Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Claims to Have Cash to Pay $464 Million Bond; Soon, House to Vote on $12 Trillion Government Spending Package; 400-Plus Migrants Arrested After El Paso Razor Wire Breach. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired March 22, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

It's the last business day for former President Donald Trump to make a nearly half billion dollar bond payment in his New York civil fraud trial.

This morning, he claims to have most of that cash, saying in his Truth Social post, he's dipped into his campaign war chest to back it. But if he can't pay up, New York Attorney General Letitia James is prepared to seize some of his prized properties, starting with his Seven Springs estate and golf course. You can see it right there on the screen.

And CNN's Kara Scannell is live in New York with the details. Kara. I mean, the clock is ticking down with -- the sand is going through the hourglass. How is the New York attorney general preparing to seize these assets if Trump doesn't pay this bond?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim, the clock is ticking. And as we've seen through this paperwork being filed in Westchester, her team has taken the first initial step of what would be many if they were to begin to move to see some assets.

There are, as you said, that golf course in Westchester, as well as the family estate known as Seven Springs. There's also a host of properties in New York directly under the nose in the New York Attorney General's Office, including this office tower, 40 Wall Street, Trump Tower, and Trump's triplex apartment at the very top of that skyscraper.

Those are all things that she could potentially seize as well as bank accounts, put liens on some of the apartment buildings he owns. And it all comes down to this deadline of Monday. And will Donald Trump come up with enough money to post the bond? He's saying today in that post that you read that he has $500 million of cash on hand.

And his lawyers have told the appeals court that he doesn't have enough cash to cover the $464 million judgment because all the insurers that would underwrite a bond want that size in cash. They want that amount of money in cash, and he doesn't have that amount.

Now, his attorney was clarifying Trump's statement to me this morning, saying that Trump was referring to the cash that he has made through running his business, which he has disclosed in his campaign forms, but that's not the actual amount of cash that he currently has on hand. Remember, he already put up a $91.6 million bond to satisfy the judgment in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case.

Trump's team is still working to see if he can come together and come up with enough money to satisfy this judgment. Ultimately, the decision is still with the New York appeals court of whether they will grant his request to post a lower amount or not require him to post any money at all until the appeal's over.

The New York Attorney General's Office has opposed that. The court is giving them time to respond to Trump's claim earlier this week that no insurance company of the 30 they were in touch with would underwrite a bond. So, they're going to have a chance. That gives you a sense that there's not going to be a decision imminently as this is still being chewed over by the court. Jim?

ACOSTA: A lot of chewing. All right, Kara Scannell, thank you very much.

Let's bring in former Trump White House lawyer and CNN Legal Commentator Jim Schultz. Hey, Jim, good morning.

Trump has repeatedly said that paying this half billion dollar bond would be impossible, but he just posted that he has raised nearly $500 million. I mean, Jim, do you know which is it? I mean, you know, he was saying during the campaign back in 2016 he's a rich guy. He's got $8 billion. Lately, he's been saying he doesn't have the money. He's going to have to sell his properties in a fire sale. Now, he's saying he has the money. I mean, what's going on here?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Well, his lawyers are making arguments that he doesn't right? So, I think that's what that's the representations that I would probably trust the most as it relates to what he has and what he doesn't have. He's making arguments to the appeals court now to try to reduce that. Perhaps there's an opportunity for them to also allow him to sell off some of his other properties in order to make that number and reduce it on the other side.

So, they're going to make the arguments that they can. The appeals court -- we will see what the appeals court does with that.

ACOSTA: And we're told by source that Trump is privately against the idea of filing for bankruptcy. I suppose that would not look good during a presidential election campaign cycle. What is your sense of it? Is that an option that he would contemplate? What do you think?

SCHULTZ: Legally, that's probably the best option for him to push all of this out, right? Because if he were to file bankruptcy, a lot of this would be stayed so that, you know -- so that the court, the bankruptcy court, could make determinations as to what creditors get paid, how much creditors get paid, there would be an analysis done.

[10:15:00]

That would kick the can down the road pretty far for him.

And, look, it wouldn't be the first bankruptcy he's filed. The difference would be, you know, does he have to file bankruptcy personally or could he file bankruptcy through one of his other LLCs, which would then have the same impact?

And the question would be, would it have the same impact of his personal assets, if you will, all of that being stayed as well in terms of what they could seize upon? I think it probably would.

ACOSTA: But that might not look so good during a presidential campaign, right, filing for bankruptcy?

SCHULTZ: The argument is that it would in the normal course, right? But this is Donald Trump. He's not a person who hasn't filed bankruptcy in the past. In fact, he's addressed it time and time again throughout his campaign.

ACOSTA: That's true.

