Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Police Chief: Miami Ready for Trump Arraignment; Special Prosecutor Adds Prosecutors as Trump Struggles to Fill Out His Team. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired June 13, 2023 - 06:00   ET

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

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: It is the top of the hour. Good morning, everyone. We're so glad you're with us on this Tuesday, June 13. And it's a huge -- I mean, we say "historic day" often. This really is an historic day in America.

[05:59:42]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR/CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's not hyperbole. It's also the start of a very historic period --

HARLOW: Absolutely.

MATTINGLY: -- where we go through this process that is going to be divisive, but also based on, at least, the indictment, and what it's alleging, it seems to have some merit, according to the Justice Department.

HARLOW: That's exactly right. Donald Trump just hours away from being arraigned on 37 federal charges. He will be in federal court for his alleged mishandling of classified documents; also obstruction charges.

It will mark his second arrest in just a matter of weeks. At 3 p.m. Eastern Time in Miami today, Trump is set to appear in court. He, we expect, will enter an initial plea of not guilty.

MATTINGLY: Now, the former president and 2024 frontrunner arrived in Miami yesterday. Sources tell CNN he spent the day on the hunt for another lawyer to bolster his legal team.

HARLOW: Now law enforcement officials say they're ready. They're ready for whatever happens around this appearance and any subsequent protests. They say they have teamed up with federal partners to ensure the courthouse and the area around it is safe and secure.

MATTINGLY: And ahead of the arraignment, Trump's 2024 GOP opponent Chris Christie, well, he pulled no punches against his former alley. At a CNN town hall last night, the ex-New Jersey governor, former prosecutor labeled Trump's actions "vanity run amuck."

HARLOW: But Trump's allies remain steadfast in their defense of him. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene says she will introduce a measure to defund the special counsel and his investigation.

CNN THIS MORNING special coverage starts right now. And we are about to witness an unprecedented moment in America. Just

hours from now, former President Trump will turn himself in on federal criminal charges in Miami.

Right now, he's at his resort in Doral, Florida. That's just miles away from the courthouse where he is expected to surrender this afternoon.

Take a look at this video of Trump at his hotel on the eve of the arraignment. He has called on his supporters to come out today to protest. Miami's police chief says the city is prepared for crowds ranging from 5,000 to up to 50,000.

The indictment in all of its detail accuses Trump of hoarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, stashing them in places like a bathroom, a shower, and his own private residence.

Prosecutors say these were some of our nation's most closely-guarded secrets, including highly-sensitive information about America's nuclear program.

We have team coverage with our correspondents on the ground and expert analysis. Katelyn Polantz is at the courthouse. Sara Murray, John Avlon, Josh Campbell, and Laura Coates here in studio. We'll get to them all in a moment.

But I do want to begin with our Carlos Suarez, who's watching the security situation in Miami very closely. What are they doing and what are they saying about what they're prepared for?

CARLOS SUAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Poppy, good morning.

It is safe to say that there are more members of the media outside of this federal courthouse right now than there are members of law enforcement. We're about eight hours away from the former president making his way here to the federal courthouse in downtown Miami. And the overall security posture really has not changed.

There have been some thinking that perhaps overnight we would see more metal Barriers brought out; we would see a lot more officers patrolling the building out here. However, that is not the case.

The chief of police for the Miami Police Department says, Look, we have enough resources to keep everyone safe.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SUAREZ (voice-over): In just hours, former President Donald Trump will surrender at a federal courthouse in Miami.

CHIEF MANUEL MORALES, MIAMI POLICE: Make no mistake about it, we're taking this -- this event extremely serious. We know that there's a potential of things taking a turn for the worse, but that's not the Miami way.

SUAREZ (voice-over): Federal and local law-enforcement officials are ramping up security around the courthouse, expressing mounting concerns over potentially large crowds of Trump's supporters gathering outside.

LINDA CATALINA, TRUMP SUPPORTER: We have unwavered [SIC] support for Donald Trump. Like, we don't even care if he's going to be in jail, and we have to write him in. You know, to a lot of us, it's like, Trump or nothing.

