Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

New Charge For Donald Trump On Classified Documents Case; Trump's PAC Spending Millions On Legal Fees; Possible Indictments for Trump In Georgia; American Woman And Child Kidnapped In Haiti; Texas Secures Border With Buoys And Razor Wires In The Rio Grande. Aired 5- 6p ET

Aired July 30, 2023 - 17:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[17:00:00]

KYUNG LAH, CNN NATIONAL CORESPONDENT: How to deal with these low-level crimes that are so widely and uniformly felt by so many in this city. Kyung Lah, CNN, San Francisco.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: And thank you for joining me today. I'm Fredericka Whitfield. The "CNN Newsroom" continues with Paula Reid right now.

PAULA REID, CNN HOST: Live from Washington, I'm Paula Reid in for Jim Acosta. You are in the "CNN Newsroom." Former President Trump is pushing back on the new criminal charges he's facing. The former president took to social media today to deny that security footage from Mar-a-Lago was deleted. But that's not what prosecutors have accused here.

They allege that he was part of an attempt to delete the footage. Prosecutors say a Mar-a-Lago property manager, Carlos de Oliveira, urged another employee to scrub the footage saying that quote, "the boss, aka Trump, wanted the entire server deleted." De Olivera is accused of lying to investigators about moving classified documents at the resort and the indictment alleges that the desire to have this footage deleted was all aimed at trying to conceal critical information from investigators. De Olivera is due in federal court tomorrow morning.

Now, Trump also says that the footage was voluntarily handed over. That's also not true. It was subpoenaed. This weekend, Trump has been on the campaign trail and on the attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: These are vicious, bad people. As you know, Biden has ordered his top political opponent to be arrested. I got to be arrested. They want to arrest me. That's only because we're winning. But now the Biden administration is trying to make it illegal to even question the results or the outcome of an election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: And a source familiar with the matter says Trump's political action committee, Save America, has spent more than $40 million on legal fees for the former president and his associates. And that's just so far this year and more than double what the PAC spent on legal fees last year. So, joining us now with more former Trump attorney, Tim Parlatore. All right, Tim, it's been a busy week. I think the last time we spoke after the first indictment; you said you didn't necessarily expect another indictment. So, what was your reaction to the new charges this week.

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER TRUMP ATTORMEY: Well, when I read them, I was kind of wondering why wasn't that in the initial indictment? I mean the information that they've added seems like things that they would have known or should have known at the time that they brought the initial indictment. So why did they decide to cut it up and put it in a superseding indictment?

The other thing I was wondering is why did they wait until right after having this whole big fight about the trial schedule and saying, oh, we want, you know, this schedule to be moved up? I'm sure that the judge is going to question them as to, you know, if you knew that you were going to amend, you knew that you were going to add another defendant, you knew that this whole trial schedule was not going to happen, why didn't you reveal it at the time?

REID: Yeah, it's likely that Judge Cannon -- I was in the hearing when she was trying to get information because timing is so critical here, right?

PARLATORE: Yeah.

REID: It will be really interesting to see her reaction because she put a lot of effort into that schedule. I think there are 30 different deadlines they need to meet?

PARLATORE: It is one of -- it is -- no. It is the most detailed trial schedule I have ever seen out of any federal judge. And so, I do think that it is something that she's going to take a look at and say, why did you have me go through this exercise if you knew that you were going to do something? And, you know, this move is very likely going to push this trial, you know, just on its own out much closer to or past the election.

REID: Let's talk about the merits of the filing. Three new things, right? We have obstruction of the obstruction alleged, a new co- defendant, and a new document. Let's start with the obstruction itself, but what do you think of the strength of the case here. The attempt to delete the security footage.

PARLATORE: So, here it's interesting because they just have a conversation that apparently wasn't recorded where he's saying the boss wants this deleted. If they don't really have much more than that, they may be have enough to charge Carlos with it, but quite frankly, if you charge Donald Trump every single time one of his employees says, you know, the boss wanted something, you know, I think that it could go on forever because so many of them, you know, just use that phrase.