SCHULTZ: So, Jim, I'm really not sure whether it impacts him or not. That's a good question for political pundits. You know, as the lawyer here, I think it's probably the best course. But whether it impacts him, we've seen a lot of things that he's done and haven't had much impact.

ACOSTA: Yes. You know, the legal view versus the political view is sometimes not always in the same boat.

Jim, let me ask you this, Truth Social apparently is on the verge of going public. I'm sure you've read and heard some about this. And there's some speculation that this could make Trump $3 billion richer. I'm not sure who's going to buy shares of this, but, apparently, it looks attractive to some people out there.

But according to our reporting, he would not immediately have access to this cash. Could that make him more palatable to lenders if he's got this, you know, Truth Social thing making money over here?

SCHULTZ: That depends because, right now, that's all speculative. So, whether it goes public, whether it doesn't go public, what the value is, I mean, you got until Monday, right? So, if he has an infusion of cash, I don't think any of that's going to make a difference between now and Monday because that infusion of cash isn't coming anytime soon because you have to go through the regulatory piece of that, the public offering, and all the other things that go along with it, you're much down the road from seeing that in any way, shape or form if you do it all.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, Jim, I could hear the viewers asking at home. I mean, a lot of this sounds like a shell game. And he's made all these claims over the years that he's this rich guy, that he's a billionaire. Was that all B.S.? Does the emperor have no clothes? You had a view into this.

SCHULTZ: I've represented a lot of real estate developers over the year. I've never represented Donald Trump in his personal capacity and couldn't speak to his assets. I mean, we all have the same access in terms of his public disclosures that he's made.

But a lot of real estate developers frequently have their billions, if you will, tied up in assets. That could be the case here. The fact that he doesn't have that amount in cash doesn't make him any less of a billionaire. It just makes it that he doesn't have the liquidity to come up with that money. If he was selling assets, perhaps he would.

ACOSTA: Yes, problems you and I don't have. I guess, Jim, that's -- all right. Jim Schultz, thanks very much. I appreciate the time this morning. We appreciate it.

Turning out to another fast approaching deadline, this went up on Capitol Hill, next hour, the House plans to vote on a $1.2 trillion government funding package that would avert a partial government shutdown. The big question hanging over Washington right now is, can the legislation make it through the sausage-making process in the Senate as well before the midnight deadline.

CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent Manu Raju is live up on Capitol Hill. Manu, what are you hearing from lawmakers? I mean, there's a part of me that that is thinking this counterintuitive way. If everybody is saying it's going to happen on time, it makes me wonder if it's not going to happen on time. But you tell us.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Look, Republicans I spoke to this morning are actually confident that this bill will be approved by the House. But this has been an absolutely tortured process to get to this point.

Remember, the government funding is actually due by October 1st of last year, but they've had to approve short-term extension after short-term extension, avoid near shutdown after near shutdown. And now, finally, they could put last year's business to rest.

But remember what happened at the beginning of this process last year. That led to the ouster of the then-speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, who had to agree to his short-term extension. That caused the revolt among his right flank, and, ultimately, it led to this historic and unprecedented chaos in the House. Mike Johnson had to come in as his speaker.

He ultimately cut a deal to keep major federal agencies open. It split up into two separate bills. Today's bill will deal with other major agencies, like the Homeland Security Department, Department of Defense, and the like.

But this $1.2 trillion proposal was unveiled yesterday morning at about 3:00 A.M.

[10:10:00] They have to pass it by 11.59 PM tonight to avoid a shutdown.

And the whole process is causing major concerns within the ranks, particularly among Republicans. And I put the question to many of them about whether they would move to try to oust Mike Johnson. At the moment, they're saying no, but they are not hiding their disdain.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ANDY OGLES (R-TN): This bill, if passes, will likely determine who controls the House of Representatives, and this bill will most certainly determine who the next speaker is.

RAJU: If you have something you can use to force the speaker to do what you want, why not use it, the motion to vacate?

REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): Well, we all have to sit down and decide what's in the best interest of the country, what's in the best interest of the party. This bill is baked, okay? So, we got to decide after this bill, what are we going to do next? But I don't want to hear any nonsense about supplementals.

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): If we vacated this speaker, we'd end up with a Democrat. When I vacated the last one, I made a promise to the country that we would not end up with a Democrat speaker. And I was right. I couldn't make that promise again today.

RAJU: Johnson's job is safe.

GAETZ: It is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: That last comment coming from Matt Gaetz, of course, who led the charge to oust Kevin McCarthy. Though that issue about whether to push out the speaker still continues to hover over Mike Johnson because just one member could call for such a vote, but at the moment does not appear that they are going that route.

