Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Merrick Garland Addresses Question on Trump Indictment; Trump Hits Campaign Trail; Will Federal Reserve Pause Interest Rate Hikes?. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 14, 2023 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:00]

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: The North Dakota governor, who sold his software company for more than a billion dollars, is putting big money behind those two new ads in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The hope? That he can go from barely a blip in the polls to familiar by broadcasting his face and his message to almost every TV inside those early voting states.

A quick programming note. A CNN concert event with some of the biggest names in music returns. Watch "Juneteenth: A Global Celebration For Freedom" live Monday at 7:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

Thank you so much for going INSIDE POLITICS with us.

"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Inflation is finally falling, and fast, but isn't fast enough for the Fed to stop raising interest rates? That decision coming moments from now. Will Americans finally get a break?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Plus, from legal strategy to 2024 rallying cry, the former president taking his courtroom battles to the campaign trail, but this is only one of Trump's many legal woes.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: We're watching the markets, the Dow holding pretty steady here down about 100 points just an hour before a key announcement from the Fed.

Officials are expected to hold interest rates steady after hiking them 10 straight times over the last 15 months to bring down historically high inflation. This decision comes just as two key indicators show prices did ease quite a bit in the past month.

Joining us now, we have CNN chief business correspondent Christine Romans.

So, Christine, the question I think on everyone's minds is, will the Fed be done raising interest rates, even if they hold them steady this month?

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CHIEF BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

Is this a Powell pause just for one month and then they keep raising interest rates, or is this the beginning of the end of those rate increases? And that's the big question. And we're waiting for Jerome Powell to talk to reporters, and maybe clarify a little bit about the future of rate hikes.

But I think there is nearly unanimous expectation the Fed will not raise interest rates today, because, as you said, Brianna, it has raised rates 10 times over the past year in an unprecedented rate- hiking spree to try to control inflation in this country. Indeed, at last check, 99 percent of market participants thought that there would be no rate hike today, that the big news today would be no news, in terms of a rate increase.

Very few people think the Fed will raise interest rates. And part of the reason, Brianna, is because the inflation numbers, the last couple of days, at least, have been coming in very, very well. We saw consumer inflation yesterday come in at the slowest in two years. And then producer prices -- that's factory level inflation -- today came in at 1.1 percent.

That is an incredibly low number that has a lot of people hoping that the Fed's work is starting to pay off.

KEILAR: We talked comparatively a lot about how quickly inflation was rising into the number before. Put that into context for how it is now dropping.

ROMANS: So, that Producer Price Index at 1.1 percent, Brianna, that is lower than the average, the 10-year average, before the pandemic. So that is a below-normal number, which is really remarkable, considering what we have had to happen over the past year or so.

And when you look at consumer prices, consumer prices are now rising more slowly than wages. So, for a long time, we were talking about wage growth was so good in this country, except all that wage growth was being eaten up by higher prices you pay for everything. Finally, that's not the case anymore. And wage gains are bigger than the consumer -- consumer price gains.

So that's an interesting moment for consumers and might give consumers a little bit of breathing room. But this Fed meeting, we should reiterate this matters to every single family, because, when the Fed raises interest rates, it raises borrowing costs for everyone, and it taps the brakes on the economy, which can affect jobs and can affect all other parts of the economy that you and I both feel every day.

So that's why this is always such big news when the Fed moves or, in this case, won't move.

KEILAR: Won't move. This is so important. You're right.

Christine, thank you for taking us through that -- Boris. SANCHEZ: This just into CNN: Only hours after pleading not guilty to 37 federal felonies over his handling of classified documents, we have learned that former President Donald Trump racked up more than $2 million at his Bedminster fund-raiser last night.

He returned to his club defiant and on the attack, going after federal prosecutors. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is called election interference. And it's a political persecution like something straight out of a fascist or communist nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: That was Trump speaking to a crowd of supporters.

[13:05:00]

Notably, though, he's now barred from speaking to a key figure central to the case, close aide and now co-defendant Walt Nauta. I want to take a look at a page from bond documents signed by Trump after nearly an hour in court. This is this special condition that says -- quote -- "Fact witnesses on the list provided by the government, no communication about the facts of the case, except through counsel."

