Federal judge handing a
significant blow
to Donald Trump today,
rejecting the former president's
claims of executive privilege
in that January six investigation.
The judge
ordering a number of Trump's
former top White House aides
to testify before a grand jury.
Sources tell CNN
the list includes
former White House chief of staff
Mark Meadows,
former director of national intelligence
John Ratcliffe,
former national security
adviser Robert O'Brien and others.
Some of these aides
have already testified,
but now they're likely before
forced to appear
before the grand jury once again
for even more testimony
and ordered to turn over more documents.
But as CNN's Jessica
Stanford reports, Trump's
legal team is expected
to try to appeal this decision.
Trump's closest advisers
ordered to testify in two Justice
Department probes.
A federal judge
rejecting Trump's
claim of executive privilege,
ordering former
White House chief of Staff Mark Meadows,
senior aide Stephen Miller
and others to answer questions
from a grand jury
investigating efforts
to overturn the 2020 election.
I remember leaning against
the doorway and saying,
it's an interesting conversation
as pretty Mark.
Sounds like
we're going to go to the Capitol.
We're going to walk down to the Capitol.
He didn't look up from his phone
and said something to the effect of,
there's a lot going on, guys,
but I don't know.
Things might get real, real bad.
Separately,
Evan Corcoran, a top
Trump attorney
and a crucial witness in special counsel
Jack Smith's classified documents probe
spending nearly 4 hours
testifying behind closed doors
to a federal grand jury on Friday.
Trump
also fought in court
to stop his testimony, but
several judges ruling
Corcoran must divulge information
about the conversations
he had with former President Trump
leading up to the FBI search of Mar
a Lago last summer,
and that Corcoran must turn over
handwritten notes
documenting their interactions.
FBI agents seized
more than 100 classified documents
from Elago in August.
They should give me immediately back
everything that they've taken from me.
Because it's mine. It's mine.
FBI agents
seized more
than 100 classified documents
from Elago in August,
and in November,
the attorney general appointed
special counsel, Jack Smith,
to investigate, among other things,
whether Trump obstructed
the government's attempts to get back
all of the classified material
still in his possession
after he left office.
Evan Corcoran
crafted a statement in June
20, 22 claiming
a diligent
search had been conducted at Mar a Lago
and that all classified
documents had been returned.
A source tells CNN
prosecutors wanted to ask Corcoran
about that statement
and a June phone call
between him and Trump that took place
the same day a subpoena was issued
for Mar a Lago.
Surveillance footage
that showed boxes
being moved out of a storage room.
You still have the surveillance tape,
is that correct?
Absolutely, Sean.
Sources tell CNN
prosecutors have made clear
that they believe Trump
used Corcoran to advance a crime.
A Trump spokesperson has fired
back, accusing the Justice Department
of continuously stepping
far outside the standard norms
in an attempt
to destroy the long accepted,
long held,
constitutionally based
standards of attorney client
privilege and executive privilege.
From the beginning,
he has tried to cooperate, Trump attorney
Tim Palmer later tells CNN.
He also testified
before the grand jury in December,
divulging details
about additional searches
for classified documents
he organized at several Trump
properties last year.
They would rather make this
into an adversarial fight
and try to make it into a criminal case.
So Special
Counsel Jack
Smith will now be getting
an influx of new information,
both from Evan Corcoran,
who was forced to testify
in front of the grand jury today,
and also from that array of top Trump
administration officials
who will now have to testify
to the grand jury
about what
transpired on and around January 6th.
And, Jake.
Our team is told that Trump's
legal team
is expected to appeal this decision
and not let these officials
assert this executive privilege.
And interestingly,
it does mean that some of these officials
who have already been subpoenaed,
like the former
national security
adviser Robert O'Brien,
also Ken Cuccinelli
from Homeland Security.
It's likely
they'll have to go back and testify more
now that they can't assert
that privilege.
All right,
Jessica Snider, thank you so much.
Let's talk about this now
with CNN senior legal
analyst and former
federal prosecutor Ali.
Ali, a lot to talk about here.
Let's talk about the start with the judge
telling all these Trump people
that they have to testify.
Sources say Trump's legal team,
they're expected to appeal.
Do they have a case to make an executive
privilege case?
No, they don't, Jake.
They certainly have the right to appeal,
but they're not going to win.
They've got two major problems.
First of all, executive
privilege is meant to design
to protect
governmental conversations
about legitimate policy,
legitimate strategy.
