New reporting and the investigation
into Donald Trump's alleged
mishandling of classified documents
at Mar a Lago. ABC News.
The New York Times
both reporting that a close aide to Trump
has told investigators
that Trump told her
not to talk about the boxes of documents.
Here's the exact line that she says.
Trump told her, quote,
You don't know anything
about the boxes now.
This assistant is Molly Michael.
This is not an unimportant person
in Trumpworld.
She worked closely
with Trump in the White House
and then followed him to work
in his office
at his Florida resort resort
She resigned last year,
and according to reports,
she also told investigators
that Trump would write to do
lists on documents
that were marked classified.
Joining us now, CNN
legal analyst and former
federal prosecutor, Jennifer Rogers.
Thanks so much for being here.
I want to start with something that Chris
Christie said,
because obviously former
federal prosecutor brought a lot of cases
also running
against the former president.
Political, legal,
always intertwined here. Take a listen.
I mean, that is active witness tampering.
That's active obstruction of justice.
I mean, so she's telling the truth.
Then we have more evidence
that will be presented
at the time of trial
and this case will be tried.
And this is the guy that we want
to make our nominee
Putting the political race aside,
is Chris Christie right
in terms of the implications of this?
Yeah, if it's as reported,
he absolutely is right.
This is obstruction of justice.
Knowing full
well as both Trump
and Michael did, that
she knew all about the boxes
of documents. Right.
He says
you don't know anything about them
as she's poised to go in
and talk to investigators.
That's pretty classic
obstruction of justice.
The question is,
what do prosecutors do with this?
I mean, she's obviously
a valuable witness on the case
that exists now.
Both on the side
of the substantive document charges
and the obstruction of justice cases.
They've charged it.
Do they now add
another obstruction of justice
count as they move forward?
That's interesting.
Also, the question is of Chris Christie.
You'll note
he said there,
if she's telling the truth,
there's no reason to believe
that she's not.
And I just want everyone
to listen to Sara Matthews,
who was the deputy press secretary
for Trump,
explaining how
crucial she is in
terms of what is in her role,
in how close and close proximity
she was to then President Trump.
Here's that
So this
is someone she knew very well
who would have had a lot of face time
with the president.
And they can't simply dismiss her
as someone that he would not be aware of
or who want to be in the know,
because she was quite literally sitting
right outside
the most important office in the world,
someone who the president knew by name.
And I think that makes her
a very credible witness.
Your thoughts?
Yeah, I agree.
I mean, a couple of things here.
One, there's no intermediary
to the statements
that she allegedly
has just directly Trump into her ear.
Right.
We had the prior
witness, Tavares,
who says that De Oliveira,
the codefendant, of Trump,
came in and said, Trump told me this.
This is directly.
So that's really important.
Secondly,
she's really unimpeachable, right?
She's not someone who went in
and lied first and now she's in trouble.
And then she comes clean.
She's someone who just was called in,
wasn't about to lie for anyone
and get herself in trouble.
So she told the truth.
Terrific witness or prosecutors.
I want to bring in former
Trump White House deputy
press secretary Sara Matthew.
Sara, good to see you tonight.
I've been wondering
what you would make of all this.
And first,
you actually know
Molly Michael,
and I'm wondering
from your perspective,
just how much exposure
did she really have to the inner workings
of the former president's office?
And we all know, of course,
she was outside the Oval Office, but
did that mean that he
really did rely on her?
Yes.
As you mentioned,
my time at the White House
overlapped with Molly Michaels
and she was there.
She began working for Trump in 2018
as one of his executive assistants.
And she did sit right
outside the Oval Office in an area
that we called outer oval.
And there were a couple desks
right there,
but she was definitely
a gatekeeper for Trump.
So anyone walking
and trying to get East Time
with the president
who wasn't on his schedule,
she would stop them occasionally
and not let them in.
Of course, there were certain
very senior level
folks at the White House
who were able to walk right in
and see the president.
But she was not only
just a gatekeeper for him,
he relied on her for a lot of things.
And she was at her at his beck and call.
So whenever he would need anything or
he wanted to dial someone up
and get them on the phone,
it was Molly who was responsible
for doing that.
And so this is someone he knew very well
who would have had a lot of face time
with the president.
And they can't simply dismiss her,
you know,
as someone that he would not be aware of
or who want to be in the know
because she was quite literally sitting
right outside
the most important office in the world,
someone who the president knew by name.
And I think that makes her
a very credible witness.
You know,
I remember we're all old enough.
Remember when former president
would say things like get the coffee boy
right or someone he'd be dismissive
of as if
they may have been inside
of the White House at some point in time.
This person
seems pretty critical in terms of
not until the rank of her position,
but her proximity at least to power
We also have a former aide
and an IT worker,
as you know, useful to various
who are he's cooperating.
Does that make it easier for more people
to maybe
do the same thing
now that both of these two individuals
have spoken out,
or at least not to maybe
criticize him outwardly in the press,
but at least
cooperating and discussing with
the prosecution?
I do think that we're going
to see more people come forward,
whether it's
with this classified documents case
or any of the other indictments
that Trump is facing.
Look, I think in the case of the I.T.
worker,
he was potentially criminally liable.
And so he struck a deal
with investigators,
which was very smart for him to do.
And I would hope
that the folks around Walton
and are advising him to do the same
But as we've seen,
Trump is funding his legal defense.
So that doesn't seem likely.
But someone like Molly Michael
is particularly interesting to me
because she does not seem like
she was vulnerable
to any criminal charges.
But when Trump told her,
look, you know nothing about these boxes
amid the FBI probe,
she felt very uncomfortable
and ended up resigning from her position
because she obviously felt
like he was trying to push her toward
potentially engaging
in criminal activity.
And she felt uncomfortable by that.
And so I wonder
if you speak to her about that, sir,
when you say that
she resigned as a result of that.
What's your basis for believing that
that is just based on the
timing of when she resigned
in The New York Times reporting,
they indicated that
there was a connection there.
So when you look at this
and think about the resignation,
she obviously no longer works there
for the president.
And mind you,
this is somebody who followed him
after he left the White House,
which means post January 6th
and a whole lot of other occurrences.
Trump, as you know,
he is known for going after
anyone who comes out against him.
Now, again, I have to distinguish
coming out against him in a vocal manner
on a television program or otherwise
or writing op ads and books besides that.
But somebody who has spoken in a way
that's even
unflattering towards him or portrays him
and depicts him in a negative
light as likely this may very well do.
He has been known to come out
against that person.
Do you expect him to
do that with this person?
I do think that we've seen
this pattern play out before.
I've been on the receiving end of it.
I testified against Donald Trump
in front of the January six committee
to talk about his lack of action
that day.
And I was told that I was a liar and,
you know,
had the whole Trump squad
and their allies come after me.
And they did the same
with Cassidy Hutchinson
during her testimony
before the January six committee.
But it is going to be very difficult
for them to try to paint Molly
Michael in the same light,
given that this is someone who followed
Donald Trump
all the way down to Mar
a Lago in his life post-presidency.
She and I think that she has
nothing to lose
and is telling the truth here
and is trying to do the right thing
by cooperating with investigators.
But I think it's not going to be long
before we see that Trump and his folks
come after her and try to, you know,
make her into a liar,
which obviously I don't think she is.
It seems like she's
a very credible witness in this case.
Sara Matthews, a really important point.
I mean, the credibility
is really the whole ballgame
when it comes to seeing
how a jury might view the testimony
and might view
all of this in context is not somebody
who traditionally
we thought of as somebody
who is the enemy of this
of the former president.
So we'll see how this all goes.
Sara, thank you for joining us.
I appreciate it.