Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Go Slow On Immunity Claim; Trump Barred From 2024 Primary Ballot In Colorado; Judge: Former Georgia Election Workers Can Go After Giuliuani's Assets Immediately; U.N. Vote On Gaza Resolution Delayed For Third Time, President Biden Says U.S. Support Still Unresolved; Israel Offering Hamas Pause In Fighting As Part OF A New Potential Hostage Deal; Volcano Continues Violent Eruption In Iceland; Ohio Woman Criminally Charged After Miscarriage. 8-9p ET
Aired December 20, 2023 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Tonight, where is Alexei Navalny? A question he and his family and his top aide, Maria Pevchikh, frequent guest on "Outfront," they're asking now, pounding the table, saying, "For 15 days, we don't know where Alexei Navalny is or what is happening to him." Navalny leaving a Russian penal colony just over two weeks ago, his team is concerned he's been transferred to another distant and even worse penal colony, but they don't know if he's alive or not.
The wife of another imprisoned Putin critic, Vladmir Kara-Murza, had this warning about prison transfers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EVGENIA KARA-MURZA, WIFE OF JAILED PUTIN CRITIC VLADMIR KARA-MURZA: The next step is the transfer, and this is a very dangerous period. They tend to lose prisoners during transfer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Tomorrow night, Navalny's daughter, Dasha, will be "Outfront." We'll see you then. Thanks for joining us. Anderson starts now.
[20:00:52]
PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," the Supreme Court might soon decide an issue that could make criminal charges against the former president simply vanish. So, why is he telling the court, hey, not so fast when it comes to taking up the case?
Also, tonight, was Colorado Supreme Court right to boot him off the ballot under the 14th Amendment? We're going to ask the voters.
Plus, just in time for Christmas, a judge rules that the women Rudy Giuliani defamed with his election lies can start trying to collect that nearly $150 million he owes them right now.
Good evening. I'm Pamela Brown, in for Anderson tonight. And first up, why the former president's legal team today asked the Supreme Court not to bypass an appeals court and quickly take up the question of whether he enjoys legal immunity for his actions as president. A decision you would think that any defendant facing charges, which might be invalidated, would want ASAP, except perhaps this defendant, who is running for president.
We're going to talk in a moment with our legal panel about that and how the Supreme Court should handle last night's unprecedented Colorado Supreme Court ruling that the former president is an insurrectionist and does not belong on the state's primary ballot. President Biden was asked about that today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Is Trump an insurrectionist, sir?
JOE BIDEN, US PRESIDENT: Well, I think certainly it's self-evident. You saw it all. Now, whether the 14th Amendment applies, I'll let the court make that decision. But he certainly supported an insurrection. No question about. None. Zero.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: All right. So, for more on that and the Trump legal team's go- slow request on the presidential immunity question, I'm joined here by CNN's Jessica Schneider.
So, Jessica, what more can you tell us about Team Trump's resistance to get in the immunity case before the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, a lot of resistance from Trump's legal team today. They really want this appeals process to play out. They do not want the Supreme Court to stay in in their -- to step into this.
In their filing today, they said the special counsel is seeking to embroil this court in a partisan rush to judgment. And this is all part of the Trump legal team playbook. They want to slow walk this because what they're trying to do is right now the trial is scheduled for March 4th. If they can keep pushing that trial date back, that increases the chance that this trial would start maybe after an election.
And, of course, if Trump were to actually win re-election, he could ultimately get his DOJ to dismiss these charges here because the lower court here found that Trump was not immune from this criminal prosecution. And even though they lost at that lower court level, they still want this appeals process to play out.
The DC Circuit of Appeals is scheduled to hear the arguments on January 9th. Trump's team wants to keep that in place because then that would sort of push the Supreme Court hearing this off until later, whereas the special counsel wants this to go immediately before the Supreme Court.
BROWN: A lot before the Supreme Court ... SCHNEIDER: Yes, a lot.
BROWN: ... before this election, right, dealing with Trump. So on that note, what happens next in the Colorado Supreme Court case that Trump has said he is going to appeal?
SCHNEIDER: Yes, so the next deadline for the Colorado Supreme Court is really January 4th. They said that Trump's name needs to be taken off the ballot, but they paused that ruling until at least January 4th. They say if Trump files an appeal to the US Supreme Court by January 4th, their ruling won't go into effect.
We heard from sources -- our team has -- that Trump's team is going to file an appeal to the US Supreme Court, probably not this week, likely sometime next week. They will likely do it before January 4th. And that's a crucial date because one day later is when the Colorado Secretary of State has to certify the primary ballot. So, because of that tight timing here, it looks like Trump's name will likely be on the primary ballot.
