GEOFF BENNETT: Special counsel Jack Smith expanded his classified documents
case against former President Donald Trump with three new felony charges,
including claims that Mr. Trump asked an employee of his Mar-a-Lago club to delete security footage
sought by the grand jury investigating the mishandling of government records.
And prosecutors added a third defendant to the case, Carlos De Oliveira,
a worker at Mar-a-Lago who was accused of joining Donald Trump and aide Walt
Nauta of obstructing the investigation by attempting to destroy the security footage.
Chuck Rosenberg is a former U.S. attorney and a senior FBI official, and he joins us now.
Thanks so much for coming in.
CHUCK ROSENBERG, Former U.S. Attorney: Oh, my pleasure, Geoff.
GEOFF BENNETT: So, these new charges were presented in what's known as a
superseding indictment that was handed up by the grand jury in Florida yesterday.
How do these new charges illustrate the depth and breadth of the legal
jeopardy in which Donald Trump now finds himself?
CHUCK ROSENBERG: Well, they add to our knowledge of the obstruction.
And why is that important? The obstruction of justice in the first indictment, the
underlying indictment, the original one, had to do with Mr. Trump's attorneys -- Mr. Trump using
his attorneys to try and conceal information that had been subpoenaed from the government.
But now we see a second aspect to the obstruction, Mr. Trump using employees
to try and delete security camera footage. And why is that important? Because obstruction helps
the government prove intent. It helps them argue to the jury, assuming that they can adduce all
of this a trial, that, by trying to obstruct the investigation, hide documents, destroy security
camera footage, Mr. Trump is demonstrating that he did something wrong and wanted to conceal it.
It helps the government's case significantly.
GEOFF BENNETT: The new indictment alleges that Carlos De Oliveira, the Mar-a-Lago worker,
told another Trump employee that -- quote -- "the boss" wanted the server deleted.
And the employee, according to the indictment,
responded that he didn't know how to do that and didn't know if he had the rights to do
that. The specificity of this indictment suggests that this other Trump employee,
Employee Number 4, is cooperating. Is that how you see it? And how does that add to the case?
CHUCK ROSENBERG: It is how I see it and suggests too that he would be a very important witness.
I am confident that the FBI spoke to many, if not most, if not all of the employees. Most, I hope,
told the truth. It sounds like Employee Number 4 told the truth. Others had a choice to make.
Mr. De Oliveira, we know, in January of this year was questioned by the FBI in his home.
He had two paths he could take. He could tell the truth. He chose not to. He lied,
and he was charged with it. But it sounds like Employee Number 4 told the truth. And, by telling
the truth, A, he buttresses the government's case, and, B, Geoff, he stays out of trouble.
GEOFF BENNETT: Chuck, why was a superseding indictment necessary in this case? Why
couldn't these charges have been included in the initial indictment back in June?
CHUCK ROSENBERG: That's a great question and one that I have wondered about.
So, normally, the government would prefer to bring all of its charges
and all of its defendants in one case, one time. Sometimes,
there are pieces that are lingering that they haven't quite yet resolved. It's also
possible that they learned new information after the original indictment was filed.
So I don't know which of those things happened. I know the preference is to
bring it all at once in one charging instrument. It's entirely possible
too that they were hoping Mr. De Oliveira would tell the truth and
would cooperate and would be a witness at trial, and that he chose a different path.
Having chosen a different path, they had little option but to indict him.
GEOFF BENNETT: We should say Mr. Trump has denied any wrongdoing. And he was talking
about this case today in a conversation on conservative talk radio. Here's a bit of that.
DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States: They're trying to intimidate people,
and so they have to lie to get out of a problem.
But these are two wonderful employees. They have been
with me for a long time, and they're great people.
GEOFF BENNETT: So, he's saying that the special counsel intimidated
the witnesses and that the witnesses lied.
How do the former president's public statements complicate his legal case?
CHUCK ROSENBERG: Well, many of his public statements contradict
evidence that will be adduced in the case.
So, if he chooses to take the stand in his own trial, in his own defense, which is an option,
not a requirement, he's going to be confronted with lots of things that he's said. And it's
going to be very difficult, even for Mr. Trump, in a court of law, under oath, under questioning
by experienced federal prosecutors, to sort of weave his way through that.
And, by the way, his two employees may have been wonderful, and they may have
been great people. I will accept that at face value. But that's not inconsistent with the
fact that they committed crimes. If they were wonderful employees,
it's an odd way for Mr. Trump to treat them, because he has put them in great jeopardy.
GEOFF BENNETT: Could this new information, Chuck,
delay the start of this trial, which right now is slated for May 2024?
CHUCK ROSENBERG: Yes, so that's about 10 months out, Geoff.
I come from the Eastern District of Virginia,
which was known as the Rocket Docket, where 10 months would be an eternity. In my view,
that date can and should hold. It may not. And, obviously, the defense attorneys will
use the fact that there's more charges and now a third defendant to argue for more time.
It's up to the judge, ultimately. I think the date can hold. I think
the date should hold. Whether or not it does hold, we shall see.
GEOFF BENNETT: Chuck Rosenberg,
it's always a pleasure to speak with you. Thanks so much for coming in.
CHUCK ROSENBERG: My pleasure, Geoff.