SUAREZ (voice-over): Federal law enforcement is only tasked with securing the actual courthouse. Miami Police taped off the area with yellow police tape and erected yellow Barricades.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Will that change? Because there is a lot of concern that people may try to storm the building or try to enter some of that area. I mean, are you going to harden that area?

MORALE: Well, what I can tell you is reach back to the folks that have reached to tell and tell them that there's no reason to fear.

SUAREZ (voice-over): Former Miami police chief Jorge Colina told CNN that the choice not to establish Barriers around the courthouse could be intentional by Miami Police in order to avoid attracting crowds.

Trump is expected to be driven by Secret Service to an underground garage at the courthouse. He will not be seen by the public.

Once he arrives, he will be placed under arrest, read his rights, and fingerprinted. He will likely not have a mug shot taken.

Trump will then be taken to a courtroom on one of the top floors of the courthouse, where he will hear the charges and enter his initial plea of not guilty.

Judge Jonathan Goodman, who is presiding over the arraignment, rejected a request from a large group of national media outlets to take photographs inside the courthouse before the proceedings.

In a written order, he says, while the proceeding is, quote, "genuinely historic and of huge importance, allowing photographs would undermine the massive security arrangements put in place."

Trump's supporters gathered at Trump's Doral Club, greeting him as he pulled up in his motorcade, giving the crowd a thumbs up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll follow him anywhere.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll do anything legal to stop this.

SUAREZ (voice-over): Police had to intervene to break up a few anti- Trump demonstrators after they clashed with supporters.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Lock him up!

SUAREZ (voice-over): One protester, wearing a striped prison jumpsuit, said this. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I grew up in New York City. I know what a con

artist he is.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SUAREZ (on camera): And streets around the federal courthouse are at this hour still open. Miami police said a decision on that really is going to depend on the number of folks that show up out here.

It is still unclear, Poppy, whether supporters and protesters of the former president are going to be allowed, essentially, to be near each other, if not right up against each other, outside of this federal courthouse -- Poppy.

MATTINGLY: Well, Trump's legal team has been scrambling to find lawyers in Florida to represent him. Meanwhile, special counsel Jack Smith also beefing up his legal team with prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office in Miami.

CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz is outside the courthouse. And Katelyn, what are you learning about kind of the legal machinations here?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil and Poppy, Donald Trump has always, for the past several years, had some difficulty in finding and keeping lawyers. And here we are, him facing the very first federal indictment of a former president of the United States, and yet again, he's switching up his legal team.

That's because several of his lawyers who had shepherded this case through the grand jury process as he was under investigation, they have left in recent weeks.

One of those key lawyers, who had been the point person for Donald Trump on documents he had taken from the White House, that person, Evan Corcoran, was -- has become a major witness in this case. Clearly, his part of the obstruction of justice part of this set of charges.

And so, now we are aware that Donald Trump and his legal team, they're scrambling to try and find people. They're talking out -- they're reaching out to lawyers in Florida. I've heard a couple different names. But it's still not totally clear who all is going to show up in court today to represent the former president.

One of those people is a man named Todd Blanche. He was very successful representing Paul Manafort, the former campaign chairman for Donald Trump, in 2016 in a case in New York state.

Blanche has sort of taken on some -- much of the responsibility on this legal team recently. But all of this switchover of lawyers, it doesn't usually happen at this moment in this way. And it really is something that could slow down the case going forward.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's interesting. We'll have to watch how this plays out. Katelyn, I know you will be. I do have one question, though. You know, we were all stunned. It seems like last week. It could be a month ago at this point, but --

HARLOW: The Florida --

MATTINGLY: -- the Florida venue, the grand jury that was in Florida. But we've been reporting about that the venue for the indictment being in Florida was something that was actually determined months ago. What kind of issues might that present for the prosecution?

POLANTZ: Right, well, having a Florida jury is a lot different than having a jury in Washington, D.C. Every court's juries are different, because you're pulling from the people who are in that jurisdiction. So that's something that the Justice Department is going to be looking at.

But I've been speaking to former prosecutors, people around the Justice Department. And it's quite clear that many people believed that this case really did belong here, based out of West Palm Beach, based out of the Southern District of Florida, because the actions that are charged in this case are so many things that took place right around here.

