And so I think what you're seeing
is just how thorough
Jack Smith's investigation has been
and that there's
no one
who has seen or heard
anything at Mar a Lago
regarding these documents
who is going to be immune from testifying
if they believe
they have relevant information.
That was Chris Christie
reacting to exclusive of CNN,
reporting on the potential witnesses
who may testify in Donald Trump's
classified documents.
Trial sources
tell CNN the prosecutors
may call several Mar
a Lago employees to the stand,
including a woodworker
who installed
crown molding in Trump's bedroom
last year
and noticed stacks of papers,
a maid who cleaned Trump's
suite and a plumber
who's worked at the property for years.
Also a chauffeur
who was asked
about powerful businesspeople,
including foreigners
who had visited the club as VIP guests.
Joining us now, CNN
analyst and political anchor
for Spectrum
News Errol Louis, and CNN senior legal
analyst and former assistant U.S.
attorney
for the Southern District of New York,
Ellie Hoenig.
Ellie, I think first
this piece by our team is fascinating.
And gives a better in-depth window
into what's going on.
I think I've seen up to this point
on this case
the idea these are not political aides.
These are not people
that were close in Trump's orbit.
What does this tell you
about where prosecutors are on this?
Well, the other really important thing
that they're not
is cooperating witnesses.
They're not criminals. Right.
And so often as a prosecutor,
that's how you make your case.
You call a criminal to the stand.
The defense will attack him.
You defend him here.
They're putting their case together.
And you can really see the case
taking shape.
Using normal people.
I mean,
I would love to have a woodworker
as a witness when I was trying cases.
I mean, I never had that luxury.
And so it looks like
it's going to be a combination
of these people who are on the inside.
As long as you have eyes and ears,
you can see and hear things,
you can be a witness.
And then they have documents,
they have video surveillance footage.
And so you can really sort of
see the shapes of this case get together.
I've said all along,
I think this is the strongest
of the four cases
in terms of the evidence
and the match between the evidence
and the law charged here.
And I think this confirms
that it's
also the least likely case
to be played out
before the election,
given what Judge Cannon said
a couple of weeks ago.
She's made it clear
that she would rather see it happen
after the election.
On the other hand,
you know, a lot of this
is going to play out to the extent
that it has any political impact at all.
It's going to play out
as we see the evidence,
as we hear the testimony,
as we get these witnesses
to talk about what they know
and what they've seen.
And that is going to sort of set
the mood in a way, even if the
the legal
part of it is decided after the election.
A lot of people
are going to take this into account.
You know,
and like Ellie
says, this is pretty easy to understand.
This isn't about financial documents
and whether or not you overestimated
what you told the insurance company.
This is about, you know, look,
somebody saying a house cleaner.
I came in
and there was paper all over the floor
Also, people are reporting
some people that were inside the room
when Trump allegedly discussed
that Iran document as well. Right.
Right. Right.
We've heard audio of
I sense that this is going to be about
like the mood,
what was going on in March.
How serious was this taken?
You know,
where was this about idle
chit chat over drinks?
Was this stuff that was secured in a safe
or was it just laying out there
for all to see?
It's going to be,
you know,
I think really the heart of the case
for the for the government.
I think you're right.
And I think as Chris Christie said,
I mean,
Jack Smith is being clinical about this.
I think he's going to be able
to show the jury
with precision where every box went when
and who took it there.
And I think that's going to be
part of the case.
I think it's such a fascinating contrast
given what the former president said
in an interview last night on Univision.
We talk
about the death of Jackson, this case
and what they've laid out,
the witnesses that they're talking to.
And Trump saying this. Listen,
something that allows
the next party
I mean, if somebody
if I happen to be president
and I see somebody
he was doing well
and beating me
very badly, I say go down and indict them
mostly.
That would be
you know, they would be out of business.
They'd be out,
they'd be out of the election.
But I just want to pause for a second
because, one,
that's not
what's happening
here, as we've all laid out
repeatedly as the indictment
does as well.
