MIKE EMANUEL FOLLOWING THAT
DRAMA, IT’S A LONG WAY FROM
BEING OVER.
KATIE CHER KASKEY, FORMER
FEDERAL PROSECUTOR,
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ATTORNEY.
WE’RE ALWAYS TALKING REMOTELY.
GREAT TO SEE YOU.
WHERE DOES THIS GO, KATIE?
WHAT IS YOUR BEST BET, FIRST ON
THIS IDEA OF SOME SORT OF MASTER
THIRD PARTY OBSERVER LOOKING AT
EVERYTHING, WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> WELL THAT DOJ’S FILING REALLY
TELLS US WHAT I THINK WE ALREADY
KNEW, THIS IS A DOCUMENT DISPUTE
BUT THEY KIND OF BRUSH OVER HOW
SIGNIFICANT THAT IS, BUT BECAUSE
PRESIDENT TRUMP DID HAVE
DECLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY WILL BE
LITIGATED ALL THE WAY UP THROUGH
THE SUPREME COURT.
NEIL: REALLY?
>> IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY MOVING
FORWARD WITH ANY SORT OF
INDICTMENT IF THAT IS WHAT
THEY’RE LOOKING TO DO, IF THERE
WAS SUSPICION THEY WERE LOOKING
TO GET BACK THE DOCUMENTS BUT I
THINK THE FILING LAST NIGHT
SHOWS THEY’RE REALLY INTERESTED
PURSUING THIS CRIMINALLY.
NEIL: THAT IS TOUGH ONE, ISN’T
IT?
YOU HAVE TO PROVE, THEY HAVE
BEEN HINTING THAT HE MIGHT HAVE
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE HERE.
HE DID ARGUE THAT THE, YOU KNOW
HAD GIVEN THEM EVERYTHING THEY
WANTED, WHEN IT BEGAN WITH THE
NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
THERE IS NOTHING HERE HERE, THEY
OBVIOUSLY FELT DIFFERENTLY AND
FOUND STUFF THEY SAID HE DIDN’T
HAVE.
DOES THAT MEAN HE LIED TO THEM?
>> WELL I THINK THAT A DISPUTE
ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
ESPECIALLY FROM A FORMER
PRESIDENT WHO HAD CARTE BLANCHE
AUTHORITY OVER THEM IS NOT
OBSTRUCTION.
IF THERE IS REALLY A DISPUTE
ABOUT WHAT HE SHOULD OR
SHOULDN’T HAVE HAD, THAT IS
SOMETHING AGAIN NOT COMPARABLE
TO ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE, ANY PAST PROSECUTIONS.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS
GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT
ROAD IN TERMS OF A PROSECUTION.
NOW IN TERMS OF THE OTHER PEOPLE
INVOLVED INCLUDING ATTORNEYS
THAT MADE REPRESENTATIONS, THAT
COULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY IN
TERMS OF THEIR OWN LIABILITY BUT
FOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP I
THINK THAT THERE HAS GOT TO BE A
MORE SIGNIFICANT ANALYSIS OF THE
ACTUAL JURISDICTION BUT THE DOJ
THINKS THAT THEY HAVE TO INDICT
HIM FOR OFFENSES THAT ARE
CONNECTED TO HIS TIME IN OFFICE.
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH NOW HE IS
OBVIOUSLY NOT IN OFFICE.
THESE DOCUMENTS WERE ALL FROM
HIS TIME THERE.
HE IS CLAIMING HE DECLASSIFIED
THEM.
HE DOES NOT NEED TO PROVE HE
DECLASSIFIED THEM.
THIS IS CRIMINAL FORUM.
THIS IS PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE.
THE DOJ WOULD NEED TO PROVE
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT
HE DIDN’T DO SO.
OF COURSE THERE ARE OTHER
OFFENSES THAT DON’T DISCUSS THE
CLASSIFICATION LEVEL BUT ANY
RELEASE OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH
INFORMATION WAS REALLY WITHIN
HIS AUTHORITY.
SO I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE A
DIFFICULT THING TO ACTUALLY GET
TO AN INDICTMENT PHASE BUT --
NEIL: HIS SAYING HE DIDN’T HAVE
THE DOCUMENTS THEY WANTED AND
SORT OF TURN AROUND SAY, I
DECLASSIFIED IT ANYWAY BECAUSE I
COULD, I WAS PRESIDENT AT THE
TIME, IT IS CLEAR HE IS GOING TO
BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN
ANYONE ELSE WHO WAS IN THIS
SITUATION.
AND THAT’S WHERE HE COMES IN AND
SAYS I’M BEING TREATED FAR
DIFFERENTLY THAN SANDY BERGER
WAS WHO HAD DOCUMENTS IN HIS
PANTS OR CERTAINLY THE HILLARY
CLINTON SITUATION WHERE HE
ARGUED SHE GOT OFF VERY, VERY
LIGHTLY WHAT DO YOU THINK OF
THAT?
>> IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT
ANALYSIS IN MY MIND, A
PRESIDENT, FIRST OF ALL THEY
DON’T POSSESS A SECURITY
CLEARANCE WHATSOEVER.
THEY ARE THE CLEARANCE,
CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY.
NEIL: BUT ISSUE HERE TOO IS,
DOES THAT REMAIN WHEN YOU’RE A
FORMER PRESIDENT?
>> I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO
REMEMBER IS THAT THE DOCUMENTS
THAT HE HAD WERE TAKEN FROM HIS
TIME --
NEIL: IN OFFICE, RIGHT.
>> AT WHAT POINT DOES THIS TURN
CRIMINAL ACCORDING TO THE DOJ?
