Let's turn now to the Justice
Department's probe.
This is a separate investigation
into classified documents
found at Mar a Lago.
The Washington
Post yesterday
reporting this,
that federal investigators
have, quote, amassed fresh evidence
pointing to possible obstruction
by former President Trump.
Here's
what The Post is reporting,
that investigators now
suspect the boxes of classified documents
were moved
from a storage area at Mar a Lago.
This is after
and this this matters the timing
after the DOJ
served a subpoena
to recover those documents from Florida
and that Trump personally,
investigators believe, examined
at least some of those boxes again
after the subpoena.
Trump's team only returned some documents
with classified markings.
An FBI
search at Mar
a Lago would later find more
than 100 classified items
that were not turned over,
including top secret documents.
The Post reports investigators
have obtained emails
and text messages
of a former Trump staffer,
and they give a detailed understanding
of what was happening
during those months.
At Mar a lot.
But more on that as we get it.
Now, let's get perspective
on what's happening,
especially here in New York.
CNN senior legal analyst
and a former assistant U.S.
attorney for the Southern District
of New York, Mr.
Elie Hoenig. Joins us now.
And we should point out
that he also knows Manhattan D.A.
Alvin Bragg personally here.
So we just want to disclose that.
Good morning to you.
Let's start with New York and Diamond
we're going to see this week.
What are we learning about
the charges that he might be facing?
Basically,
what's in the indictment, right.
So we've not seen the indictment yet,
but we're getting really
important indicators that give us a sense
of what could be in there.
First of all, Don, on Friday,
the judge in this case
issued the first official
order in the case,
basically just saying
Alvin Bragg,
the D.A., can disclose
that there's an indictment.
It will be unsealed on Tuesday.
But this is really an important moment
because we saw for the first time
the case captured
people of the state of New York
against Donald J. Trump defendant.
This is real.
We also learned over the weekend
that there will be at least
one felony charge in this indictment.
There better be, by the way,
if this is just a bunch of misdemeanors.
The D.A.
is going to have some serious questions
to answer.
But here's what that could mean.
It looks like some of the charges
will relate to falsification
of business records.
The idea is they falsely log
these payments as attorneys fees.
But that would just be a misdemeanor.
The less serious type of charge
with a one year maximum.
The dividing line
between a misdemeanor and a felony,
by the way, is one year.
If it's one year or less,
it's a misdemeanor as the max.
And if it's above one year,
then it's a felony.
How could they make this a felony
if they can tie
those business records
to some other crime,
to some second crime?
And the theory here
is that second crime
could be a campaign finance violation.
If prosecutors charge
and prove that it's a Class
E felony,
the lowest
level of felony in New York state,
which has a maximum of four years.
And finally, Don,
we know from our reporting
from John Miller and others here
that the indictment is expected to have.
34 counts.
That's a lot.
But each individual
entry in the business
records could be its own count.
You've heard
a lot of the Trump
folks out this week in the attorney
saying that they're going to fight this,
they're going to seek to dismiss this.
What kind of legal tactics
will they use to do that?
They're not playing this one
very close to the vest.
They spent a lot of the weekend
talking to Dana Bash
and others about their strategy.
They are going to argue that legally
we are in state court here
in New York state court.
You cannot charge a violation
of a federal election law.
This is a presidential election
under state law.
And if they do that, by the way,
they could knock out this
because that other crime
is the federal election violation,
leaving them with only a misdemeanor.
So that's going to be
a really important argument.
We also know
from listening
to Trump's lawyers this weekend,
they're going to argue
there was no intent to defraud here.
Meaning in most business records cases,
somebody takes a record, falsifies it,
gives it to somebody else
in order to steal money.
That's not the case here.
It's a little different scenario.
They're going to argue that as well.
Trump's team
is also going to argue
statute of limitations,
meaning you typically have five years
from the time of felonies committed
to charge it, two years
for a misdemeanor.
Now we're beyond
both of those time periods.
However,
they are going to be rescued here
because prosecutors
are going to be rescued
because there's a New York law
that says you can pause that time period
when someone's living
continuously out of state.
Trump has lived in the White House
and Mar a Lago.
And then finally,
I am certain that Trump's team
and they've more than signaled
this is going to argue
selective prosecution.
They're going to say
he's been singled out
for political purposes.
That's a really difficult argument
to succeed using their John Edwards
argument, right? Yes. This case. Right.
What about the judge?
Because Trump has talked about the judge.
What about the judge in this case?
We know.
So the judge here,
Juan Mershon, by the way,
let me just point out
this is called New York Supreme Court.
A little bit confusing.
That's what they call the trial
level court here in New York.
The judge is a former prosecutor.
He was with the DA's office, same office.
It's prosecuting this case.
And the AG's office
let me say, nothing
unusual or inappropriate about that.
Many judges are former prosecutors.
He's been on the bench
since 2006, best known before this
because he presided over the case
against Allen Weisselberg,
who pled guilty
and the trial of the Trump Organization.
Trump's lawyers, by the way.
They object to this
because the way this judge got put on
this case is prosecutors
said it's related to these cases,
so he should get it as opposed
to just going to the wheel
for random assignment.
Watch for Trump's lawyers
to challenge that and say
this should not be related to that.
We should get a randomly assigned judge.
And finally, don,
the judge has to make
his first really big decision
probably today
about whether he'll allow cameras
in the courtroom
for tomorrow's proceeding.
We at CNN are part of
a group of media outlets
that have asked the judge,
let us see it open up the courtroom.
It's a public proceeding.
Let the cameras in.
He'll have to decide that soon.
Do you think that will happen?
You know, he has a history
of not allowing cameras in,
but given the level
of public interest here,
I don't see how he says no.
I think it's I think he look,
if I can opinion for a second,
he should let cameras in
because the public interest in
this is through the roof. Really.
All right.
Ellie Hoenig, thank you very much.
Appreciate that.