And so in recent months, there had been discussions among the Justice Department to move this case to Florida, to not have it in a grand jury in D.C. returning that indictment and having it going to trial there. So it will progress here.

And we also know that the special counsel's office is staffing up on its own side, bringing in at least two people to help with the case in this jurisdiction, including a woman who was part of the prosecution team of a Chinese national that trespassed at Mar-a-Lago.

HARLOW: I remember that. Thank you very much for that, Katelyn.

What happens when Trump arrives at court this afternoon? Our senior legal analyst, Laura Coates, here with how this all works.

And Laura, you know this better than anyone, because you were a federal prosecutor. Walk us through this.

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This is such a day. I want everyone to understand the gravity of what we're talking about, what we're getting ready to see here.

First of all, they're getting ready to arrive, of course, at the courthouse, and when he does, you're talking about we're not going to see a whole lot of images here. The reason, of course, is because you can't have cameras in there. You can't have your cell phones in there. You're not able to have anything besides the transcriptioner [SIC] and, of course, the people who are in there, doing the sketches, et cetera.

We're going to be right here at the federal courthouse right in Miami, everyone. What's going to happen next, you're going to be processed, OK? Everyone, they're going to be placed under arrest. Don't picture sort of a perp walk or anything like that. That's not going to happen here. He's a former president of the United States. They do want to give some level of respect.

[06:10:07]

But also, he's just like everyone else now who goes into a federal courtroom with actual federal charges, along with his co-defendant. He'll be fingerprinted. Of course, that's part of it, as well.

As for handcuffs, not going to happen. Mug shot, listen, he is recognizable. You know who he is. They likely will not give one, because it could be leaked.

Now, that might be different from any other actual defendant in any sort of case, because normally, you have it to be sure that you've got a record of the person having been charged and arraigned.

MATTINGLY: Laura, I want to talk about inside the courtroom, since I'm a person who talks about things. You're the one with the storied career of actually doing the things.

There's no cameras in here. Can you tell me, tell us what we're looking at? Where are these people going to be? Where is the former president going to be? How does this all set up in this moment?

COATES: I'm going to paint the picture for you, Phil Mattingly. OK? Here we go.

This is my own personal drawing, by the way.

MATTINGLY: That's not bad.

COATES: I'm -- I'm actually very good. This is a different hidden talent, everyone.

This is courtroom 13-3, everyone. Listen, the judge is obviously going to be here. You're going to have different court reporters and different court clerks over here. You'll notice the jury box over in this area over here. That's not going to be filled.

That's going to be around the time you're talking about either trial or, of course, the voir dire process. We're a long way away from that.

We're going to have here, though, the different counsel and defense table. They're going to actually be able to stand here. Normally, it is the defense that's going to go closer at this area towards the jury box. It makes sense.

We were talking about the idea of actual trial. You want to be able to have the perception immediately available to be able to see the person who's charged, et cetera. He'll likely stand over there.

You have the other side, the prosecution, who will be in the courtroom, as well. The big question, though, Phil and Poppy, is going to be who is

actually going to be at these different tables? Because we were talking about who the players are in this instance. You know, we know Jack Smith, of course, special counsel. Whether he will make the personal appearance or not will be decided later. Karen Gilbert likely to be there.

But the defense legal team, as you already heard, you know at least one person. But they've got to have somebody also in Florida who's going to be local to be able to know the local rules.

I mean, Katelyn was absolutely. You have to have somebody who knows the rules of jury selection, what are the nuances of this particular judge, this courthouse, this jurisdiction. Who that will ultimately end up be -- being will be a very interesting case.

MATTINGLY: Walt Nauta. Look, I understand the focus has been on the former president, because there's no precedent for this, and he's also the leading Republican candidate. Walt Nauta was also indicted. What do we know about his defense strategy, about whether or not this will be separate trials, joint trials?

COATES: We cannot underscore the importance of this being an actual joint trial. Now, right now it's a joint trial, though. Right now, they are co-defendants. They have been charged with conspiracy, which means they have a meeting of the minds, they're alleging, and in that they have made some overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

There's also obstruction, of course, and other issues related to the indictment.