And then this challenge, as it moves forward, it would really only affect the general election ballot, which, if Trump is the nominee, we'd see if his name was actually on the ballot depending on what the Supreme Court decides to do here.
BROWN: You are one busy lady, you and the rest of the justice team.
SCHNEIDER: There's a lot going on.
BROWN: Jessica Schneider, thanks. And we'll actually see you later on in the show at another story.
SCHNEIDER: Yes.
BROWN: Joining us now, former Federal Prosecutor and Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray who served as counsel for then- President Trump in his first impeachment trial. Also, with us, CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former Federal Prosecutor Elie Honig.
[20:05:00]
Great to see you both. Robert, I want to start with you. You were highly critical of the Colorado Supreme Court decision. You pointed the fact that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't specifically mention the presidency. But the follow-up question is, what would be the logic of the amendment's authors prohibiting insurrectionist from holding virtually every job in the government, civil and military, but not the presidency? How would that make sense?
ROBERT RAY, TRUMP COUNSEL IN FIRST IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: Because the presidency is unique, it is uniquely dealt with -- in other places in the constitution. Chief Justice Roberts has already spoken to the question about whether an officer of the United States is limited to just appointed officials as opposed to all officials under our United States government. And the answer is, it's limited to appointed officials, generally speaking, unless there's some reason to vary from that, which means that if you want to cover, for example, members of Congress, the constitution explicitly says so. And if you want to cover the president or the vice president of the United States in other places in the constitution, you explicitly say so.
So, for example, you don't impeach members of Congress, you can only remove them by operation of either the House or the Senate. That was the case that came before the Supreme Court quite a long time ago. And it's generally thought that officers, therefore, should be limited only to appointed officials, not elected officials, because the president is an elected official.
Generally speaking, the default position should be that he is not covered by that language. In any event, those Section 3 of the 14th Amendment doesn't explicitly cover the president ...
BROWN: Right.
RAY: ... of the United States. And frankly, I think there's a better reason why the Colorado Supreme Court should have stayed out of this. And that is that the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is not self- executing.
And one of the reasons you get into problems involving, well, what should the standard be in determining whether or not the president is, quote-unquote, "engaged in insurrection," what kind of proceeding should that entail, that's all left to Congress. Congress acted in this area in the 1870s and ultimately, it repealed what was a procedure to determine whether or not somebody had supported insurrection by virtue of being a confederate. And there was a writ that was required to be issued in order to deal with precisely that question.
Alternatively, Congress can pass a criminal law, which it has, to indicate that someone engaged in insurrection can be prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. It's notable here that Jack Smith explicitly declined to bring insurrection charges. That should have been a clue to the Colorado Supreme Court to stay out of this. They chose not to.
BROWN: All right. So ...
RAY: And I think probably what should be recognized is that we all ought to be able to agree ...
BROWN: Okay.
RAY: ... that it is not a particularly good look to have judges in a 4:3 decision deciding to keep somebody off of an election ballot. That should be ...
BROWN: All right. So on that note ...
RAY: ... for the voters to decide, not for judges.
BROWN: ... what you just brought up about Jack Smith not charging the former president with insurrection, Elie, I want to bring you in on this.
The text of the 14th Amendment, Section 3, does not say that someone needs to be convicted of it, merely that they engaged in it. How do you think the Supreme Court may interpret that language?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, I think the Supreme Court is going to take this case, and I think the Supreme Court is going to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court.
I halfway agree with Bob, I halfway disagree with Bob. I disagree with him on whether the term a -- an "officer" of United States includes the president. There's sort of linguistic exercises you can do either way. But I think it's worth noting all seven justices didn't have a problem with all officers of the United States, including the president.
And also, just, logically, if you're going to have a provision in the Constitution that says anyone who engages in insurrection can't serve for future office. It would be bizarre if the highest office was exempt from that.
BROWN: Right, that was my question, yes.
HONIG: I do agree with Bob though -- yes. Oh, I do agree with Bob that we have a serious due process problem here because the 14th Amendment itself says that Congress -- in Section 5, Congress has to pass laws that tell us how this works. Who gets to decide who engaged in insurrection? Is it a court? Is it Congress? Is it a jury? Is it a judge?
The only law that's still on the books, as Bob said, that Congress has ever passed is the criminal law, criminalizing insurrection, which specifically says, if a person is charged and convicted with this, he is disqualified.
That has not happened here. Instead, Colorado tried to sort of take this state-level proceeding that's not really made for this type of insurrection determination and force a square peg into a round hole. And I think that violates Donald Trump's due process rights. And I think the US Supreme Court is going to reverse because of that.
BROWN: So, Robert, as you know in this country, it's every state's prerogative how they run their elections. Why shouldn't state courts have a say in who's qualified to be on the ballot? And then if it's a question that's relevant to every other state, it gets kicked up to the US Supreme Court, which is what's happening now? Why is that process objectionable to you?
