former prisoner for nauta, for de oliveira, the threat is quite real for them, is it not? it absolutely is. one thing is very interesting, i think all three of these men are facing criminal exposure and years in prison. but what is different about donald trump as a secret service protectee, i think he s got a pretty good argument about why his sentence should be served in home confinement, or some other way, other than going to a penal institution the way most people do, which is, i think, too objectionable for the secret service to have their protectee in that environment. and so, while donald trump may be able to escape incarceration, i don t see the same thing happening for his codefendants. dick, does donald trump need to be arraigned second time if there s a new superseding indictment? well, the rules say that he must be. they also provide, though, if they file a written request to not have to appear in person, the judge may waive the
you don t, the first time around, it did not specify that they had the document. but this time around, it says specifically that donald trump showed that document to a person on authorized to see it. and it is listed as a substantive count. it is then you count 32 in the superseding indictment. i don t think they would do that unless they had a document which they could fix an exhibit sticker and introduce into evidence. it appears that since the last time, they ve gotten their hands on that document, or they have clarified which document it is, perhaps by talking with that witness about what she saw in that room. so, that is now part of this case. it s also, i think, it makes the case a bit stronger. i think previously, it could have come in under rule of evidence called 400 and for the, which says you can bring in other bad acts to show a persons and ammo, intent, knowledge, some other things. but sometimes, judges don t ramp that request. he that is part of a substantive charge, it
very well might be, or perhaps like trump s white house chief of staff mark meadows, who was widely speculated to be cooperating with prosecutors to save his own, and the other jack smith case, the january 6th case, where we can also see an indictment imminently. so, maybe trump s lackeys are finally, finally starting to rise up, maybe, and realize it s not worth risking prison time for a man who would not cross the street to save their lives. in fact, and other telling bits of reporting from nbc news today, one close trump era ally reacted to de oliveira s indictment by responding, quote, who the hell is that? nice. barbara mcquade is a former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan where she once brought significant to this is conspiracy charges against the group. kate kelly dick gregorie the u.s. attorney s office for the southern district of florida where he successfully prosecuted some of miami s most high-profile defendants. both join me now. barbara, what is your take
this. do you get the impression that taveras is a cooperating witness at this point? yes, i do. and, you know, well operation is a bit of a turn of art when it comes to criminal law. i think we often think of it as someone who has worked out a plea deal and has agreed to cooperate. it does not appear, to me, that mr. taveras has criminal exposure, that he did everything right. he rejected the request to delete the server. and it appears he is the source of this information that now gears in this indictment. so, it seems to me that he is a witness and not a defendant here, and is likely the person who will testify at trial about these incidents. dick, what do you make of the fact that de oliveira in florida today in court, did not enter a plea? and how much do you think prosecutors are hoping to flip someone like de oliveira at some point? i think today was another delay mechanism. it is almost i m using to think that he brought a lawyer with him all the way from washington,
showed that document to a person unauthorized to see it. and it is listed as a substantive count. it is then you count 32 in the superseding indictment. i don t think they would do that unless they had a document which they could fix an exhibit sticker and introduce into evidence. it appears that since the last time, they ve gotten their hands on that document, or they have clarified which document it is, perhaps by talking with that witness about what she saw in that room. so, that is now part of this case. it s also, i think, it makes the case a bit stronger. i think previously, it could have come in under rule of evidence called 404b, which says you can bring in other bad acts to show a person s m.o., intent, knowledge, some other things. but sometimes, judges don t ramp that request. he that is part of a substantive charge, it absolutely is coming in to evidence. dick, last question to you, you help prosecute some of the worst of the worst, cartel