And so, they would have to actually make the connection that he actually communicated that to Carlos. So, I don't think that they're going to be able to sustain their burden as to others, even if they do have that employee come in and say, yes, you know, Carlos said this to me.

REID: This is the obstruction of the obstruction though, right?

PARLATORE: Yeah.

REID: So, we have a lot of obstruction alleged here. What is your assessment of the overall obstruction case here?

[17:05:02]

PARLATORE: Well, I mean, the video that we're talking about here, the surveillance videos, something that when the subpoena came in, you know, we advised, you know, turn it over. And you know, it was turned over and it was something that is kind of surprising to us at the time of why were they even looking at this because the deletion of footage, DOJ had all the footage, so they knew that there was nothing missing.

But it really then is going to be a question of what is on that footage. You know, the same thing I told you when the -- the night that first came down is, what is it actually going to show off, you know, Carlos and Walt actually moving these boxes? It's something that, you know, I'm surprised that they haven't played clips of it yet. I'm surprised they haven't put screenshots of it into the indictment.

You know, they have, you know, pictures of boxes on stage and boxes in bathrooms, but the single most damaging, thing in this indictment, the most, you know, criminal thing that it appears, they didn't put the screenshots of that in, so --

REID: Do you think a screenshot of what not in Carlos de Olivera moving boxes would hit harder than those pictures of alleged classified documents in a ballroom, in a bathroom, in a bedroom?

PARLATORE: Oh sure.

REID: Wasn't damning.

PARLATORE: If they are -- if they moved 60 boxes out like that's -- like it's saying and they can show, you know, a video or a screenshot of them moving 60 boxes out right before (inaudible) goes in to do a search, I mean, that's an extremely damaging video and I would be expected that'd be something they'd be showing.

REID: Does it surprise you that Trump would allegedly lean on a lower- level employee to do his dirty work?

PARLATORE^: Well, and again, if this -- if the allegations are true for him to ask somebody else to move the boxes opposed to moving them himself, obviously that's not something that's surprising. I wouldn't --- that would be the screenshot to put in as if, you know, Donald Trump moving boxes himself. But that doesn't surprise me that he has people to do this these things for him, whether appropriate or inappropriate.

REID: One of the themes that keeps coming up is sort of an effort to go around the lawyers. The effort to destroy surveillance footage, as we understand it, was nixed eventually when it reached word of this, reached lawyers at the Trump Organization. We know the other alleged obstruction, the moving the boxes in and out, was allegedly to hide these documents from his lawyers. I mean, what do you think of this? This is a scene that keeps coming up, right? Let's try this, but don't let the lawyers know because they could get in the way of my plans.

PALATORE: It is, you know, if these things are true, that is definitely damaging, you know. If it is true that they did do that and --- I haven't heard about the attempt to deletion of footage got stopped by lawyers. That's not something I'm aware of. My understanding is that it was something that they couldn't delete.

REID: Do you know Carlos de Oliveira?

PARLATORE: I don't. I never met him. He's certainly represented by counsel, so it would have been inappropriate for me to talk to him directly anyway.

REID: And I want to run some new reporting by you that we just have now. There's another employee, Yuscil Tavares. This is someone who is referred to in the indictment as Trump employee number four. And what's interesting about Tavares is that this individual received a target letter, which we know Carlos and Walt Nauta, they were both sort of put-on notice that they could be charged here. Neither one of them has cooperated, capital C, with the Justice Department. They've both been charged.

But interestingly, after Tavares received a target letter, he changed lawyers. He had previously been represented by the same person who represents Walt Nauta, Stan Woodward. He represents a lot of people in this investigation. What do you make of this, that this individual received a target letter, decided they no longer wanted a Trump- affiliated lawyer, and appears to have provided some of the information in this indictment?

PARLATORE: That is a classic example of what a target letter is used for. You know, you provide somebody with notice that they could be charged to give them an opportunity to come in and cooperate. And so obviously he made a decision to switch lawyers and to go in and tell prosecutors something that would allow him not to be indicted. Whether it's true or not, I don't know. But that is exactly what the purpose of a target letter is, which is why it was so surprised to me that they are sending one to Donald Trump because obviously, he's not going to switch lawyers and come in and cooperate against Walt.

