WILL ANY OF THEM FLIP OR GET INDICTED? AND OF COURSE THERE IS THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY AND PERHAPS THE GENERAL ELECTION. WE ARE GOING TO GET TO ALL OF THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS IN JUST A BIT, LET ME START WITH THE MOST PRESSING LEGAL QUESTIONS IN THIS HISTORIC CASE. WE HAVE OUR LEGAL ANALYSIS. THE FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY WHO SERVED AS THE LEAD INVESTIGATOR FOR THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE AND OF COURSE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CRIMINAL REFERRALS THAT THEY SENT TO JUSTICE. LET ME START WITH YOU, IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE THE SPEED WITH WHICH WE GOT THE INDICTMENT YESTERDAY VERSUS THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS INDICTMENT, I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THIS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE SORT OF LEARNING A LESSON HERE OR THEY ALLOWED TRUMP TO FILL A VACUUM FOR HALF OF THE NEWS CYCLE THE FIRST TIME, THEY DID NOT ALLOW THAT THIS TIME. >> I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE SUPPOSITION, BUT THERE IS SOME COMPLEXITY IN THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT ROLLOUT, THEY HAD TO NOTIFY CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ABOUT THE INDICTMENT, THEY COULDN'T DO IT WHILE IT WAS SEALED, SO THERE'S SOME THINGS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES THAT DELAYED IT. IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT THEY UNSEALED THAT INDICTMENT IN MIAMI MORE QUICKLY THAN THEY PLANNED TO, AS THEY REALIZED DONALD TRUMP ESSENTIALLY HAD THE FLOOR AND IT SEEMS VERY CERTAIN THAT THEY WERE MAKING SURE THIS DIDN'T APPEN HERE BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THE CARE WITH WHICH THEY TOOK, IT DIDN'T GO EXACTLY AS THEY PLANNED BUT THEY GOT IT OUT QUICKLY, THEY HAD JACK SMITH OUT, AND THE INDICTMENT IS WRITTEN IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, DESIGNED CLEARLY TO APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE JURY. IT'S VERY RARE THAT YOU SAY IN THE INDICTMENT, WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT TO DO. THEY START WITH SAYING HE HAD THE RIGHT TO LIE ABOUT IT BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. >> THAT IS INTERESTING YOU POINT THAT OUT, YOU DON'T OFTEN SEE THE DEBATE TALKING POINTS IN THE INDICTMENT, IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. MAINLY JUST TO PERSUADE. ANYTHING ELSE TO CLEAN TO WHITEY JACK SMITH DECIDED TO DO IT ON CAMERA AS A PUBLIC STATEMENT? IT SEEMS LIKE THE SYMBOLISM SOMEWHAT MATTERED TO THEM. >> IT SEEMS THEY REALLY BELIEVED THERE WAS A PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNCTION THEY NEEDED TO DO HERE, NOT JUST SPEAKING TO THE LEGAL COMMUNITY AND THE SPECIAL JURY POOL BUT THERE WAS ALSO A CONCERTED EFFORT IN THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE IN PHILADELPHIA, THEY ASSERTED JACK SMITH AS THE INDEPENDENT. HE HAD THE CHANCE TO BLACK THIS INDICTMENT AND HE CHOSE NOT TO, BUT I THOUGHT ALTHOUGH THAT WAS INTERESTING. >> A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS, ONE, DO WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA OF WHO IS FULLY COOPERATING AND WHO ISN'T? I ASSUME NOW AS MARK MEADOWS IS BEING PORTRAYED VERY HONESTLY, AT LEAST IN THE INDICTMENT, HARD NOT TO THINK HE IS NOT COOPERATING, CORRECT? >> WELL, WE DO NOT HAVE AN IDEA, THAT IS UNKNOWABLE REALLY, AND BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU, COOPERATING COULD MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS. MARK MEADOWS MIGHT BE COOPERATING IN THE SENSE THAT HE IS COMPLYING WITH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND TURNING OVER EVERYTHING HE IS SUPPOSED TO TURN OVER. OR, IT IS POSSIBLE HE OR OTHERS COULD HAVE CUT A DEAL AND BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND COOPERATING IN THAT RESPECT. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND WE REALLY DON'T KNOW, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THAT CATEGORY THAT THERE IS SEALED CRIMINAL INFORMATION WITH ACTUAL COOPERATORS UNDER THE GUN? WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. IT IS CERTAINLY PLAUSIBLE AND IT IS PLAUSIBLE THAT SOME OF THESE CO-CONSPIRATORS COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THE CHARGES, POTENTIAL CHARGES AGAINST THEM AND DECIDE TO CUT A DEAL THEMSELVES. >> THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ACTION IN THE OTHER JACK SMITH INDICTMENT AND INVESTIGATION, HE HAS ASKED FOR A HEARING IN THE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE IN FRONT OF THE FLORIDA JUDGE ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES WITH ONE OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. >> RIGHT. SO, HE HAS REPRESENTED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN VARIOUS INVESTIGATIONS AND HIS BILLS APPEAR TO BE PAID BY THE TRUMP SUPER PACK, THAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW. THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS RAISING AN ISSUE BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY, HE MAY END UP CROSS-EXAMINING HIS OWN CLIENT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER CLIENT AND THAT IS A PROBLEM. THERE'S ALSO AN ISSUE WITH REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE WHO APPEAR TO, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WANTS TO COOPERATE, BUT THEY ARE SO FAR REMAINING LOYAL TO FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP AS THE LAWYERS BUILD. >> THE JUDGE IS GOING TO SAY HE CAN'T REPRESENT ALL OF THESE FOLKS AT THE SAME TIME, HE WANTS THE JUDGE TO FORCE THIS ISSUE? >> THAT IS POSSIBLE, ALTHOUGH THIS MIGHT BE A WAIVABLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE CLIENT, AND I THINK THE SPECIAL COUNSEL FEELS LIKE THEY HAVE TO PURSUE THIS REMEDY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON THE RECORD. >> WE ARE GETTING STARTED ON THE JUSTICE CAMPAIGN, I HAVE THE DEFENSE SIDE REPRESENTED, THE FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY HIMSELF . I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET YOU GUYS TO STAY IN THOSE LANES FOR THIS, TIM, LET ME START WITH YOU, THE CRIMINAL REFERRALS, YOU GUYS MADE, THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE MADE TO JUSTICE, YOU FEEL PRETTY VINDICATED BY WHAT JACK SMITH TURNED IN YESTERDAY? >> YES, THE FACT HAD BEEN OBVIOUS FOR A LONG TIME, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL RELIED ON THE SAME STAFF AND REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSION THAT WE DID, THEY GIVE RISE TO A VIOLATION OF SEVERAL CRIMINAL STATUTES. THE CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES AND PRECISELY THE STATUTES THAT WE REFERENCE IN A CRIMINAL REFERRAL. NOT SURPRISED, RIGHT? THE FACTS, EVIDENCE WINS TRIALS, NOT LAWYERS, AND THE FACTS HAVE BEEN FAIRLY OBVIOUS HERE FOR SOME TIME. >> IT SEEMS LIKE IF HE GOT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, IT WAS ARGUABLY BECAUSE HE SEEMED TO HAVE A FEW MORE TOOLS. I WANT TO LOOK AT THE MARK MEADOWS EXCERPT IN THE INDICTMENT AND I'M CURIOUS, HOW MUCH YOU WISH YOU COULD HAVE GOTTEN FROM MEADOWS. A DAY AFTER THE DEFENDANT CHIEF OF STAFF PERSONALLY OBSERVED THE SIGNATURE VERIFICATION PROCESS, NOTIFYING THE DEFENDANT THAT STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS WERE CONDUCTING THEMSELVES IN EXEMPLARY FASHION AND THE DEFENDANT TWEETED, THE GEORGIA OFFICIALS ADMINISTRATING THE PROCESS WERE TRYING TO HIDE EVIDENCE