Those aren't flippant.
Ha, ha. Funny remarks.
Like that's insane. Yes.
Why take him at his word, by the way,
if he says he's going to do this,
I believe him.
If we look back
at the first Trump administration,
maybe it will be the only one.
Maybe it'll be the first of two.
Donald Trump would often call
for the prosecution
of his political enemies,
whether it was
James Comey, Andy McCabe,
he called for the prosecution
of Joe Biden.
Barack Obama Hillary Clinton.
But I can't I'm going to defend
someone like Bill Barr, who I wrote
a negative book about.
But Bill Barr had a line
he would not cross.
Bill Barr ignored those.
He wasn't going to go out and indict
Barack Obama or Andy McCabe.
What Donald Trump is telling us
here is I'm going
to pick different types of people
the next time around.
I'm going to pick people
who don't even have that line.
And that to me is really,
really dangerous.
And just to be clear,
there's no check on that, right?
There's no body that is a check on that.
Well, I mean, look,
people can defend themselves
and they can certainly
try and either countersue or, you know,
but I'm saying the initial.
Well, that's right.
That's right.
And that's
why we have to be careful about who
and how we pick our presidents.
I mean, this is
this is real serious stuff.
I mean, and you do have to take him
at his word.
You know, this whole idea
that, you know, weaponization, you know,
they're weaponizing
the Justice Department
by looking into what I did in Mar a Lago.
A lot of that's going
to fall apart,
I think, when
these witnesses come forward.
They're not weapons.
They're just people
who, you know,
sort of work at Mar a Lago.
But the rest of us
have to take very seriously
the idea that Donald Trump
has announced
that he's going to make that
the standard.
That's a campaign promise that he made.
He's saying,
if you vote for me,
this is what I'm going to do
to the justice system.
Thank you both.
He didn't show up
to the debate last night,
but in a new interview with Univision,
the former president
reiterated his willingness
to use the Department of Justice
to go after his political opponents
if he wins back.
The White House saying, and I quote,
if I happen to be president
and I see somebody who's doing well
and beating me very badly,
I say go down and indict them, end quote.
That's according to a transcript
released by Univision It's unclear to me
who he thinks he'd
be running against
if he wins another presidential term,
since he happens
to be constitutionally barred
from being elected a third time.
Nevertheless,
do you have any doubt that that's
what a second term of a Trump
administration would be, a retribution
for years of retribution?
No.
I mean, he
he he has said
I will be your retribution.
I think about how different
for all the folks out there
who are undecided about what
to do with this election.
Think about how different
Donald Trump is in 20,
23 than he was in 2016
and 2016 of the convention.
He said, I am your voice.
Now he say, I am your retribution.
This is outrageous.
And think about it.
You had good
folks like Bill Barr
who were keeping him on the rails
and stopping him
from doing stuff like this
at the Justice Department.
Nobody as good and decent
and honest
as Bill
Barr is going to agree
to be Donald Trump's attorney general
if he ever became president again.
That's another thing voters
have to think about.
The fact is that 40 of his 44
cabinet level officials have said
not only wouldn't
they work for him again,
they wouldn't support him
to be president at all again.
I mean, this is incredibly
damning
for people
who work with them
every day as president, Anderson.
And so, you know, at the end of the day,
you will see him
try to do things like that.
It's only going to be the country
that can stop him
when we have to stop him is right now
we can't let him get the nomination
or get in front of these folks.
Now, you mentioned him
not being on the debate stage last night.
It's the third time in a row.
It's disgraceful.
And I think he doesn't
want to be there, Anderson,
because he knows I'm going to be there
because I've been holding him
to account from the minute
I got into this race.
And, you know, anybody out there
who wants me to be on that stage,
go to Chris Christie dot com,
donate a dollar,
keep me on that debate stage,
because I'll be there
when Donald Trump shows up
and, you know, I'll hold them to account