Let's begin with The Washington
Post reporting on two
Trump employees
allegedly moving boxes of papers at Mar
a Lago just one day before FBI
agents traveled there to pick up
classified documents.
And that's not all the Post reports.
And investigators
also have evidence
that the former president
kept classified documents
out in the open in his office
and showed them to others.
We're going to bring in my panel.
We have Errol Louis,
political anchor for Spectrum News,
also Rachel Nichols of Headliners
with Rachel Nichols on Showtime,
Republican strategist Jason Osborne
and CNN political commentator S.E. Cupp.
But here first to help us break this down
legally is our CNN chief
legal analyst, Laura Cox.
Laura, great to see you.
So tell me, what does all all of these
new developments,
what are the legal implications
here for Donald Trump?
Wow, Alisyn.
I mean, just think about it.
One of the hardest things
to do as a prosecutor
is to figure out
how I'm going
to get inside of the brain
of a potential target.
How do I figure out that person's intent?
How do I figure out
what they really wanted to do?
And then you have this reporting
that suggests that not just that
the documents were retained
or that they were moved,
but the possibility
of even a dress rehearsal
to figure out what to do
when the National Archives
came to get the documents
or duly executed,
a subpoena was actually issued
and then fulfilled.
It really does not bode
well for a intended defendant or target
to have
this type of information out there,
because it really confirms
the possibility that you do have intent,
the intentional
act to try to obstruct
a lawful investigation.
And remember,
this is all falling under
the Presidential Records Act.
Alison, as you well know,
these documents
don't belong to the former president
Donald Trump.
He had advance notice that they did not,
even if it was an inadvertent
retention of documents,
he was certainly four months on notice
that he was no longer
supposed to have them.
So reporting that suggests
that there was a plan in place
in addition to his own attorney
having had to testify
in front of a grand jury Alisyn.
And the attorney client privilege
being pierced
and under the crime fraud exception,
this does not bode
well for Donald Trump
to try to prove that
he did not have
the level of intent
that a prosecutor needs to show.
So if this reporting bears out
and we've heard bits
and pieces of this before
and Jeff Smith
the special counsel, has evidence
of this, does Merrick Garland charge
Donald Trump
Well, remember, he is not
the first one to make the call.
It would be the person
that he has given
and delegated the responsibility
to Jack Smith, in part
because of the political implications
here.
Obviously, Donald Trump
is the presumed frontrunner
in the GOP primary.
He's a former president.
He has made no small news about the idea
that he believes
all of this is a perpetual witch hunt.
And so
there is a distant ten foot pole
that Merrick Garland
wants to have between himself
for obvious reasons,
a political appointee,
the head of the executive branch
under the pleasure of President Biden,
the chief rival of the GOP primary lead.
And, of course,
what's happening in this investigation.
But if Jack Smith,
who has had the delegated authority
to make the decision,
makes that determination, it really binds
Merrick Garland
as the AG to make a decision
based on what
the evidence
shows under the special counsel
whose job it is to look at this.
And so
it is very likely in a case
where there is not
a whole lot of ambiguity
unlike some other case
that might be brewing.
If there's zero ambiguity
and the evidence is there.
Merrick Garland
will likely have to follow
the guidance of Jack Smith, whatever
it might be.
Okay. And the two staffers who reportedly moved
these boxes of documents.
Are they in trouble?
Could be.
I mean, we've never seen
I haven't seen the photograph
you have of Donald Trump actually
carrying boxes anywhere.
I haven't seen them
carrying the documents
or to have some indication
that he himself was alone in this.
If he delegated responsibility
to somebody else,
if that person was involved
played in this,
then there is the potential liability
and potential prosecution.
However, think about
there might be people
who are voluntarily
or actively cooperating
to give the information to convey
that there is likely
that there was a dress rehearsal
or otherwise.
And I point again to Evan Corcoran.
Remember, he was the attorney
for Donald Trump.
