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.