[20:10:10]
RAY: Well, with regard to simple things, I think you're probably right there. You know, the qualifications for office for the presidency of the United States are relatively simple and are set forth in the Constitution -- is the person over 35 years of age? Have they been 14 years a resident of a state? Is the person a natural born US citizen? That -- on the natural born US citizen issue, that's created a few wrinkles along the way. For example, is John McCain -- was he eligible to be president because he was born in the Panama Canal zone when his father was an admiral serving there? The answer seemed to be pretty clearly yes, that he's a natural born US citizen, just as if he had been born actually on the territory of the United States.
Ted Cruz, that issue came up. That's a little bit more complicated, but ultimately the thinking is he also qualifies as a natural born US citizen.
Again, on simple things, you leave it to the states. They -- there will be a gathering consensus.
What's a very bad look, I think we all can agree, is if a state Supreme Court in a split decision 4:3, which is likely one that could be replicated anywhere else in the country, gets to decide whether somebody is or isn't an insurrectionist and, therefore, disqualified from the ballot. I think we can all agree that really ought to be something that is a thing decided with guidance from Congress, where we can get a single answer nationally about what the results should be.
Now, ultimately, here, it's going to be left to the United States Supreme Court to decide that. I think they will take the case. I think they will decide it. And hopefully, it'll be decided on a non-partisan basis or a bipartisan basis in something approaching unanimity. I mean, I'd like to see. I would like to think that this is something that could be decided nine to nothing.
BROWN: All right. I want to go to another case before the Supreme Court, and that is this case about whether Trump has immunity from when he was president against Jack Smith's case. And you saw today that Donald Trump's lawyers asked the Supreme Court not to intervene, at least not now, in Jack Smith's quest for ruling of whether he does have presidential immunity and his actions on and around January 6th.
I'm wondering what you think, Elie, if Trump wasn't running for re- election to the presidency, do you think they would still be making this process to the Supreme Court to slow down the process? And do you think they were effective in poking holes in Jack Smith's argument?
HONIG: Well, I just finished reading Donald Trump's team's brief, and it's quite effective. And here is why, Pam.
We have to remember, the one who's asking for extraordinary relief here outside the normal channel is Jack Smith because, ordinarily, when you lose in the district court, as Donald Trump had, 99% of the time, your next move is you appeal to the intermediate Court of Appeals.
Jack Smith is saying, let's skip that and go right to the Supreme Court. And Donald Trump's team identifies a real weakness in Jack Smith's position which is this. Jack Smith will not say, in court or in his briefs, that the reason he wants to speed this up is because he wants to try Donald Trump before the election. Instead, what Jack Smith gives us in his brief is a bunch of sort of vague gibberish where he says, well, delay is bad and speed is good, and we need speed because it's important because we don't want delay.
And Donald Trump's team quite effectively says, that's not a specific reason. They have to give a specific reason. That's just vague. You shouldn't grant it unless they say the specific reason. And I think Trump's team knows full well there's no way on earth Jack Smith will never acknowledge that it's the election. I think Jack Smith is counting on hoping the Supreme Court will read between the lines and get the wink wink here. But I think it's a coin toss as to what the Supreme Court does with this one.
BROWN: Yes, they don't -- they think -- they're banking on Jack Smith not admitting that because then it would look political, right, which would be what Jack Smith ...
HONIG: Right.
BROWN: ... would not want.
Robert Ray, thank you. Elie Honig, see you again shortly along with Jessica Schneider on this other breaking news about Rudy Giuliani whose financial troubles just got even worse tonight.
Also, up next, what Colorado voters are telling our Gary Tuchman about the ballot ruling.
And the newest potential threat from Iceland still erupting and still a dangerous volcano just ahead on "360."
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:17:57]
BROWN: Well, at the top of the program you heard President Biden weigh in on Colorado Supreme Court ruling that the former president is an insurrectionist. Before the break, our legal panel had plenty to say. And right now, what a group of Colorado voters make of all of this. Our Gary Tuchman did the asking.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): This coffee shop in Douglas County, Colorado goes by the simple name of COFF33. And it's here we have a simple question for customers.
TUCHMAN (on camera): Tell me your gut feeling. Do you think it's a good thing the Colorado Supreme Court did that or not a good thing?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, but I don't think people should be taken off the ballot necessarily.
TUCHMAN (voice over): This man is a political independent in a very Republican county. So, here in the county seat of Castle Rock, it's easy to find loyal Trump Republicans who feel the same as this man.
TUCHMAN (on camera): What do you think of the Supreme Court decision?
TRAC STEPHENSON, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO RESIDENT: I think it's unfair.
TUCHMAN (on camera): How come?
