Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Trump Charged With New Crimes In Classified Documents Case, Accused Of trying To Get Mar-a-Lago Security Video Deleted; Trump Braces For Possible Third Criminal Indictment; Deadly Heatwave Expands, Threatening Northeast; Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired July 28, 2023 - 06:00   ET

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

[06:00:35]

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN HOST:Twwenty-four years, right? But I've decided that I'm ready for a new chapter. I am -- I'm full of gratitude for my CNN family. It is a family everybody here are my friends. And I'm excited for challenges ahead.

So I will be moving on from CNN, but I will still be watching. Just like you. I just won't have an alarm set for 2:30 in the morning.

Thanks for joining me. I'm Christine Romans. Have a great weekend, everybody, and a great future. CNN THIS MORNING starts right now.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN HOST: Good morning, everyone, it is Friday. And there has been a significant development in the last 12 hours. We'll get to all of it. Let's get started with five things to know for this Friday, July 28th.

Former president Donald Trump charged with new crimes in the classified documents case and he has a new co-defendant who allegedly said the boss wanted security camera footage erased after boxes with secret material removed in and out of a storage room.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: The new indictment -- the new superseding indictment also offering new information about how the former president allegedly handled a classified war plan at Bedminster, his resort in New Jersey.

Donald Trump lashing out at these latest developments calling this election interference and harassment. He says the new charges are, quote, ridiculous.

But that's not the only case that we are watching this morning. His attorneys met with the Special Prosecutor's Office in the federal January 6 investigation as another potential indictment against the former president looms.

All of this falling against, of course, the backdrop of 2024. Tonight, Trump and more than a dozen Republican presidential hopefuls will descend on Iowa. A big question, will any of his opponents pounce on the frontrunners legal trouble?

CNN THIS MORNING starts right now.

HARLOW: So this is where we begin this morning, Donald Trump is facing serious new charges in the classified documents case. The Special Counsel is now accusing the former president of trying to get security video deleted at a -- at Mar-a-Lago in addition to hoarding boxes of national security secrets.

And Trump has a new co-defendant who was allegedly involved in the scheme, Mar-a-Lago's property manager, Carlos de Oliveira. Security footage is a crucial piece of evidence and this investigation into whether Trump moved the boxes around to hide them from federal investigators.

And here's some of what we have learned from this new superseding indictment. Prosecutors say Trump's longtime valet, Walt Nauta, abruptly changed his travel plans on the same day the surveillance video was subpoenaed. And he went to Mar-a-Lago. And the indictment says he gave different people different reasons for the change of plans texting, one, that he had a family emergency, and then adding the shushing emoji.

HILL: At Mar-a-Lago, Nauta met up with a property manager, De Oliveira. And prosecutors say they went to the security guard booth where surveillance video is displayed on monitors. They walked with a flashlight through the tunnel where the boxes had been stored in a storage room and they went around pointing out the location of the cameras.

Just after that, investigators say De Oliveira brought the club's IT experts to a private room. And this, according to the indictment, was there conversation. De Oliveira told the IT expert that the conversation should remain between the two of them. Yes, how long the server kept footage. And the IT experts said he thought it was around 45 days. De Oliveira then said that, quote, the boss wanted the server deleted."

When the IT experts pushed back, De Oliveira reiterated that the boss wanted it gone, and then asked, what are we going to do?

Let's bring in CNN political correspondent, Sara Murray. So, Sara, the timing of all of this is really key here.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: It is. I mean, let's talk about sort of what was happening in the run up to what is now this referred to as its alleged scheme to delete the surveillance footage or to attempt to delete the surveillance footage that resulted in new charges for former President Donald Trump as well as charges for Carlos De Oliveira.

So if we look at the timeline, if you look at May 11, this is when the grand jury issues a subpoena to the Trump team for any documents with classified markings. We're 45 days before we really get into the meat of this scheme to start trying to delete the surveillance footage.

So over the course of May, you see these boxes being moved out of the storage room. There's one box moved on May 21st. And then you go to May 24th. Three boxes are moved. You go to May 30th, 50 boxes are moved. You go to June 11th, 11 boxes are moved. This is happening by Trump employees who are having conversations with Trump throughout this process.