CNN has learned that Trump and Nauta will continue to travel together and work side by side. And the judge yesterday said he recognized it would be -- quote -- "impossible" for the two men to end all communication. It's unclear when Trump is due back in court, but Nauta is set to be arraigned on June 27.

Let's take you now live outside the courthouse in Miami with CNN's Katelyn Polantz.

Katelyn, what more are we learning about the timing for Trump's case?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Boris, there's still a lot of questions about timing.

We don't have a trial date set yet. That's going to be coming in the days or weeks ahead, once this case gets to Judge Aileen Cannon, the judge that will see this case through to the trial. Right now, we're just still in the magistrate phase, right?

So Donald Trump has entered that not guilty plea. He has the provisions that he has set. And then there's a couple of things that are going to happen in the next couple of days or weeks. So, in two weeks, Walt Nauta is going to be entering a not guilty plea. We do know that he didn't yet because he doesn't have an attorney in Florida to help out his existing legal team.

But once he gets that, he's going to be putting that plea in. He has been arrested, as well has been processed, just like Donald Trump. But, after that, then the prosecutors are going to provide a list to the defense team who Donald Trump and Walt Nauta can't discuss the case with. They can also speak to one another about the details of this case.

And then they will start turning over evidence as well. So the Justice Department has all of the evidence they have collected in this case, and they have to hand that over to Walt Nauta and Donald Trump, especially things that they have collected that would be considered exculpatory, that could help their defenses.

So that's what's going to be happening in the coming days and weeks -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: And, Katelyn, bring us up to speed on the other cases that Trump is facing, both in New York and Georgia.

POLANTZ: Well, the Georgia case has had a lot going on, and prosecutors have been saying for months that charges would be imminent. They have not arrived at this time.

But we have a window on when that might be. The charges could be brought in that case in about mid-July, the whole way through the end of August. And we are expecting there to be many charges out of that great case. The special grand jury made a lot of recommendations. Of course, the New York case, where Donald Trump is already charged, has already pleaded not guilty related to hush money payments in 2016, that case is headed to trial.

That has a process in place. We will see exactly what happens as legal arguments go forward in that case. But, also, there are civil lawsuits that Donald Trump is facing, many.

Here's Letitia James, the New York attorney general. She was speaking on MSNBC earlier this week about some of those cases which she is bringing against the former president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: So, in all likelihood, I believe that my case, as well as DA Bragg and the Georgia case, will, unfortunately, have to be adjourned pending the outcome of the federal case.

So it all depends upon the scheduling of this particular case. I know there's going to be a flood, a flurry of motions, motions to dismiss, discovery issues, all of that. So it really all depends.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: So, Letitia James there says that it must be adjourned. She expects it to be adjourned. That's legal-speak for just put it on hold, as the criminal cases go forward. That's very typical.

But the risk that Donald Trump faces in New York state, as well as with E. Jean Carroll, that lawsuit, also lawsuits about January 6, there's quite a lot of things bearing down around Donald Trump in the legal world -- Boris. SANCHEZ: Yes, and all of it unfolding as the 2024 presidential campaign looms large in his world.

Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much for that.

Let's get you an update now from Capitol Hill and CNN's Manu Raju, who has been tracking reaction to Trump's indictment, specifically from Republican lawmakers.

And, Manu, I have seen you speaking with a select group of Republicans who've expressed skepticism about Trump's legal chances with this indictment case. But at least one of them is vowing to gum up the nomination process for DOJ officials.

MANU RAJU, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. That's senator J.D. Vance of Ohio, freshman Republican, someone who is close with Donald Trump, who announced just yesterday that he would put a hold on virtually all nominations to the Justice Department until the Justice Department takes some steps, in his view, enough steps, to not pursue prosecutions that they would consider, Republicans would consider political.

[13:10:01]

Now, that is something that could have broader ramifications. At the moment, it only would affect two nominees that are pending. But he is warning, Vance is, that this could affect even more, this could be indefinite, and this could drag on, all part of an effort by Trump's staunchest allies to use the power of Congress to fight back.

Now, I have had a chance to talk to some Democrats as well about this effort, including senior Democrats who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they are pushing back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): These senators in their strategy are defining the Republican Party in the United States, unfortunately. I think the majority of Republicans want to work constructively with Democrats to solve problems.

But there are some who are obstructionists.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): For Republican colleagues to say they're for stronger policing or law enforcement and the stop the Department of Justice, which is the major law enforcement agency in this country, is absurd and abhorrent.