REID: True, but it does help put him on notice, right? And then it puts us on notice then an indictment is coming because he puts it on Truth Social.

PARLATORE: Exactly. And that's the point, is that a target letter to somebody like Donald Trump. It serves no legitimate litigation purpose. It's more of a public relations purpose. Whereas a target letter to somebody like Yuscil, you see exactly how it works. The target letter gets sent.

[17:10:00]

The individual makes a decision. They come in and provide information to avoid getting charged themselves.

REID: So, we know that Walt Nauta was on notice for a while that he could be charged here. He was under a lot of pressure for a long time before he was charged to cooperate with the Justice Department. He did not do that. He currently has a Trump affiliated PAC funded lawyer. We also know Carlos de Oliveira also knew that he could be charged with false statements or other crimes. He also has not cooperated. I think his legal situation is a little in flux right now, but has a Trump- aligned lawyer.

But Yuscil Tavares went a different way. How big a problem is this for Trump? Is this a possible break in the dam?

PARLATORE: Well, it is somebody who, you know, it's the first person that we've heard of that has come in to give eyewitness testimony that's directly contradictory, you know, to Donald Trump's story. Now, that being said, he's also not able to point the finger directly at Donald Trump.

You know, he's pointing the finger at Carlos and saying Carlos said this, but that's not something that can even really be used to show that Donald Trump said it. So, it is, you know, the first instance of a so-called cooperating witness that we've seen in this case.

REID: I want to move on to another part of the superseding indictment, and that is the fact that they added another document, another charge of willful retention. And this document is significant because this is the one that is allegedly mentioned in that recording. What is your reaction to the fact that this has been added now in a superseding indictment?

PARLATORE: It's similar to what I said earlier. It's surprising to me that it's been added now. If you look at the dates on that charge, it indicates that it was something that was retained up through January 17th of 2022, which indicates that that's in the original boxes that were sent back to NARA.

REID: That is correct. We have that reporting now.

PARLATORE: So, if special counsel had this document since the initial referral, why didn't they put that in the initial indictment? And, you know, why did that take so long to put in? But also, from a legal standpoint, if you're charging somebody with willful retention of a document and that document is one that he returned before the investigation even commenced, you're also going to have structural problems with it there.

REID: One idea that has been floated, well, there's two. One is the level of classification. Perhaps there was some conflict in the intelligence community. What do you make of that explanation?

PARLATOORE: I don't see that. I mean, this is a, you know, what they're alleging is there was a plan to attack a country that was rejected and it's a couple of years old, it's not something that would -- that's still an active plan.

REID: After the original indictment, the former president said publicly there was no -- no document. Do you think this could be a response to that?

PARLATORE: It could be. It certainly could be, but again, why didn't they put it in the original indictment? I mean, you know, did they not put it in to see if they could bait him into saying it doesn't exist, then, you know, aha, here it is? Or were they just sloppy and they didn't find it the first time? Or are they taking another document and, you know, putting it in there? I don't know.

REID: We're going to take a quick break and we're going to come back and talk about new reporting on just how much money all these lawyers are costing and the January 6 investigation. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

REID: I'm back with former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore. Alright, Tim, I want to talk to you about the January 6th investigation, but let's start with some of the numbers that we've gotten over the past day or so about just how much money the Trump campaign, Trump PAC, is spending on legal fees. According to "The Washington Post," Save America, the former president's PAC, is expected to disclose about $40 million in legal spending. That is more than any other expense they have incurred. And it will bring the PAC's total post presidential legal spending to about $56 million dollars. What's your reaction to those numbers?

PARLATORE: Mine is a very small percentage of that.

REID: So, you already answered my next question. Where you paid by the PAC?

PARLATORE: Yes. Yes, I was.

REID: Do you want to disclose how much?

PARLATORE: It's -- I'm sure it's in the public funds. I don't remember off the top of my head, but it's a very small percentage of that. But, you know, they are paying, obviously, for the multiple different legal teams representing President Trump, but also for the people that are representing all of the witnesses, all of his employees and associates. So, that is something that certainly can get expensive. And so, you know, $40 million, that's a big number.