Then on June 2nd, 30 boxes get moved back into this storage room by two Trump employees, Walt Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira, who is the new defendant here. And this comes right before this Trump attorney is scheduled to search the storage room and find any documents to respond to this subpoena

[06:05:10]

Now, when the government actually comes to collect any classified documents that Trump's attorney is producing, they noticed there are surveillance cameras outside of this storage unit. And on June 24th, a grand jury issues a subpoena for this surveillance footage.

So when you dig in to what's going on, on June 24th, the prosecutors really delve into what transpired on that day. I mean, there's almost like a minute by minute breakdown when you look into this new superseding indictment.

So DOJ, again, sends this new subpoena to the Trump Organization attorneys. And around 1:30 P.M., Trump's attorney tells Trump about the subpoena. Walt Nauta, who again is one of these Trump employees, is informed that Donald Trump wants to speak with him.

And less than two hours after that, Walt Nauta, who travels with Trump, we've seen him traveling with Trump, changes his travel plans, decides to go to Palm Beach instead of traveling with Trump.

And he's pretty cagey in -- when he's talking to people, as you see in this superseding indictment about the change in plans. He's sending people shushing emojis about his change in plans.

Let's go back to the calendar and then look at what happens a few days later. That's when we get into that June 27th timeline, where De Oliveira is trying to get into more details about what the deal is with the security footage. He learns that it's retained for about 45 days. And this is when he tells another Trump employee that it is the boss who wants it deleted.

And so that really is the meat of this sort of scheme to try to attempt to erase this surveillance footage. And if you think about all those boxes moving in and out of the storage room, when they're supposed to all be handed over, in response to a subpoena, you can see here why prosecutors believe that there was activity that Trump's team wanted to cover up, guys.

HARLOW: He's also facing an additional charge, Sara, for this document that has been so widely discussed about attack plans, potential attack plans on Iran that he kept. That's the prosecutor say. He kept it and he showed it to folks.

MURRAY: Yes. And, Poppy, we've talked a lot about what happened to that document. What was the fate of the document, it wasn't clear when we got the original indictment, if it was actually one of the documents that Trump was charged with retaining.

They make it very clear in the new version of this indictment that Donald Trump is now being charged with the willful retention of this document. One he showed off in a meeting with two writers who were working on a book about Mark Meadows and two staffers, none of whom had security clearance.

Let's go back and take a listen to the audio tape that we had obtained of Donald Trump sort of showing off this document in this meeting.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This was the Defense Department and him. We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me. This was him. All sorts of stuff-pages long. Wait a minute. Let's see here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

Trump: I just found -- isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case, you know.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mm-hmm.

TRUMP: Except it is like highly confidential.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: And remember, once this tape came out, Donald Trump has said there was no document, this was just bravado. Essentially, there's nothing to see here. What prosecutors are saying in this new indictment is this wasn't bravado. He was showing off this document. This is a real document. And now he's being charged with it, guys.

HARLOW: And there were so many questions about where that document was. And now we know that it was in a key box. It was eventually turned over. And this launched a lot of more questions.

Sara Murray, thank you very much.

MURRAY: Thanks.

HILL: For more, let's bring in CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams, and CNN Senior political analyst, anchor John Avlon, and CNN political commentator, and former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush, Scott Jennings. Good to see all of you this morning.

Elliot, when we look at what is included now in this superseding indictment, specifically, this new timeline about the video and new details on that Iran document, what does it change for you?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, it doesn't change anything for me, but it puts more meat on the bones. That timeline is devastating because of all the crimes that Donald Trump is either charged with at this point or could be charged with in the future obstruction of justice is probably the most straightforward to prove. You don't have to get into all the business about classified documents and so on.

It's, number one, did you or your folks know that there was an open investigation? Number two, did you intend to get in the way of that investigation? Number three, what steps did you take toward it? They get the draft grand jury, start communicating about what the boss's wishes are and then immediately took steps to delete this footage.

All of that is pretty lock stock and barrel evidence of obstruction of justice. A lot of the other things are more legally complicated, but that's pretty straightforward.

HARLOW: What about let's just hone in on what was added to the indictment page four, the superseding indictment attempting to delete security camera footage at Mar-a-Lago to conceal information from the FBI grand jury. This indictment also details two phone calls between Trump and the new defendant, De Oliveira.

[06:10:11]

WILLIAMS: Right.