I THINK THEY COULD ATTEMPT TO
ISSUE AN INDICTMENT BUT I THINK
THEY WILL RUN INTO
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ON THE
VAGUENESS SIDE OF THINGS IN
CHARGING BECAUSE OF HIS
AUTHORITY.
SO ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE, EVEN AT HIGHEST LEVEL
IS SUBJECT TO LAWS REGARDING
CLASSIFIED MATERIALS.
NEIL: I’M READING BETWEEN
EVERYTHING.
YOU’RE THE GENIUS, OR NOT.
I WATCHED A NUMBER OF LEGAL
SHOWS.
I THINK AS I TOLD YOU I QUALIFY,
THAT, THERE IS NO CRIMINAL
CHARGE THAT IS GOING TO COME HIS
WAY, WHETHER PEOPLE FEEL HE
DESERVES IT OR NOT.
IT IS JUST NOT HAPPENING.
I DON’T SEE IT.
>> I DON’T THINK THERE IS A
SUSTAINABLE PROSECUTION BASED ON
THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE.
NOW I THINK --
NEIL: UNLESS THEY KNOW SOMETHING
OR UNCOVERED SOMETHING WE DON’T
KNOW.
THIS WAS HEAVILY REDACTED
AFFIDAVIT.
>> WELL, EXACTLY.
I THINK WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IN A
CRIMINAL FORM IT IS PROOF BEYOND
A REASONABLE DOUBT STANDARD
WHICH IS VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT.
DOJ KNOWS THAT, MERRICK GARLAND
KNOWS THAT.
I DON’T THINK THEY WANT TO
PURSUE A PROSECUTION THEY CANNOT
WIN.
NEIL: YEAH.
>> THIS IS FAR FROM A GUARRANTY
IN THAT RESPECT.
FOR THE OTHER FOLKS INVOLVED,
INCLUDING ATTORNEYS AS I
MENTIONED THAT MADE
REPRESENTATION, THERE COULD BE
SOME TROUBLE FOR THEM
POTENTIALLY BUT IT IS VERY
SPECIFIC TO THE ACTUAL TIMING
HOW THESE THINGS TOOK PLACE
BEFORE THERE COULD EVER BE AN
INDICTMENT THAT ISSUED IN MY
MIND.
NEIL: WE’RE LOOKING, IF YOU
DON’T MIND SWITCHING GEARS I
MEANT TO ASK YOU THAT AFTER WE
LAST CHATTED, HOW CREDIBLE IT IS
TO YOU, PRESIDENT BIDEN DID NOT
KNOW THAT THIS WAS COMING DOWN,
OR, THAT ANYONE AT THE
WHITE HOUSE DIDN’T KNOW THIS WAS
COMING DOWN BECAUSE AT FACE
VALUE WE DO KNOW THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S OFFICE WAS
AWARE OF THE PLEAS FROM THE
NATIONAL ARCHIVES FOLKS HEY WE
WANT OUR DOCUMENTS, THESE ARE
MISSING DOCUMENTS SO IT DOES
SEEM TO BEND CREDULITY, WHAT DO
YOU THINK?
>> IT ABSOLUTELY BENDS
CREDULITY.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OWNER.
MERRICK GARLAND SERVES AT THE
PLEASURE OF PRESIDENT.
HE IS IN CHARGE OF JUSTICE
ENACTED OUT OF EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
IN TERMS OF KEEPING THINGS
NON-PARTISAN WITH THE DOJ THERE
ARE CERTAIN APPEARSES.
I THINK WE’RE FAR PAST THAT
POINT.
WE ALL KNOW IT IS VERY
POLITICAL.
WHETHER IT IS CRIMINAL OR NOT
MAY BE THE CASE.
PRESIDENT BIDEN OWNS THE DOJ.
THAT IS HIS AGENCY AND HE HAS
THE AUTHORITY --
NEIL: THEY HAD TO REALIZE THE
MAGNITUDE OF THIS.
WE ARE GOING TO RAID A FORMER
PRESIDENT’S HOME.
MIGHT THAT --
>> EXACTLY.
NEIL: WISE TO GET PEOPLE IN THE
LOOP ON THAT?
>> I THINK HE SHOULD INSERT
HIMSELF A BIT MORE.
THEIR STRATEGY WAS TO LOOK
UNINVOLVED BUT NOT POLITICAL BUT
I THINK IT IS BACKFIRING BECAUSE
IT IS SO UNBELIEVABLE AND
TOTALLY AS YOU MENTIONED BENDS
CREDULITY TO SUGGEST THAT THE
WHITE HOUSE WAS NOT INVOLVED
WITH SOMETHING SO UNPRECEDENTED
AND SO POLITCALLY, REGARDLESS OF
THE UNDERLYING ALLEGED CRIMINAL
OFFENSES.
IT IS POLITICAL THROUGH AND
THROUGH.
THIS IS BASED UPON TRUMP’S
ACTIONS WHILE HE WAS IN THE
WHITE HOUSE AND IT CONTINUES TO
BE SOMETHING THAT IS A DEBATE
REGARDING HIS POWERS AS THE
EXECUTIVE.
SO IT IS CERTAINLY POLITICAL
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE
WHITE HOUSE IS TRYING TO MAKE IT
APPEAR TO BE.
NEIL: KATIE, YOU’RE GREAT.
ALWAYS GREAT TO LEARN SO MUCH.
KATIE CHER KASKEY ON ALL THE
DEVELOPMENTS.
NEWS WE’RE GETTING OUT JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT AND TRUMP’S LEGAL