Frank Figliuzzi, former FBI assistant director for counter-intelligence, highlighted the recent report that special counsel Jack Smith is looking into financial information for Donald Trump’s international businesses in seven countries, and said it’s possible Smith has additional info about information sharing.
Speaking to MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace on Tuesday, Figliuzzi explained that the statements from Trump in the CNN town hall were more admissions, in a line of confessions, that he took the documents he should not have.
“But that crucial period after that sobering subpoena is slapped on you is that I have a choice,” explained Figliuzzi. “I’ll either comply with the law, or I’m not. And everything he’s done after that has involved non-compliance with the law, and, in fact, thumbing his nose at the law. And as recently as the CNN town hall meeting, he actually said, ‘I took those documents. I had every right to. And if I did show them to somebody, and I can’t remember if I did or not, I had every right to.’ This is defiance that goes towards criminal intention. It is there. And, by the way, if the reports are accurate, this case is all but done.”
Figliuzzi’s reference was to the Wall Street Journal reporting that Smith is finishing up his probe and all interviews have been done.
Wallace walked through the timeline of how much Trump handed over and when. She pointed to the New York Times reporting of the foreign Trump businesses and recalled that it was part of the documents case at the DOJ.
“Do we assume that people we maybe haven’t heard about, going in to talk to Jack Smith and his investigators, are part of the fabric of this part of the probe — foreign business dealings and Trump classified documents?” she asked.
He explained the depth of the collection of intelligence that would surround the Trump documents case.
“We know Trump doesn’t use email, but he is a prolific user of the phones, right?” explained Figliuzzi. “And so, guaranteed there have been subpoenas for phone carriers for his phone records throughout this period and watching his response to a visit from the head of the National Security Secretary, DOJ, then here come FBI agents, and there’s a subpoena. And you’re watching this, they call it ‘tickling the wire.’ See what responses — who is he calling? Who’s calling each other?”
He said that it isn’t about the protected privilege content of lawyers’ conversations, but it outlines who else he’s speaking with.
“So, you can develop sources,” Figliuzzi continued. “So, when there is great confidence that they have the goods on him, it is because they are targeting people who know for a fact what is going on. Now, let’s fast forward and tie that into this subpoena for whether or not the Trump Organization was doing any business with one or more, or seven nations. There is an interesting piece in the Washington Post that actually puts a post on it. And it is last month. If that is true, that is intriguing because it may imply that this is a pro forma routine thing. Let’s make sure there’s no surprises because the defense will say, ‘Look, you have no evidence that committed espionage, right? That he actually disseminated national security information to a foreign country?’ Well, we better look.”
The alternative is that one could be reading the story and think that some intelligence may have recently “maybe from those phone calls, maybe from those from sources, where we think, no, we better look at Saudi, or China, or Turkey. I don’t know. But it would go toward motive,” he closed. “And it would be explosive if he would have actually shown documents, and what if those documents involved those very countries that are on the list? It’s even more concerning. And now you’re looking at maybe real-life espionage. We don’t know.”
See the full conversation with Figliuzzi below or at the link here.
Image via Shutterstock