But whether they will remain a joint trial is really up to their counsel. Right now, they have the same counsel. Why would you have the same counsel? Normally, if your interests are so closely aligned that it would be problematic for the court efficiency to separate them.

Are we going to have two trials with the same witnesses, the same evidence, everything? No. We're going to look to see if there's a severed trial, eventually. Meaning he'll have his own defense team; he'll have his own defense team and separate trials. But right now, it's joint.

MATTINGLY: You're not allowed to leave, because I'm going to need to ask you lots of questions over the course --

COATES: I've got my standing shoes.

MATTINGLY: Of course. But I do want to bring in Josh Campbell, Sara Murray, as well. John Avlon is still with us.

Josh, I want to start with you. You hear the kind of prosecutor view, how things are going to be working inside the courtroom. Outside the courtroom, law enforcement doing a ton of reporting in the lead-up to this. What are they most concerned about in this moment?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, so you're going to have this massive crowd that, you know, could be up to 50,000 people. We don't know exactly what that's going to look like. We do understand that there -- you know, people may be coming via bus to come and show their support for the former president.

And so, as in any type of, you know, rally or protest, you're going to have a law-enforcement presence there. This obviously is happening in the wake of January 6th, and no one can forget that; that what started out as a rally, as a protest obviously became very violent. And so that's what authorities are concerned about.

I've been talking to sources who say that FBI special agents across the country working domestic terrorism have been working their sources, trying to determine, you know, are there any extremist groups out there who might be plotting, who might be planning? That is certainly a concern for law enforcement.

The unknown. We know that a lot of these groups, you know, prior to January 6th, they were online posting publicly about, you know, their vitriol and their plans. A lot of these forums have become closed off. So there's the unknown there.

The last thing that concerns me about what we could see is if, you know, they have the comingling of pro-Trump and anti-Trump protesters. We all know that it takes just one or two rabble-rousers for things to really set off. So that will be something to watch.

HARLOW: I would just say, if New York -- and we don't know. This could be a lot different than when Alvin Bragg brought the charges in New York. But there were not any major disruptions or violence around that Trump court appearance.

[06:15:05]

Sara, what are you looking at today?

SARA MURRAY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, I do think that it is interesting that we have heard from a lot of the same, let's say, rabble-rousers that we did in the run-up to January 6th. Mike Lindell is out there talking about what Trump is going to do. Steve Bannon is out there talking about Donald Trump.

MATTINGLY: These are literally all people you still talk to on the phone in your reporting.

MURRAY: Roger Stone. These are --

MATTINGLY: You should note that.

MURRAY: They keep reappearing over and over again.

I do think that there are more worries, after having seen what happened in the wake of January 6th, after seeing some of these lengthy prison sentences. We've heard a couple of these folks mention that you need to be protesting. You need to show up and support Donald Trump, but you need to do it peacefully. Again, I think the "X" factor here is, you know, Florida is a much

Trumpier state than when we're talking about New York. And so I just don't know what we should really expect in terms of the crowd size. Obviously, Trump's allies want to make it sound like it's going to be huge crowds showing up in support of their president, but we just don't know yet.

HARLOW: Everyone stick with us. Donald Trump is preparing to surrender himself on federal charges. We'll talk about what his defense team may bring. We'll be joined by David Schoen, a lawyer who defended Trump during his second impeachment trial. He is here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWIE CARR, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: The judge is going to ask you tomorrow, How do you plead? Are you going to say anything beyond "not guilty"? Are you going to make a -- make a statement in court tomorrow?

[06:20:01]

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (via phone): No, I doubt it. I'll just say, "Not guilty." I didn't do anything wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Not guilty. That is the plea that Donald Trump says he will enter today at his arraignment this afternoon, adding that he will not make a statement during this initial court appearance.

He does face 37 counts related to the alleged mishandling of national defense documents and an alleged scheme to conceal them from investigators.

Joining us now is attorney David Schoen. He was one of Trump's attorneys, representing him during his second impeachment trial. He also represented ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon in 2022 after Bannon was indicted for contempt of Congress.

David, it's really good to have you. Good morning.

DAVID SCHOEN, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Thank you very much. Good morning.

