Joining me now, former
Trump attorney
Tim Pawlenty,
who I should note
is currently representing
the former New York City
police commissioner,
Bernie Kerik, in the special counsel's
election interference investigation.
We'll talk about that in a moment.
But first, just on this news
that Trump himself broke this morning,
I mean,
what do you make of the target letter?
Do you think it means that
Trump is on the verge
of being indicted again?
You know, I don't know.
It's it's an odd use of target letters.
That is something
the DOJ traditionally uses to send to,
you know, lower and mid-level people
in an alleged conspiracy in an effort
to try and
give them
an opportunity pre-indictment
to cooperate against the higher ups.
And so
as far as
your usual litigation strategies,
it doesn't
really seem to fit to send one
to a person like Donald Trump.
So in some ways, it kind of
looks like a publicity stunt
but at the same time,
they didn't publicize it.
They let him publicize it.
So it's really kind of an odd
and odd object in this thing.
But is it a publicity stunt?
I mean,
if they're not,
the ones who put it out there trumps
the one who put it out there. Right.
It is.
Which makes it
all the more weird
because I don't understand,
you know,
what the value of a target letter
to Donald Trump has.
You know,
they do have legitimate purposes there.
We use quite effectively in other cases,
but sending one to, you know, to the
to the top potential defendant
and somebody who's definitely not
going to be interested in
any type of plea agreement
doesn't really make any sense whatsoever.
I don't know if,
you know, we're doing it
just to preempt
with the Michigan charges or what.
But it just
it does seem to be a departure
from normal DOJ procedures.
But when you say you're
not sure what value it has,
I mean, wouldn't they be mad
if they did not get a heads up
that he was about to
be indicted potentially
Well, here's the thing.
DOJ, the use of a target letter,
that is not something that's required.
Would they be upset that
they don't get a heads up?
They usually get a heads up
when the indictment happens.
You know, once
the indictment is voted out,
then they would get a heads up,
hey, we've got an indictment.
So let's schedule an arraignment.
Getting a heads up
ahead of time is not something
that is required by the rules.
It's something that is used
for specific purposes,
none of which are really applicable here.
And so it just
it strikes me
as something that they wouldn't
normally do.
And, you know, doing it
here is very out of the ordinary.
But is it out of the ordinary?
I mean, I looked at the justice manual.
It seems to just say,
you know,
when someone
is not called to testify,
they are encouraged to notify them
the way that Trump has now
been notified that he is a
target in this investigation.
They can.
It's not required.
It's definitely not required.
It's something that I've seen very rarely
only in
and again, in cases
where they are
trying to
encourage the potential defendant
to come in and cooperate
and to try and cut a plea
or a cooperation deal pre-charge.
What is your sense?
I mean, Trump himself
says he thinks he's going to face
charges here.
What do you think he'll be indicted for?
Well, I've heard reporting
that this target
letter mentions
obstruction of justice and,
you know, witness tampering,
you know, allegedly
tampering with there
with Mike Pence,
you know, in that proceeding.
And those seem to be,
you know, kind of what they're looking at
at the same time.
It's an odd time to be bringing those
because certainly
whether obstruction is something
that applies
to a proceeding like this is something
that's already before the circuit court.
In the unrelated case,
and so that's the kind of thing
that you would think
before taking the unprecedented step
for now, no longer unprecedented.
But the unusual step
of charging a former president,
you'd wait and see what
the appellate court says
as to whether this is even legally,
you know, fits within the statute.
You know,
it sounds to me
like there's nothing in there about,
you know, inciting an insurrection
or anything like that.
So it really does
come down to the obstruction,
which has several,
you know, legal impediments to it.
You know,
not only the issues
that are being decided
by the appellate court,
but also corrupt intent.
We don't know what the charges are.
And we've
there has been some reporting
I know obviously they're referenced
in this in this target letter.
I haven't seen it.
I would obviously like to, but
we'll see what they decide.
But the former president your tumor,
your former
client, is responding tonight.
This is what he said
So they can cheat on an election.
But if somebody wants to question
the cheating,
they want to
call you a conspiracy theorist
and all these other things.
These people are sick
Tim, when you hear
that, I
mean, what happened was
way more than just questioning
the results.
Right?
Well, and a lot of
that is a matter of perspective
because, you know, certainly on one hand,
you could sit there and say
all these steps were taken to overturn
the results of the election.
But on the other hand,
if he truly believed that
there was fraud,
whether you agree with him or not,
if he truly believed that
and if his team truly believed that
what steps would you expect them to take?
