Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Election Interference Grand Jury Convenes In DC As Trump Faces Possible Indictment; Senate Bill On Ethics Reform For Justices Advances; Testimony Resumes On Texas Abortion Ban Lawsuit. Aired 2- 2:30p ET

Aired July 20, 2023 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: A federal grand jury meeting behind closed doors right now as they investigate former President Donald Trump's role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. They could vote as soon as today on criminal charges and a possible third indictment for the former president. We're live outside the courthouse with the latest.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: A battle is underway on Capitol Hill over new ethics requirements for the Supreme Court after a series of ethics controversies involving justices. We're going to speak to a member of the committee about what comes next. We're following these developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: The question everyone is wondering will former President Donald Trump be criminally indicted for a third time. We may soon get an answer to that. A federal grand jury hearing evidence in the special counsel's 2020 election interference probe is meeting right now, not far from our studios, in the nation's capital.

It may be the final meeting before the grand jury votes on an indictment. Trump's lawyers have said they have until today to respond to the special counsel's target letter and say whether Trump will come in and testify to the grand jury. That is seen as very unlikely to happen.

Let's take you now live outside the courthouse with CNN's Katelyn Polantz. So, Katelyn, today, there's been a flurry of activity where you are. Tell us about what you're seeing.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME percent JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Indeed, Boris. There are a lot of different witnesses that have come through this grand jury previously to build the case that the Justice Department has been looking at, at Donald Trump and potentially others. And today, there were additional witnesses.

One man, Will Russell, an aide of Donald Trump who had testified twice before, coming back to the grand jury testifying this morning. We believe there was an additional witness as well. At least one additional witness testifying today too.

And so, the grand jury, they remain at work. But everyone is really on guard at this moment for some sort of major development out of this grand jury because that target letter that Donald Trump received on Tuesday, essentially said he had the opportunity to come in or to respond by Thursday -- today to testify if he wanted to, in his own defense or present his side of the story. That's something that targets of an investigation are sometimes able to do when the Justice Department will give them that courtesy.

Trump is very unlikely to take that opportunity. But just that target letter itself puts the Justice Department in a position where they are acknowledging to Trump, he's very likely to be indicted, and this is very near the end of the road of the grand jury's work, at least on the initial case here or a case against Trump himself.

And so, we're waiting to see what emerges from this grand jury. Boris, everything that they're doing is confidential. It is confidential, not just now and today, but in the future as well.

And so, exactly how the next couple of days play out or even weeks play out with the grand jury's work, we won't know until they approve the indictment that the Justice Department presents to them and then have it go into the court system. But a lot of people watching waiting Trump himself expecting that indictment. And there are many prosecutors from the special counsel's office here at the court at work with the grand jury as well.

SANCHEZ: Watching and waiting. It sounds like there's an ice cream truck nearby, so I hope you get to take advantage of that as we await a result from the grand jury. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much.

Let's take you now to New Jersey, the president's summer residence near Bedminster. We've got CNN's Kristen Holmes there. And, Kristen, as Donald Trump and his attorneys wait for a charging decision from the grand jury, they're focused on a promise from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy about potentially expunging Trump's impeachments. Tell us about that.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Boris, well, I do want to be very clear because we were told specifically that there was no promise made. That this was actually just McCarthy's saying that he would back the idea of expunging his impeachment. Now, this is something that Trump has been fixated on. Something that his closest allies have been promoting on the Hill to bring this forward for a vote that would "expunge those impeachments."

Now, according to the parliamentarian's office, there's really no clear indication of what that would mean, any kind of procedural consequence. Because the record of those impeachment votes both in 2019 and 2020 would still stand. And I do want to note the kind of broader context between Kevin McCarthy, the House Speaker, and Donald Trump when these remarks are being made.

They came in a phone call after McCarthy had enraged Trump, his advisors, and allies by saying in an interview on CNBC that he just wasn't sure that Trump was the strongest candidate in 2024. And he called him to apologize for that. And that is when this came up.