HARLOW: Would you agree that one of the biggest legal issues for both teams in this case, as it proceeds, is whether or not one of Trump's attorneys, Evan Corcoran's, notes and audio recordings are allowed in as evidence? You know Evan Corcoran really well.

D.C. courts allowed that crime-fraud exception to be pierced, but Florida could be a different story, right?

SCHOEN: I think you're 100 percent right. I think it's a big issue in the case, because it relates both to the return of the grand jury indictment and potentially to the trial.

There's actually a relatively recent case, 2021 case from the 11th Circuit, which is the court of appeals that sits over this court in the Southern District of Florida, and that case had to sort of try to flesh out the -- it's called in re (ph) grand jury subpoena. They had to try to flesh out the crime-fraud exception.

Because remember, one of the most sacrosanct privileges we have in the law is the attorney/client privilege. However, the law recognizes this crime-fraud exception.

There's two prongs to it. One is that the court has to be convinced that there was a conversation related to the furtherance of a crime or possible crime. That's a very low hurdle.

But then the second prong is, was the conversation at issue related to the furtherance of the crime? The 11th Circuit sort of punted in that case, saying they didn't really have to decide how strict those parameters are regulated, but that traditionally, the courts have been relatively less restrictive in showing that the conversation was directly related to the crime.

The issue here will be Judge Howell apparently had Corcoran's notes, his private notes to himself, notes regarding his interactions with President Trump, turned over in wholesale fashion to the government.

There's a question there. With any privilege that's pierced, the law is you only pierce it to the extent it's reasonably necessary. So if the turnover was far too broad or was too broad, it could have tainted the grand jury process. If the grand jury was exposed to attorney/client privileged notes that really weren't -- shouldn't have been turned over based on crime-fraud exception, then the issue can come up again at trial.

Assuming the judge doesn't dismiss the indictment based on this taint or alleged taint, then it would come up at trial again, whether they're admissible.

And if they are admissible, the flip side of that is, it opens the door for Evan Corcoran to testify. I think his testimony, quite frankly, would be favorable to President Trump in explaining his notes, as damning as they might seem now on the face of them. I think his testimony would be favorable to President Trump.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask, you know, I've been listening to your response to this indictment and some of your interviews over the course of the last several days. I want to play some sound from the former president's former attorney general, Bill Barr, and then get your reaction to it. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL BARR, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: If even half of it is true, then he's toast. I mean, it's a pretty -- it's a very detailed indictment, and it's very, very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous. (END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: David, you haven't presented him as a victim of a witch hunt, but you have said you believe there are significant holes in an indictment that the former attorney general seems to believe is pretty rock-solid. What are they?

SCHOEN: Well, first of all, my issue with former Attorney General Barr is I think that every lawyer has an obligation to point out the presumption of innocence. To the extent he says, well, if this thing is true or even halfway true, it's very damning, it's a serious indictment. There's no question about that.

And every federal criminal case or other criminal case has to be taken seriously. But there are defenses to the case, and I don't think it's fair to judge any case based on the indictment.

It would be like watching the prosecution put on their case without any cross-examination and saying, Well, he must be guilty. So the allegations are serious, but they're just allegations at this point.

Listen, I think there are plenty of defenses, including -- it's a very interesting choice to choose the statute of the 31 counts, 18 USC 793E. I think they did that in order to get around the idea of whether the documents are classified or declassified, because they don't have to be classified for one to be guilty under that statute.

However, there are several prongs, elements to the statute, including whether the person was authorized to have the documents. And this is where their defense of Presidential Records Act is going to play into it and so on.

[06:25:07]

MATTINGLY: What does the Presidential Records Act have to do with --

SCHOEN: There are a lot of legal issues to be fleshed out --

MATTINGLY: Can you just say, I'm very curious.

SCHOEN: I think --

MATTINGLY: You've mentioned this before. It's not cited in the indictment. The Presidential Records Act has nothing to do with other agency documents that were taken by the president. He has no record of saying these agency documents are my personal records, even if he did try and do that.

So where does the PRA actually come into this here as a defense?

SCHOEN: Right, I actually have not emphasized this point. I've heard many other people emphasize it.

I think the reason it's less -- gets less emphasis than people were guessing before the indictment came out is, again, because this classified element isn't a part of it. People generally were talking about that before because of the

president's unilateral right to declassify documents when he's in office.