REID: And you represented the former president. You also represented some other -- represents and represented other witnesses in this case.

PARLATORE: Yeah.

REID: How do you balance that because they are some questions about what happens if there's a conflict. You have the boss, quote/unquote, and then you have these other people whose legal fees are being funded by a political action committee that supports the boss.

PARLATORE: Well, the source of the funding is -- a good attorney, a good and ethical attorney should represent the client and client alone, regardless of who's paying the bill. And, you know, your duty of loyalty is solely to the client. If you represent multiple people, that's fine as long as you get the appropriate privilege waivers, or I'm sorry, conflict waivers, but there are certain things you can't do.

So, for example, if it gets into a situation where two of your clients become averse to one another, you can't advise one client to provide information that's going to be damaging to another. And as long as you provide that information to the clients ahead of time and they both agree, okay, you know, we both want this lawyer, but we both know that he's not going to advise us, you know, to turn on one another, then that's perfectly permissible. I've done it many times in many other cases.

REID: Yeah, it's certainly something that is legal. There are ethics parameters. But to the average bear, it's going to look like the entire system is designed to make sure that these witnesses do not become, quote, "adverse to the former president."

[17:20:00]

PARLATORE: It can have that appearance, certainly, but if you have good and ethical lawyers that are working in it, then it's not a problem. Now, where the problem would come in is if they were paying for lawyers for somebody and then if they didn't do what they wanted them to do to all of a sudden, you know, cut off payment. That'd be more problematic.

REID: Of course, the special counsel, this is not a crime, right, to have these kinds of arrangements.

PARLATORE: No, not at all.

REID: The special counsel clearly has some questions or at least wants to make a point of it. One of the paragraphs in the superseding indictment, they talk about Carlos de Oliveira after these efforts, alleged efforts to get him to delete the server, and then there's a description of a signal chat, so a text chat between some employees and Walt Nauta assessing Carlos de Oliveira's quote, "loyalty" to Trump and quote, "that same day Trump called de Oliveira and told him that he would get him an attorney. That looks like a litmus test. You're loyal, you get an attorney. Is there a litmus test for getting an attorney through the PAC?

PARLATORE: Not that I've seen. Certainly not, and I've seen some people that they've paid for attorneys where we've kind of questioned it. But yeah, quite the opposite of like, yeah, that person isn't really that friendly. But it's -- whether they pay for the attorneys or not, you know, it doesn't really necessarily change things, you know.

And one of the things you have to remember, special counsel, yes, of course they're focusing on this, but that's part of a long-standing DOJ tactic where what they try to do is they try and separate witnesses and people from funding for their attorneys, bleed them dry so that they lose their legal representation, and that's when they're much more susceptible to just saying whatever DOJ wants them to say.

REID: And it's also fair to say that in having this sort of network of lawyers who represent the former president and all these witnesses, that's a pretty good source of information, right?

PARLATORE: Oh, right.

REID: I mean, this is how the Trump legal team kind of knows what's going on with everyone.

PARLATORE: Absolutely. When you have a group of lawyers that can communicate with one another and that is cooperating with one another to provide information, that's very helpful. And so that's definitely one of those things where, you know, here you have a situation where you have many witnesses and they're able to have competent representation and they are all able to communicate, and so that's very helpful to the defense. And so, you know, that again, that's what I think, what DOJ is really doing here, is they're trying to break that.

REID: Yeah, and I look to the average person. I think it looks questionable, right? If you stay loyal, you get a great attorney, it's all paid for. And if you are not, you likely will not keep that representation. Again, it's all legal, and it's also a way to get information. All right. I need to move on to January 6th. What are you expecting? I mean, you know the former president has received a target letter, obviously passed on this opportunity to go before the grand jury. His lawyers met with the special counsel this past week. What are you expecting?

PARLATORE: I don't know what they discussed. I do know that I represent former Commissioner Kerik and we have a meeting scheduled in about a week with the special counsel's office to talk about a lot of the efforts that the Giuliani team is taking at the time to investigate fraud. And that's really going to get into, you know, the core of whether they can charge somebody with having corrupt intent.