OF ELECTION FRAUD, THEN IN THE BRACKETS, TERRIBLE PEOPLE. WHAT DID HE DO TO GET MORE OUT OF MARK MEADOWS THAN YOU GUYS WERE ABLE TO? >> ANY ASSERTION OF PRIVILEGE CAN BE IMMEDIATELY ADJUDICATED BY THE CHIEF JUDGE. MARK MEADOWS, AS YOU KNOW, SORT OF HALFWAY COOPERATED, THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT, BUT THEN REFUSED TO COME IN AND SUBMIT TO THIS DEPOSITION EVEN THOUGH HE WAS SUBPOENAED. CALLING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, ESSENTIALLY HIS ARGUMENT WAS, I AM IMMUNE FROM CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT AND DON'T HAVE TO SUBMIT TO THIS SELECT COMMITTEE. OUR ONLY OPTION WAS SIMPLE LITIGATION WHICH TAKES A WHILE. WE DID NOT HAVE THE TIME BECAUSE WE WERE ON A TIME CLOCK, WE WERE EXPIRING AT THE TIME OF CONGRESS. JACK SMITH GOES RIGHT UPSTAIRS TO THE CHIEF JUDGE, AND THAT JUDGE IMMEDIATELY MAKES A RULING, HE HEARS FROM MEADOWS LAWYER AND THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND HE MAKES THE CALL AND IMMEDIATELY GOES TO THE COURT OF APPEALS ON THE MOTION TO STAY, SO HE HAS THAT HAMMERED TO SORT OF QUICKLY PUSHED THROUGH PRIVILEGE ASSERTIONS, AND HE HAS USED THAT EFFECTIVELY TO GET ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAT WE DID NOT HAVE. >> WHEN YOU READ THIS INDICTMENT, AS TRUMP'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE TOUGHEST PART OF THIS INDICTMENT? >> LET'S START WITH THE FACTS, NOT A LOT IN THE WAY OF FACTS SURPRISED ANY OF US, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE AND FOLLOWING ALONG, KNOWING THAT, THE HARDEST PART OF THE CASE HAS ALWAYS BEEN WHAT IT WAS FOR AT LEAST THE LAST YEAR, SINCE THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE LISTENED TO A LOT, IF NOT MOST OF THE FACTS THAT WE SEE IN THE INDICTMENT. SO THE ONLY QUESTION REMAINING WAS WHETHER OR NOT JACK SMITH'S TEAM BROUGHT THOSE KNOWN FACTS INTO THE PARTICULAR FEDERAL STATUTES. SO, NOW WE SEE THAT OBVIOUSLY THEY DO. I THINK ANY FEDERAL CASE IS A BAD CASE FOR ANY DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE VAST MAJORITY OF FEDERAL CASES AND IN CONVICTION. BUT, I THINK FROM THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY STANDPOINT, EVERYTHING GOES TO HIS INTENT ULTIMATELY AND THERE'S ALSO THE DEFENSE THAT SAYS, THESE ARE MY BUFFERS, THEY ACTED INDEPENDENTLY OF ME, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. BUT AT THE CORE OF THIS, ALL TRUMP REALLY HAS IS THE INTENT DEFENSE. SO WE SEE THE GOVERNMENT REFUTE THAT IN THE LIST OF PEOPLE THAT TOLD HIM THIS WAS A BAD IDEA. >> IF THERE WAS NOT SUCH AN ORGANIZED ELECTORATE SCHEME, TAKE THAT OUT, DO YOU THINK HIS FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE WOULD BE STRONGER? >> SURE, THE ELECTORATE SCHEME IS THE MOST CONCRETE TO ME AND REALLY, THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS SO MUCH HARDER FOR HIM TO USE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. >> EXACTLY, BUT AGAIN, THE ELECTORATE SCHEME HAS A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKING ON HIS BEHALF, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WORKING WITH GIULIANI, A LOT OF FIX THAT POINT TO TRUMP AND THEY SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING OUT THERE, I DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE GOVERNMENT. >> IT'S FUNNY, HE IS WORRIED ABOUT PEOPLE FLIPPING ON HIM. SHOULD HE FLIP AGAINST HIS CO- CONSPIRATORS? >> AND BY FLIP, DO YOU MEAN CAN HE GO INTO THE GOVERNMENT AND ENTER A COOPERATION AGREEMENT? THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT INTERESTED IN THAT. NUMBER ONE, HE'S THE ONLY DEFENDANT, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD GIVE HIM AN OFFER THAT I HAVE GOTTEN PLENTY OF TIMES WHICH IS YOUR CLIENT COMPLETE THE INDICTMENT, IN OTHER WORDS, HE CAN