STEPHENSON: The government shouldn't get in that position to control votes for certain candidates.
TUCHMAN (voice over): But we did find this Democrat who says that's precisely what this court needed to do.
STEVEN FERRADINO, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO RESIDENT: I think it's a great decision. I think that when you try to overturn an election, you don't get to run again. You know, we have a 14th Amendment for a reason.
TUCHMAN (voice over): Back inside COFF33, loyal Trump supporter, Toni Klonaris, doesn't take this decision seriously. She thinks the Supreme Court taking Trump off the primary ballot is a result of gameplaying.
TUCHMAN (on camera): Why do you think they're playing a game and not doing their job?
TONI KLONARIS, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO RESIDENT: Because they're part of the game.
TUCHMAN (on camera): And what's that game?
KLONARIS: Not being honest.
TUCHMAN (on camera): But you think that Trump has been honest?
KLONARIS: For the most part, yes.
TUCHMAN (voice over): Her friend concurs, saying that she feels ...
KRISTINA KARFORD, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO RESIDENT: Outrage, absolute outrage that they're ...
TUCHMAN (on camera): Why are you outraged?
KARFORD: They're going to take away our choice based on their personal beliefs, I -- because I don't believe they're speaking for the people.
TUCHMAN (voice over): But Elle Gray believes the justices are. She's an independent who has voted for Donald Trump, but says she won't be voting for him again if he ends up back on the ballot.
[20:20:03]
ELLE GRAY, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO RESIDENT: I agree with their ruling that he engaged in insurrection, yes.
TUCHMAN (on camera): So do you think it was the right thing to do?
GRAY: For my state, yes.
TUCHMAN (voice over): Keith Raymond has voted for Donald Trump twice, but says this time around he's supporting Chris Christie. His opinion is more nuanced.
KEITH RAYMOND, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO RESIDENT: It's a complicated issue, but if the law is a law and the Supreme Court is stating it, we have to abide by it. It doesn't mean I'm a fan of it.
TUCHMAN (voice over): Many Coloradans are still digesting the court ruling. The varied opinions in this shop about Donald Trump symbolic of countless discussions in this state and this country. Kelsey Nistel is a Democrat.
KELSEY NISTEL, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO RESIDENT: I think what he did is unacceptable for our country, and he should face the consequences for that.
TUCHMAN (voice over): Jake Herman is a Republican.
JAKE HERMAN, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO RESIDENT: I think if he -- if that was a legitimate thing to happen, if he was part of an insurrection, he would have been arrested. He wasn't arrested.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: All right. Gary Tuchman joins us now from the Colorado Supreme Court in Denver. So, Gary, did any of the Trump supporters that you spoke with say that they would actually switch their support to another GOP candidate if Trump's name is not on the ballot?
TUCHMAN: Well, Pam, at least on this day, we did not talk to any fervent Trump supporters who said they would pick a different Republican candidate on primary day, which is March 5th, by the way, if Trump is off the ballot. Instead, what we heard for several of them is that they would write in Trump's name. But under the terms of this decision by the court, a write-in vote for Donald Trump would not count -- Pam.
BROWN: All right. Gary Tuchman, thank you so much for that. More now on the politics and the notion, which pollster Frank Luntz raised on this program last night that anything the legal system throws at the former president somehow only makes him stronger.
Joining us now, two CNN political commentators, former Illinois Republican Congressman and January 6th Committee Member Adam Kinzinger and Alyssa Farah Griffin, who served as the former president's White House Communications Director.
All right, great to see you both. So, Congressman, do you think the Supreme Court should uphold the Colorado ruling? And do you think it actually would? Two different questions.
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It doesn't seem like they're going to, from what I'm hearing. They may. I mean, who knows? And I think it's really up to their decision. It's funny. I'm like, I keep going back and forth on my opinion on this. And I'm like, I guess everyone expects, you know, politicians and former politicians to have a solid opinion. But it's nuanced.
You know, on the one hand, I look at it and say if the 14th Amendment covers him, our committee -- and he -- and so one of the guys talking in the focus group, the former president was arrested for January 6th. Let's be clear. He hasn't been convicted yet.
And so, I look at that and I go, well, look, we showed that it was an insurrection. I fully believe it was an insurrection. And if he violated that, he violated that. He should be kicked off.
At the same time, politically, as a politician now, I do think it's probably not going to hurt him. I don't think it necessarily will help him. It's not going to hurt him. And I frankly would love to see him lose at the ballot box. He's a loser who keeps losing, and I wouldn't mind if he lost one more time.