REID: Do you think that the prosecutors need to wait to talk to your client, Bernie Kerik --

PARLATORE: Yeah.

REID: -- before charging former President Trump? Obviously, they could do a superseding indictment, but we're talking about, you know, a week to 10 days here. Do you think that they should wait to talk to Kerik before charging Trump?

PARLATORE: I think it would be, quite frankly, imbecilic for them to go forward with an indictment without doing it. Rushing to an indictment makes sense when you have a statute of limitations problem or when you have somebody that you need to lock up, you know, for safety of the community if it's a drug or a violent crime or something like that.

But when you have something like this to bring an indictment before you've finished your investigation, for whatever reason they may choose to do it, it feeds directly into the Trump campaign narrative about this all being, you know, about election interference. And so, I think it would be incredibly stupid for them to go forward with indicting before they finish their investigation.

REID: And we know that there are at least, from our reporting, at least two other witnesses expected to speak with investigators, not to go before the grand jury, but to speak to investigators in the coming weeks. And look, our reporting at this point is it's just unclear when an indictment is coming, but it certainly appears likely.

But we do know, we do have a timeline for possible charges in Georgia. We expect a charging decision there in the first half of the month. What are you expecting to see in Georgia?

PARLATORE: So, Georgia is an interesting case. And if you read the recent decision in the Southern District of New York denying the removal of the Alvin Bragg case.

[17:25:00]

I think that is going to give you a lot of indication as to what's going to happen in Georgia because there, the bringing charges based on something he did while in office, that is arguably within the scope of his duties as president. So, I think the Georgia case is most likely going to get removed to federal court. And then based on, you know, whatever Jack Smith decides to do with his J6 case, it could get subsumed in or completely dismissed.

REID: Okay, so the Alvin Bragg case is of course the hush money, hush money payments, which has always been sort of complicated in terms of, you know, what was done in his official capacity. But with Georgia, I mean, a call to, Brad Raffensperger, right, looking for the specific number of votes you need to undermine the outcome of the election in that state, were that within his official duties as president?

PARLATORE: Remember, the standard here is very low, is that if it's even arguable that it could be within the scope of his duties. And if he's asking a state official to investigate for fraud, then that is something that as chief executive he could do. And so, they can at least make that argument to get it removed to federal court. Now, whether it ultimately results in acquittal or dismissal is a totally separate issue, but to take it from the state to federal, I think it would win that.

REID: I don't think I have the clip right now of the phone call, but I don't think we need to investigate for fraud is the exact quote. He gives a very specific number of votes to overturn elections in the state, so we'll see what happens in Georgia. But of course, what's unique about Georgia is even if the former president is elected again to the White House, he said he's going to fire Jack Smith, not a surprise there. Makes those investigations go away, can pardon himself, can pardon his friends. But Georgia doesn't go away, correct, if he's charged there?

PARLATORE: Correct. Correct, because the president, you know, federal and state is different and so the feds have no control over the state. A president cannot pardon you for a state crime.

REID: He's got a lot of legal problems, Tim.

PARLATORE: Yes.

REID: I mean, this is probably going to be four indictments by the time we get into the fall. You no longer represent him. Any interest in going back? I mean, he needs a lot of legal help.

PARLATORE: It's a complicated situation that he has there. And you know, there's reasons why I left. Would I possibly go back? I would consider it under certain circumstances.

REID: Yeah. We appreciate you coming and helping us understand this very unique world that is the Trump legal defense fund and all of it. Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it.

PARLATORE: Thank you.

REID: And make sure to tune in tonight. Anderson Cooper breaks down the criminal investigation of former President Trump in Georgia, a new episode of "The Whole Story" airs at 8:00 eastern on CNN.

And coming up, an American nurse and her child have been kidnapped in Haiti. The latest on where the two may be and what the State Department is saying ahead. You're live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:30:00]

REID: Developing news overseas. Officials in Pakistan say at least 44 people are dead and more than 100 others injured following a suicide bombing in the country's northwestern region earlier today. Authorities say the blast happened during a convention for one of Pakistan's political parties. There has been no initial claim of responsibility for the attack. An investigation is underway.

