The former president indicted.
That is according to Have
and other sources
confirming it to CNN tonight.
Joining us
now is one of his attorneys, Jim Trusty.
This is his first interview
since news of the indictment broke
just a few hours ago.
Jim, thanks for joining us.
My first question,
do you have a copy of this indictment?
No, we haven't been provided
with the indictment yet.
What we have right now
is essentially a summons,
which is a replacement for a warrant.
Right.
Normally, indictments
are accompanied by a warrant
where there's an arrest.
Here, we've received a summons
from the Department of Justice
asking us to be
at the courthouse Tuesday at 3:00.
And does it say
how many charges there are
against your client?
It again, it
doesn't perfectly mirror an indictment,
but it does have some language in it
that suggests
what the seven charges would be.
Not 100% clear
that all of those are separate charges,
but they basically break out
from an Espionage Act charge,
which is ludicrous
under the facts of this case.
And I can certainly explain it.
And several obstruction
based type charges
and then false statement charges,
which are actually, again,
kind of a crazy stretch
just from the facts as we know it.
So there's a lot to pick out
eventually from the defense side,
but that appears to be the charges.
And it appears to be something
that will get off the ground on Tuesday.
Okay.
So you're confirming
it is seven charges
You said there's an Espionage
Espionage Act charge.
Is there one on the willful
retention of documents
Yeah, that's it.
We're talking to 18 U.S.C.
seven 93
and then there are several 18 U.S.C.
15, 12, 15, 19.
It's great
television, right,
to cite these numbers
but the bottom line is it
breaks down to the retention charge,
as you would call it,
obstructions and false statement.
And is there a conspiracy charge in here?
I believe so.
I don't have in front of me right now.
Again,
this is not
biblically accurate
because I'm not looking
at a charging document.
I'm looking at a summary sheet.
So there's language in there
that might actually be
reflecting a single count instead of two,
but I think there was
a conspiracy count as well.
And so that means there could be
other indictments Have you told that
have you been told that anyone else
was indicted here?
We weren't
advised of anyone else being indicted.
I have a theory
that maybe
some of the outrageous misconduct
has affected the equation.
In some other case, a potential target.
But bottom line is, right now,
all we know about is our client.
What's your theory?
Well, over the last 24 hours,
it's become public
that members
of the Department
of Justice, led by Jay Brad,
who is a pivotal figure
in this investigation,
This is the guy who wanted to do a raid
before they even had a subpoena out.
He apparently,
along with
five other people
in his presence from DOJ, extorted
a very well-respected,
very intelligent lawyer
from Washington, D.C.,
saying essentially,
if you want this judgeship
that's on Joe Biden's desk,
you have to flip your guy to cooperate
against the president
of the United States.
That's the headline evidence.
I know that
that's that's been something that
Republican allies of Trump
have been saying.
But do you have evidence
that that happened?
Yeah, this is
this is no political talker.
This is something that was reported
at the time by the attorney.
It has been basically sworn to by him.
He's written a letter
that's been submitted to a U.S.
district court judge
confirming it happened.
And and
I think it'll be really interesting
to find out
whether DOJ, whether
the five people that sat in the room
and watched that extortion
have threads of text messages
or emails where they comment about that.
So we're going to want some discovery
about just how far ranging
this criminal activity
was by a prosecutor.
And think of the irony once again.
You've got prosecutors saying
we're going after this guy
because of obstruction.
You know,
that's their theoretical distinction
from Delaware.
While they literally obstructed justice,
they literally tampered with a witness
in the fall of 20, 22.
Let's get back to the indictment here.
We don't have any evidence
of what you're claiming there.
I know that the legal team
has been other than sworn testimony.
All right.
That's what you're saying.
I'm taking you at your word on that.
We don't have any evidence
of that ourselves.
I just want to note for our audience,
but I want to get back
to the indictment here,
because this is the breaking news
tonight from your own client.
How did you find out about this?
Did you hear from the special counsel,
Jack Smith?
How did you get this summons
that you're referencing?
You know, we got
an email from the guy
who actually did the extortion.
I think that was a cute little message
from DOJ that they're not going to
they're not going to worry
about their own dirty house.
And so we got an email
that basically had a summons,
an invitation to have a call
to kind of work on some of the logistics.
And we'll work on those logistics.
There's a lot to kind of figure out
between the U.S. Marshals and the U.S.
Secret Service
to make this as smooth as possible,
make it safe for the public
and make it official in the courthouse.