[14:05:05] But again, not making any promises and is clearly part of a larger narrative of McCarthy trying to win back curry favor with the former president as his aides and allies have continued to raise questions about why Speaker McCarthy has not endorsed Trump in 2024. Something we'll clearly be keeping an eye on. But it doesn't sound like even if he was to bring this resolution they have the votes to do it, or that it would have any sort of procedural consequence, Boris.

SANCHEZ: No promises, but he supports the idea. We'll keep an eye on that. Kristen Holmes in Bedminster, New Jersey, thank you so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: All right, let's discuss all of this now with CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, as well as CNN political analyst and White House Correspondent for PBS News Hour, Laura Barron-Lopez. Norm, we have the grand jury meeting today. What does this mean for a possible indictment? Do they hear evidence and witnesses up until the last moment? What can you tell us?

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sometimes they hear evidence and witnesses beyond the last moment as in the Mar-a-Lago documents grand jury that has continued to take people. But, Brianna, Donald Trump is going to get indicted for a third time. It's virtually certain.

When you look at that target letter, you see the activity in the grand jury, it's going to be soon. Indictments typically follow very quickly upon a target letter. They may be discussing it today. And we know the three core charges now that Donald Trump is likely going to face. So, fasten our seatbelts, a third indictment is near.

KEILAR: If you're looking at a third indictment here, the potential for that which is so real, and then a possible fourth on the horizon, Laura, in Georgia, how does Trump juggle all of this in the middle of a campaign?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, we're seeing that all of them are starting to collide right now, particularly whether or not -- or when these trials are going to be set. And right now, we see that the tactic is delay. That Trump's team is trying to delay a trial in the case of the classified documents into Mar-a-Lago that he's been charged with. His handling of that. And he will very well probably try to delay trials on this front, as well as the potential Fulton County, Georgia charges that could very well come.

But what we've seen is that time and time again, the Republican base sticks with him even when these indictments are handed down. And even when we see the potential litany of charges, that they rally around him and none of the candidates, his challengers, are really chipping away at that at all.

KEILAR: Yes, I mean that's really my question because so often you have a candidate who needs to sell that they are fighting for their supporters. Trump is talking a lot about how he's fighting for himself, not as much just about fighting for his supporters. But I wonder if his supporters sort of feel like that's one in the same. BARRON-LOPEZ: I think that they do. When you go to the Trump campaign website, so much of the language is that these charges against me are charges against you. And he's trying to tell his base that it's not just him that's under attack. It's them that are under attack.

And when you talk to historians, Brianna, they all say that that's very authoritarian language. That he's trying to make this be one and the same and essentially tell his supporters that it's their entire way of life and that the justice system is rigged. And really so massive distrust in the U.S. Justice System.

KEILAR: Norm, you say -- and there's three statutes in this target letter that the DOJ is looking at, right? You say that deprivation of rights, that statute. It makes it clear that they're looking for a less risky alternative to bring in charges under the Insurrection Act. Can you explain that?

EISEN: Yes. The -- as we wrote in our model prosecution memo that I released with bipartisan experts last week predicting the target letter and the charges, there's three acts here, Brianna. There's Trump's wild schemes.

Act One, culminating in the counterfeit electoral certificates allegedly. Act Two, using those counterfeit electoral certificates to pressure Mike Pence to throw Congress off on January 6. When that failed, act three, and this is where this surprise charge comes in. Act three, the violence of January 6.

One way to address that violence as to Trump is to say, Insurrection Act. He fomented an insurrection. But another way is to say that violence and disrupting the meeting of Congress on January 6 was an assault on the civil rights. The right of every American who voted for Joe Biden to have that vote counted by Congress and recognized on January 6.

So, it's an expected move by the prosecutor but with a slightly different and I think, smarter legal twist. And I have a long essay that just went up at the Just Security website breaking it all down. I think it's going to work.

[14:10:12]

KEILAR: All right, I will check out your long essay, Norm. I promise. I will check it out.

Laura, we do have some new reporting that in a call with Trump, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he personally backed this idea of expunging Trump's two impeachments, right? So, he's sort of promising this display perhaps for him. But can he really do that? It seems like it might be an empty promise.