HARLOW: The fact that there was a persistent, according to prosecutor's effort to get that footage gone and the time in which that happened.

WILLIAMS: Right.

HARLOW: Is that more damning than what was in the original indictment?

WILLIAMS: It is, because the persistence shows -- number one, knowledge -- just intent. And number two, if he's persistent, you have more chances to prove it. Because look, cases rise and fall and what you can actually prove and get into court. And if somebody asks something one time, there may be all kinds of reasons why that evidence might not be admissible. Right?

HARLOW: And we should note an indictment is allegation --

WILLIAMS: Allegations.

HARLOW: -- by prosecutors.

WILLIAMS: Right.

HARLOW: Right? Trump's attorneys can't be in the room for what a grand jury hears, and then they will present their defense.

WILLIAMS: They will. And look, and we're talking about all the strengths in the indictment. And I want to be clear, this is as indictments go strong and well-presented and so on, but you haven't seen what Trump's defenses will be.

Number two, a lot of this depends on the testimony of just Trump employee number four, this person we haven't met yet. We don't know what their credibility is. We don't know ways in which Trump's team can attack their credibility.

And I don't even mean Truth Social, I mean, literally going into court and presenting this individual with conflicting statements they might have made in the past or bias or who's paying for their attorneys, any of that business. So we haven't seen any of that yet. But again, as far as indictments go, this was well written and just got stronger yesterday.

HILL: You mentioned paying for attorneys. One other thing that we learned in this indictment, right, is that in terms of some of those communications that have led -- that are alleged that happened in this indictment, there's an offer by the former president to get an attorney for this new defendant --

HARLOW: That's right.

HILL: -- for Carlos de Oliveira. What does that do? In Trump world, I guess it doesn't do much, right? But what does it do in the broader scope?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I guess if you're in their position, like, how do you say no? I mean, I assume these people are not independently wealthy. I assume they're not, you know, as wired up as the former president of the United States might be and in their ability to get the kind of legal help you would need to fight off something like this.

So I guess -- I mean -- I guess it's -- I guess it's allowed, but at the same time, it binds them to Trump.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: That's right.

JENNINGS: -- whether that's in their best interest or not. I mean, Ellie, and I were talking off the air. I mean, that you really want to spend all these years and years and years and years in prison over this? And but that's obviously the road they're on right now.

HILL: But he garners loyalty, right? The former garners loyalty.

AVLON: That's the way --

HILL: Maybe otherwise.

AVLON: That's the way of enforcing loyalty, right? I mean, that's binding their fates together because I've got deep pockets in order to pay for your lawyer.

I just want to double down on the significance of this new information, because it's not just willful retention of documents. It seems like a willful and persistent attempt to obstruct justice. And, of course, at his -- according to the indictment, you know, at his explicit orders, the boss wants these deleted, when they know that request is coming.

So it also shows an underlying contempt for the law, whether it leaves law doesn't apply to him, or an attempt to evade it. It is serious stuff, especially for a party that traditionally has believed in law and order.

JENNINGS: One other issue that, as a PR matter, when this first came out, remember some of the pushback was, oh, it's just newspaper clippings.

AVLON: Yes.

JENNINGS: We were showing people newspaper clippings, well, no, no, it was a map of the -- of the thing.

AVLON: Top secret battle plan.

JENNINGS: And so -- and so for Trump who sent his people out to make that argument, like, oh, it's just newspaper clippings. They don't have anything here. Well, now that's been defeated as a -- as an argument.

WILLIAMS: Hang on. Back to this newspaper clippings points and how this is evidence, right? So with respect to the document that he's accused of waving around at Mar-a-Lago -- at Bedminster and is recorded talking about, again, that crime there is willful retention of defense information. It doesn't even need to be classified.

He admits in the clip that we just heard a second ago, he admits, number one, these in possession of it, because he says this is a document and now that --

HARLOW: See it here.

WILLIAMS: See it here. This is a document. Number two, the second sentence we heard on air there was, oh, it's defense information. This is from whatever reasons, the defense secretary or so on. So he admits to every element of the offense.

If they can get that into court, and there's a lot of months between now and that happening, that's another one that's just really straightforward as it is.

HARLOW: All right. Everyone, stick around. We have many, many more questions, a lot more information ahead.