Now, Jim, after this is expected to pass later in the -- basically into the 11:00 A.M. Eastern Hour in the House, they'll have to try to get it out of the Senate. And can they do that today? That is still an open question because it requires all 100 senators to agree to attend time for a vote.

One senator can drag out this process, pass the deadline into next week. The moment there's some belief that they could get there by the end of tonight, but the Senate, too, is a very complicated place. So, a lot of drama, uncertainty after this very difficult and messy process playing out potentially could reach its conclusion today. Jim?

ACOSTA: Yes, I think a lot of senators aren't going to be watching March Madness tonight. They're going to be busy dealing with all this tonight. All right, maybe Manu as well. I'm sorry, Manu. Manu Raju up on Capitol Hill, thanks a lot. I appreciate it. RAJU: Thanks, Jim.

ACOSTA: Coming up, hundreds of migrants arrested along the U.S.- Mexico border after officials say they rushed past a razor wire fence in El Paso. What we know about the incident, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

ACOSTA: New video out of El Paso shows hundreds of migrants breaching a border razor wire fence as Texas National Guard soldiers try to hold them back.

See the video right there. We have to be clear to our viewers here, we don't know what happened before this video was recorded. It's unclear what led to this rush. Border officials say they had the situation under control and additional personnel were deployed.

The razor wire is located several hundred yards from the actual border wall in that area where the migrants were all stopped. Officials say every migrant that reached the fence in this situation was arrested. We should point out they were arrested, according to authorities, after this occurred.

And joining me now is Tennessee Republican Congressman Tim Burchett. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us. And you're preparing to vote on this funding bill in the next hour.

This deal has nearly $20 billion in funding for customs and border patrol with almost a half billion dollars for additional border agents, funding for more than 41,000 detention beds. We're showing this to some of our viewers on screen right now. This is according to a GOP summary of the legislation.

I think I heard you say you're still not going to vote for this. Is that where you stand right now? Wouldn't you want to vote for all this stuff to take care of what's happening at the border?

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): No, currently, we're $35 trillion in debt. But the worst part about it, Jim, is this is not for putting people at the border. This is for processing agents, the 10 million that have come over in the last three years. They are currently all being processed. And these are for legal assistance and all these other things. It's not for stopping people at the border, as you saw the rush. This is being called the bum rush.

They actually were running past National Guard and running towards border agents. And these border agents, these 22,000, well, they could really be bureaucrats that would just be processing these people.

I was in Texas several months ago.

ACOSTA: Bust some of the money in there will go to Border Patrol agents, will go to enforcement. BURCHETT: No, to the agents that are behind the border, way back behind the border. As you saw, those people were arrested. That's what they wanted to be. Now, they're in the system, and those 22,000 border agents that will be hired will be used to process them, not stop them at the border.

And I realize what some of the people in my party are saying, but with this budget, if they go home and say we voted for border protection, they are lying, or they're very uninformed.

ACOSTA: If you let the government shut down this weekend and you aren't putting more funding into the system for border enforcement, doesn't that do a less effective job at the border?

BURCHETT: Currently, it's wide open, Jim. All these people doing that at the border now are just -- they're just basically officiating these folks there. They're welcoming them in. They're putting them in the system. They're giving them a court date three to five years away and expecting them to come back. And you and I both know they're not going to come back. They're in the system. They're in the country. They're going to stay there. And you and I are spending around $400 billion a year to keep this group up and with the fentanyl and all the other stuff that comes in.

This is a bad deal. Look, it like it's not a Democrat problem.

ACOSTA: I wouldn't want to get bogged down on this.

BURCHETT: It's (inaudible) problem, but go ahead.

ACOSTA: I mean, one would think more money is better than less money, and having the government open is better than the government being closed. But I don't want to get bogged down in this. I mean, I do want to ask you about something else, and that is whether the speakership of Mike Johnson is safe.

[10:20:04]

We have heard from your colleague, Marjorie Taylor Greene saying she's, quote, done with Mike Johnson. Is Mike Johnson done?

BURCHETTT: I don't think so. You throw Mike out and it's really just handing the gavel over to Hakeem Jeffries. That's what -- you know, and then back to the border, all that money is borrowed money. It's not just new money. It's not -- of course, I'm sure we're printing it. And Marjorie is my friend.

But, honestly, if the Republicans do that, they know they'll be handing it over to Hakeem Jeffries. And that's the bottom line with that. We have a one or two person majority and every day there's somebody sick or there's a family member out or something, life happens with 435 members. So, no, I don't think that's going to happen.

ACOSTA: Let me ask you about the Biden impeachment inquiry. You're on the House Oversight Committee. Yesterday, you told News Nation, quote, we're not going to have the votes. That's clearly the case. Is the impeachment inquiry over? Should the Republicans give that up?