SEN. ROGER MARSHALL (R-KS): I support that. I believe in the sanctity of life. I believe that life begins at conception. So we're sitting right beside coach Tuberville on this issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So that last comment coming from Senator Roger Marshall about a separate issue involving a Republican senator's effort to hold up Biden nominees, Senator Roger Marshall talking about Senator Tommy Tuberville holding up a slew of Pentagon nominations, people who would be promoted to senior ranks in the military, that over a separate issue regarding abortion and concerns Tuberville has voiced to change that abortion policy in the Pentagon, all showing you the power that any individual senator can have just to slow down the process.

There's a ways around it in the United States Senate, whether on Vance's holds or on Tuberville's holds, but it's something the Democratic leaders don't want to use, given the precious floor time there is in the United States Senate and the fact that senators are gone for most of the week and oftentimes on recess here.

So, all showing the power of each individual senator and as some Trump supporters look to fight back against this investigation into the former president -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Manu Raju, Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much for the reporting -- Brianna.

KEILAR: So, President Biden is staying silent on the indictment of former President Trump. He was asked if he would comment. His reply was -- quote -- "No."

But first lady Jill Biden, she is not staying silent in her first solo event of the 2024 campaign.

CNN's Arlette Saenz is at the White House tracking this for us.

What did she say, Arlette?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, first lady Jill Biden has shown this willingness to take on Republicans and former President Donald Trump, even as the White House has maintained the silent strategy when it comes to Trump's indictment.

Now, the first lady has been traveling across the country over the past two days participating in fund-raisers, really the first principal from the White House to be engaging in these political venues that give them a chance to speak a little bit more freely, as the cameras are off at these fund-raisers.

And at that very first one that she participated in New, in York City, the first lady expressed shock that many in the Republican Party continue to support the former president, despite his indictment. This is really the loan comment that we have heard from this White House relating to the president's indictment.

But she also, as she traveled in California yesterday, really took aim at her husband's predecessor, the former president, as she tried to paint and frame this election as a choice between what she described as the stability of her husband, President Biden, and the -- quote -- "corruption and chaos" of the Trump administration.

She went on to say -- quote -- "We cannot go back to those dark days and also took aim at MAGA Republicans."

So, it shows this willingness from the first lady to speak out when it comes to the former president.

KEILAR: All right, Arlette Saenz live for us at the White House, thank you so much.

And Attorney General Merrick Garland was just asked about the former president's indictment. Let's listen to that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) been calling your prosecutors names. Republicans in Congress, some of them have been talking about weaponization of the justice system.

When did you find out the special counsel was headed down this track? And why did -- why did you choose not to stop him, as was in your power?

MERRICK GARLAND, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: So, as you know, I can't talk about particular -- particulars of this or any other ongoing criminal matter.

As I said when I appointed Mr. Smith, I did so because it underscores the Justice Department's commitment to both independence and accountability. Mr. Smith is a veteran, career prosecutor. He has assembled a group of experienced and talented prosecutors and agents who share his commitment to integrity and the rule of law.

Any questions about this matter will have to be answered by their filings in court.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) experts in extremism had feared there would be unrest in Miami this week.

[13:15:03]

Some people are saying it's because the Justice Department has been so assertive in prosecuting rioters on January 6 that we have not seen a repeat of that violence. Do you agree with that assessment?

GARLAND: All I can say is, we live in a democracy. These kinds of matters are adjudicated through the judicial system. The Justice Department will be vigilant to ensure that there are no threats of violence or actual violence.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Can you give the American public a very clear sense of what exactly your role was in the indictment process, just so people can understand what that role is?

And then, secondarily, given the historic and extraordinary nature of the case, explain to people, if you would, why this was the best and most appropriate step that was taken, and why there were no other alternatives.

GARLAND: I'm trying to remember the first -- first question.

QUESTION: Exactly what your role (OFF-MIKE) (CROSSTALK)

GARLAND: Yes, so my role is completely consistent with the regulations that set forth responsibilities to the attorney general under the special counsel regulations, and I followed those regulations.

With respect to the second question, this, again, is asking for particulars. And I'm not going to be able to comment. All the comments on this will have to come and filings in court.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. Thank you all. That's all we time for. Again, that's all we have time for. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: There you have it, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, being asked about the former president, President Trump's indictment.

