Special counsel's investigation
of former President Donald Trump.
Our senior legal affairs
correspondent Paula Reid
is joining us right now.
Paula, tell us about
this New York Times report
and why potentially it is so significant,
an incredibly significant development
in the special counsel investigation.
The New York Times reporting
that Trump's
former White House chief of staff,
Mark Meadows, has testified
before the grand jury
that special counsel
Jack Smith has been using
in both of his investigations.
Well into January six
and also into the possible mishandling
of classified documents
down at Mar a Lago.
Now, according to The Times
reporting, it's unclear
if he has testified
in just one of those investigations
or invoke.
But he is arguably the most
significant witness
that the special counsel could speak to,
certainly in the January
six investigation.
But it could potentially
also have valuable information
in the classified document probe as well.
Now, in recent months,
folks around former President
Trump have expressed
some concerns and puzzlement
about exactly
what was going on with Mark Meadows,
because they told us
that they didn't have any communication
with his legal team.
They were unclear
what exactly was going on with him.
They've even said on our air
that there was no communication
between Trump's legal team
and Meadows legal team,
which raised a lot of questions
about whether he was indeed cooperating
with investigators
Now, in terms
of what he can offer on January six,
you know, the House investigation
into January six basically concluded
that all roads
lead to the former White House
chief of staff.
All the communication
to the former
president that day,
including from his own family,
went through Mark Meadows.
He would have an incredible
number of questions
to answer before investigate matters.
Now, also, though, on the Mar
a Lago probe,
we learned from our exclusive
reporting in recent weeks
that investigators
have an audio recording,
really key
piece of evidence
where Trump refers
to being in possession
of a classified document.
And that recording was made by Meadows
Auto biographers
who were recording in the room.
Now, in a statement,
Meadows lawyers
provided to the Times,
they said, quote, Without commenting
on whether or not Mr.
Meadows has testified
before the grand jury
or in any proceeding, Mr.
Meadows has maintained a commitment
to tell the truth
or his illegal obligation to do so Wolf.
And I want to just point out that one
well-placed source has now confirmed
to CNN
this report
about Mark Meadows testifying
before this grand jury.
What does this tell us, Paula,
about where the investigation
is right now?
Well, as we've been reporting
over the past several weeks,
it appears that this investigation is in
its final phase
based on the types of witnesses,
the requests that they have,
the fact
that they're bringing people back.
But the thing that we've said
repeatedly on air
including on your show,
Wolf, is
we just don't know about Mark Meadows.
Right.
That is such a significant witness.
Once they talk to him,
then we can say for certain
that this is definitely
in the final phase
and likely wrapping up.
But, of course,
we know that the investigation continues.
Investigators are expected
to speak to at least one more witness
in Florida later this week.
But the fact that they have talked in
that this has finally been confirmed.
This is something
we've been waiting for
to really understand
whether they are indeed wrapping up
this investigation.
It appears,
again,
this is one of the
most significant witnesses
they would speak to.
This is someone that it appears
that they have likely spoken
to in this final stage
that we're entering now.
And they contemplate
whether they will indeed
bring any charges.
Yeah, let's not forget,
this is a criminal
investigation of Donald Trump
that we're watching right now.
Paula, stay with us.
I want to dig deeper with our legal
and political experts
who are standing by.
Eliot, Williams, let me start with you.
How critical
is this Mark Meadows testimony
before this grand jury?
It's very critical, Wolf,
and for a big reason.
Let's look at the role
that Mark Meadows would have played
in the Trump White House
as chief of staff.
He would have had access or insight
into political questions
in the White House,
but also substantive ones.
And so look at the
two different inquiries
that are happening here
to the extent that he could provide
insight as to January six.
He could
he could talk about
what the president said,
what the president knew.
Did the president ever convey
that he knew he lost the election?
What was in the president's mind?
What was his state of mind
around the statements
he made on January 6th and other,
you know, activity?
So there's plenty
to be gleaned from him there.
With respect to documents, it's
an entirely separate investigation.
But he could also provide insight into
what did the president
know was being packed up in boxes
on the final days
of administration, of the administration
and being sent down to Mar a Lago.
What did the president say
about his right to declassify documents
or that he knew was in his possession?
There's plenty
that can be asked of Mark Meadows, again,
as both a substantive and political aide.
He was clearly a critical witness.
He certainly was.
And Carrie Cordero, he was key.
He was well known in the White House,
obviously the White House chief of staff.
But he was key
to various aspects
of both of these investigations.
Presumably that's why they want to
question him,
the January six insurrection,
as well as the classified documents
that were lying around Mar a Lago.