HILL: So the Special Counsel fairly busy yesterday, in another case. Lawyers for the former president meeting with prosecutors regarding a separate investigation being run by the Special Counsel. This one, of course, looking into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. So where does that stand? We'll break that down, ahead.

HARLOW: Also, we have how Republicans on Capitol Hill are reacting to these development, what it means for the race of the White House as the Republican candidates head Iowa?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:15:23]

HILL: As former President Trump faces new charges in his classified documents case, he's also bracing for a possible third criminal indictment. The former president announced that his lawyers met with special Counsel, Jack Smith, yesterday. That meeting was about the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

CNN senior crime and justice reporter, Katelyn Polantz, joining us live from Washington this morning. So do we have a sense this morning? Any better sense, Katelyn, of where this investigation into January 6 for the Special Counsel stands?

Well, we don't know exactly what's going to happen next in this investigation. That's just how investigations go. It's how grand jury proceedings go. They're very secret. However, we do know at this time that we're really in a final stage here.

If that wasn't clear before, when Donald Trump received his target letter from the Special Counsel's Office telling him he was very likely to be charged with multiple crimes related to January 6, 2020 election including obstruction and conspiracy, it is so clear now, because Donald Trump's lawyers, yesterday, went in to a meeting with Jack Smith, the Special Counsel, that is often one of the final things that happens after someone is told that they're very likely going to be charged with a crime and they get one of those target letters.

Typically, lawyers do have the opportunity to go in and make their final case or final appeal behind the scenes to try and dissuade the Justice Department from bringing a case.

Now after that meeting, Trump's team and Trump himself even said publicly on social media that there wasn't any indication of a final decision of what the judge says department is going to do, when they're going to do it, meaning, when they may indict him.

[06:20:05]

But he did say that the meeting was productive. His lawyers essentially argued to the Justice Department, to the special counsel that in detail that he believed that he did nothing wrong, that they believed he did nothing wrong, and also that an indictment would destroy the political fabric of the country after it's already suffering.

And so this is a situation where the Special Counsel's office now has to determine whether there's anything from that meeting they're going to take into account, or do they continue to move forward in the way that they very likely were already planning on doing bringing a charge against Donald Trump.

The grand jury was in all day yesterday, even after this meeting ended. No indictment emerged. But that doesn't mean that grand jury cannot gather again next week or even in the coming months.

HILL: Katelyn Polantz appreciate it. Thank you.

HARLOW: OK. Let's bring back in team experts here.

Would a -- would a prosecutor ever consider impact on the country when deciding whether to bring charges? That's essentially what Trump said his lawyers asked Jack Smith to do yesterday?

WILLIAMS: Yes. I mean, I think it's if -- it is in the interest of justice that this prosecution proceed, that's the legal standard. So perhaps prosecutors could consider it. But I really doubt that that's --

HARLOW: How is that in the interest of justice?

WILLIAMS: No, no, no. I'm just saying what the -- I'm just saying what the standard would be legal.

HARLOW: Yes.

WILLIAMS: But no. If prosecutors believe -- prosecutors also believe that in the interest of justice, holding people accountable for their actions, deterring that person from doing the same thing again, and deterring other people in the public future, presidents perhaps, from doing the same thing. Those are also in the interest of justice as well.

So I have a really hard time believing that one individual's Truth Social post about unrest in the country is going to make prosecutors not do what they're planning on doing to begin with.

AVLON: Yes. And the background music constantly is basically threat. It is that if you -- if there is kind of legal accountability, that will be bad for the country in ways you cannot imagine. And as, you know, if there's an attempt to overturn an election, and there's not legal accountability, that's called practice. That's just an incitement to more attempts to overturn an election.

HILL: There's also the -- it's such a -- it's such a fine line in many ways, right? We've talked so often for -- in different -- in different areas about the Republican Party being the party of laws, right?

WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.

HILL: And then there's the question of is justice being applied as a standard --

HARLOW: Equally.

HILL: -- in the way that should be equally. Thank you for finding my word this morning. And that's the -- and that's the back and forth, right? And what you're hearing from Republicans is no, because this is a hit job. And what you're hearing from prosecutors is we're just following the facts.

JENNINGS: Yes. More than a handful of Republican it might pits where they were trying to hang on January the 6th, they said, well, it would be bad for the country if they did this to Donald Trump. That's not really a good way to run a railroad or a justice system.

