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