That's right.
And as Elliot and Paul explained,
because he was had so much access,
because he was in the position
that he was,
he just had firsthand knowledge.
I think the fact that he has testified
now before the grand jury
and one of the big questions
I have, Wolf, is
did he actually testify
from a substantive perspective?
In other words, answer questions
substantively meaningfully
for what amount of time,
how many hours was he in there
or was there a circumstance
where he would have been in a position
to invoke his own Fifth Amendment right?
I mean,
I think one of the big questions
is whether or not
Mark Meadows faces
any criminal liability
in these broader investigations himself.
I don't know the answer to that question,
but it would certainly affect
the length of time
that has gone before he testified
whether or not
he entered into any kind of
deal with the government,
whether or not he had a motivation
to testify extensively
in his own interests,
and therefore,
how truthful
and how forthcoming
he would be
in his answers
with respect to whether or not
they could implicate
him in anything as well.
So there's his own personal interests
and then there's also the relevance
to the broader investigations.
Let me go back to Paula.
That is was also linked,
as we noted,
that important piece of evidence that you
and the CNN team reported on.
Specifically the
audio recording of Trump
discussing those classified documents
at Mar a Lago.
Such a critical piece of evidence
for investigators.
We learned that on this recording.
Not only does the former president
suggest that he is in possession
of a classified document,
but he also appears to acknowledge
the limits on his ability
to declassify documents
once he left the White House.
Now, those comments are significant
because they really undermine
a lot of the public defenses
that Trump has put forward,
put in reporting that story.
One of our big questions was, okay,
who was a recording in this room and why?
And through our reporting,
we learned that during that time
the former president was in the habit
of having journalists, writers
and anyone working on books a record.
What he said in addition
to his aides as well.
We learned that in the room
during this
critical conversation
were two people
who were working on an odd autobiography
for Mark Meadows.
So, again,
he is tied into this specific case
now very clearly.
Other questions
about what other types of recordings
they could have related to Mark
Meadows book.
Also, oddly,
in Mark Meadows autobiography,
he suggests that he was in this meeting,
though our reporting suggests,
in fact, that he was not.
So I think investigators
would have quite a bit
to ask Mark Meadows about in the Mar
a Lago documents investigation.
And David Chalian,
how big of a blow potentially
is this to former President Trump?
Well,
that all depends on
what Mark Meadows told the grand jury.
But it could,
I think, back to
sort of Mark Meadows trajectory
in this whole notion of investigations
into Donald Trump.
Remember when Mark Meadows
was initially very cooperative
with the House Select
Committee looking into January 6th,
and then he totally pulled back from
that after
he had shared a bunch
of very helpful material
to the committee.
We know his closest
aide in the White House,
Cassidy Hutchinson, who gave the
very powerful testimony to the
January six committee
that completely helped them
make their final arguments
year of what they were saying
Trump did
or did not do in the lead
up to January six and on that day.
So Mark
Meadows has been the central player
all throughout, at times
actually helping investigators,
at times pulling back from that.
And not helping investigators.
I thought the statement that Paula read
from the Meadows team
about when he's obligated to do so
by law, he will have this commitment
to the truth.
Well, that suggests to me that perhaps
he may have some very
valuable information
that he provided in this testimony, Wolf,
but we simply don't know.
We will find out, I guess, fairly soon.
Dana Bash,
does all this all this new breaking news
we're reporting
hit home for people
in the former president's orbit?
Absolutely.
I mean, there
was nobody closer inside the orbit
than Mark Meadows at the time.
Of course,
all the while,
the timelines that we're talking about,
particularly January
six and up
until when the president left and
took some of those documents.
One of the questions
and I think David is exactly right,
that statement
is, is very I think it's very telling.
Yes. He started to to negotiate.
He started to cooperate
potentially with the January six
committee, pulled back.
That wasn't something
he was obligated to do.
When when you are called
before the grand jury
and the Department of Justice.
It it is from his perspective,
very different.
Maybe just like Mike Pence.
I mean, Mike Pence did fight
going to the grand jury.
They lost in court.
And then he ended up going
But it seems as though
he, Mark Meadows, might be following that
that playbook to sort of go
and say what you want.
But we don't really know what the
what the subject.
And I will tell you
that there has been concern,
and I'm sure
Paula is hearing this as well
from some in the Trump orbit that
he Mark Meadows is maybe making a deal
or giving something
in order to getting something
in order to give something.
Again, we don't know.
But that is why one of the many reasons
why this testimony
is so significant,
because of the question marks,
because of the jitters
that it leaves in Trump world.