So let
me get you to react to
what we just heard from Paula Reid,
and that is that
prosecutors met today
with former police commissioner
Bernard Kerik.
What do you make of that?
Well, it tells us
that when prosecutors say
their investigation is ongoing,
it is indeed ongoing.
Now, the way this is supposed to work is.
Once you've indicted Donald Trump,
as they have already,
the ongoing investigation
is only supposed to relate
either to different charges
or to different people.
And hearing
what Tim Parlato just said to Paula
read, it
certainly sounds like they're focused on
Rudy Giuliani.
We know he's been identified
in the indictment as coconspirator one.
Parlato
seems to think
that they're not likely to charge
Rudy Giuliani.
I'm not sure I agree
with that assessment,
but we shall see L.A.
Meantime, when it comes to this five p.
M deadline for Trump's team to respond
to the judge
about publicly sharing evidence,
Trump claimed on his Truth
social page today
that I shouldn't have a protective order
placed on me
because it would
impinge upon my right to free speech.
But that's not what this is about to me.
The argument from prosecutors
is that if Trump, quote,
were to begin
issuing public post or using details or,
for example, grand jury
transcripts obtained in Discovery here,
it could have a harmful
chilling effect on witnesses
or adversely affect the fair
administration of justice in this case.
So given that,
how do you expect
the judge to rule on this?
I do think the judge is going to issue
some sort of protective order.
It's important
to understand what this would be
and what this would not be.
What this would do
is limit Donald Trump's ability
to take certain pieces of evidence
and put them out in the public.
What it would not do is
limit Donald Trump's ability
to see the evidence.
It would not limit Donald Trump's ability
to use any evidence
in his own defense at trial.
And it would not necessarily limit
Donald Trump's ability
to speak about the case publicly.
So it seems like what
prosecutors are asking for here
is fairly narrow
and tailored to protecting witnesses
and a jury pool.
And I think given the judge's insistence
on a very quick briefing schedule,
she's likely to grant that.
Meantime, we're beginning
to see how Trump's
legal team will defend him in this case.
Over the weekend,
his attorney,
John Laura, was all over
the morning
shows arguing
that Trump's actions
did not constitute a crime but instead,
he said an aspiration.
Listen.
What President Trump did not do is direct
Vice President Pence to do anything
he asked him
in an aspirational way,
asking is covered by the First Amendment.
So we know from the indictment
and subsequent interviews
that Mike
Pence and his aides
did not interpret
Trump's actions as aspirational. But Lee.
Is this a legitimate legal argument,
at least for his lawyers to be making?
Well, in theory,
it is a legitimate legal argument.
I just don't know that it's going
to hold up,
given the facts of the case here.
If, indeed, a person merely said,
hey, public official,
I hope you will do things this way
or that way.
That's hard to make that into a crime.
But I think Jack
Smith's position is
Donald Trump
did much more than merely benignly ask
Mike Pence to do something.
He pressured him
to do something that they both understood
was unconstitutional,
was against the law.
And it's important
that we not sort of parse out each fact
on its own and say,
is that a crime in and of itself?
Prosecutors are going to urge the jury.
Look, it's
not just about the conversation
between Donald Trump and Mike Pence.
That is part of the broader
fraud and the broader conspiracy
that we've charged here.
What did you make of Laura
also saying that they believe Mike
Pence will be one of their best witnesses
at this trial?
Boy, I presume he knows more than I do,
but based on the indictment,
I don't think that's correct.
It's clear
that prosecutors are relying on
Mike Pence as one of their key witnesses.
There are paragraphs
that seem to be based on
Mike Pence's testimony
and his handwritten notes,
including this incident
where Donald Trump said
to Mike Pence, quote, You're too honest.
And if we need another indicator,
Mike Pence just said the other day,
that he was approached by Donald Trump
and I quote Mike Pence here,
a gaggle of crackpot lawyers.
That doesn't
sound to me
like a witness is going to do any good
for Donald Trump.
Let's turn down to Atlanta
the case in Fulton County.
Do you expect this to be a sprawling case
with many people charged
or a more narrow indictment
like the one we saw last week?
Oh, it's going to sprawl
I think that's quite clear.
Fani Willis has been investigating
this case for two
and a half plus years now.
Remember, the special grand
jury foreperson came out
and told us
that they had recommended
indictments of over a dozen people.
That doesn't necessarily mean Fanny
Willis is going to follow
that recommendation
or that the actual grand
jury is going to do that.
But all indications are that
this will be a very broad indictment.
And The Wall Street
Journal is interesting
to see them report today
that that lawyers
who have worked
with Fulton County District Attorney
Fani Willis in the past
expect her to invoke Georgia's RICO Act.
What does that mean?
So RICO stands for Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.
There was originally a federal law
passed to that effect,
and now a lot of states,
including Georgia, have followed suit.
Essentially, as a prosecutor,
if you're going to charge Rico,
you have to show, first of all,
the existence of a criminal enterprise
meaning an organization
committing a pattern
of racketeering activity,
meaning two or more connected crimes.
So it can be tougher
for prosecutors to show.
But if you can
the advantage
is you get to charge the whole case
and explain
the entire enterprise to the jury.
And I should note, the Georgia
RICO law carries
a mandatory minimum
of five years in prison,
meaning any person convicted of that
has to go to prison for five years.
That's actually even more severe
than the federal RICO statute.
Right.
Quickly,
do you think that's
what we'll see from her?
I do.
Based on all the reporting
and based on all
the other indicators, yes.