the news continues. "the source" with kaitlan collins starts now. collins starts now. see you tomorrow. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com classified documents case. plus four hours a day. israel has now agreed to humanitarian pauses in gaza to let civilians move to safer ground and let aid in. the question is, could it also provide a break through on getting hostages out? the cia director is having secret meetings in the middle east. and a political earthquake rocking washington tonight, as senator joe manchin has announced he is not going to seek re-election, leaving a blue seat open in a deeply red state. does it also open a door to run against president biden? i'm kaitlan collins, and this is "the source." ♪ we start with two exclusives for you tonight. we have the first cnn interview with former president trump's former lawyer, who quit the classified documents case over the summer. and it comes on a night when cnn has learned who could be testifying against donald trump in that very trial. the potential witness list, according to multiple sources and what they've told cnn, could include some of the people who were working at mar-a-lago, a plumber, a chauffeur, a maid, a woodworker, other mar-a-lago staffers, including some who still work there, plus contract workers, secret service agents, former intelligence officials, as well as people who were in the room with trump when he was caught on that audiotape referencing a secret military document that was about potential plans to bomb iran. these potential witnesses have already spoken to federal investigators, and some, of course, can provide firsthand accounts of what they saw at mar-a-lago, where we know hundreds of classified documents were found, including dozens that were marked as top secret. they were found in places like trump's bathroom, his bedroom, a ballroom, and, yes, a storage room. there's a woodworker who installed crown molding in trump's bedroom in february 2022. according to three sources, that person noticed papers that may have been classified. there's also the maid who cleaned trump's bedroom suite. one source telling cnn that the former president went, quote, ballistic, when he learned she had been asked to speak with investigators. there's also a chauffeur who drove around visitors, including foreigners and vip guests at the club, and many, many others in this new reporting tonight. joining me now on this new reporting and much more for his first cnn interview since he left the trump legal team in the classified documents case, jim trusty. it's good to have you on the show. when you hear this reporting and the potential witnesses jack smith's team could call, do you have any concerns about what kind of testimony they could provide. >> i think my starting concern is the leaks. i mean, it's just astounding how, when it comes to mar-a-lago -- and i point towards doj for a lot of this because it helps them more than it would ever help president trump -- that all of this stuff gets aired publicly. meanwhile, up in delaware, it's radio silence. in terms of the witnesses, i got to meet a lot of really nice folks, salt of the earth, good working, hardworking people, down in the mar-a-lago scene. they were aggressively really intimidated by the department of justice and the fbi. we have a decent idea -- or i had a decent idea of a lot of what they would have to say, not necessarily across the board. it's the kind of thing, kaitlan, you could drive by mar-a-lago on the way to the beach and you would get a subpoena. we have people with literally almost no information being told to go to the fbi, threatened to go to washington -- >> how many people would you say you believe investigators spoke with, as this investigation's gone on until, of course, you left the team over the summer? >> i'm not going to join the leak chorus. but certainly it's obvious it's at least dozens. look, i mean, just the fact that in their zeal to find something, anything to justify this case, they were dragging in secret service agents. at least that's -- we just had. that's generally -- i know there's been exceptions in history when it was the, kind of, star investigation. but generally speaking, that's a no go. and that's the level of aggression we saw across the board while i was on the case and i think continues today. >> do you think testimony from the secret service agents could be potentially the most damaging in this case? >> i'm not going to weigh into the substance of what people have to say. it touches not just my duty of loyalty to a former client but work product privilege in terms of any investigation we did. look, i think it will be fascinating when the case is tried. i'll certainly be one of the people that calls in on my regular job so i can watch a lot of it and see how it plays out. again, this is, kind of, unprecedented territory with not just what they're charging and the presidential records act and all the issues that arise from criminalizing this stuff, but the level of aggress ift, telling witnesses, for instance, this has been publicly recorded, give me the password to your computer or i'm going to drag you up to d.c. in three days and you'll have to do it in front of the grand jury. this is heavy handed stuff that's unlike anything i saw in my 17 years at the department of justice. >> i understand you don't like what you say are leaks. this is just reporting that cnn has done on this. there are so many witnesses potentially in this. there's a lot of people to obviously talk to about what could potentially happen here. but when you look at this, a lot of these people still work at mar-a-lago. i mean, trump employee number four, tavarus, just recently resigned, we're told, and trump was not happy we found out was still working at the club. he was someone who had a trump-paid attorney and changed to a non-trump paid attorney and he changed his testimony. do you think the former president is trying to potentially influence any of the witnesses by paying for their attorneys? >> no. everything you just said goes to the fact that there's self-serving leaks coming out of one side of the aisle. it's really, kind of, amazing. and no real respect for the privacy of these individuals. look, it's not uncommon in a widespread investigation of any sort, criminal or administrative, for there to be a group of attorneys that share information under a joint defense agreement, have some sense of what's going on with the investigation, know where there's things that can be litigated, even preindictment. so, look, paying for attorneys means nothing. the reality -- the