What former Trump attorney thinks he could be indicted for

 

Joining me now, former

Trump attorney

Tim Pawlenty,

who I should note

is currently representing

the former New York City

police commissioner,

Bernie Kerik, in the special counsel's

election interference investigation.

We'll talk about that in a moment.

But first, just on this news

that Trump himself broke this morning,

I mean,

what do you make of the target letter?

Do you think it means that

Trump is on the verge

of being indicted again?

You know, I don't know.

It's it's an odd use of target letters.

That is something

the DOJ traditionally uses to send to,

you know, lower and mid-level people

in an alleged conspiracy in an effort

to try and

give them

an opportunity pre-indictment

to cooperate against the higher ups.

And so

as far as

your usual litigation strategies,

it doesn't

really seem to fit to send one

to a person like Donald Trump.

So in some ways, it kind of

looks like a publicity stunt

but at the same time,

they didn't publicize it.

They let him publicize it.

So it's really kind of an odd

and odd object in this thing.

But is it a publicity stunt?

I mean,

if they're not,

the ones who put it out there trumps

the one who put it out there. Right.

It is.

Which makes it

all the more weird

because I don't understand,

you know,

what the value of a target letter

to Donald Trump has.

You know,

they do have legitimate purposes there.

We use quite effectively in other cases,

but sending one to, you know, to the

to the top potential defendant

and somebody who's definitely not

going to be interested in

any type of plea agreement

doesn't really make any sense whatsoever.

I don't know if,

you know, we're doing it

just to preempt

with the Michigan charges or what.

But it just

it does seem to be a departure

from normal DOJ procedures.

But when you say you're

not sure what value it has,

I mean, wouldn't they be mad

if they did not get a heads up

that he was about to

be indicted potentially

Well, here's the thing.

DOJ, the use of a target letter,

that is not something that's required.

Would they be upset that

they don't get a heads up?

They usually get a heads up

when the indictment happens.

You know, once

the indictment is voted out,

then they would get a heads up,

hey, we've got an indictment.

So let's schedule an arraignment.

Getting a heads up

ahead of time is not something

that is required by the rules.

It's something that is used

for specific purposes,

none of which are really applicable here.

And so it just

it strikes me

as something that they wouldn't

normally do.

And, you know, doing it

here is very out of the ordinary.

But is it out of the ordinary?

I mean, I looked at the justice manual.

It seems to just say,

you know,

when someone

is not called to testify,

they are encouraged to notify them

the way that Trump has now

been notified that he is a

target in this investigation.

They can.

It's not required.

It's definitely not required.

It's something that I've seen very rarely

only in

and again, in cases

where they are

trying to

encourage the potential defendant

to come in and cooperate

and to try and cut a plea

or a cooperation deal pre-charge.

What is your sense?

I mean, Trump himself

says he thinks he's going to face

charges here.

What do you think he'll be indicted for?

Well, I've heard reporting

that this target

letter mentions

obstruction of justice and,

you know, witness tampering,

you know, allegedly

tampering with there

with Mike Pence,

you know, in that proceeding.

And those seem to be,

you know, kind of what they're looking at

at the same time.

It's an odd time to be bringing those

because certainly

whether obstruction is something

that applies

to a proceeding like this is something

that's already before the circuit court.

In the unrelated case,

and so that's the kind of thing

that you would think

before taking the unprecedented step

for now, no longer unprecedented.

But the unusual step

of charging a former president,

you'd wait and see what

the appellate court says

as to whether this is even legally,

you know, fits within the statute.

You know,

it sounds to me

like there's nothing in there about,

you know, inciting an insurrection

or anything like that.

So it really does

come down to the obstruction,

which has several,

you know, legal impediments to it.

You know,

not only the issues

that are being decided

by the appellate court,

but also corrupt intent.

We don't know what the charges are.

And we've

there has been some reporting

I know obviously they're referenced

in this in this target letter.

I haven't seen it.

I would obviously like to, but

we'll see what they decide.

But the former president your tumor,

your former

client, is responding tonight.

This is what he said

So they can cheat on an election.

But if somebody wants to question

the cheating,

they want to

call you a conspiracy theorist

and all these other things.

These people are sick

Tim, when you hear

that, I

mean, what happened was

way more than just questioning

the results.

Right?

Well, and a lot of

that is a matter of perspective

because, you know, certainly on one hand,

you could sit there and say

all these steps were taken to overturn

the results of the election.

But on the other hand,

if he truly believed that

there was fraud,

whether you agree with him or not,

if he truly believed that

and if his team truly believed that

what steps would you expect them to take?