BURCHETT: Well, I don't know about the impeachment inquiry. Yes, that's not going to happen. But I wished we would vote on it regardless.

Honestly, Jim, you know where I come from, East Tennessee. It's a conservative area. I'm willing to vote on it. I wish these other members would vote on it so they can quit saying up here that they're not for it and then go home and tell all their folks at the Reagan Day dinners and Lincoln Day dinners that, you know, dud gamut (ph), I'm for impeachment. I'm going to vote, but they don't have the guts to do it.

ACOSTA: Would you vote for impeachment?

BURCHETT: Heck, yes, I would. You saw all the money come in from China, $20 million that's paying this family. It's going 10 percent for the big guy. There's enough there.

ACOSTA: But what about --

BURCHETT: But the reality is the Justice Department's not going to do anything.

ACOSTA: What about the fact that one of the House Republicans' main witnesses was Alexander Smirnov, who was just indicted for lying to the FBI? And prosecutors say he had Russian intelligence contacts. You're going to vote to impeach the president based on that?

BURCHETT: One of, that was one of. We had multiple, you're forgetting about the 20 bank accounts, the 20 shadow companies that they'd created to run this money, through the hundreds of letters from bankers saying that this is illegal.

Look, it doesn't really matter. You and I are going to disagree with it. The reality is, is that this isn't going to come to a vote.

ACOSTA: But you're going to vote on it?

BURCHETT: We don't have the guts to do anything.

ACOSTA: Yes.

BURCHETT: It's the reality of it. Let's move on. Let's, if we can, maybe move on with some criminal investigations in this.

But this is what the committee of jurisdiction does. If you're a member of the Democrats --

ACOSTA: There was a criminal investigation of one of the witnesses, Smirnov. I mean, he's been indicted for lying to the FBI. It sounds like the investigation is not working out the way the House Republicans thought it would.

BURCHETT: You're basing that on one person, Jim. Yes, if we had the majority, this would be -- this would go through -- ACOSTA: Wasn't there another witness testifying from prison?

BURCHETT: Absolutely, just like the Democrats have done in the past. But you're discounting all the other. You're discounting Tony Bobulinski, a decorated naval officer who quoted dates, names, times, places, everything, and yet his testimony means nothing. I think, you know, it's -- look --

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: (inaudible)

BURCHETT: And we're not going to change.

ACOSTA: I know, I hear you, but aren't a lot of Americans watching from home and saying, okay, the government is on the verge of a shutdown, the Defense Department budget is in limbo, the Homeland Security budget is in limbo, and the House Republicans are chasing an impeachment based on a guy who's been indicted for lying to the FBI and somebody who's testifying at a hearing from prison. Doesn't that sound absurd?

BURCHETT: Well, I tell you what sounds absurd, is the Democrats, for a year, were investigating the Washington Redskins over the name, Redskins. That's what this committee was doing before under Democrat leadership. This is the jurisdiction of this committee. We're not going to investigate potholes in this committee. That's transportation. It's under that committee.

ACOSTA: All right. Congressman Tim Burchett, I know you've got a busy day ahead of you. I appreciate the time, as always. Good to talk to you.

BURCHETT: Go Vols, Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. They're doing well so far. We'll be watching. Thanks a lot.

BURCHETT: All right.

ACOSTA: In the meantime, as the matchup between Biden and Trump barrels ahead, we're getting a new look at how a third party candidate could end up hurting the president's re-election bid in key battleground states like Michigan.

We're also keeping an eye on the Dow Jones. It's on the verge of doing something it's never done and its 128 a year history. We're tracking the markets. We're going to see if it hits that magic number of 40,000. It doesn't look so good for that right now, but we'll keep our eyes on it and stay with us on all of that.

You're live at the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00] ACOSTA: As President Biden looks to rebuild his winning 2020 coalition, new CNN and polling indicates he may have an uphill climb. The president is locked in a statistical dead heat with former President Donald Trump in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania. He also faces big problems up in Michigan, where Trump leads him by double digits with young voters and third party candidates secure just a quarter of the electorate.

Let's discuss that and more with former Chief Strategist for Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign Stuart Stevens and former White House Communications Director for President Biden, Kate Bedingfield. Guys, terrific to have you both on at the same time. I really appreciate the time.

Kate, let me start with you because you work for President Biden. Are you worried about these polls? I know we talk about polls and we have folks like you on and you say, no, I'm not worried about the polls. But some of these numbers are a bit worrisome, especially when it comes to these third party candidates. That is just a wild card. And we just -- do we even know how this is going to break out right now?

[10:30:00]

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We don't. And I wouldn't say I'm not worried about polls. I would say the polls show there's been -- I would say the polls show it's going to be --