back story that's really horrific in terms of what this purported conflict was that revolves around that witness is that the department of justice cannot stand stanley woodward, one of the attorneys in this case, because stanley blew the whistle on a doj official, essentially extorting him over a pending judgeship to flip walt nauta. that's been publicly reported. that is a dark moment in doj history that they want to gloss over and then go after all the attorneys saying there's something wrong with attorneys either representing multiple clients or sharing information. >> i know you -- >> it's a distraction. >> in our last interview, you brought that same instance up. i said we had not seen any evidence of that. we haven't really seen it brought up as an issue. stan woodward is still representing a lot of the clients, to where they think it could be -- prosecutors have argued it would be a conflict of interest. on yuscil tavarus, you talk about it's not uncommon for attorneys to share information when they have multiple potential witnesses or codefendants. that's true. but he changed his testimony in a damning way for the former president that led to another codefendant being indicted because he went from a trump-paid attorney to his own attorney. >> well, i think you're looping together a whole bunch of things. it makes for a great story, but i'm not here to -- >> but don't you see -- you can see how there are questions about trump's influence when he pays for the attorneys, given a witness changed his testimony? >> i'm aware there are people that push those questions. i think there's a bigger backdrop, a bigger context to what's going on when it comes to some of the lawyers being challenged by doj. and let me just also give a broader context about the idea of obstruction. we certainly, as lawyers, we obviously look into questions of whether there's things that happened after the substantive offenses that could relate to obstruction or attempted obstruction. it's not something that any lawyer takes lightly. so, i don't want to sound like i, kind of, gloss over it. to me, it's really clear that a political decision was made by a very politicized department that the best thing they have going to try to distinguish president trump's possession of documents from then-vice president biden's is to suggest that somehow obstruction is the difference. and that's been a narrative on this network and others that somehow, well, you know why they're different? because of all the obstruction. we don't have to get any leaks out of delaware, but we get plenty of leaks down here that relate to these different witnesses like the one you're just talking about or walt nauta, all to suggest that somehow there's obstruction. >> it's not suggesting. trump fought a subpoena to turn the documents over. you were there as all of that was going on. >> actually, no. but let me just say this -- >> you were. >> we want executives. we want anyone who's in, kind of, the c suite of life and business to be able to freely talk to their lawyers and figure out, hey, can we fight this subpoena? is there something over-broad, overly burdensome about the subpoena? what happens if we respond? what happens if we ask for more time? those are things that we encourage as a society. it's exactly right. and executives across the country try to have the conversation -- >> so, he did try to fight the subpoena. is that what you're saying? >> no, that's not what i'm saying. anyone that runs a business has the opportunity to talk to their lawyers about whether or not there's some sort of privileges that apply, whether they can fight or -- >> it's a good thing, jim. but let me ask you this. the judge seems to be indicating in florida that she is going to delay this case. do you think it's going to get delayed past the election? >> i don't have any inside knowledge from her or her chambers or really anyone else. but i think what's driving the delays right now is not some sort of a political concern. it's the sip pa process. it's this idea that when you have classified material, you have to go through a very serious scrubbing and review and litigation long before you can enter the courtroom for the trial itself. and that seems to be bogging down a little bit, perhaps unclean hands from the government. i don't know for sure. but the bottom line is that takes time normally. so, the time frame -- these, kind of, artificial time frames for jack smith -- >> but do you believe it's going to get pushed? >> i think it's probably going to get pushed. i don't know whether it goes beyond the election or not. but generally speaking, these classified information-type cases don't go to trial quickly because of that review. and the matter everything else, no matter how many witnesses, how complex, what other defenses and motions there are, that alone usually pushes them outside -- >> let me ask you -- obviously the last time our viewers saw you was when you were on the trump legal team. you no longer are. can you just explain why you resigned from the trump legal team the day after he was indicted? >> sure can't. i certainly didn't suggest to cnn that i was willing to talk about that. the bottom line is -- >> we have to ask. >> no, i don't -- i'm not faulting you for asking. it's fine. i'm not a kiss and tell guy. so, i'm not going to get into anything. it was the right time for myself to leave, jim riley to leave -- tim particle tore left a little before that. >> can you say, did you resign or were you fired? >> it doesn't matter. i'm not here to try to elevate myself or disparage my former client. there was a logical break point, i took that break point, and i don't iszkiss and tell. >> the civil fraud case has been happening here in new york. you saw trump was on the stand. there were testy exchanges with the judge. at one point the judge asked chris kise, who is brought on to be in the documents case, but is now in new york as well, the current attorney, to get control of him. do you think you were better at controlling him as a client? >> no, look, here's what i'd say about that. i mean, you know, the response that was reported -- and i haven't been up in the courtroom in new york. i've got other clients to serve. but the response is reported that chris basically said, ask better questions. that actually is the right response to that situation. it's the attorney general that called him to the witness stand. and when you call any witness to the stand that has some expertise in what they're talking about, they tend to be speech makers. i used to deal with cross examining all sorts of experts in criminal