Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Trump Stands by Aide; Tom Brady Strikes Back; Congressman Indicted on Racketeering Charges. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired July 29, 2015 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00] KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, we will see. (INAUDIBLE) - Congressman, thank you very much for your time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, ma'am.

BOLDUAN: I am very much looking forward to hearing from Speaker Boehner in his reaction to all of this and what's going on in his conference as he's set to speak later today.

Thank you so much, congressman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nice to see you.

BOLDUAN: And thank you all for joining us "AT THIS HOUR."

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: LEGAL VIEW starts right now.

RANDI KAYE, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, I'm Randi Kaye, in for Ashleigh Banfield. Welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

And we begin with Donald Trump in damage control, this time not for his own controversial statements but someone else's. The Republican presidential candidate is defending a top aide who said erroneously, quote, "by the very definition, you can't rape your spouse." The rep who made that comment is Michael Cohen, special council and executive vice president of the Trump Organization. Cohen was reacting to a "Daily Beast" report looking into decades old rape allegations by Ivana Trump while she and Donald were divorcing. Allegations she has long since taken back.

Now, for his part, Donald Trump slammed "The Daily Beast" report and explained to CNN's Don Lemon why he won't be firing Cohen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (via telephone): Michael was extremely angry because he knew it never took place. He knew this website was a joke, considered a joke, and he was very angry and maybe he didn't even understand the question. But no, I don't, I disagreed with him. In fact, when I read it, I disagreed. I didn't know if - that he said it or who knows what he said because frankly I'm not sure that they reported accurately anyway. But assuming he said it, no, I disagree with that.

DON LEMON, ANCHOR, CNN'S "CNN TONIGHT": But you still - I mean you're not going to fire him or get rid of him (INAUDIBLE)?

TRUMP: No, I'm not. He - he was very angry because they issued a false story to get publicity for themselves and to try and make themselves relevant, which they're not. People have been fired all over the place from that one. And others are failing, too, as you know, in that world.

LEMON: Yes.

TRUMP: A lot of them are failing. But this one's a particularly bad one. A lot of money was spent on it and it's been a disaster. And he knew that. And he - he said to them, you know, you're doing the wrong thing.

LEMON: Yes.

TRUMP: You do this, you're doing the wrong thing. So what happened is, he probably got angry. No, I disagree with it. In fact, when I first saw it I said, wow, it's, you know, something I disagree with but that's the way it is.

LEMON: Yes.

TRUMP: And, you know, he's speaking for himself. He's not speaking for me, obviously. To top it off, and it was so nice that as you know Ivana issued a statement when she read it that it's totally false, that this - a thing like that never took place and it was all about her. And then she ended it by saying that I think he would make an incredible president. (INAUDIBLE) -

LEMON: Let me read it - let me read it, Donald. She said "I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit. Donald and I are the best of friends and together we have raised three children we love and are proud of and have nothing but fondness for Donald and I wish - I have nothing but fondness for Donald and I wish him the best of luck in his campaign. Incidentally, I think he would make an incredible president."

TRUMP: It was nice that you read her statement. I appreciate that, Don, because it was a statement that she issued after she read it. She issued it right away and I thought that was amazing. And I - I appreciate your reading it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: And Don Lemon joins me now to talk a little bit more about this.

It was a great interview, but do you get the feeling that this is sort of a pattern for him? you know, this script of attacking the messenger.

LEMON: Yes.

KAYE: I mean, all of a suddenly "The Daily Beast" is this horrible website that - that -

LEMON: Yes.

KAYE: Shouldn't be respected?

LEMON: Well, I mean, it is working for him. And to Donald Trump's point, you know, this was a story - and you've read it - that happened back in the late '80s, early '90s. The book is from 1993. And these are allegations that he's denied now for some 30 years. I think the biggest - the reason that it was a story or became as big a story as it is, is because of Michael Cohen's comments. Otherwise, many - most people would have read this story as something that happened many years ago. He's now running for president -

KAYE: Right.

LEMON: So these stories are going to come up. And it would have - that would have been it.

KAYE: And he feels pretty strongly about this story being dug up now?

LEMON: Yes. Well, he does. He feels strongly about that because, I mean, what was - what was the impetus for the story? For a story that had been in "The New York Daily News," in "The New York Post," in "The New York Times," all over New York. I was a young junior journalist back in the '90s here and we covered that story. It was big news back in the '90s, but we had moved on. But everything comes back. I mean it's all - he gets it now. It's all fair game.

KAYE: Fair game, exactly.

LEMON: Yes, it's all fair game.

KAYE: Absolutely.

LEMON: Yes.

KAYE: I know you also talked to him about how he's going to prepare, if he is at all for the - for next week's debate. Let's listen to what he said first.

LEMON: OK. All right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON: This debate is coming up. Are you ready for it?