And down in the Caribbean, U.S. authorities are working to secure the safe return of an American woman and her child after being kidnapped in Haiti. The Christian humanitarian group she was working for as a nurse says they were taken near Port-au-Prince Thursday. This comes as a serious security crisis continues to unfold there amid violent armed clashes between criminal groups and the police. CNN National correspondent Athena Jones is following the story very closely and comes to us with more details. Athena, what more do we know?

ATHENA JONES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi Paula. We know that U.S. authorities are working with their Haitian counterparts and with intergovernmental agency partners to try to resolve this crisis. What's not clear right now is who is responsible for this kidnapping and whether they've made any demands, whether for ransom or anything else. We do have a statement from El Roi Haiti, that's the Christian humanitarian organization this nurse from New Hampshire had gone down to Haiti to work for.

Here's what they said. "Alix is a deeply compassionate and loving person who considers Haiti her home and the Haitian people her friends and family. Alix has worked tirelessly as our school and community nurse to bring relief to those who are suffering as she loves and serves the people of Haiti in the name of Jesus." El Roi has said that their highest priority is of course the safe return of this mother and her child and so they want to limit the amount of information they share.

We've also heard from a State Department spokesperson saying they have no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens abroad. But the context of this is just so important, Paula. This kidnapping comes as there have been growing concerns about the deteriorating security situation there on the ground in Haiti with worsening violence. You'll remember it was two years ago this month that then-President Jovenel Moise was assassinated by a gang and there's been a power vacuum ever since, and with gangs taking over swaths of the country.

And the State Department has warned Americans not to travel to Haiti because of the frequency of kidnappings, crimes, civil unrest, also because of the poor health care infrastructure.

[17:34:57]

And just last week, on Thursday, the State Department ordered family members and non-emergency personnel to leave the country immediately because it's so dangerous. That came after at least three days in a row of restrictions telling people to stay exactly around the embassy compound. So, a lot of concerns about security there, so much so that the U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said during a recent visit to Haiti, that Haitians are living -- are trapped in a living nightmare with humanitarian conditions beyond appalling.

He has backed what he's called a robust security force of member states, members of the United Nations to come together to kind of go into Haiti to gain control from these gangs. But as of right now, terrible news about this kidnapping and we await more information on that. Paula?

REID: Athena Jones, thank you. And coming up, quote, "I'll jump off that bridge when I get to it." That's from Trump's former Attorney General, General Bill Barr, when asked about his feelings on a Trump- Biden rematch in 2024. That's next, live in the "CNN Newsroom."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:00]

REID: As Donald Trump's legal bills continue to pile up, his supporters appear to be the ones who are going to be the ones to be the ones to be the ones to be the ones to be the ones as Donald Trump's legal bills continue to pile up. His supporters appear to be the ones shouldering the burden of paying them off. A source tells CNN Trump's Political Action Committee, which is mostly made up of small dollar donations, has spent an eye-popping $40 million on the former president's legal fees, not only for him, but also for his associates.

That news, first reported by "The Washington Post," comes as the legal vice continues to tighten around Trump. Special Counsel Jack Smith has expanded his classified documents case against Trump to include three new felony charges and state and federal indictments against Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election could come at any day. Here with us now to discuss former press secretary to First Lady Jill Biden, Michael LaRosa, and Republican strategist Doug Heye.

All right, Doug, I'm going to start with you. This money.

DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It's a lot of it.

REID: It's a ton of money. It makes me want to go back to being a lawyer. It wasn't just spent on the former president. It was also spent on some of his advisors. Some Republicans, like the Ohio senator, J.D. Vance, are saying this is, quote, "so lame, and Trump is doing the right thing by defending his aides." But, you know, it's nice to help your friends out, but you're doing it with somebody else's money. What do you think?

HEYE: Well, ultimately, if your bills are being paid for, the aides may be defending Donald Trump. And that's part of the concern, as these indictments continue to rack up, not just on Trump but on other people. What direction are they going to go? And we know that Donald Trump believes very much in loyalty. Loyalty to him, not so much to other people. So as long as he's paying other people's bills, he's buying their loyalty, essentially, or so he hopes.