BROWN: It still remains to be seen whether it will help/hurt him. But, you know, Alyssa, the former president frequently tells his supporters that the system is rigged against him, that the justice system is being weaponized against him? Do you expect the Colorado ruling to have much political effect on the primary in the short-term rather than just maybe energizing Trump supporters even more?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm not sure it has a huge impact, frankly, on the primary. Those were with Trump are with him, those were opposed to him or opposed to him. And certainly, if it were to say, it would be radioactive in a general election. Colorado 10 electoral votes at a state that went for Biden and likely will be in the blue column, and I don't think it has a major impact there.
But I'm with Adam on this that I'm very conflicted. And I think that Republicans are pretty split on this issue.
I very much agree that Donald Trump incited an insurrection. I think the Department of Justice will hold him accountable for that. But at the same time, there's a danger here. Many of his supporters wrongly believed after 2020 that the system was taking their votes, it was not counting their votes, that our elections were rigged. That was false.
This will give them a concrete example that they can point to where they'll say, the system decided to ignore my vote. They decided to throw out a vote that I cast and will frame it as disenfranchisement. So there's some really rocky precedence here. But I want to be clear this is one person's fault and one person's fault only -- Donald Trump's.
BROWN: The bottom line though, Congressman, is that DOJ, you know, Jack Smith didn't charge Trump with incitement, right? I mean, the January 6th Committee clearly laid out the evidence to make their case, not DOJ. Does that just fuel the critics of this Colorado decision to say, look, I mean, not -- he hasn't even been charged with this? KINZINGER: Yes, I mean, I think, look, everybody is going to have their opinion, but one thing, as Alyssa said, that Trump does really well. He is a perpetual, professional, constant victim.
I mean, this is the guy that occupied the most powerful position in the world, and he had, at one point, the Senate and the House with him, and yet he still was unable to go after this, quote-unquote, "deep state" and this institution that's going after him and everything. He's the only one standing between the government and his voters. He's done that well.
[20:25:14]
Honestly, though, I think America -- maybe not the GOP per se, but America is kind of sick of this victim mentality, this victimhood, this whining, this complaining. And so, this will add to that.
So, while it may not hurt him in the primary, the more he whines and complains and bellyaches, I do think it's going to make a difference around the edges in the general election, which this is so close that any kind of a difference around the edge could be positive for Joe Biden or if it goes the other way, for Donald Trump.
BROWN: Alyssa, we saw this move today by Trump's lawyers to stave off, for now, the Supreme Court intervening in the battle over whether presidential immunity protects him from prosecution in connection with January 6th. Do you believe it's in Trump's interest to drag out some of these legal disputes whether it's immunity or gag orders or the 14th Amendment as long as he can perhaps into the general election season if he's the nominee, or do you think that that could actually backfire?
GRIFFIN: Oh, no. I mean, Donald Trump's pure strategy, and perhaps the only real legal strategy he has, is delay, delay, delay. He wants to see all of these cases, whether it's Fulton County, the two Department of Justice investigations. He would like to see them actually go on beyond the Election Day, the general election. And it's not an impossibility that they would with an appeals process and so on.
He is running for president for retribution and to stay out of jail. That's simply it, and he needs to buy as much time as he can in the coming months. And he's going to use every delay tactic that he can in the legal system.
BROWN: Congressman, do you believe the president -- the former president, I should say, will actually stand trial in one or more of the federal cases against him before next November? Do you think he's going to be successful running out the clock here?
KINZINGER: I mean, it really is -- it's a coin flip. I hope he does stand trial because I think it's important for this information that, you know, some of which we were able to get out on the committee, much more to come, particularly also with the classified documents case -- who knows when that's going to end up going.
But the American people need to see this. There's a lot of evidence, there's a lot of information that I think the American people deserve to have before them when they go to the ballot and make a vote because the president -- I mean, the former president has made it very clear, as Alyssa said, he wants to win for vengeance. He said, I am your vengeance. And he wants to win to exonerate himself.
He's not talking about the future of this country. He doesn't have great ideas. He's just talking about getting back at his political enemies.
And if he wins, he can, yes, have the Department of Justice simply call off the case. He has the power to do that, or if he's already been convicted, he can pardon himself. And I have a hard time thinking that he doesn't have the power to pardon himself, and he would do that. And frankly, his supporters would cheer that on, but it would be devastating for self-governance in this country.
BROWN: All right. Adam Kinzinger, Alyssa Farah Griffin, thank you so much.
And more breaking news now, potentially backbreaking news for Rudy Giuliani. Tonight, less than a week after a jury awarded two 2020 Georgia election workers nearly $150 million in damages for defaming them and ruining their lives, the judge in that case said the bill is payable immediately, right now.
A busy night for CNN's Jessica Schneider, who is back with the details, along with CNN Senior Analyst Elie Honig. What more can you tell us about this ruling, Jessica?
