Thanks for joining us at 9 News Plus.
I'm Chris Bianchi. Big news.
On Thursday night, June the eig,
former President Donald Trump
indicted on several charges relg
to the retention of classified
documents he held in his posses,
Might remember the Mar a
Lago rate of August 2022,
where the FBI rated for several
national security documents andw
the federal government is accusg
or charging the former presiden.
Of obstruction of justice as wes
again retention of that of somef
those documents and also some of those
charges relating to the Espionage Act.
And we're now joined by and he's
legal expert when he trailer for
a bit more about this and kind
of give us some of the backgroud
about this and I know it kind of
gave a little bit of a Cliffs Ns
version a second ago there.
Whitney,
do you mind kind of getting into
more detail what did the foreign
president allegedly do here
right So what we the indictments
under sealed but what we're expecting
based on what his lawyers are saying.
What his lawyers have said on tn
the news channels and as well as what
he has said is that he he will e
looking at several criminal chas
and it's related to his retentif
classified documents at Mar a L.
But also when they came in to
investigate his his obstructionf
justice and the allegation thate
did not cooperate and maybe even
falsified statements and docume.
And so really he's facing 7 criminal counts.
The first is related to the Espionage Act,
and that is retention of
classified documents.
And here's some of the documents
they Initially you may remembert
the FBI was working with him and
he they they found fifteen boxe.
But subsequent to that they came back
and found 300 additional docume,
some of them labeled Top Secret.
And so it was during that proces
that these other obstruction chs
came in as well.
So it's the Espionage Act relatd
to retaining the documents.
Then there was an obstruction of
official proceeding related to s
conduct during that that those
investigations they're also alleged to
the indictment will contain falsifying,
destroying documents as it relad
to the federal investigation.
So we don't know what that means if it meant.
Trying to alter the documents,
trying to shred them, we just,
we don't know yet.
And then there's also going to
be charges we believe related to
false statements and conspiracy,
which is not unusual in these
types of cases because he may he
been working with other people.
So this is these are very serious charges.
It's going to be different thane
indictment in in Manhattan because now
you have this is a federal indictment
and so there's much more resources and.
This is going to be he,
he's,
he's in real hot water right
now. And this is also groundbreaking,
the sense of the fact that thiss
now Joe Biden's Justice Departm,
that ultimate Merrick Garland.
Though, to be clear the grand jy
that was convened here is made-p
of citizens like you and I, rig.
So, so, so the grand jury,
the people who decided this cor,
are average citizens who?
Recommended this indictment and
then now it is Merrick Garland,
the attorney General who answers
to Joe Biden who will now be
doing the prosecuting here.
Right.
So the grand jury will ultimatey
have to approve these charges be
the grand jury. The average citizens, right,
right. That's made-up and I thin
it's between 13 and 26 people ad
at least twelve of those have t.
Have to agree to that.
Now Merrick Garland,
who is the head of the DOJ and s
obviously a a Biden appointee,
he has appointed as a
special counsel Jack Smith.
And so Jack Smith has really ben
leading this up and the point of
the special counsel is that thee
supposed to be not subject to te
daytoday admin of the DOJ and ty
act essentially independently.
Now, Merry Garland ultimately hs
to sign off on the charges and
they generally follow the specil
counsel because they've done the
investigation and they they know
why they're making these charge.
If Merry Garland were to deviate from that,
he would have to get congressional approval.
So essentially, this is Jack Sm,
and I know it will get politici.
It's already been politicized.
But this is the process in terms
of coming up with.
Is independent of a process as u
as you can have, and again, you know,
when you're dealing with the DOJ and the FBI,
they're going to have the evide.
This is not a case necessarily ,
he said,
she said because now you have
actual documentation you had,
you know where it was, you know,
there's there's going to be a
lot of witnesses and evidence.
So this is,
this is going to be a very complicated.
Proceeding going forward,
we're trying to analogize this.
So I I want you to kind of clarify this,
but I want those you watching to
maybe better understand what's
potentially going to play here.
So I'm going to try and analogie
this a little bit here.
First of all, the documents,
those are not President Trump's property.
Those are the property of
the federal government.
And so maybe the analogy
I would say here is it,
let's say nine years decides toe
me and I take home my work laptp
and all my documents from work.
And then Nine News says, hey,
I want those back and then essentially
hear what Trump did from the sound of it,
as he said, no, those are my property.
And then nine years goes,
no, that's that's mine.
And then essentially kind of going down
the rabbit hole a little bit here too.
It seems like Trump tried to
kind of stifle that and said I
actually don't have documents.
And then the FBI or let's say 9s
in this case comes my house says yeah,
you do have our laptop and you do have.
Our work documents,
is that a proper analogy and
how would you adjust that?
I think that is a proper basic analogy
where it gets a little more nua.
This year you're talking about
a private company and a private
employee and that happens,
you know, often and they could ,
hey, this was civil theft.
You violated our employment
policies and things like that h.
Now you're talking about this is a public
entity and these are public documents.
And so This is why the Espionage
Act specifically states things
that can harm national security.
And so this retention of these
national security documents that
some that are labeled top secret
according to to the reports,
is putting the country at risk.