The other thing about this that's interesting is we spent a week talking about Ron DeSantis and his campaign having some money troubles. Well, it turns out the Trump campaign, which we didn't think really had any money troubles, an unlimited stream of small dollar donors, is feeling a bit of a crunch now, too. That's a different dynamic in this case. And if you're somebody like Tim Scott who has a lot of hard federal dollars, this is good news for you today.

MICHAEL LAROSA, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN: He should keep -- he should keep spending that money. We're happy to see him spending that money.

REID: Of course, you are.

LAROSA: And it's -- from the first half of your show it sounds like he has a lot of money that he's going to have to keep spending.

REID: Yeah. And we asked his former lawyer, Tim Parlatore, you know, is there a loyalty pledge because the special counsel walked up to that in the indictment just mentioning, you know, they asked about De Oliveira's loyalty and then boom he gets a lawyer. He swears there's no loyalty pledge but again I think the average person might be suspicious, but donors might think it's money well spent.

As these legal woes continue to pile up, one question out there is if certain Republicans or not Trump are elected, if they would use their power of the pardon or a commutation to help him out. I want you to listen to what Vivek Ramaswamy told our Kasey Hunt on "State of the Union" this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I would pardon him. I would -- I intend to be our next president, and yes, I do believe I will move us forward, and yes, I think one of the right ways to do that is to pardon the former president of the United States from what is clearly a politicized prosecution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: So, what is your reaction to that? Because a pardon, of course, may -- clears the entire record in any sentence. You can also commute, which means you still have the record, but you don't have to serve jail time. What's your reaction to that?

LAROSA: Well, I'm not surprised that he is saying that he would pardon the former president because he wants the former president's supporters. So, he wants to be able to say those things to appease Trump and to appease his supporters. But in terms of the legal element, I mean, I thought when President Ford did it, he did it for the country to move on from Watergate. I agree for history, in retrospect, in history's purposes -- for history's purposes, it was the right move. But this president has so many charges against him that I think it will be hard for the American people to swallow.

REID: Yeah, and unlike Nixon, he also has state charges here, right? State charges in Manhattan, which I don't know if those are keeping him up at night. But in Georgia, I mean, that's a pretty serious case and you can't make that go away with a pardon or a commutation. So, it's a really interesting question for the candidates. But I want to talk about another presidential candidate, former Congressman Will Hurd. He was booed in Iowa, of all places, right, the most polite state on Earth for criticizing Trump at his rally. Let's take a listen to his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILL HURD, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When people start learning, when you give money to Donald Trump, it's going to pay his lawyers. Three out of $4 that Donald Trump raises is going to pay for his legal fees. And people are starting -- even folks -- Republicans that have voted for Donald Trump twice, recognize that this baggage is hurting him, is going to hurt him in November.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Will it though?

HEYE: I don't think we know yet. With Donald Trump, we use a lot of phrases that all kind of mean the same thing, fully baked, in for a penny, in for a pound.

[17:44:59]

Donors who made up their mind on Donald Trump did so a long time ago, and they're not changing their mind and this is part of the reason is. This is what Vivek was saying earlier, is that Alvin Bragg did Donald Trump politically a massive favor by going first before everybody else. It allowed all of these to be cast as political, whether they are or they aren't. You can just lump them in together, in which case if you're somebody who's sending Donald Trump $5, $50 or more, you may keep doing that because all of this is, again, in for a penny, in for a pound and fully baked in.

REID: And the strength of the Manhattan case versus something like the Mar-a-Lago case, I mean it's just -- you can't even compare the two. So, Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips of Minnesota, he's reportedly considering a primary challenge against President Biden. Does that concern you?

LAROSA: No, it doesn't. I mean, we're grateful to have the congressman's support on all of the president's, you know, most successful items for the last three years, including his big bipartisan infrastructure bill and 300 bipartisan bills that he signed. And we are proud to welcome -- he was proud to welcome us to Minnesota when he asked us to come visit his district and take plenty of pictures with us. So, we enjoyed the congressman. He's welcome to do what he wants.