And he said that he can't comment on this or other proceedings that the Justice Department is dealing with. He said that all questions will have to be answered by what is going on in court, by the filings in court. They are extensive, certainly what we saw from that indictment.

But, of course, there are many more questions about this indictment. I do want to bring in former federal prosecutor and CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams to talk with us about this.

Not surprising, given the opportunity to ask questions of the attorney general, that this is what he was asked. What did you think about what he said?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think everyone did their jobs there. Reporters did the right thing by asking the attorney general, and the attorney general did the right thing by staying out of it.

The whole point behind appointing Jack Smith -- and let's back up a little bit as to why there's a special counsel in the first place. The regulations for putting in a special counsel are for when impartiality might be called into question of the attorney general or the Justice Department. And it serves the public interest to have somebody else outside the chain of command of Justice Department leadership run an investigation.

That's what's happened here. And that's what the attorney general was trying to affirm in that answer.

KEILAR: He's saying, any questions you have will be answered by the filings in court.

They are pretty extensive. They're...

WILLIAMS: Yes. KEILAR: They have really showed their hand...

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: ... the special counsel has, in the indictment.

WILLIAMS: Yes, look, I worked at the Justice Department for six years, four of them as a political appointee.

That's kind of a platitude. And nothing precludes either Jack Smith or the attorney general from making statements on the record about the indictment. The problem is that the moment, they open their mouths and start talking about facts and getting into the details, they open themselves up to attack.

And that's exactly the right -- the right thing to say is, take a look at our pleadings and take a look at what we filed. And like you said, Brianna, they really walked through in excruciating detail, far more than you see in many indictments, what the factual allegations were against this defendant.

KEILAR: It's still very interesting to hear from the attorney general.

Elliot, thank you so much.

WILLIAMS: Thanks.

KEILAR: If you could, stand by for us -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: We heard a bit of a preview there, Garland asked about a potential Trump defense, the former president himself alluding to that during his remarks at Bedminster last night. Up next, we're going to look at how his legal strategy is seemingly fused with his presidential campaign.

Also, Ukraine claiming a partial success, as its armed forces continue a counteroffensive against Russia. We're going to take you to the front lines.

And there are new accusations against the armorer in the "Rust" movie shooting investigation. See what prosecutors say that Hannah Gutierrez Reed was doing the night before the film's cinematographer was shot and killed.

CNN NEWS CENTRAL is back in moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:23:27]

SANCHEZ: From criminal court to campaign fund-raiser.

Sources tell CNN the former president asked donors for feedback about his arraignment. One adviser said the Trump team now has a -- quote -- "playbook," having learned from his first indictment in New York. And sources say that part of that strategy is to play out Trump's

legal woes in the court of public opinion. Sources say that was part of the reason that Trump stopped at a Cuban cafe to compare his indictment to the persecution in Cuba.

My grandfather, having been a Cuban political prisoner, may disagree.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams is still with us, and CNN senior law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe is now joining us.

Andrew, first to you. It seems like the Trump strategy is now about leveraging the court of public opinion and focusing outside of the courtroom.

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: That is where they will do their best work, right?

This is what they're great at. The former president is an expert marketer, particularly of himself. And I expect that he will work this situation for every possible advantage. Those same tactics will not work in a court of law.

SANCHEZ: And, Elliot, to you. It seems like the best strategy for Trump here, besides making it something that the court of public opinion should decide, based on the '24 -- 2024 election, they want to extend this thing as far out as possible.

What options do they have to do that?

WILLIAMS: They have plenty of options. And even under the best of circumstances, Boris, this would have been a case that it's going to take a while to get to trial, because, for instance, deciding how classified materials would be handled in a criminal trial is itself an incredibly detailed and burdensome legal process, where there would be motions to strike that material anyway, even if it weren't the former president.

[13:25:02]

But they can attack things like, this started with a search warrant of Mar-a-Lago. It's not uncommon in criminal cases -- I know Andrew have probably dealt with hundreds of these over the course of his career -- but for the defendant to challenge the search warrant, saying that the prosecutors or agents did not have the legal authority to search my property in the first place.

They can challenge the fact that some of this, some of the evidence is based on statement from Trump's attorney, and it's controversial to even try to get that into court. So, they have avenues for filing motions that the judge will have to rule on that will take some days, weeks or months to resolve.

