Ex-Trump lawyer reacts to Trump saying he is probe target

 

Joining us now is former

Trump White House attorney Jim Schultz.

It's good to see you, Jim.

Just your reaction

to this news that we have now.

Donald Trump

receiving this to Donald Trump's

legal team and Trump

receiving this target letter

regarding the special counsel's

investigation into January 6th

Well, I mean, we saw it

beginning to wrap up

as you get closer

and closer to the inner circle

and more important folks

coming in to the grand jury.

That's a signal

that they're coming to a close.

So the culmination of that is

that they've sent him a target letter.

We don't know who else has received

or if anyone else has received

target letters associated with it.

I expect it has a lot to do with,

you know,

perhaps conspiracy to commit fraud

and relating to the overturn

the outcome of an election

relating to,

you know, there's a number of factors.

The fake elector scheme,

perhaps, you know,

perhaps the

trying to switch

the attorney general out,

you know,

the pressure on the former vice president

There's a number of different things

that kind of all culminate together

to perhaps form their case.

Jim, what's it like

to get a target letter?

I mean, it's it's

something that you have never had one

black union.

Have you represented anyone

when you are working

with somebody who gets a target letter?

What's that like?

Donald Trump

has obviously now

had this experience fairly recently,

but it's a pretty serious moment

and it causes from both a legal

and in this case, a political standpoint,

I imagine a certain degree

of circling the wagons

Look, it shows that there is

there is a degree of legal jeopardy

coming in the direction

of the former president.

And that's always serious

for anybody who receives a target letter.

So I do think, you know,

it's something that needs to be

taken seriously.

Perhaps an indictment is on its way.

We saw in the last case

that that that preceded the indictment

I think we're likely

to see the same thing here.

He's probably

not going to go in and testify.

And then it's

you know, then we're back to this case,

perhaps going to be be heard in the

in the D.C. district.

And who's the judge that gets assigned

more kind of off

to all the questions

that we had on the first round?

Can I quickly ask you,

you worked for Donald Trump

and he has this tactic

that he uses of attacking

whoever goes against him.

Now he's attacking Jack Smith.

He said he looks like a crack head

initially.

Now he's saying that he's deranged.

Why does he do this?

And is it problematic?

Is it a problematic tactic?

It's not going to help him in court.

Well, I think the judge

is likely to intervene

as it relates to that.

I think you're going to hear some of that

probably at the hearing today.

I would imagine

because,

you know,

there's a difference, right,

between

the political speech

associated with these cases

and the political strategy

associated with these cases.

And the legal strategy.

That tactic certainly doesn't help

the legal strategy.

Jim, do you think if charges do

come related to trying to overturn

the election,

trying to stop the peaceful

transfer of power,

if criminal charges

come to Donald

Trump on that, do you think it diminishes

the classified documents case

that he's already up against

No, I think there are two

separate issues. Right.

And they are separate

and distinct issues.

That case is going to stand on its own.

And if there's a case

that's brought in connection

with January six,

that case is going to have

to stand on its own.

And, you know, the case against him,

you know,

in the documents

case is incredibly compelling.

If all that evidence,

if all those allegations make it

into evidence.

Can I ask you what you think

Donald Trump will do here?

With his lawyers,

what his defenses may be in

this particular case?

Well, look,

on the documents case

or the potential case coming,

we've seen the documents case.

He wants it delayed.

He says that there

that it was

prosecutor trial misconduct

and he's laid it out.

But in the potential

that there is another case, a January

six case brought,

which

prosecutors have have gotten about 550

or so plea agreements,

and they've not lost the case yet.

What do you think

his defense is going to be

if this case is brought forward?

I think

there's a difference

between those plea agreements

in relation

to the violence at the Capitol

and likely what they're going

to bring against Donald Trump. Right.

So we don't know what the charges

are going to be.

We can only speculate

as to what the charges are going to be.

Therefore, it's

kind of premature to start talking

about what the defenses might be.

But I think it's going to be distinct

from that idea of incitement.

I do not believe that this will be a case

that involves incitement

because of the first Amendment

speech issues.

So you're talking about

it's not going to be things

like seditious conspiracy

that's already

been charged and adjudicated.

But there's a potential

we were hearing from Ellie Honig

obstruction of an official proceeding.

I've seen that in court myself

over and over and over again.

The Justice Department

has won those cases.

And that's a potential of 20 years

in prison. That's at the height of it.

It's not always given.

But these are really serious charges,

even though they don't sound as serious.

They can't be for sure.

Listen, Jim,

before this stunning news

that Donald Trump

has received, a target letter

in the January

six case came down,

we were looking forward to this hearing.

This afternoon, Judge Eileen Cannon,

for the first time,

this hearing directly from the attorneys

on both sides of this case.

And she's told them

this is the moral legal documents case

and she's told both sides

to come in with arguments

about whether or not

the trial should be delayed

and when the trial should begin.

What do you expect to happen today?

How do you think she is considering this?

And do you see any hints one way

or the other of how she might rule

So I think she's

going to be under considerable,

considerable pressure,

given some of the criticism

she's had in the past

to move this case along

in an expeditious fashion.

Of course, the Trump

side is going to say,

look, we need more time.

This is going to interfere

with the election.

You know, there's a lot of issues

associated with this.

But the bottom line is absent

some appellate issue

kind of coming in the middle of this

three to four months

is probably a reasonable amount of time

to get ready for that case.

And I do think, though, that you know,

I talked about in the past

the Classified Information

Procedures Act.

You've already seen the Trump

team saying, look,

we want to see all these documents,

all these documents

need to be made public.

If the government opposes that

and the judge rules in favor of Trump.

The government has an ability to appeal.

And that would be an appeal directly

to the 11th Circuit.

And that could potentially delay the case

for a couple of months,

even an expedited manner,

even an expedited appeal.

Same thing.

If they ruled against the Trump

team on it,

they would have an ability

to appeal to the 11th Circuit.

And if that happens again,

you're talking about a couple of months.

So even if she sets this for December,

if there are appellate issues that

are able to be immediately

appealed to the 11th Circuit,

that's going to cause some delay,

then she's going to have a decision.

Okay.

Now we're looking at February,

March, April, for a potential trial date.

Now it's in the middle of primary season.

What happens then?

English

AllMore from this storyFrom CNNDebatesRelatedListenableRecently uploadedWatched