A major
development in the Justice
Department's investigation into Trump's
handling of classified documents,
according to The New York Times.
Tom Trump
specifically told Molly Michael,
his former assistant,
to play dumb if she was questioned
by federal officials
about the boxes of sensitive documents
stashed at Mar a Lago.
And we understand the words
according to a person
briefed on her comments,
The New York
Times says the specific words
he used were,
you don't know anything about the boxes.
That's what he told his assistant.
You don't know anything about them.
Well, of course,
these are those same boxes
that you've seen pictures
of so many times. Right.
That were openly stored
in a ballroom and,
of course, in a bathroom Now, Molly
Michael worked
for Trump in the White House
and in his post-presidential office.
And she also reportedly
is telling investigators
that Trump would give her to do lists
sometimes just, you know,
written on documents
that when she looked at them,
she realized were marked classified.
This is also,
according to The New York Times
report, here that I've got in my hand.
Now, it's unclear
what those classified documents
were about.
We don't know that at this point.
We do, of course, know
that Trump's kept documents about the US
nuclear program, plans for attacks
and more in those boxes.
I want to go OUTFRONT now
straight to Trump,
White House attorney Ty Cobb.
And I appreciate your taking the time
to be with me.
So, again, the quote here.
Molly Michael,
former assistant
to Donald Trump, tells
investigators, quote,
You don't know anything about the boxes.
What do you hear
when you hear those words?
I hear
Trump, you know,
really for the first time
in terms of the way
this evidence is rolled out.
Now, speaking in the terms of a mob boss,
you know, giving a direct order
to somebody
that he probably should have no reason
to believe
would lie for him.
But expecting her to do so.
It's not like,
you know, nada,
who would do anything for him
and, you know,
other people who is whose loyalty,
you know, had procured or never doubted.
You know, Molly, a very highly
regarded person,
very loyal to the president.
But there's a difference between
loyalty and, you know, breaking the law.
And that's not that's not a line
she was going to cross.
So it really is Trump
you know, directly ordering obstruction.
And that will certainly be
helpful to enhance the
the credibility of others
who will testify about
the obstruction, like Mr.
Tavares.
Now, with regards
to the destruction videos,
and let me ask you about that.
I want to ask you another question
about about Molly Michael.
But but let me ask you about that, too,
because Mr. Tavares is the I.T.
manager who ostensibly,
you know, who had originally
you know,
stood by the former president,
and then when he switched
legal representation, said
that his story had changed.
And he said that
the property manager at Mar
a Lago asked him at Trump's request
to delete the security footage
requested by the Department of Justice
about moving those boxes.
So let me just ask you, Ty,
that was
obviously he switched attorneys
and switch his story,
but he also said the property manager
asked him at Trump's request.
This reporting from Molly Michael.
Doesn't have
somebody told me at Trump's
reporter's notebook.
There's no buffer, right?
This is Trump
says you don't know anything
about the boxes directly to her.
So does this move
the needle from the reporting
that is already
the facts already out there from Mr.
Tavares?
Yes, I
think this underscores
what we've talked about,
which is, you know,
you know what
what Jack Smith says in the indictment
is not the only evidence that he has.
You know, he has got layers and layers
of credible support
for each of the allegations
in the indictment.
And this certainly enhances
you know, the obstruction counts,
but it also enhances the the
because of our reference
to the
classified note
cards on which you would
doodle instructions to her,
you know, enhances the recklessness
and the total disregard he had for the,
you know, confidentiality of classified.
Can I ask you about that?
Because I know
you think that's significant
in the reporting.
It talks about it
that he would write notes
to himself on documents
that he gave her listing tasks
he wanted done.
And I'm
quoting from Maggie Haberman,
Alan Futures
Report in The New York Times.
She later
realized that in some cases
the documents had classified markings.
So.
So and you do think this is significant?
I think that's right. Yeah, I do.
And I think it's
I think you're going to see
there will be other leaks like this.
You know,
I don't know who leaked this to whom.