I mean, you know, what do you -- what does that mean? You can -- you can maybe break a law and if we just arbitrarily decided it's not good for the country, or at least half the country that likes you that I don't -- I don't, that's not a good. It is not -- that is not a good way to look at a justice.

Then your justice system become arbitrary. And you can start applying arbitrary standards to all sorts of people and politicians for all kinds of reasons. And I don't -- I don't think we want to go down that road.

HARLOW: Mind people what Mitch McConnell said, or you, John, jump in on it.

AVLON: That's exactly where I was about to go. When the second impeachment occurred, after January 6, Mitch McConnell decisively came out against it. He said, Donald Trump's responsible for this, but we -- the impeachment is the inappropriate way to handle this, because he will be accountable in a court of law to the justice system as a private citizen, after the fact, because no one's above the law. That's what is in fact is happening.

HARLOW: But then what McConnell said at the podium this week too talking about what another indictment would mean for the country.

JENNINGS: The country, between the two.

HARLOW: Yes, and now it's in the courts. And now there's much more damning allegations put forward.

JENNINGS: Yes. Well, he's at the time was -- I mean, there was an argument made that you couldn't impeach a former president. And so the only way to hold someone accountable was via the criminal justice system that's playing out right now.

Frankly, he made the same argument about the election, like, look, the courts will decide whether there was any fraud in the election. And, of course, they decided there wasn't. And so then the wheels kept turning.

And so if you believe in institutions, then you should believe that the institutions should be able to turn. Where the problem is, Republicans believe the institutions have been corrupted and that they're rigged against, you know, Donald Trump and the Republicans and therefore -- that we should not -- we should not respect that in this case, which again, if it's just -- if you just believe that when your guy is in trouble, that is not a good way -- not a good way to handle it.

HARLOW: OK. Final word for jury of your peers.

WILLIAMS: Right.

HARLOW: I mean, that's what we're talking about here.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HARLOW: That's a harder argument to make against a jury in South Florida.

WILLIAMS: So jury of your peers is -- I mean, in effect, the language of the Constitution and you're tried by people in the county.

HARLOW: Oh, and the grand jury, by the way.

WILLIAMS: By the grand juries. Well, the grand jury, you know, in the county in which -- in which the crime happens. You have Washington D.C. or South Florida. Now, South Florida is about 50/50 Democrats or Republicans.

[06:25:06]

But, you know, there's no question that Palm Beach County, Florida has a tremendous amount of Trump supporters. And all of these Truth Social posts about unrest in the country, and I did nothing wrong. I was advised by attorneys. Yes, that sort of Trumps M.O. but it also all that can be used to taint the jury pool.

Now, there's nothing wrong or unlawful yet in what he's done, but those are all statements that can get into juries head.

Harlow: All right. John Avlon, Elliot Williams, Scott Jennings, thank you all this morning.

HILL: Phoenix, the blistering heat in Phoenix is actually now killing off cacti. Imagine that some of them melting under the weight of 27 straight days of temperatures over 110 degrees. That record heatwave now impacting nearly half the country. We'll check on that ahead.

HARLOW: And tonight, 13 Republican candidates, one big Iowa dinner, Trump, DeSantis, and 11 other 2024 hopefuls will appear at a pivotal point fundraiser. We'll have the detail.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: It is still blisteringly dangerously hot across the country. More than 150 million people are under these heat alerts in over 30 states from coast to coast. And Phoenix broke another record, according to forecasters there.

Yesterday was its 15th day hitting 115 degrees or more, the most ever in a year. Meteorologist Derek Van Dam joins us again. He's in Florida again for us, Miami Beach. Is there any relief in sight?

DEREK VAN DAM, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Well, here in Miami, there actually has been. Yesterday, we failed to reach 100 degrees -- heat index of 100 degrees. So that breaks our 46 day streak, consecutive streak, of approaching those temperatures. So we'll take the small wins, I guess.

But get this, Poppy. The European Union Climate Monitoring Program actually just announced yesterday that the entire planet has just lived through its warmest or its hottest three-week period ever. And it could be the hottest three weeks in over 100,000 years. Let that sink in.

They also called July the hottest month ever recorded. And hey, look, it's the 28th of July. The month hasn't even ended. That's like calling a baseball game in the seventh inning.