TRUMP: I - I have absolutely no idea how to answer that question. I am me. I don't have pollsters. I mean, I have a lot of money, much more money than all of them put together and all of their phony contributions put together. But you have to understand, I want to be me.

[12:05:01] I am what I am. I am what I am. I mean, the debate coach. Look, Romney had a debate coach and Obama had a debate coach. Frankly, I thought Obama was terrible. I have to be myself, Don. I - and if it's not good enough, that's OK. I'll have -- you know, I'll go on to other things. I'd ride into the sunset and do some more buildings and create some more jobs and that's OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: So a couple of things to take away from there. Obama was terrible and he's actually considering maybe riding into the sunset.

LEMON: Yes, I know - I mean you've got - you've got to -

KAYE: What was your take?

LEMON: You've got to love - you've got to love it every time you interview with him, you're like, my gosh, he is really - he's just - he has no filter.

KAYE: Absolutely none.

LEMON: And that's his appeal to, you know, the people who - that's why he's polling so high.

KAYE: But they like what they're hearing from him.

LEMON: They like what they're hearing from him. They like that he does - he's not speaking with talking points and he's just out there saying it and he appears to have, as he says, no coach, no advisor. He's his own coach. He's his own advisor. He's his own apprentice, right, so to speak. So -

KAYE: How do you think he'll - what do you expect?

LEMON: I think he is sort of downplaying what he's going to - he's managing expectations. And, you know, I was speaking with Kevin Madden this morning, who is a political - you know, Mitt Romney's - one of mitt Romney's advisors. He said that's the first, in his estimation, the first sort of political presidential thing that he's done, candidate things - thing that he's done is he's managing expectations for the debate.

But when he said, you know, if it doesn't go so well, I'll ride off into the sunset. I said, well, it sounds like you're tired. Like after this debate you're going to bow out if it doesn't go so well. He said, no, he's energized. So he cleared that up for us. He said even if he -

KAYE: Real quick.

LEMON: Even if he doesn't do well. But even if Donald Trump doesn't do well, don't you think he'll say, I'm the greatest, I did great, I've never been in debate before, I still mopped the floor with them?

KAYE: I would say odds are yes in that direction for sure. All right, Don, interesting interview for sure.

LEMON: Yes.

KAYE: Thanks so much. LEMON: Thank you.

KAYE: Meanwhile, another incident from Trump's past is coming back to haunt him today. Lawyer Elizabeth Beck says, and Trump doesn't dispute, that he called her disgusting back in 2011 after she asked to take a break during a deposition so she could pump breast milk. Beck was representing clients who were suing Trump over a failed real estate project.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELIZABETH BECK, LAWYER WHO DEPOSED DONALD TRUMP: He had an absolute meltdown when I said that I needed the break and it was for breast pumping purposes. He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed, "you're disgusting. You're disgusting," and he ran out of there. And we were not able to conclude his deposition that day. It was concluded in south Florida where he flew down and I was able to conclude my deposition. But that was later. All I was requesting was a break that everybody had agreed to during lunch hour so that I can excuse myself and pump my baby's food in the privacy of a room.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Trump quickly fired back at Beck's interview tweeting, quote, "CNN did not say that lawyer Beck lost the case and I got legal fees. Also, she wanted to breast pump in front of me at deposition." He goes on to say, "why is somebody, Beck, I beat so soundly all of a sudden an expert about Donald Trump all over television? She knows nothing about me."

The owner of the New England Patriots says he was wrong to trust the NFL to deal with the deflated football scandal. That's next, along with Tom Brady's reason for destroying his own cell phone.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:12:08] KAYE: And we're back with new developments in the Deflategate scandal. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft slamming the NFL for upholding the four-game suspension of star quarterback Tom Brady.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT KRAFT, OWNER, NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS: I was wrong to put my faith in the league. Given the facts, evidence, and laws of science that underscore this entire situation, it is completely incomprehensible to me that the league continues to take steps to disparage one of its all-time great players and a man for whom I have the utmost respect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KAYE: Brady, as you know, is implicated in a scheme to tamper with football's before the Pats' AFC title win over the Indianapolis Colts back in January. The league also now accuses Brady of destroying his own cell phone to hide evidence, to which Brady posted this response on Facebook this morning, quote, "most importantly, I've never written, texted, e-mailed to anybody at any time anything related to football, air pressure before this issue was raised at the AFC championship game in January. To suggest that I destroyed a phone to avoid giving the NFL information it requested is completely wrong."

All right, joining me now to talk about this, criminal defense attorney Midwin Charles and CNN Sports anchor Rachel Nichols.

Good to see you both.

Rachel, let me start with you on this one because we actually heard Robert Kraft there basically going after the NFL commissioner.

RACHEL NICHOLS, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: Basically?

KAYE: Yes, going after - I was being kind. I was being kind.