SCHNEIDER: Yes, so this is the judge in this case of the defamation case now saying that Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, they do not have to wait the typical 30 days to begin going after Rudy Giuliani's assets in other states. Typically, it's a 30-day waiting period. But this judge tonight has issued this 13-page opinion explaining all the reasons why these women don't have to wait to go after that $148 million verdict.
We saw the verdict come down on Friday. And today, just a few days later, they've asked this judge, hey, we want to start going after the money immediately because they're probably very worried about what they will actually see from this judgment.
We've heard Rudy Giuliani repeatedly say -- his lawyers repeatedly say just how broke he is. He's put at least one of his properties up for sale, his New York apartment. So, these women presumably want to get moving fast to try to seize or get the money from some of these assets. The judge tonight giving them the green light to do this very quickly.
BROWN: So what did the judge say then about Giuliani's supposed financial problems?
SCHNEIDER: She was very scathing against Giuliani and his lawyers. She talked about a number of things. She said, look, Rudy Giuliani hasn't said here that he won't try to conceal his assets. That's why I want to get things moving more quickly in that 30-day period. She also said he previously disregarded orders for payment. He owes money to his lawyers that they have repeatedly talked about. They talked about how broke Rudy Giuliani is that Rudy Giuliani can't even pay his legal bills. So she cited all of this.
And then she said this. She said such claims of Giuliani's, quote, "financial difficulties," no matter how many times repeated publicly, she says it is difficult to square with the fact that Giuliani affords this spokesperson. So, she's pointing out numerous ways that Giuliani seems to be able to still spend money, yet in other ways, claim he's flat broke. So, she's using those as reasoning for why these women should be able to go after him immediately for this nearly $150 million verdict.
[20:30:23]
BROWN: So then, (inaudible) new and in practical terms, how do Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss go about collecting what they can from Giuliani? As you just heard (inaudible), so he's putting his apartment in New York up for sale. I mean, could they just take all the proceeds from the sale of that apartment? What can they do here?
HONIG: So, it's a couple-step process, Pam. First of all, the attorneys for the plaintiffs have to identify the assets. They've already said publicly they've been in the process of doing that, any good plaintiffs' lawyers were doing that. Then you essentially attach the assets. It's like putting a lien on it. So for example, if Rudy Giuliani goes to sell that apartment, it will be known to any buyer, hey, there's people who have a claim to this money and then it will prevent Rudy from getting rid of it.
And ultimately, Rudy is going to owe Ms. Moss, Ms. Freeman, his lawyers, potentially Dominion and other people who sued him way more money than he has. What you have to do then is bring the parties together and they have to split it essentially prorate, proportionally, based on who's owed how much. This ruling is really unusual, Pam, and it shows just how deeply this judge distrusts Rudy Giuliani. She is not willing to give him even the few days of a grace period that's normally given and I think with very good cause when you read that ruling.
BROWN: All right. Elie Honig, Jessica Schneider, thank you so much.
And just ahead, Israel is back at the table for hostage negotiations as families protest that not enough is being done. We're going to have details on Israel's significant new proposal, up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:35:09]
BROWN: For the third time this week, a U.N. vote on a resolution to suspend fighting in Gaza and allowing more humanitarian aid was once again delayed. President Biden says, U.S. support for the resolution is still unresolved. And this comes with Israel proposing a new hostage deal and Israeli officials facing intensifying pressure to rescue the remaining captives. Axios political and foreign reporter Barak Ravid, who is also a CNN analyst, joins us now. So Barak, what more can you tell us about this offer from Israel and what it entails?
BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL AND FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: So, this offer was proposed during a meeting on Monday in Warsaw with the CIA Director, Bill Burns, the Prime Minister of Qatar Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, and the Chief of the Mossad Spy Agency, David Barnea. And Barnea came to the meeting for the first time, I think, with an Israeli proposal to try and relaunch those talks that were basically non-existent since the collapse of the ceasefire.
And the main -- the two main issues -- or the two main elements of this proposal is first that Israel proposes a one-week pause in the fighting in return for release of something around 40 hostages that Hamas is holding, mainly the women remain in captivity and men over 60, and hostages that are sick or seriously wounded. And Israel is willing to release Palestinian prisoners who committed more serious crimes than the one it released in the previous deal.
BROWN: So, do you know if the fallout from the IDF's accidental killing of three Israeli hostages played any role in Israel's decision to make this offer?
RAVID: No doubt. No doubt. And, you know, there are -- there's more than one Israeli official who told me that the fact that we saw in one -- during one week, two meetings between the Director of Mossad and the Qatari Prime Minister, is not only in order to move towards a deal, but it's also to try and sort of cool down the protests inside Israel by families of hostages and the general public who wants to see the hostages back. So, there's no doubt that domestic reasons also led to the fact that Israel, for the first time, presented such a proposal.
BROWN: Right. And have they ever had a proposal before that was like this where they were offering a one-week pause?