So that's all coming.
It would be nice to actually
have a copy of the indictment but
we don't have that quite yet.
When do you expect that
you'll get a hostage? Until we agree.
When do you expect
you'll get a copy of that indictment?
Sometime between now and
Tuesday afternoon.
If they want to continue to play games,
they'll give it to us at 3:01 p.m.
Tuesday.
What was the former president's reaction
when you told him
that he had been indicted in this case?
Yeah, it's a combination of things.
I mean, look,
anytime
you advise a client
that they've been indicted
when they know
it's just fundamentally wrong.
You know,
I know all attorneys
go on the air and say,
my client is innocent.
And then after the trial,
we're going to win the appeal.
Well, here he is innocent.
I mean, everything about this
case is absolutely rotten.
The misconduct
that we've documented
for an attorney general
who hides behind Jack Smith.
And so his reaction was personal,
but it wasn't.
You know,
he thought about it
and said, this is just a sad day.
I can't believe I've been indicted.
You know,
those are kind of my
my summary words of what he had to say.
But at the same time,
he immediately recognizes
the historic nature of this.
This is crossing the Rubicon.
You know,
when we have a weaponized DOJ serving
as as the Pretorian Guard
for the Democratic Party,
for the incumbent administration
and the attorney general
who is in charge of Jack Smith, hides
from meetings, hides from conversations
and just says, go talk to Jack.
Well, Jack, this is a crazy new world.
Texas is the special counsel.
He acts independent.
That's why he was appointed in this.
But he was in that meeting
that you were in on Monday
at the Justice Department, we are told.
Did he say anything to you
in that meeting?
Was there any indication
that these charges were coming
I'm not going to talk about the meeting.
But to go back to your premise
there, Caitlin.
This is not an independent
counsel statute that changed.
This is special counsel.
They are still answerable
to the attorney general.
Now, for whatever political reason,
maybe it's all about Delaware,
where apparently cases go to die.
Everything.
The attorney general should be doing in
terms of transparency is not happening.
That started with his impromptu
press conference
to announce the president's guilt.
It's continued
with the misconduct that we've documented
and it's not just
the smoking gun
that I've mentioned in terms
of extortion.
Obviously, you've got Tim Parlato there.
He can tell you
about the grand jury abuse
that he went through. Directly.
That's pretty solid evidence.
And there's a whole bunch
of other stories
of mistreating, intimidating,
browbeating witnesses and gamesmanship.
So I know that no allegations
come out smoking on.
And I know I know that's
why you went to the Justice Department
on Monday to
to air your grievances
about how this investigation
has been conducted.
But again, this is historic.
You're right.
Your client has been indicted.
He's the first former president
to face federal charges.
What day did you get the target letter
letting you know
that he was indeed a target
in this investigation?
Look, what
let me just put it to you this way.
Witnesses don't have raids
at their houses.
We've known he's a target.
But when did you get the seven letters?
Because I changed it.
Now, I'm not going to get into that.
The internal
communications stuff
is not something
I'm comfortable throwing out
because it's between the attorneys.
Okay.
Do you feel comfortable coming on
and making these allegations?
But, Jim, you feel comfortable
making these allegations about who's
in the special counsel's team?
Why can't you say when they sent you
the target letter
Because I have no interest
in reporting on those types of facts
of communication. So sorry.
Which legal team will be with Trump
when he shows up on Tuesday?
Will he show up on Tuesday?
Yeah, he's going to show up.
Look, he knows he's innocent.
He knows this is garbage.
He knows there's
fundamental flaws
with each one of the counts
that they're apparently
putting in this indictment.
And he knows that the whole process,
starting from the archives,
was a corrupt and politicized one.
So he's not shrinking from the fight.
He's disappointed
that this is where we are as a country
and this is where
the Department of Justice is.
But he's not
you're not going to see him,
you know, hide in Scotland.
He's going to be ready
to handle this case
and help his attorneys fight it.
And we'll we'll see.
It'll make some excitement to see
who shows up at the table on Tuesday,
I guess.
So it's not clear
which attorneys will be with him,
is that what you're saying?
Because so far it's been you
John Rowley, Lindsey Halligan
handling this.
Yeah, we'll see.
We'll see where it all goes.
Okay.
So you're leaving the door
open that other attorneys
could be joining?
We'll see what that looks like.
Is your understanding
that all of this is now happening
only in Florida,
not in Washington at the grand
jury here any longer?
Yeah, that's a good question.