NICHOLS: Really extremely going after him, but that's polite of you. That's nice.

KAYE: But doesn't - doesn't this really give the green light then for Brady to basically go to war with the NFL?

NICHOLS: Well, he certainly didn't need this to be the green light. Tom Brady has been at war with the NFL. Yesterday, the NFL players' association, which has been representing him in this case for the past few months, went hard after the NFL after the appeal decision was announced calling this whole cell phone issue, quote, "a smokescreen," and making the point that this was, in their words, "a new low" even for the NFL. So no pulling punches there.

And Tom Brady echoed that. You read a little bit from his statement. And he made the case on Facebook this morning also that, hey, look, I gave them cell phone records. I was never going to give them my phone. So whether I destroyed it or not is really none of their business or not the point here.

Now, that's all his side. This is a war of public opinion, however. And in the public opinion war, having Robert Kraft, one of the most powerful owners in the NFL and really the man who has been Roger Goodell's right hand in a lot of tumultuous issues that they have faced, Robert Kraft was the one who stood by Roger Goodell during the entire Ray Rice situation. To have him come out and take the shots that he took at the commissioner and the NFL today basically saying, I can't trust these guys anymore, is seismic.

KAYE: Right.

NICHOLS: Now, the court case, that's in a different track.

KAYE: Ys.

NICHOLS: But in the public opinion case, that's where Robert Kraft came in today.

[12:15:00] KAYE: But - but just to follow up, how has Brady explained destroying the cell phone?

NICHOLS: Well, he says that, look, he destroys his cell phone or that he changes cell phones every four or five months. He's a public figure. His wife supermodel Gisele is a public figure. That they have privacy concerns. And so always when he switches cell phones, he has his assistant destroy the cell phone, destroy the SIM card.

And, look, we saw a celebrity phone hacking scandal just last year, right? I mean this is not completely off base that he might be concerned about this. The issue, though, is destroying it on or about the day that NFL investigators come to see you.

KAYE: Right, the timing.

MIDWIN CHARLES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's the timing.

KAYE: Yes.

NICHOLS: And the bottom line is, yes, it's fine you have privacy concerns, but if you are under investigation and the NFL has already requested electronic communication from you, whether you intend to give it up or not, don't do something suspicious because the optics look terrible.

KAYE: So, Midwin, we know that Brady can sue but I guess - what can he sue for and can he seek some sort of court injunction to sort of kick this can down the road and keep playing?

CHARLES: Well, he certainly can try. I just don't know how successful he'll be. Courts rarely like to disturb the decisions of arbitrators, right. They like to encourage businesses and industries to sort of deal with their disagreements through arbitration. If they disrupt this arbitrator's decision, what they would do is open the floodgates for other civil litigation. You know, they already have their dockets full with civil litigations and criminal defense cases. So courts always want to sort of respect arbitrations because they recognize they want people to go to arbitration instead of going to court. So it's very unlikely that I think this decision will be disturbed, especially since the decision was well-reasoned. I mean a 20-page opinion and he went through all of the evidence, all of the testimony and a number of pieces of evidence that were submitted during the Wells investigation.

KAYE: Yes.

NICHOLS: It's important to note, though, the NFL P.A. is not going to go to court over the merits of the case. That's not what they're going to do. Because as you rightly point out -

CHARLES: No, that's right. That's right.

NICHOLS: Judges don't like to disturb arbitrators decisions.

CHARLES: Right. Right.

NICHOLS: What they are intending to go to court for is the procedure in place here. And that is where they have actually had a lot of success depending on where they file, and they probably will file in Minnesota.

CHARLES: In Minnesota.

NICHOLS: Possibly in Massachusetts. But in Minnesota, they've had a lot of success exactly doing this.

CHARLES: Adrian Peterson did very well in Minnesota.

KAYE: Right, (INAUDIBLE) Minnesota.

NICHOLS: Overturning these decisions.

CHARLES: Yes.

NICHOLS: So there's a long way to go here. We don't know how it's going to turn out, but there is intrigue.

KAYE: All right, thank you both.

CHARLES: You're welcome.

KAYE: Good to see you both.

And breaking news out of Capitol Hill now. A veteran congressman is charged with racketeering. Find out who that is, coming next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:20:52] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KAYE: This just in to CNN. The federal indictment of a U.S. congressman, it's a racketeering conspiracy case prosecutors are working that involves Pennsylvania Democrat Chaka Fattah. He and several associates are named in a 29-page indictment for their alleged roles in bribery, mail fraud, falsification of records, mishandling campaign funds, money laundering, all with the purpose of putting money in their own pockets. They're also accused of trying to cover it all up.

So let's bring in my legal analyst Danny Cevallos and Midwin Charles to talk a little bit more about this.

Just for the background here, it's an 85-page indictment accusing the congressman and four of his associates on charges of devising a series of schemes to conceal how this money was borrowed and repaid and falsifying documents in the process.