It's not designed to cover up
for disclosure about malfeasance
or wrongdoing or criminality.
This is a criminal grand jury subpoena.
Judges are very likely
to enforce those subpoenas,
very unlikely
to allow an assertion
of executive privilege.
And second of all, Trump's
a former president.
And while a former president
can exert executive privilege
in very narrow circumstances,
it is a stark uphill climb to do that.
So Trump is also trying to assert
executive privilege to stop
Vice President Pence
from being forced to testify.
Do you think this ruling signals
that that will also fail?
I do think so, Jake.
Yesterday on this show,
I said that Trump had virtually no chance
to succeed on the Mike Pence case.
I guess
I'll downgrade that even further now.
But it's important to keep in mind
there's a separate argument
on the Pence case,
because Mike Pence himself is arguing
that he's protected
by a different legal doctrine,
this idea of speech and debate,
because as vice president,
he was president of the Senate.
I think there's a better basis for that.
And that might enable Pence
to avoid answering
some questions
about what he did in his role
as Senate president.
If Trump loses these appeals,
is there any way that Meadows
and these other top Trump aides
can get out of testifying?
Can they plead the Fifth?
There's only
one way, and you just said it,
they can take the Fifth.
That means that any testimony
they give might be used against
and they have that absolute
right to take the Fifth.
But if they do that, DOJ prosecutors
do have a countermove available.
They can go to a judge
and ask for an order of immunity,
meaning your testimony
is not going to be used against you,
but now you have to testify.
That's a strategic decision
to be made by prosecutors.
I made that kind of decision
quite frequently,
but it means they get the testimony.
It also means
they're very unlikely
to be able to prosecute,
whether it's Mark Meadows
or whoever, the witnesses.
So just a game this out.
So let's say
I'm Mark Meadows and I say
and I lose all the appeals
and I'm forced to testify.
I say I'm going to assert
my Fifth Amendment
right against self-incrimination.
And you're the prosecutor.
You says
we're giving you complete immunity.
You won't be incriminating yourself.
And then you go
and then what do I do if I'm Mark Meadows
and what do you do as the prosecutor?
So this is not optional.
If a prosecutor gives Mark Meadows
immunity, he has to testify.
It doesn't matter
whether he wants immunity or not.
And if he refuses,
if he just says
You can't force
the words out of my mouth,
then we're in a contempt
of court situation.
And you may those who remember history
may think of Susan McDougal,
who was a witness
in the Clinton investigation,
the Whitewater investigation.
She went to prison for 18 months
for refusing to testify.
So if it comes down to it,
if DOJ says you're immunize meadows
and he says you can't make me talk,
then a judge can absolutely
throw Mark Meadows or whoever
it is into prison until he does.
Take us behind the scenes.
If you're a prosecutor,
you're about to question
Meadows, Scavino, Miller,
all these people who have had one
on one conversations
with Donald Trump around January six.
How are you preparing for that?
Well, first of all, it's just
a goldmine
to be able to go in and ask them.
These are the key questions
that you want to know.
I'm looking at certainly
all the documents.
We know
that prosecutors have sent out
several documents for subpoenas.
I want to look at everything
the January six committee did.
And most importantly,
we just heard a clip.
Cassidy Hutchinson
I would review every word
that Cassidy Hutchinson said
because she was one of Mark
Meadows aides. She was by his side.
She's already testified
about conversations
that she had with Meadows,
but also conversations
that she knows Meadows had with Trump.
So I would go through that testimony
very carefully
and get out a red pen and circle
all those pieces of testimony.
Why is it taken
so long to get this point?
I mean, isn't Meadows
we know
is that the White House in January six,
one of the first witnesses you would have
tried to secure?
I completely agree
with that sentiment, Jake.
I think it's been a failure
by Merrick Garland
that it's taken
until mid 2023 for Mark Meadows
to be compelled to testify.
There was never any mystery.
Mark Meadows
and the others
were at the center of this.
Garland has said all along,
We start at the bottom
and then we work our way up.
But that's a bureaucratic approach.
That's not a strong
prosecutorial approach.
The reality is good
prosecutors start at the highest point
you can.
And so I think an aggressive
prosecutor on day one
or perhaps a few months in in 2021
would have immediately subpoenaed
Mark Meadows
and the other people we're talking about.
And if that had happened,
they would have had this testimony
long ago.
All right, Ellie Hoenig,
thanks so much
for your insights, as always.