You know,

you would expect them

to take the steps of saying,

hey, let's slow down the process

and let's try to verify these things.

Kick it

back to the states

to make sure

that the election results are accurate.

So it is definitely one of those things

where, you know, it's it's not clear.

It can be interpreted in multiple ways.

And it's not like

it's not as simple as Watergate,

where you either break into a hotel room

and it's a clear crime.

Anybody on either

side of the aisle can see that,

you know, here

it is much more open to interpretation.

But is it really open to interpretation

if you have governors

that he was pressuring to do things that

Brian Kemp of Georgia.

Doug Ducey of Arizona,

they said that they couldn't do,

he was trying to get Mike Pence

to do things that Mike Pence said

he couldn't do.

Of course,

we had Rudy Giuliani

and these other attorneys

going into states

and trying to get these

slates effectively fake electors.

I mean, that's

more than just questioning it.

I mean, they had 60 court cases

that were all thrown out

Well, a lot of those

court cases

were thrown out on standing issues

and they were really thrown

at pretty discovery

as to pressuring people to do

saying things that the people say

they can't do.

That's one of those things

where you really have to

look into it and say,

were they really pressuring them

to do something that is

you have clear black letter law

that they're not allowed to do?

Or again,

is it

one of those things

where it's open to interpretation

when it comes to Mike Pence?

Obviously,

there are different interpretations

as to

what his powers are under

the Electoral College Act.

And it's one of the reasons why Congress

then went to amend the act

to kind of close it

and make it a lot more clear that it

his role is purely ceremonial

because there was confusion

and there were differences.

I don't

I don't think that

because you're asking somebody

to do something.

I mean, and people can disagree on this.

That's the people.

That's what makes it open to most people.

I would say

it's not open to interpretation.

I mean, Pence certainly did not believe

that the attorneys that he talked to

didn't believe that.

I mean, John Eastman thought that.

I guess he says

it's open to interpretation.

But Tim, I want to also ask you,

because as we mentioned,

you're an attorney for Bernie

Kerik, the former

New York City police commissioner,

who had dealings with Rudy Giuliani's

efforts to overturn the election.

Has he gotten a target

letter in this investigation?

No, no.

Do you anticipate that he will

Absolutely not.

Why do you not think he'll get one

Why would he?

He hasn't done anything wrong.

He was an investigator.

And everything he did was was legal

and appropriate.

You know,

he was hired to go out there

and do an investigation to try and see

if there was evidence of fraud.

He presented

what he found to the January

six committee.

He explained

that based on his experience,

and what they found,

he believed that it formed probable cause

to believe the fraud had been committed,

you know, not proof

beyond a reasonable doubt

or anything like that.

The probable cause

that he believed was something

that warranted

further investigation,

but based on the limitations of

of his abilities, you know,

lack of subpoena power,

lack of time, resources,

things like that,

that it needed

to be further investigated

by other people.

You know, that's what he passed.

That's what he told January

six committee.

Has he told the special counsel?

Has there been any.

Has there been a request for an interview

or has he sat down for an interview?

We expect to sit down

and explain that to the special counsel

as well. Sure.

Oh, when do you expect to do that?

We haven't scheduled again.

Okay.

But you are in talks

with the special counsel

has nothing to hide. He's.

Yeah, sure.

Absolutely.

McCarrick has nothing to hide.

He's happy to sit down

and explain everything to them.

Okay. That's news.

We did not know that

that he was in talks

to to sit down with them.

So thank you for clearing that up.

I want to also ask

you about what happened in Florida today.

You saw people that used to work

with Trump's current legal team.

They told Judge Karen

they didn't believe

that she should schedule

a new trial date for the documents case

But Todd Blanch said that if

if she were that

they proposed

mid-November or later next year,

obviously that would be after

the election. Do.

Do you really think they can't

go to trial before November

I think that, practically

speaking,

federal criminal cases do take that long.

However,

it is a little bit odd to be asking for

that type of a trial date

at this early stage of the game.

Ordinarily, trial dates are set

and everybody knows that

it's not going to happen on that date.

And you have

you know, five, six,

seven

more adjournments,

you know, throughout the process.

And so,

you know,

these cases do

take over two years

frequently, but they take

but they take them in like three

to five month

increments of moving out the trial date.

Not right from the inception.

Just yeah,

they push it out for two years.

That's a little bit different. Yeah.

Or even postponing it indefinitely.

Tim Barletta,

thanks for your insight

into the Trump legal team

and for breaking that news with us

about your other client, Bernie Kerik.

Thanks so much for joining us.

All right.

Thank you.