He tried to suggest
he could not tell
what may have been instructed to him
or otherwise because of obviously
the attorney client privilege we want.
Amy client to be able to be fully
forthright and to
be candid with their counsel,
to get legal advice.
And we will shield
those communications, Alisyn.
Except if there is a crime
or fraud afoot.
And yes,
I said a foot on a Thursday night
at 10:00 p.m.,
but really, if there was a crime afoot
and fraud happening,
we don't want to protect that.
We don't want to use
a shield of an attorney
to further a crime.
And so a judge has already said
you're going to have to testify
about what you may have been instructed
to in front of a grand jury.
And so
he apparently had very detailed notes,
whatever
it wasn't
contained in that secret
grand jury proceeding.
Well, give us more insight
as to who else might be liable
or at least potentially
having the prosecution.
It sounds like something is afoot.
Maybe even two feet.
So thank you very much.
I knew you were going to say it.
I knew it, Alisyn.
I didn't say
you knew that
I was going to say something
crazy right there.
I was right there with you.
Yeah. Tastic.
Great to see you.
Thank you very much for all of that.
Okay, let's
ask you to go back to the veil, Errol.
The idea that the boxing guys were moved
after they knew the FBI was coming.
Okay. They knew that
they were being subpoenaed for this.
And furthermore,
that he kept some of these
I mean, obviously, they have evidence
or they have sources to say
that he kept
some of these documents in the open
and showed them to people.
You'll remember in the CNN town hall
that he was asked about this
by Kaitlan Collins,
and his answer was a little peculiar.
So let me just play that for everyone.
When it comes
to your documents,
did you ever show those
classified documents to anyone?
Not really.
I would have the right to.
By the way,
they would be mystified after.
Not that I can think of
Oh, that sounds like
the kind of thing you say under oath.
This is Donald Trump
during that town hall
and in other settings
has been trying out
every defense
that you know comes to mind.
I can automatically do it
just by an act of my mind.
I didn't really show it to anybody.
Not really.
I don't remember
I could if I could if I wanted to.
Right.
He often has this habit of doing things
in the open
and try
trying to inoculate those actions
by saying clearly,
I wasn't trying to deceive anybody.
I just laid it out there
and everybody could see the boxes.
That was something else,
he said during the town hall.
Everybody saw the boxes.
What are you talking about?
I'm not trying to do anything
that's improper or illegal.
So the problem for him,
of course, is that
that doesn't really comport with the law.
When the National Archives
comes and ask, or
when a subpoena is executed
and the Justice Department shows up,
you are supposed to cooperate,
and the noncooperation itself
gives rise to an offense
so that even if everything
he said was true,
if he thought he could
magically, mentally declassify things,
once the DOJ comes and says
we have a subpoena
you have to give this stuff back
and you don't do it,
or you have a rehearsal
just to sort of pretend
that you're going to do it.
You get into a lot of trouble.
And I think he's
heading for a lot of legal
trouble, right?
So the obstruction is one thing.
And by the way, news at 11.
Donald Trump does not have respect
for American laws or procedure.
I mean, we already knew that. So.
Can they prove obstruction?
Can they prove intent with
this new information?
Maybe.
It certainly looks like it
from the outside.
We'll have to see
what the legal process bears out.
To me, it's
the showing people of these documents
that really just sort of erupts
red flags for me.
We are talking about documents
that have been reported as nuclear codes,
national security, about operations
that even our top national operatives
don't know about.
That's how secure
these overseas operations are.
And he's just showing them
to business
associates and friends
what to feed his own ego
so he can say how important he is
that to me
is where the American electorate
needs to really pay attention
because it's not about the charges
or is it this legal case
or that legal case?
He is being reckless with American lives.
That's just the bottom line,
whether he thought he was allowed
to or not.
You look at
what's in front of you
and you show people
and that's something
that can get people killed.
And what happens
if he gets back into office
and he is that reckless
on behalf of his ego,
which is just not a hard leap
to think that that might happen again.