really worth going to prison for donald trump. and i think he could look at the history of other people involved with donald trump, gotten involved with donald trump, and see that very often, even if donald trump the people around him are not. and it s just another lesson here, is don t work for donald trump. from that kind of most low level person to the vice president, there is nobody who comes out unscathed from their association with this person. andrew goldstein, renato, you may recall he s the lead investigator for the bob mueller obstruction investigation. he told in your signs, quote, demanding that islands be destroyed is the most basic form of obstruction and it is easy for a jury to understand. he also said that what s described in this indictment is actually more quote, straightforwardly criminal, then the obstructive act detailed in the mueller report. based on what you ve seen, do you agree?
new layer to the timeline of events in the classified documents case. so, to understand the full extent of the ex presidents alleged criminality, let s go back to the beginning and look at that closely. at 12:00 pm on january 2021, donald trump ceases to become president. as he departs the white house, he has scores of boxes, many of which contains classified materials, are transported to mar-a-lago. on may 6th of that year, representatives from the national archives notify former trump white house lawyers of missing presidential records and continue to ask for the documents for months on end. in july of 2021, trump meets with a writer, a publisher, two members of his staff, none of whom possess security clearances. at his bedminster golf club, he proceeds to share materials he describes as quote, highly confidential in audio recordings. and he goes on to say, quote, as president, i could have declassified it, now i can t.
how does evidence like this play in front of a jury? what would be your threshold to convince a jury that an obstruction request, or destruction of evidence request, did in fact take place? is it simple to say hearsay is going to be enough to convince jurors? well, first of all, great question. agree with that assessment, by the way. and the reason why i agree with that is the obstructive act that were discussed in the mueller report were for example, trying to fire mueller himself. trying to use pardons to influence testimony. trying to fire the fbi director. all of those sorts of activities are more complicated, and the juror might view that is more political. destroying evidence, that is, like goldstein, said that s very straightforwardly criminal. it s a sort of thing that jurors are used to understanding, they re used to seeing that, they ve probably seen that on tv and movies. and i think that when we look at all these counts, i
grand jury subpoena requests for that footage. according to the indictment, on june 27th 2022, after some phone tag between trump, nauta, and de oliveira walked to the i. t. office at mar-a-lago and requested that he and an unnamed trump employee, the works resorts director of i.t., could talk. well, the two men then went inside a closet and that s when carlos de oliveira told the employee that the conversation should, quote, remain between the two of them and carlos olivia then asked the employee than how long the a believed it was approximately 45 days, give or take. and then in a move, honestly, straight out of a monster movie, carlos olivia told the employee that the boss wanted the server deleted. the employee raised concerns
certainly by giuliani against these election workers, basically suggesting that they were engaging in some sort of election fraud, destruction of ballots, or removing ballots, changing ballots. obviously, that was investigated. that turned out to be false. there were some attention paid to the january six committee to this. i believe one of the women in question actually was there, and present at the hearings. what i would just say is that ultimately, at the end of the day, a lot of the for trump in the georgia case is going to come down to his supposedly genuine belief regarding the fact that he supposedly based on what giuliani told him. obviously, this significantly undercuts that. you know, greg, in his court filing earlier this week, giuliani said that he made statements that, quote, carry meeting that is defamatory per se, were defamatory per se, but