BARRON-LOPEZ: Well, there appears to already be divisions within that House Republican conference about whether or not that should be something that is even brought to the floor. And there are a number of Republicans that are in these Biden-won districts that have made that majority for the House conference that don't necessarily want to take a vote like that because they know that it's going to be hard for them to win reelection.

No, there are -- there are major questions about whether or not this vote can even happen if you can actually even expunge Trump's impeachment. And I know that the speaker, McCarthy, has since said he didn't really make that promise. So, now you're starting to see this -- what I think could be a pretty big feud between the former president and the speaker now.

KEILAR: We'll be looking for that. They do have them from time to time. Laura, thank you so much. Norm, thank you to you as well. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Still to come on CNN NEWS CENTRAL. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are pushing new ethics requirements for the Supreme Court. And this is setting up a major clash on Capitol Hill. We're going to speak to a member of that committee live next.

And Texas's abortion restrictions are some of the strictest in the country. But they may be fueling a spike in infant mortality. Ahead, we're going to talk to a doctor from that state on what they're seeing. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:16:11]

SANCHEZ: Today, a major step toward change for the Supreme Court. On a party-line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee just advanced legislation that would force the High Court to create a new code of ethics. And this is why.

A string of reports raising serious questions about conflicts of interest, including Justice Clarence Thomas's luxury vacations and a real estate deal from a top Republican mega-donor. Justice Samuel Alito reportedly failing to disclose a private flight funded by a billionaire hedge fund manager and the luxury fishing trip. Justice Neil Gorsuch not disclosing who bought a million-dollar property.

A similar concern that came up for Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor using her Supreme Court staff's time to help sell her book. Republicans say that this bill would "destroy the High Court and that it has no future." Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): This thing's dead as fried chicken on the Senate floor. And it's dead as fried chicken in the House. That's what this case is all about -- this bill is all about. And I get it. You disagree with the opinions of the United States Supreme Court.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono is on the committee that just advanced the bill. She joins us now live. Senator, we'll get your response to your colleague, Senator Kennedy, in a moment. But first, what specifically is in this bill that would reform the ethics guidelines of the Supreme Court? SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): First of all, let's understand that the United States Supreme Court does not have a code of ethics. The kind of code of ethics that applies to all other federal judges. So, the highest court in the land should set a standard -- should set the highest standard they do not.

So, this is a bill that would do that. And what will it do? It will establish a procedure for investigating ethical violations. It'll make it much clearer recusal requirements. And the third is to give the court time to adopt the code of ethics. And if they do not, then no one will be provided to them.

SANCHEZ: How exactly --

HIRONO: That's what it all does. I think. I'm sorry. Yes.

SANCHEZ: Senator, how exactly do you plan to then enforce those guidelines?

HIRONO: Some of the guidelines will be done through the -- a commission that is established by the Judicial Conference. And so, the -- there are Judicial Conference procedures for the -- investigating these kinds of things. And I don't think that we're putting together anything particularly new.

The main thing to focus on is that the Supreme Court does not have a code of ethics. And so, you have the circumstance of billionaires winding and dining our justices. And there is no disclosure as to any of this.

SANCHEZ: And, Senator, you will need at least nine Republicans for this bill to pass. Some of them are arguing as Senator Kennedy did, that Democrats are only pursuing this because it's a conservative court and they're making decisions that you don't like. I'm wondering what you say in response, and if you think this bill will ultimately pass.

HIRONO: The provisions of a code of ethics will apply to all justices, regardless of who nominated them. And note that they do bring up Sonia Sotomayor. So, yes, you know she would have to be bound to it as with all the other justices.

So, this has nothing to do with the fact that we have disagreements on what this Supreme Court is doing, what I call an extremist Supreme Court. But setting that aside, I think the American people can understand that the Supreme Court should have a code of ethics. They should not be taking trips on airplanes and being wined and dined to the tune of -- or on ships to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there's absolutely no disclosure. And not to mention that shouldn't a justice recuse himself when his wife is involved in a case that comes before the Supreme Court?

