Continuing with our politics lead
and what appears to be
the most aggressive move yet
in special counsel
Jack Smith's rather
aggressive investigation
into Donald Trump's
handling of classified documents
as CNN's Paula Reid reports.
Federal prosecutors
have told the judge
they believe
there's evidence
of a possible crime or fraud
and they need more answers
from one of Trump's attorneys.
The Justice Department
making its most aggressive move
in its investigation
into former President Trump.
Prosecutors telling a judge
they have evidence
Trump may have committed a crime
through his lawyer
in an effort
to compel
Evan Corcoran to provide
additional testimony
to a grand jury
about the former president's
retention of classified material
and alleged efforts
to obstruct federal investigator
They rifled through the first la
closet drawers and everything el
Sources say in Corcoran's
first grand jury appearance,
he invoked attorney client privi
to some questions.
Investigators
now want to ask him about all
that led up to the FBI
search of Mar
a Lago last August
and even did a deep and ugly sea
of the room of my 16 year old so
leaving everything they
touched in a far different condi
than it was when they started.
Can you believe it?
The FBI and the Justice Departme
have become vicious monsters.
Investigators had subpoenaed
any classified documents
still in Trump's possession
after he turned over an initial
of government records
to the National Archives.
They should give me immediately
back everything that
they've taken from me.
Because it's mine.
It's mine.
Corcoran helped to draft a state
attesting that there were
no more classified
records at Mar a Lago
before the FBI scoured
the Florida property
and found hundreds more.
Corcoran is one of three Trump l
who have gone before the grand j
What they did
was to try and criminalize
Donald Trump, as they always do.
They found these three mundane s
espionage and the two others obs
Attorney Olena Harbor took the s
in mid-January
prior to the FBI search harbor.
Personally looked through severa
Trump properties, including Mar
a Lago, for documents
in a separate civil case
against the Trump family busines
Trump lawyer
Tim Barletta insists his client
nothing wrong.
Nothing that we have found
has any implications on him pers
The special counsel is
going to have another legal figh
to get testimony
from former Vice
President Mike Pence on a trip t
today, Pence said.
He intends to fight the subpoena
he received
related to the special counsel
investigation into January six.
And Jake, he's relying on a nove
legal theory to shield himself
from testifying,
but says he'll take the fight
all the way to the Supreme Court
All right, Paul Arena,
thanks so much for that. Appreci
Let's get some additional insigh
now from former
federal prosecutor
and CNN senior legal analyst
Ellie Hoenig.
Ellie,
what are these latest court fili
Tell you is special counsel Jack
going after Trump specifically,
do you think, for obstruction of
Yeah, Jake,
I think there's no question
now that Jack Smith
is focused
squarely on obstruction of justi
And I think even more specifical
than that, we can tell that
what really is drawing the most
is this affirmation,
this statement
that Donald Trump's lawyers
gave to DOJ
last summer saying we've now
given you all the classified doc
It turns out there were many,
many more classified documents.
And I think DOJ is trying to fig
who made that statement,
who made a knowing falsehood.
There's really two huge indicato
First of all,
when they got the search warrant
to search Mar a Lago in the firs
one of the crimes
they established to the judge
by a preponderance of the eviden
not beyond a reasonable
doubt, was obstruction.
And now we know
they're going to a judge saying
we should get access
to these attorney client convers
because they related to a crime
of obstruction as well.
Take us through the ins
and outs of attorney client priv
What could Trump's
attorney be forced to disclose
if the judge goes
along with this request?
So ordinarily, conversations
between an attorney client
privilege,
meaning you don't have to testif
about them.
However, prosecutors
can break through that privilege
if they can establish
that the conversations
related somehow to an ongoing cr
not talking about a crime
that was committed in the past.
But you and I, as attorney
and client, are talking about so
that is a crime itself.
If you can establish that
then you can get access to testi
about what those conversations w
And of course, if that's the cas
that will go right
to the heart of the obstruction
issue here.
And how politically significant
would an obstruction case be
or might it add
fuel to the fire
of all these Republican allegati
of the Justice Department
being weaponized
by the Biden administration?
So here's the real world dilemma
that these prosecutors face.
Ordinarily, if you're a prosecut
and you want to charge
obstruction, it's
the last count in the indictment
You charge whatever underlying c
and then obstruction into that.
Here's the crime. Here's another
Here's another crime.
And here's
all the attempts to cover up
through obstruction.
Exactly. It's a kicker.
It's an extra point at the end.
However, the law says
you don't have to have
an underlying crime.
You can just charge obstruction.
The Mueller investigation,
perfect example.
Mueller said there is no conspir
crime with Russia,
but he suggested
there could be evidence of obstr
But we remember
what the political attack was.
Obstruction of what?
So legally, you can do that,
but it doesn't carry as much for
with a jury.
And I think politically as well.
And then that's what we saw
in a number of investigations
that ultimately resulted
in not guilty verdicts
or that were thrown out
to not much consternation
the idea that they lied to an FB
So they weren't straight with,
you know, during the investigati
not an actual crime.
Underlying that, though, Yeah.
It's one of these issues
where there's a difference
between what the textbook says.
The textbook says,
yes, you can charge just obstruc
but when you're standing
in front of a jury of 12
normal human beings,
they're going to be thinking,
okay, obstruction,
but obstruction of one.
And it really undermines
your case if you don't have that