RAVID: I think what's different this time is that if we look at the previous deal, Israel got 80 hostages out of Gaza. And in return, it gave one-week pause. This time, we're looking at 40 hostages and, again, one-week pause. So, basically Hamas gets the same number of days of ceasefire in return for half the number of hostages. And I think that if Hamas will say, tomorrow, that it wants to go back to the negotiation table but it wants more days of pause, I'm pretty sure that Israel would be ready to talk about it.
BROWN: You reported that Hamas' position is that Israel must stop its attacks before any hostage negotiations could resume. Is that something Israel has shown any willingness to agree to?
RAVID: I don't think so. And you know, the Director of Mossad, when the Prime Minister of Qatar told him that this is the Hamas position, so Director of Mossad said, well, that's great. We really agree. There are only two things we ask in return. First that Hamas will give up their weapons and second that they turn in their leadership. So, as you see, it's kind of a non-starter. But the question is whether Hamas will be ready at some point to go back to the table. For now, Israel did not get a formal response from Hamas yet for its proposal. And Israeli officials expect that this will happen by the end of the week. We will see if Hamas is willing to move or they're sticking to their positions and unwilling to go back to the table before the war ends.
BROWN: President Biden said today that the U.S. is pushing Israel and Hamas to reach a deal. What do you know about any efforts by the White House here?
RAVID: So, I think the main thing here is the involvement of CIA Director Bill Burns. He is really involved. He's not just there for, you know, just to say, OK, we'll send somebody. He's involved. And I wouldn't be surprised if we will see in the next few days President Biden speaking to the Amir of Qatar or we will see Secretary Blinken speaking to the Prime Minister of Qatar.
By the way, there was a deal today announced between the U.S. and Venezuela on the release of hostages, prisoners, and Qatar was the country that mediated this deal.
[20:40:00]
RAVID: And I think it matters because it shows, again, how much the U.S. and Qatar are close when it comes to such sensitive negotiations. And I think it's going to give the Qataris a lot of credit in Washington going forward, also when it comes to the situation in Gaza.
BROWN: Yeah, no doubt. Barak Ravid, thank you so much.
RAVID: Thank you.
BROWN: Up next, the newest threat from Iceland's volcanic eruption and what a nearby town is going through. We'll be right back. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Well, tonight in Iceland, even as the lava flow diminishes, authorities are warning of a new threat from the volcano which began erupting three days ago. They say new vents could open up, releasing more smoke and dangerous gases. That and other potential dangers mean people who have been evacuated from a nearby fishing village can't return home yet. CNN's Fred Pleitgen has the latest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): Up close as the earth spews fountains of lava, south Iceland remains in a state of emergency as the volcanic eruption continues.
PLEITGEN: This is as close as the Icelandic authorities are going to allow us to the actual fissure, to where the eruption is happening. I'd say we're a mile, maybe less a mile away from it.
[20:45:00] PLEITGEN: Now, things have calmed down a little bit, but at the same time, of course, the danger is still there. The authorities fear that there could be new vents that might open up, pop up, and that more lava could be gushing to the surface and then could be coming to the surface in fountains like we've seen over the past day and a half. So, while things have gotten a little bit more muted, certainly the danger is not over.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): In the early stages of the eruption, a wall of lava spewing hundreds of feet into the air. While it has subsided somewhat, the underground magma tunnel remains active and dangerous.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Still dangerous, of course, and the magma that is coming up is around 1,200-degrees hot when it comes to the surface. And it takes a long time for the surface to cool down.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): The area around the eruption zone remained cordoned off, critical infrastructure in danger, the world famous Blue Lagoon hot springs closed.
PLEITGEN: Here's another reason why the situation is so dangerous. You see over there is the volcanic activity. And if we pan over in this direction, over there is a geothermal power plant that's extremely important for the electricity here in this area. The authorities are trying to protect that power plant by building a berm against any lava flows. For the local residents, no respite.
KATRIN JAKOBSDOTTIR, PRIME MINISTER OF ICELAND: We have this volcanic eruption very close to Grindavik, I think it has proven wise that the town was evacuated in November. We have been buying flats for the residents, so now, we have 70 flats that people can move into before Christmas, which is the most -- people who are in most dire need of housing.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): Leaving many residents wondering if they will ever see their homes again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PLEITGEN: Pamela, the authorities here say they are going to let people go back to their houses for maybe an hour or two starting tomorrow, but they're not going to allow people to stay there. And the main reason for that is they believe that if there is another eruption, that it could happen fast. In fact, they say from the first time they detected major seismic activity on Monday to that big eruption, they only had about 90 minutes of warning time, certainly not enough time for a large-scale evacuation. Pamela?
BROWN: Yeah, certainly. Fred Pleitgen, thank you so much.