SANCHEZ: Andrew, what do you make of that argument that the testimony from Evan Corcoran, Trump's attorney, may have to be suppressed?

MCCABE: Well, it's clearly important evidence for the prosecution, right? He made really remarkable statements, gives us a remarkable insight as to his communications with President Trump. So there's no doubt that President Trump will attack the admissibility of that testimony.

It is a totally unique issue, at least in my experience, maybe yours as well, Elliot, that you have the decision by the presiding judge of the D.C. district to pierce the attorney-client privilege, which opens the door to using that testimony, which is now going to be challenged in an entirely different district.

It's not clear to me exactly how that happens. But, in any case, we can count on the fact that the Trump team will go after that evidence ferociously in an effort to keep it out.

SANCHEZ: Elliot, I have spoken to Trump supporters, attorneys that are focused on the Presidential Records Act. They argue that the DOJ has essentially ignored it and that Trump had the right to take those documents.

WILLIAMS: It's heartbreaking, Boris, that folks can be -- don't understand or know the law can be so misinformed as to something very basic.

And, to be clear, this isn't about Trump the politician or who people want to support a vote for. It's simply the text of the Presidential Records Act. And that -- and it says quite clearly, on Inauguration Day, the moment the next president is sworn in, presidential records cease to be the property of the president, no matter where they are in the world. They don't even need to be in the presidential archives or in a library or anywhere.

If they're on a table in France, they are the property of the presidential -- of the National Record Archives Administration. So the idea that somehow Trump, after having left the presidency, can override clear precedent as to how the Presidential Records Act functions is just simply not correct.

SANCHEZ: And, Andy, stepping back for a moment, we just saw a few minutes ago the reaction from the attorney general, Merrick Garland.

He seemed very measured in his words when he was asked about the argument that this was a political persecution.

MCCABE: Yes, one thing we can count on with the attorney general is to be measured in all -- in all contexts. He is a very controlled, contemplative guy.

He is obviously taking the right tack in staying out of this case. The really hyperbolic comments that we're hearing about politicization of this investigation, politics driving these decisions, absolutely not a single piece of information that we have been given so far -- and we have a lot -- we know a lot about this case -- indicates that anything like that happened, right?

We have nothing to say that President Biden was involved in any way. We know that the Justice Department based these charges on very serious facts and evidence that they have recovered during the course of their investigation. And this idea that the FBI is some kind of hotbed of Democratic operatives out to kneecap Republicans, I can tell you, based on my 21 years there, is absolutely ridiculous.

SANCHEZ: Elliot, back to you on the question of the defense trying to delay this trial.

Is there anything the special counsel, prosecutors can do to try to speed it up?

WILLIAMS: Not really, because once you get into federal -- any court, but this court here, you are at the mercy of the judge.

And if the judge takes a long time to rule on motions, then you're sort of stuck. Now, the Justice Department could make an argument that the judge's ruling so slowly and so unfavorably against the Justice Department as to indicate that she's acting with bias. But you really don't have a lot of latitude here, because what you have is, have nine -- how many federal judges -- 900 nationwide, 900 little fiefdoms.

And they run their own worlds. And as long as they're not violating the law, they really have a lot of latitude to take as much time as they want.

SANCHEZ: And that argument of bias is something that we have been hearing from critics of the former president who point to Aileen Cannon, the judge in this case, and say she was appointed by Trump.

She made some controversial decisions initially in deciding about a special master in this case.

MCCABE: Controversial decisions that raise issues not just of potential bias, but also of capability.

I think her ruling in that case, in the earlier case involving the special master, was so far outside the realm of accepted practice and law, that it caused many legal analysts to really question how she could have come to that result.

This is just something we will have to watch very closely. I don't think DOJ has many options at this point. But they will -- they will certainly stay on top of it. And it's one of the fascinating things we will watch as this goes forward.

SANCHEZ: One of many fascinating things.

MCCABE: That's right.

SANCHEZ: Andrew McCabe, Elliot Williams, appreciate you both. Thanks so much.

MCCABE: Thanks.

SANCHEZ: Brianna.

KEILAR: "It's a miracle" -- those are the words coming from the father of the children who survived in the Colombian jungle for 40 days.

[13:30:00]