AND
RIGHT ALL ALONG.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY
KNOWS IS NOT OKAY.
EVERYONE KNOWS IS ILLEGAL AND I
THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S A VERY
POWERFUL PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
I COULD SEE WHY PROSECUTORS WERE
WILLING TO EVEN RISK DELAYING
THE CASE IN ORDER TO ADD IT.
>> RENATO, LET ME ASK, DO YOU
THINK THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S
OFFICE LIKELY KNEW THAT THIS WAS
POTENTIALLY COMING A FEW WEEKS
AGO WHEN THEY PUSHED FOR THAT
DECEMBER -- WHICH A LOT OF
PEOPLE SAID WAS A VERY AMBITIOUS
START DATE -- DO YOU THINK THEY
HAD THIS IN THE BACK OF THEIR
MINDS AND I WONDER HOW THAT
PLAYS IN TERMS OF THE ULTIMATE
START DATE.
>> GREAT QUESTION.
I THINK THAT THIS SUPERSEDING
INDICTMENT REPRESENTS A TACTICAL
CALL BY JACK SMITH THAT HE DOES
NOT THINK THAT HE'S GOING TO BE
ABLE TO SPEED THIS TRIAL OUT,
YOU KNOW, AND GET IT DONE BEFORE
THE ELECTION.
SO HE MADE A DECISION THAT HE
MIGHT AS WELL HAVE ALL OF HIS
BULLETS IN HIS GUN.
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS NOT
SOMETHING YOU DO IF YOU ARE
TRYING TO GET THIS DONE QUICKLY
BEFORE THE ELECTION.
I THINK HE TOOK HIS SHOT AT THAT
AND THAT DID NOT WORK, AILEEN
CANNON SAID, NO, WE'RE GOING TO
DO THIS IN MAY.
REALISTICALLY I THINK ANY
EXPERIENCED CRIMINAL DEFENSE
ATTORNEY KNOWS NOT HARD TO PUSH
A MAY TRIAL A FEW MONTHS OR
MORE, SO PRACTICALLY SPEAKING
THAT WAS A VERY REMOTE
POSSIBILITY.
HERE HE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
GET A POTENTIAL FLIPPER, YOU
KNOW, IF DE OLIVEIRA FEELS
PRESSURED ON THIS AND OF COURSE
SOME VERY IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL
EVIDENCE.