[14:20:16]

SANCHEZ: Senator, there are questions about whether this kind of law would be constitutional. The Supreme Court is a separate branch of government. And if this passes, ultimately, there might be a challenge. So, wouldn't the justices wind up then deciding on the merits of a potential bill that might change their conduct?

HIRONO: We've already had a hearing with experts on determining whether or not Congress has the power to get this bill through the finish line, and we can. Because the Congress establishes a number of other aspects of how the court operates and this would not be anything different from what Congress can already do. So, I would say that the legality of this kind of an approach is settled as far as I'm concerned.

But the thing is that the Republicans say that there's nothing to see here and nothing to do. And so, when we were dealing with this bill, they filed over 60 amendments. Most of them, members had nothing to do with whether or not the court should have a code of ethics. And all these amendments were distractions, including I know one, that there was an amendment that would preclude a gay shows in the Smithsonian or something like that. And so, there were a number of those kinds of amendments to distract us from the fact that the Supreme Court does not have a code of ethics.

SANCHEZ: Senator, as we're discussing ethics, I'm wondering if you think members of Congress should be allowed to trade stocks. Often, you're privy to information that the general public is not. So, should members of Congress be held to a different standard?

HIRONO: No, they should not. In fact, there are some bills that relate to trading and information that that's already legal. But to make it even clearer, to prevent trading ends a certain kind of stock so I've signed on to some of those kinds of measures.

But the main thing is, we already have those kinds of provisions. We have -- in fact, I held up the Senate Ethics provisions. It is a book this thick, whereas what does the Supreme Court have?

I think the chief justice sent us a four-page memo that says we're -- you know we don't do this. I happen to disagree because as I said, everyone should abide by a code of ethics. And did you know that there are private companies that require their employees like Walmart and other companies that require conflict and a code of ethics of their employees?

SANCHEZ: Well, it is significant. Notably, that letter that he sent to your committee, all the other Supreme Court justices signed on in agreement and he turned down an invitation to testify. What's your message to him and those Supreme Court justices that seem to agree with him?

HIRONO: He could with the agreement of the other justices. But I am disappointed that they all are kind of really in my view, closing ranks. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court is not held in very high regard by the American public.

I think there is a sense that this is not a Supreme Court that deals on a fair and objective way in the -- in the -- on the cases that it comes with -- that comes before them. And therefore, there should be a disclosure of them being wined and dined. And I don't think it's asking too much to have the Supreme Court have a code of ethics applied to them, not what they -- what the chief justice has said, oh, this is adequate for us. It is not.

SANCHEZ: Senator Mazie Hirono, we have to leave the conversation there. We appreciate you sharing your time and perspective with us. Thanks.

HIRONO: Stay tuned.

SANCHEZ: Thanks so much. We will. And we hope you'll come back.

HIRONO: OK.

SANCHEZ: Brianna?

KEILAR: New preliminary data shows more infants are dying in Texas two years after the abortion ban took effect. We're going to speak to a doctor who says her fears are coming true.

And later, artificial intelligence is a big sticking point between writers, actors, and movie studios. Ahead. How the technology is growing?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:28:55]

KEILAR: A second day of testimony underway in Austin, Texas in a lawsuit challenging the state's abortion ban. It centers on the issue of forcing women to carry out terminal and often high-risk pregnancies. The 13 women and two OB-GYNs who are the plaintiffs, say the law is too vague on what constitutes a medical emergency.

One of the plaintiffs, Samantha Casiano, became so distressed that she actually threw up while she was on the stand talking about her baby's fatal birth defect. She resumed her testimony after a court recess. I want to listen to her describe the moment that she learned her pregnancy was not viable.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMANTHA CASIANO, PLAINTIFF: I can see her pain in her eye. She told me that my daughter has been diagnosed with anencephaly, and that means that her skull and her brain is not fully developed. And that she was sorry and I didn't have any option and I was pregnant.

She then called in a caseworker. A caseworker came in and they handed me a paper that said funeral home up of it.