Well, just ahead, the potential dangers of pregnancy in a post-Roe America. An Ohio woman was charged with a crime after having a miscarriage. We're going to have her story up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:51:08]
BROWN: So, imagine at 21-weeks-and-five-days pregnant, you're told the fetus you're carrying will not survive. That is any expecting mom's worse nightmare. And then you're urged to receive what amounts to an abortion. But eventually, you miscarry in your bathroom after days of trying to receive medical care. Well, this is the reality for Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman who has now been charged with felony, abuse of a corpse.
In Ohio, abortion are legal until fetal viability, which is generally considered to be around 22 to 24 weeks of pregnancy. And now, her case is highlighting the extent to which prosecutors can charge a woman whose pregnancy has ended, whether by abortion or miscarriage. CNN's Whitney Wild has the details. And we want to warn you, some of what you are about to hear is disturbing.
WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): After the death of her 22-week-old fetus, Brittany Watts felt distraught, heartbroken, empty according to texts she sent to local television station WJW. A coroner's report and 911 call obtained by CNN detail the days before and after the miscarriage that led to her arrest and felony charge.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I had a mother who had a delivery at home and came in without the baby.
WILD (voice-over): In mid-September, Watts visited St. Joseph Hospital multiple times and was told her water broke and her fetus would not survive. Medical staff recommended Watts be induced into labor, the report says. At first, she declined medical care, but later returned to the hospital intending to give birth. According to a "Washington Post" interview with Watts' attorney, Watts waited eight hours to give birth, as doctors and officials considered whether inducing her would violate Ohio's abortion laws. Watts went home. Two days later, she miscarried into a toilet. Watts returned to the hospital a third time after her miscarriage, where hospital staff called police.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If it is a very early pregnancy, so if it was born alive, I am certain it is not now alive.
WILD (voice-over): Investigators found the fetus still stuck in the toilet at Watts' home. Watts now faces a felony charge for abuse of a corpse. The coroner's report states the fetus died in-utero. In a recent hearing, a prosecutor described the case like this.
LEWIS GUARNIERI, WARREN, OHIO ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR: The issue isn't how the child died, when the child died. It's the fact that the baby was put into a toilet.
WILD (voice-over): Watts' attorney told CNN in a statement there is no law in Ohio that requires a woman suffering a miscarriage to bury or cremate those remains. Women miscarry into toilets every day. Bioethicist Katie Watson called the criminal charge absurd.
KATIE WATSON, BIOETHICIST, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, NORTHWESTERN MEDICINE: I think this is an example of a woman violating feelings rules. She didn't perform sadness, and she didn't perform respect in a way that the prosecutors could recognize. And so, they chose to punish her with the prosecution.
WILD (voice-over): Watts' case has set off heated debate over criminalizing pregnancy outcomes including miscarriages.
WATSON: This is about misunderstanding miscarriage and how it works. It's about misunderstanding the psychological and psychiatric reactions that some people have during and after a miscarriage.
WILD (voice-over): Abortion rights group Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights is urging prosecutors to drop the case. The group's co-founder, Dr. Marcela Azevedo told CNN the risk to other women facing non-viable pregnancies is enormous.
DR. MARCELA AZEVEDO, CO-FOUNDER, OHIO PHYSICIANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS: The criminalization of her pregnancy outcomes further stigmatizes both abortion and pregnancy. But, it certainly, particularly affects communities that are black and brown. And it creates a bigger discrepancy, and it doesn't allow them to feel safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: Whitney Wild joins us now. I just -- I still can't get over what that prosecutor said and what you just showed in the story.
[20:55:00]
BROWN: It's like you don't get to decide if you're pregnant and when you're going to have a miscarriage. Where would he expect that to happen? What more can you tell us about the wording of the Ohio law that's at issue here?
WILD: Pamela, it's extremely vague, and it really hinges on this word, "sensibility." So I can read you the exact language. It says no person, except as authorized by law, shall treat a human corpse in a way that would outrage reasonable community sensibilities. Again, as you heard, Brittney Watts' attorney says that there is no law that required her to do anything specific with those fetal remains.
We have reached out to the prosecutors in this case. They've declined to comment on the substantive facts of the case. They did submit to us a lengthy press release, a lengthy statement that basically just detailed what has happened in this case. Important to note, this case is now with a grand jury. In about one out of five cases there, the grand jury returns no indictment. That was in the statement from the county prosecutors there.
Meanwhile, we also reached out to the hospital, St. Joseph Hospital. They released a very brief statement, did not, again, comment on the details of the Brittney Watts case, but said only out of patient privacy they were declining to comment. And then stressed that care and safety of their patients is their highest concern, Pamela.
BROWN: Whitney Wild, thank you. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