You know,
you would expect them
to take the steps of saying,
hey, let's slow down the process
and let's try to verify these things.
Kick it
back to the states
to make sure
that the election results are accurate.
So it is definitely one of those things
where, you know, it's it's not clear.
It can be interpreted in multiple ways.
And it's not like
it's not as simple as Watergate,
where you either break into a hotel room
and it's a clear crime.
Anybody on either
side of the aisle can see that,
you know, here
it is much more open to interpretation.
But is it really open to interpretation
if you have governors
that he was pressuring to do things that
Brian Kemp of Georgia.
Doug Ducey of Arizona,
they said that they couldn't do,
he was trying to get Mike Pence
to do things that Mike Pence said
he couldn't do.
Of course,
we had Rudy Giuliani
and these other attorneys
going into states
and trying to get these
slates effectively fake electors.
I mean, that's
more than just questioning it.
I mean, they had 60 court cases
that were all thrown out
Well, a lot of those
court cases
were thrown out on standing issues
and they were really thrown
at pretty discovery
as to pressuring people to do
saying things that the people say
they can't do.
That's one of those things
where you really have to
look into it and say,
were they really pressuring them
to do something that is
you have clear black letter law
that they're not allowed to do?
Or again,
is it
one of those things
where it's open to interpretation
when it comes to Mike Pence?
Obviously,
there are different interpretations
as to
what his powers are under
the Electoral College Act.
And it's one of the reasons why Congress
then went to amend the act
to kind of close it
and make it a lot more clear that it
his role is purely ceremonial
because there was confusion
and there were differences.
I don't
I don't think that
because you're asking somebody
to do something.
I mean, and people can disagree on this.
That's the people.
That's what makes it open to most people.
I would say
it's not open to interpretation.
I mean, Pence certainly did not believe
that the attorneys that he talked to
didn't believe that.
I mean, John Eastman thought that.
I guess he says
it's open to interpretation.
But Tim, I want to also ask you,
because as we mentioned,
you're an attorney for Bernie
Kerik, the former
New York City police commissioner,
who had dealings with Rudy Giuliani's
efforts to overturn the election.
Has he gotten a target
letter in this investigation?
No, no.
Do you anticipate that he will
Absolutely not.
Why do you not think he'll get one
Why would he?
He hasn't done anything wrong.
He was an investigator.
And everything he did was was legal
and appropriate.
You know,
he was hired to go out there
and do an investigation to try and see
if there was evidence of fraud.
He presented
what he found to the January
six committee.
He explained
that based on his experience,
and what they found,
he believed that it formed probable cause
to believe the fraud had been committed,
you know, not proof
beyond a reasonable doubt
or anything like that.
The probable cause
that he believed was something
that warranted
further investigation,
but based on the limitations of
of his abilities, you know,
lack of subpoena power,
lack of time, resources,
things like that,
that it needed
to be further investigated
by other people.
You know, that's what he passed.
That's what he told January
six committee.
Has he told the special counsel?
Has there been any.
Has there been a request for an interview
or has he sat down for an interview?
We expect to sit down
and explain that to the special counsel
as well. Sure.
Oh, when do you expect to do that?
We haven't scheduled again.
Okay.
But you are in talks
with the special counsel
has nothing to hide. He's.
Yeah, sure.
Absolutely.
McCarrick has nothing to hide.
He's happy to sit down
and explain everything to them.
Okay. That's news.
We did not know that
that he was in talks
to to sit down with them.
So thank you for clearing that up.
I want to also ask
you about what happened in Florida today.
You saw people that used to work
with Trump's current legal team.
They told Judge Karen
they didn't believe
that she should schedule
a new trial date for the documents case
But Todd Blanch said that if
if she were that
they proposed
mid-November or later next year,
obviously that would be after
the election. Do.
Do you really think they can't
go to trial before November
I think that, practically
speaking,
federal criminal cases do take that long.
However,
it is a little bit odd to be asking for
that type of a trial date
at this early stage of the game.
Ordinarily, trial dates are set
and everybody knows that
it's not going to happen on that date.
And you have
you know, five, six,
seven
more adjournments,
you know, throughout the process.
And so,
you know,
these cases do
take over two years
frequently, but they take
but they take them in like three
to five month
increments of moving out the trial date.
Not right from the inception.
Just yeah,
they push it out for two years.
That's a little bit different. Yeah.
Or even postponing it indefinitely.
Tim Barletta,
thanks for your insight
into the Trump legal team
and for breaking that news with us
about your other client, Bernie Kerik.
Thanks so much for joining us.
All right.
Thank you.