However, I think it's relevant here, based on the willfulness prong -- that is did he know, should he have known that he was doing something prohibited by the law, given the reading of the Presidential Records Act that his advisers have given him.

I also think it goes to the first prong: whether he was authorized to have documents in the first place.

You know, one thing that's never really pointed out these days is traditionally -- and, again, you may say it's not directly relevant, but I think it's somewhat relevant, is that the tradition has been former presidents get regular intelligence briefings, even well after they're out of office and all that.

So one thing we have to remember is there is something special and unique about the position of the presidency.

HARLOW: Yes.

SCHOEN: Whether it's a complete defense or not is a different question. There's something to remember about that.

HARLOW: That's true, but they certainly have no right to show or talk about those national top secrets in front of people who have no classification, which is what's alleged here in terms of the audio of that meeting with the -- with the authors writing on Meadows.

Let me just ask you another defense that has been made by the president's allies. Jim Jordan made this repeatedly with Dana Bash on Sunday morning, citing a 1988 Supreme Court decision, the Department of Navy versus Egan, which essentially says the president has the authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security. The Constitution gives them that power.

But that's while they're president, not after, correct?

SCHOEN: Yes. That's correct. You know, that's the classic case that everybody talks about in this realm, but I'll tell you this. There is a very interesting case. I mean, some --

HARLOW: But it's being misapplied.

SCHOEN: -- people have talked.

HARLOW: David, I just want to stick on this case, because it is what the president's allies are using so much.

SCHOEN: Sure, sure.

HARLOW: To argue it in the way that his allies have been arguing it, that it gives him this right post-presidency, is an inaccurate reading of that majority opinion from the Supreme Court, right? SCHOEN: Yes, I think that's right, that it gives -- the -- look, Egan

talks about when a person is president.

However, I do want to stress there is a case from Amy Berman Jackson you may also have had someone talk about on your show, Judicial Watch case from 2012 that has a lot of language in it that talks about the unique power of Bill Clinton at that time, when he's president and after he's president, with respect to not just personal records but presidential records.

There are very interesting issues that really have not been fleshed out here. And I think we have to give them a chance to play out. We haven't seen this kind of situation before.

MATTINGLY: Can you just very quickly relate it to the Judicial Watch case and the Bill Clinton case? Specifically those were about recordings that he did in what he said were a personal capacity while he was president, which I think would fall under the definition of the Presidential Records Act, of personal records.

How do you feel like that bleeds into this specific case where, again, you made clear you haven't been citing the PRA, Presidential Records Act. That's about personal records. These are about agency documents that the president took with him. So how do those two --

SCHOEN: Right.

MATTINGLY: What's the language in there you think that applies here?

SCHOEN: Well, there's very -- I mean, I have the page marked with the language specifically when she -- when Judge Jackson talks about, first of all, the lack of judicial review, generally, for issues that come up under the PRA when NARA, you know, makes their claims and all that.

But here's where I think it's relevant. Whether it directly applies or not, I think it's relevant to the willful prong. The question here is, under 793E, one of the questions is, a third prong, whether the person being charged willfully did it. That means did something he knew was prohibited by the law.

Now, you're going to say to me, well, you can hear from the tape it seems that he knew, you know, what he was doing; he wasn't allowed to do it and so on. Tapes can be cross-examined. Notwithstanding what many of these commentators say. Tapes can be cross-examined.

What were the circumstances? You know, exactly what was the rest of the conversation? And so on.

Again, we have to hear from the defense about all of these things. But I think it plays into what was in his mind, what he understood from his advisers, right or wrong, about what he had the authority to do with documents.

MATTINGLY: David Schoen, and you make a good point, innocent until proven guilty. We've not seen or heard the full, fleshed-out defense of the former president at this point in time. Appreciate your time, sir, as always.

HARLOW: Let's bring in former federal prosecutor Laura Coates here with us. What did you make of that? What stood out to you?

COATES: Well, you know, let me speak very plainly here. When you left the presidency, you don't get to have all the same things you had when you were there.

If I move out of my house, I cannot have the key still.

[06:30:00]