Danny, to you first. I guess, what does this sound like to you?

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Oh, I know exactly where this comes from. I'm from Philadelphia. I've been hearing the scuttlebutt about this for some time. But it stems from a mayoral campaign and some donations and what happened to the donations afterward. As everybody knows, there are a lot of very complicated rules that go into campaign money and that's really what this indictment is all about from back in 2007 I think it was. But those are the - that's the basis of these charges and I haven't had a chance to look at the indictment yet, but I imagine that's exactly what - what is the genesis of the crimes alleged.

KAYE: And, Midwin, what do you - I mean what does it take to build a case like this when you have an 58-page indictment? What must they have?

CHARLES: They must have a lot of evidence, I will tell you that. I think an 85-page indictment is indicative of a prosecutor who has really combed through evidence and been very methodical. They could possibly have bank records. They could possibly have statements made from people that they have been investigating in order to put together this indictment.

Prosecutors work very, very hard when they are trying to put together these documents that we all come to know as indictments. It's a lot of work that go into them because they have to allege certain facts and they have to allege them with particularity. So I can only imagine how much work went into putting that together.

CEVALLOS: I will tell you that the U.S. government has made clear in the last few years - and I know you know this too, that stamping out corruption, bribery in local governments is one of its chief objectives. And they have carried that through.

KAYE: It's a real priority.

CEVALLOS: Absolutely. They have - they have a unit in Washington that is focused exactly on just these crimes so - and they can be prosecuted locally by the local U.S. attorney. I think that's exactly - I think the local U.S. attorney is leading this one.

But, yes, I mean the Department of Justice has made it abundantly clear that it is going after corruption, bribery, extortion under color of official right. All of those crimes are one of its main priorities now.

CHARLES: And it's -

KAYE: And in terms of proving - oh, you want to -

CHARLES: No, I was just going to say, and I think it's important to do that because, you know, as we know, so many Americans are apathetic when it comes to our politicians and they don't trust them. So I think the federal government's sort of taking a stand and recognizing that this is something that we want to stamp out is a good thing.

KAYE: And in terms of the success rate, Danny, I mean when feds do indict, how does it go?

CHARLES: Let me tell you - and I know this from personal experience - how easy it is under federal law to get a conviction under federal bribery and extortion law. In many cases - and you can read the jury instructions yourself. The way the federal law is written, if an official receives something of benefit and then does something back to benefit somebody else, that alone will show what we call the quid pro quo necessary to achieve a conviction. And typically one of the ways they do this, is they find one of the people who had to pay a few bucks to get something in benefit from the official. They lean on that person and then that person comes into court, points the finger and says, that's the guy who made me pay - give him a sweaty wad of 100 dollar bills so I could get this public benefit," whatever it is. I mean that's just a very broad strokes way of doing it. And the federal government has an exceedingly high conviction rate. So they are very successful at what they do.

KAYE: So it's that easy? I mean you're making it sound real easy. You just -

CEVALLOS: Well, look, I'm a defense attorney, so I'm a little jaded and I think you might agree with me.

CHARLES: I do. I do.

[12:25:01] CEVALLOS: I mean, look, I'm jaded, I'm biased. I get it. I mean I come from a position where it feels like that law is biased against defendants. But the federal government, if I were to wear their hat for a moment, they'd say, listen, I mean, when people pay off government officials, it's difficult to prove that because there's no records kept.

KAYE: Yes.

CEVALLOS: So that's why the law is as permissive as it is.

KAYE: All right, we will leave it there. Danny and Midwin, thank you. Appreciate it.

CHARLES: Thank you.

KAYE: Meanwhile, a New York man is locked up in Buffalo today, accused of joining forces with ISIS. We'll lay out the case after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KAYE: More news just in to CNN. The Afghan government now says Mullah Omar, the leader of the Afghan Taliban, has been dead for two years according to a statement from the Afghan intelligence agency. The infamous terrorist died back in April of 2013 in a Pakistan hospital. We'll bring you more details as we get them.

A New York man is in federal custody, charged with trying to support ISIS. Even traveling overseas several times to try and join the group. The arrest was made here in Lackawanna, New York, on Lake Erie, near Buffalo. Federal authorities say someone in the community sounded the alarm about a man with violent jihadist views and the investigation started.

All right, CNN's Evan Perez -

[12:29:54] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILLIAM HOCHUL, U.S. ATTORNEY: The threat posed by ISIL and other terrorist groups is simply so great and so grave that all of the law enforcement partners that you see behind me, along with the many men and women who are members of these departments have all pledged to stand shoulder to shoulder with the community and aggressively attack anyone who would plan violence in the United States or Abroad or anyone who seeks to join the terrorist organization whose goal is to commit atrocities upon innocent man, women, and children.

(END VIDEO CLIP)