Incumbents aren't immune to challenges, whether it was '92 or '96. Even Barack Obama faced some opposition at first, at minimum. And President Trump faced opposition by this point in his own party. So, it's not unusual. I suspect he won't do it, but he's willing to -- he can do whatever he wants.

REID: Well, he has another kind of challenge, right, that he's facing, which are these calls for impeachment. But some, some lawmakers, like Nancy Mace of South Carolina, sounding the alarm against people pursuing impeachment. Let's take a listen to what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Well, I do believe we are at this point. An inquiry is different from an impeachment vote and is another tool in the toolbox. But I will tell you, every time we walk the plank, we are putting moderate members, members that won Biden, won districts. We are putting those seats at risk for 2024. We are putting the majority at risk. And it's not just impeachment that does that. Other issues like abortion, et cetera, also put those members on the plank.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: Is she right?

HEYE: Yeah, impeachment does put those members in and, you know, there's New York Republicans who won somewhat unexpectedly. Somebody like a David Valadao from the Central Valley of California. It also helps rally some of those Democrats who might be uneasy with what's going on in Joe Biden's administration right now. It gives them something to rally behind it.

We had polling come out today that showed that Joe Biden's approval is at a low and his approval of the handling of the economy is at an all- time low of 34 percent. Republicans do not distract from that. Focus on that all day every day. That should be your message.

REID: Gentlemen, thank you so much.

HEYE: Thank you.

LAROSA: Thank you.

REID: And the state of Texas is under fire for controversial tactics to keep migrants from entering the U.S. Razor wire and buoys in the water. We'll hear from migrants on whether it's making them rethink their journey for a better life, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:50:00]

REID: Some migrant families are determined to make their way across the southern border of the U.S. in search of a better life. But large buoys and razor wires along the Rio Grande are making it more challenging for them. CNN's Raphael Romo spoke to some who say turning back is just not an option.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RAFAEL ROMO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A mother and her young daughter attempt to cross the Rio Grande in broad daylight. Orange buoys four feet in diameter and anchored to the riverbed, as well as concertina wire stop them at the Eagle Pass border in Texas. A migrant family from Venezuela says they have been in Piedras Negras on the Mexican side of the border, gauging the risk of trying to cross the river with young children in tow.

What we have seen is that people have gotten hurt with the razor wire, he says, adding that they're thinking twice. before taking any risk. But his wife says the family fled Venezuela for reasons that are much more compelling than floating barriers, including crime, extortion, and living under a dictatorship.

Others say barriers or not, returning home is not an option. This migrant father traveling with his wife and young son says the buoys and razor wire are indeed going to make it more difficult to cross, but their mission, he says, remains unchanged, making it to the United States, barriers or not.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott announced last month a plan to deploy the floating barriers on the Rio Grande to deter migrant crossings.

GREGG ABBOTT, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS: We're securing the border at the border. What these buoys will allow us to do is to prevent people from even getting to the border.

ROMO (voice-over): Mexico's top diplomat blasted the barriers, claiming they violate two international treaties, and more than 80 Democratic members of the U.S. Congress signed a letter urging President Joe Biden to challenge their installation in court. The Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit on Monday to try to force Texas to remove the floating barriers on the Rio Grande and then filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction Wednesday in an attempt to put the case on a fast track. The response from Governor Abbott, Texas will see you in court.

(On camera): The mayor of Piedras Negras, the border city on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, told CNN that in recent weeks, anywhere from 600 to 700 migrants arrive there daily.

[17:55:03]

Only about a third as compared to last year, although the number of minors traveling with their families has recently increased in a noticeable way. Rafael Ramos, CNN, Atlanta.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

REID: And a quick programming note, CNN's new Original Series, "See It Loud," looks back on the rise of black unscripted television. A new episode premieres tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on CNN. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

REID: Just months after her return to the WNBA, Brittney Griner is taking what her team calls a mental health break. The Phoenix Mercury announcing yesterday that Griner will miss at least two road games. They did not say when she will return.

[17:59:56]

Griner spent 10 months in a Russian prison last year in what the Biden administration called a wrongful detainment.