cases as a prosecutor, everything from fingerprints to identification to god knows what. and the reality is you get in and you get out. if you have to call this witness -- and in civil cases, you can call the other party -- you darn well better get in and out with very tight questions and get what you want and get out. they apparently didn't do a very good job of that to the frustration of the judge. but the judge's ire should have been directed towards them. >> he said trump wasn't answering questions with a yes or no answer. also, i think, part of it would be people say trump is a challenging client to have. he's had a lot of attorneys who have come to work for him and left the case. there's a bit of chaos with the new york team as well. when you look at this and you look at what he's been saying in the special counsel's investigation, you used to work at the justice department. you know jack smith, who is the special counsel. when trump calls him rerderange and a psychopath, do you think those are term ls you would use to describe jack smith? >> i would focus -- as a lawyer, as somebody who's been a prosecutor 27 years before i went private, i focus on the conduct. that's me. it's a different situation for a person running for president being indicted in these unprecedented and creative -- and i put quotes around that -- types of indictments. but the bottom line is i've seen things from the federal prosecutors in this case, including extorting a fellow lawyer, that are obstructionist, that are wrong, that are over-aggressive. and that's what i'd call out and i continue to call out. look, kaitlan, that's a fun game to play -- >> it's not a game. i'm genuinely curious what you think. you work with jack smith and you used to represent donald trump. >> i don't think america is waiting with bated breath to see if jim will call jack deranged. it's not part of the public's interest. it's just fun, sensational stuff. >> it's not fun. >> any client would have a right to be frustrated with the behavior he's been facing on behalf of the department, alvin bragg, letitia james, and the wonderful georgia case as well. i don't have to sign off or sign on on anything that the president says, but i can tell you that the grounds for frustration, the concerns about a two-tiered system are legitimate ones. >> i was going to let you go after that, but i've got to ask you. you can't really call it a two-tiered system of justice. look at the number of democrats being investigated right now. i think bob menendez would argue it's a two-tiered system of justice. hunter biden, the list goes on. >> you're using hunter biden as an example of equal justice. >> you can't call it a two-tiered system of justice because there are plenty of democrats being investigated by the justice department, including the sitting president's son. jim trusty -- >> we'll come back and talk about hunter's case some night. that will be fun. >> jim trusty, thank you for your time. appreciate your time. ahead, no ceasefire, but israel has agreed to daily pauses in the fighting, allowing palestinian civilians to flee northern gaza. the question is, will it hold. plus there's been a huge shakeup on shil. capitol hill. >> i will not be running for re-election to the united states senate. but what i will be doing -- >> that's a good question. what will senator joe manchin be doing? that is next. the. after more than a month of non-stop war, a pause, or rather a series of four-hour pauses. t the white house confirming today that israel is going to notify civilians in northern gaza of four-hour breaks from bombardment in their neighborhoods so they can safely evacuate to the south. while these pauses are -- israeli prime minister netanyahu has been adamant there will be no ceasefire until all the hostages are released from gaza. discussions are underway, we are told, to get those hostages out. cia director bill bird is meeting with -- direct line to hamas. while some members of the progressive caucus on capitol hill have joined in calls for a ceasefire, my next guest tonight has called for humanitarian pauses instead. the question for some is, does today's announcement go far enough? congressman ro khanna of california is here with me. sir, what do you say? do the four-hour pauses go far enough in your view? is that what you were thinking of? >> it's a good first step. but, no, more needs to be done. you need to get 2 million gallons of water in there. we need to get fuel into the hospitals. and while hamas is using palestinian civilians as human shields, i have said that they should not be bombing civilian sites, civilian dense sites. >> israel should not? >> israel should not. i don't think they're intentionally targeting civilians -- >> but are they doing enough to not hit civilians in your view? >> in my view, they should operate with patience. they have a right to self-defense. but when you have a hospital, when you have a school, when you have a refugee camp with many children, even when hamas is there, even when hamas is there intentionally, i think you try to get hamas out, you get them into the tunnels, you trap them. it took us ten years to get os osama bin laden. but loss of life there is heartbreaking. i would say do not bomb civilian dense sites. >> they struck an ambulance recently, israel arguing hamas is using it to transfer weapons and fighters. president biden said today he is frustrated that this is not happening soon enough, that he's been pushing prime minister netanyahu for a three-day pause or more. he has a lot of influence on what the prime minister does. he's, kind of, bear hugged him. he's been one of his biggest supporters since this war broke out. do you think he could influence him to do more? >> he does and he doesn't. i think certain things, they're just not listening. my sense is that he has asked for the humanitarian pause. he wants the pause to be longer. i think the united states government has had candid conversations about doing more to minimize civilian casualties. and the president is making progress. and i do think that the white house has really stepped up in talking about palestinian lives and making sure that they're protected. >> your political director just resigned recently because you are not calling for a ceasefire. is there -- would you ever call for a ceasefire? do you ever see yourself doing that? >> i wouldn't rule it out. i mean, at some point, the war has to end. but the reason i didn't call for a ceasefire is that when you have the brutal murder of 1,400 civilians and people have committed that terrorist attack, if you just say, okay, let