I mean, look, it's
kind of an interesting scenario
as to why
they would be in a grand
jury in Washington, D.C.
for the better part.
Of, whatever, maybe ten months or more
and then make this shift.
I know that some of the colleagues
from the Department of Justice
had even published articles
talking about some of the venue problems
that they might have
with some of these charges.
But I think it might go
back to the misconduct.
I think there was so much
that was wrong about how they conducted
the investigation in D.C.
that they might be going down to Florida
to kind of sanitize
the process,
make it look to the Florida grand jury
like there's nothing to see here
when they drag
and vice presidents
violated attorney client privilege,
you know, make for personal attorneys
and seven Secret Service agents
and a vice president testify.
Maybe they're trying to get away
from the damage they did in D.C.
But bottom
line is, no sign of a second case
or a separate case
that would be
kind of the ultimate overreach
by these guys.
Well, yeah,
you're referencing
all the people that have gone in.
A lot of them are
people who work for Trump
or worked for him
that you mentioned there.
Do you believe that Florida
is a more favorable venue, though,
for your client here?
Yeah.
Look,
I mean, you don't know the details of,
you know, how the jury selection
is going to play out.
We don't even know 100%
whether it'll stay in Miami.
As opposed to in West Palm.
I think there's a likelihood
that the case could be actually valued
specifically over there.
So there's a lot of kind of,
you know, tactical considerations
and thoughts that will go into that.
But as a general rule,
look, Washington, D.C.,
you look at the numbers politically,
you look at
how the bench has treated
things like the crime fraud
exception being,
you know,
this incredibly rare thing
that came to life
here, vice presidents
having no executive privilege.
You know,
I have to think that the culture
in anywhere
in southern
Florida is probably more favorable
to this particular client
than Washington, D.C. would be.
What does Tuesday look like?
Does he does he
I know he's in New Jersey right now.
I was told
a lot of the attorneys
aren't there in New Jersey with him.
Walk me through what Tuesday looks like.
Does he go straight to the courthouse?
Do we expect him to be arrested?
What are your expectations
Yeah, well, I don't want
to get crazy specific.
I mean, look,
I think Secret Service
would not be thrilled with me for that.
So you really can't
telegraph what your client posted on
on social media that it was happening
at 3 p.m. on Tuesday.
Right.
I'm not
we're not hiding the court appearance.
Caitlin, I'm talking about
where does he come from?
What time does he show up?
That kind of stuff
needs to be kind of close
hold between the marshals
and Secret Service.
In terms of the hearing itself,
it should be a fairly routine hearing.
We still have to iron out
some have to have some conversations
with DOJ to see
if they'll be remotely reasonable
about things like conditions of release
and setting a timetable.
But look,
the hearing itself
is actually a pretty typical thing.
It's just an atypical prosecution,
an atypical defendant.
But on the logistics of it,
you know, we'll work that out.
The one thing you did mention
an arrest,
there's not going to be an arrest.
This is coming in on a summons
that was appropriate.
This is not somebody who's going to flee.
This is not somebody that poses
a danger to the community,
which is the factors
that you would normally consider
when you're talking about release.
So, again, no, no arrests, no warrant,
none of that kind of nonsense.
But we'll go through
the bureaucratic process we have to.
On Tuesday, he announced this publicly.
Was that against your advice
Well, even if
it was, I would not get into that.
I mean, look, DOJ has leaked stuff
every day of the week.
In this case,
you and I kind of butted heads on that
maybe about a week ago.
But because I don't including
pressuring that very learned more.
Of course,
I'm shocked
that CNN said they had good reporting.
You stunned me with that.
But look, we do have
The Washington Post has run probably
The Washington Post is probably run.
25 stories about the same guy
the DOJ tried to extort into cooperating.
You can't tell me that's coming from us.
That's coming from them.
It was a leak campaign.
That's just one example of it.
And again,
this is the new rule of anything goes
when you're going after President Trump.
It started with,
you know, probably seven years ago.
But certainly the FBI culture of Comey
and the current administration
going after their leading
candidate in opposition
are writing new rules
every step of the way.
So, you know, we'll be fighting
that stuff left and right.
You may not like to hear everything
I have to say
or you may say
there's not enough evidence yet.
But I'm evidence driven
and we're going to bear it out.
Yeah, I do believe
we need to get evidence
on those allegations you're making.
But we do appreciate you
coming on your first interview
since the former president was indicted
earlier today.
Jim Trusty, thank you for your time.
All right.
Sure thing.