But the reality is,
you know, as the evidence comes out
and more and more will come out
as motions
filed, etc., etc., I think you will see
that the indictment detailed
as it is,
is is far from a complete accounting
of the evidence that they have to pursue
the former president.
Does this change anything in
in the former president's
legal legal
team's eyes or in his eyes about.
I mean, obviously,
those two things are different
about where they stand.
Yeah.
I think it it it should.
Now, they were aware of it
probably because they already received
discovery probably did this in fact, But
you know, for
example, there's a pending motion
to partially gag Trump in the in the D.C.
case by Jack Smith.
You know, this
this is the kind of evidence
that buttresses
the necessity for partially gagging him
because it is a direct
it's a direct instance of intimidation
and, you know, instructions
to violate the law.
And that's
that's part of
what they're concerned about is
you know, the intimidation of witnesses
as well as
the poisoning of the jury pool.
So I think this enhances that motion.
I think there will be other evidence
that will be used
in the hearing on that issue that will
that will come out and also reinforce
the necessity of
imposing a partial gag order.
All right. Ty Cobb, thank you very much.
Really appreciate your time.
And always nice to be with you.
And thank you to you to try and win it
when it comes to
the impact of this on other cases.
Ty is talking,
of course, about also what it might mean
for the DOJ case right now in Washington.
I want to bring in
Chris Timmons
now a former prosecutor in Georgia.
Chris,
obviously you've talked a lot
about the Fulton County probe.
Could this new reporting
from The New York Times,
obviously specifically
that is Trump's
former assistant,
saying that Trump said
or you don't know
anything about the boxes.
Could that have impact on the special
on the case in Fulton County?
Absolutely, Aaron.
I think it's got three possibilities
of coming in.
One, the least likely is a re indictment,
including these as
additional predicate acts
in furtherance of the conspiracy
I don't think it fits quite that neatly.
Second, it could be brought in
and there'd have to be a motion
filed under
what's referred to as similar acts
that it's that it's it's
close to it or even brought in
is maybe
kind of
a distant part of the RICO scheme,
but under a motion under
what we refer to as evidence roll
for or B.
And then the third one, Aaron,
I think the
I think the former president
is going to take the opportunity
to testify in the Georgia case.
I really do.
A number of people
think that he's not going to
I think he's not going to miss
that opportunity
to be on every television
in the entire world.
And if he does testify, Aaron,
then at that point it comes
in is impeachment evidence.
It could show that he lacks credibility
and that he's dishonest.
So I think it's coming in
under one of those two ways.
I think most likely the second or third.
But again, I think he's going to testify.
And if he does, he's going to hear
about that on his cross-examination.
All right.
And of course,
we should remind everyone, right.
Testify
when you say here in front of the world,
I mean, literally
so of course,
because
the hearings in the case in Georgia
would be televised
when it comes to the case here.
And the specific report
from The New York Times
that Molly Michael
the former assistant to
then President Trump
reportedly says
Trump told her to play dumb
and said, quote,
You don't know anything about the boxes.
And that was
was after
he was was president when he was in Mar
a Lago, she still was working for him.
Also, those notes
that he would write on documents
that he gave her.
And she then noticed
that some of those were marked
classified as a former prosecutor.
When you look at this
and this latest reporting,
how significant is it?
So, Aaron,
in every case, there's
going to be a point during trial
where a trial is won and lost.
I don't know if the former president
will testify in Florida.
If he does,
that's probably
the point where
the trial is won and lost.
But if it isn't, it's this witness.
She's the key witness.
She's she had
she doesn't have a prior
inconsistent statement
where she said
something happened that didn't.
So she makes a much stronger witness.
And on top of that,
you know,
she's got just damning information.
I mean, this is a smoking gun.
And so I think what
we're going to see here
is when this case goes to trial,
if it goes to trial,
her testimony, particularly her direct
and more importantly,
her cross-examination
is going to be the key
to whether the former president
is convicted.
All right.
Thank you very much, Chris.
I appreciate your time tonight.
Thank you.