And and it makes sense because if there's,
you know,
there's been allegations that that that he
had shown certain documents to to some,
you know, Triple Mar, Lagos,
yeah, that kind of thing.
And so that's the the allegation
whether whatever he did with th,
just maintaining them in a,
in a not in a confidential way,
not in a secure way could put te
country at harm and so that's.
The Espionage Act is is obviousy
related to the to the national security.
So I would say your analogy was correct,
but the consequences and the seriousness
is obviously much higher in this case.
Okay,
you mentioned this a couple minutes ago.
And another key question to ansr
as well is the politicization.
If I can say that a lot,
obviously you know Trump on on
Thursday night he came out with
the saying that this is Biden's.
The Justice Department also
saying the fact that Joe Biden,
which is true, is also being
investigated for concealing or sorry,
holding some of those documentst
he had in his private possession from
his time as Vice president as w.
Former Vice President Mike Pence was also
accused and gave back some documents as well.
Why is this different with
what Trump did versus, say,
Biden and some of the accusatios
that are against both of those,
Mike Pence and Joe Biden.
Well,
I think the major difference
is the cooperation.
So it was Mike Pence and Joe Bi,
their attorneys,
I think both in both cases, actually.
Contacted the DOJ and said,
hey, we think we may have
some classified documents.
They completely cooperated and e
documents have been turned over.
And so here that's probably the biggest
difference is and then you know,
so if Trump, sorry to interrupt,
if Trump had just given this ba,
would it have not been a proble?
I think it would have been
much less serious, yes.
And because then there certainly
wouldn't have been the obstructn
charges as as I understand them.
But but yes, the and we really have to see,
I don't know if the indictment
will ever be made public,
but we have to see the charges n
the basis of that because are we
talking about the destruction ad
altercation of documents or jus,
you know, improperly storing them so.
I'm I'm anxious to see what
the extent of the evidence is.
And what's also interesting is,
you know, it's unfortunate,
unfortunate that and and maybe s
inevitable that you're going to
have these legal proceedings and
you're dealing with politicians,
so it's going to become politic.
But here where I get concerned
is when that political rhetoric
shifts into the judges and so w.
Now, a lot of times you hear
these reports and say, hey,
this may be this Miami judge
who's going to hear it.
This was a Trump appointee.
This was a Clinton appointee.
And and that's problematic becae
it suggests or implies that thee
judges are going to be swayed
by their political persuasion.
And I've been practicing for 25 years,
and I have come to see state
and federal judges,
but especially the federal judges there.
Incredibly intelligent, very objective.
They take the job seriously.
So I I I would caution the
public from saying,
hey,
the judiciary is tainted because
they're there.
There's in fact they're saying
that there may be an indictment
coming from DC and then there
may be some coming from Miami.
We're not the ones from Miami
are going forward,
but we think there may be other charges.
Coming from DC,
they're looking Jack Smith is is
looking at that and they've been
analyzing the judges that could
potentially hear these cases.
And and in Florida some are
Trump appointees and and in DC
several were Trump appointees,
but they went pointed out that
they have ruled against Presidet
Trump on the election fraud
and all that several times.
So that I think kind of proves e
point because you're appointed
by a certain president doesn't
mean you're going to.
Rule in a certain way,
Fascinating there. So we're recording
this on Friday, June the 9th.
Can you give us an idea about what to
expect in the coming days and w?
Yes. So the first, the initial,
they call it initial appearance
will happen in Miami.
That's happening on Tuesday,
then shortly and that will be,
I think with the Magistrate Jude
essentially announcing the char.
Then there'll be a second heari.
I don't think in that first heag
there'll be any evidence or.
Any type of a contested type heg
in the second hearing is where you'll
start to see evidence and and te
may be some motions at that point and
I don't that that will happen s.
Then how quickly a trial happens
because you have to consider is
this case going to end up in a
plea deal and you know President
Trump is known for litigating fr
extending litigation as long as
he can and now you have the the
federal government and they have
resources of the ability to litigate.
You know and these US attorneys are really,
really good.
the US attorneys are probably te
best public attorneys out there.
I mean they you you don't want
to go against the US attorney.
So this is going to be the the
indictment in Manhattan in March that
happened in March in that case s
scheduled for trial in March of 2024.
So a year later because of
all the complexities here,
I would expect maybe a similar timeline that.
The indictment comes now here in June
and maybe a trial would be set for for
June of next year, which puts, oh boy,
puts it right where June of 202.
Correct.
We're exactly in in election se.
And you know, he could,
he could be found guilty here.
And you know,
then the question is if he's found guilty,
what will the sentence be?
And if he is elected president,
how would,
how would that work?
Could you go to prison for this?
I mean, yes, yes,
this these are felonies.
These are federal crimes.
So absolutely there's there's significant
time how how all of that would .
We are we've, you know we now
have former President Trump beig
impeached and now indicted twic.
This is completely unprecedente.
So we will be developing our boy
of law because of these new cas.
Oh boy. Well, you will be a man in demand,
so to speak, here as we head
over the next few weeks, months,
years, years, probably. Yeah.
So 9 news Legal Expert Whitney trailer.
Thanks for summing this all up
for us for sure. Good to be her.