WALK INTO COURT AND WE WON'T MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS. SOMETIMES THAT IS AN OPTION BUT THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, NOT A CHANCE. TRUMP IS GOING TO BLAME OTHER PEOPLE BUT THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS THAT AND HE'S ALSO GOING TO CLAIM MASSIVE IGNORANCE, BUT AGAIN, THE GOVERNMENT KNOWS THAT AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE ALL THE FACTS OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT TOLD HIM WHAT WAS GOING ON. BUT, I PREFER TO SAY THAT WAS RUDY OPERATING ON HIS OWN. >> WHEN YOU BROUGHT A SET OF CHARGES, MORE PEOPLE OTHER THAN DONALD TRUMP COMMITTED CRIMES HERE AS ALLEGED IN THIS INDICTMENT, BUT JACK SMITH CHOSE TO SINGLE OUT DONALD TRUMP, HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU DONE THAT AND IS THAT DONE SIMPLY TO GET A SPEEDIER TRIAL? >> IT IS RARE, USUALLY YOU CHARGE ALL THE CONSPIRATORS TOGETHER IN A SINGLE INDICTMENT, YOU DON'T WANT TO TRY THE SAME CASE OR PERTINENT EVIDENCE IN THE SAME TRIAL. THE TARGET OF THIS INVESTIGATION IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT AND THEREFORE, THERE IS SOME HASTE TO BRING THIS CASE, TAKE THIS ACTION WELL INTO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO START VOTING. MY GUESS IS, THE CONSPIRATORS ARE NOT OFF THE HOOK, THERE MIGHT BE SUBSEQUENT CASES, SOME OF THEM MAY END UP EVALUATING EXPOSURE AND POTENTIALLY REACHING SOME SORT OF DEAL. IT'S VERY HARD TO SAY. BUT IT IS VERY COMMON IN CONSPIRACY CASES, AS YOUR QUESTION IS SUGGESTING. THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE PROCEEDINGS HERE, IT'S REALLY JUST THE BEGINNING. >> WERE YOU SURPRISED THAT INDICTMENT WASN'T INCLUDED, OR NOT? >> THAT RAISES MORE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT DEFENSE, THE SPEECH IS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION AS IT SHOULD BE BUT CONDUCT IS NOT, THAT IS THE LINE THAT IS DRAWN BY THE JURY. PRESIDENT TRUMP STANDS UP AND SAYS THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN, IT'S ONLY WHEN HE SAYS THAT AS A PART OF A SCHEME TO TAKE ACTION TO DISRUPT THE JOINT SESSION, THE TRANSITION OF POWER, THAT IT BECOMES CRIMINAL. THOSE ARE VAGUE TERMS THAT DO GET CLOSER TO SPEECH, I THINK HE IS CHARGED WITH AVOIDING SOME OF THOSE MANIPULATIONS, THAT IS THE BEST CHANCE OF GETTING THIS RESULT BEFORE THE ELECTION. >> HOW WOULD YOU TRY TO AVOID A SPEEDY TRIAL HERE? SHE HAS MADE IT HARD, WHAT IS YOUR SENSE OF HOW LIKELY TRUMP IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO DELAY THIS UNTIL AFTER? >> THERE IS A PARADOX GOING ON HERE, THE SPEEDY TRIAL RULE IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT, BUT IN FEDERAL COURT, IT CAN OFTEN BE BETTER FOR THE GOVERNMENT. IT'S NO SURPRISE TO ME, THAT JACK SMITH FOUND A WAY TO CROWBAR IN THE WORD SPEEDY TRIAL IN HIS VERY SHORT STATEMENT BECAUSE A SPEEDY TRIAL BENEFITS THE GOVERNMENT PARTICULARLY IN A CASE LIKE THIS. THEY HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATING FOR YEARS, AND MAINLY JACK SMITH STARTED IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR BUT THEY HAVE BEEN ABOUT GETTING FOR A LONG TIME. MEANWHILE THE DEFENSE HASN'T GOTTEN DISCOVERY DOCUMENT NUMBER ONE, SO IN A STRANGE SITUATION, ALTHOUGH NOT THAT STRANGE, THE GOVERNMENT IS READY TO GO TO TRIAL PROBABLY TOMORROW, IT'S THE DEFENSE THIS TIME. THIS IS THE CASE WHERE IT WOULD BENEFIT THE GOVERNMENT >> BUT, WHAT IS TRUMP'S BEST TACTIC TO DELAY THIS >> HE ARGUED THE CASE IS UNUSUALLY COMPLEX, THE SPEEDY TRIAL ALLOWS FOR THE DELAY, BUT I HAVE HEARD FOR JUDGES, WHEN THEY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, THEY SAY OKAY, FINE, WE WILL MOVE IT OUT ONE MONTH, GEE THANKS, THAT IS NOT GOING TO HELP. CASES MOVE QUICKLY IN FEDERAL COURT. >> I
