Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump to Appear in Court Tomorrow for Jan. 6 Indictment; Charging Documents List Six Unindicted Trump Co-Conspirators; Trump Team Claims Jan. 6 Indictment is Purely Political. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired August 02, 2023 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Former President Donald Trump set to be arrested and arraigned again tomorrow. We have new details on what to expect in court.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Prosecutors name six co-conspirators allegedly involved in the scheme. So, will they face charges now? Might it be possible they could flip?

BOLDUAN: The special counsel praising the law enforcement who stared down an insurrection pushed back rioters on January 6. One of those officers joins us on what today means for them.

Sara is off. I'm Kate Bolduan with John Berman. This is CNN News Central.

Tomorrow, former President Donald Trump is expected to be arrested and arraigned again following a third criminal indictment. This one is different. Not having to do with hush money payments before he was president, not having to do with classified documents he kept after he was president. This one has to do with his actions while still president and his fight to stay in power after losing the election.

All indications are Trump will again plead not guilty. He's charged with four new federal criminal counts.

BERMAN: You know, you really put your finger on what makes this so historic. It's being charged for what he did as president, which is unprecedented, to say the least. And he did it as president to basically obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

The new questions this morning, who testified to the grand jury? What exactly did former Vice President Mike Pence say in these six alleged co-conspirators? They are unindicted as of now. Might they face charges? Could they possibly flip?

Let's get right to CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez with the new details on this court appearance tomorrow, Evan.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, we expect that the former president is going to come to court here in Washington. He was offered the option of doing it via video link. Basically, he could do this by Zoom from his club in Bedminster, New Jersey. The security people have encouraged the former president to do it that way. Obviously, it's more secure for everyone, including himself, and, of course, the security of the court. But it appears that the former president is likely to take the option to come to court.

And so what we expect is sometime tomorrow afternoon, he's going to present himself in federal court here in Washington. He's going to be formally arrested. He's going to meet with a federal magistrate who's going to read him the charges, and then we may also have the arraignment all in one hearing as a way to do this more efficiently. Obviously, this is going to be a bit of a mess here in Washington at 4:00 P.M. The former president, he has a golf club in Northern Virginia. So, all of this now is triggering a security meeting among the Secret Service, the Marshalls, all of the federal agencies to try to get him to court.

He has a club in Northern Virginia where he could stay overnight. We don't know whether he's going to come to Washington tonight or whether he'll come in the morning. So, we'll have a show, let's just say, at the courthouse tomorrow.

BERMAN: So, Evan, look, we know one of the primary defense strategies for the former president in Florida with the Mar-a-Lago documents case is delay, delay, delay, delay. Will that be the same here?

PEREZ: It is the strategy. But this is a case -- I think if you look at this case, John, you'll see that it is a case that seems designed for it to go to trial much more quickly. This is a case where -- this is an investigation where we know prosecutors looked at everything, from the financial entanglements, the fundraising aspects.

We know that they looked at all the fake electors. They offered an immunity to a lot of them. And as you pointed out at the top there, there are a number of co-conspirators. They did not include them in this indictment. That is apparently being handled separately.

So, this is a court has repeatedly told the defendants that one of the things they want to do is handle these cases as quickly as possible to basically be a deterrent against anyone doing what happened on January 6th again. So, we expect that this judge is going to want to move this a lot more quickly, John.

BERMAN: All right. Evan Perez, great to see you, keep us posted.

BOLDUAN: Let's turn now to those six unindicted co-conspirators we're talking about. The indictment does not name them because they have not been charged with any crimes yet. CNN has been able to identify most of them, though. The big question this morning is, though, will these people who allegedly helped Trump face legal repercussions of their own?

CNN's Jessica Schneider, she joins us now with more on this. Jessica, what more are you learning about what kind of trouble these unnamed unindicted co-conspirators could be in themselves? JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: You know, yesterday, Kate, special counsel Jack Smith, he made clear this investigation continues. So it is very possible, very likely that at least some of these six co-conspirators, they could face charges or even by naming them in this indictment could really pressure them to maybe investigators.

So, the first co-conspirator that CNN has identified is Rudy Giuliani. He is described in this indictment as an attorney who's, quote, willing to spread knowingly false claims and pursue strategies that other attorneys just wouldn't who were involved in the campaign.

So, that description alone, it does indicate that charges could be coming. Of course, Giuliani was front and center pushing these election fraud claims. He led that effort to pressure state legislators to overturn the election.

Co-conspirator number 2, former Trump lawyer John Eastman. Part of what he did is he circulated a two-page plan for Vice President Pence to overturn the election. Interestingly here, not only is he at the forefront of part of this investigation by the special counsel, but he's already been facing disciplinary proceedings in California, fighting there to keep his law license. So, there could be more legal fights for him to come.

Now, moving on to co conspirator 3, that's former Trump lawyer Sidney Powell. She, too, has faced ethics complaints in a few states about her conduct after the election. And she's described in this indictment as circulating claims of election fraud that even Trump acknowledged sounded crazy.

Then we have co-conspirator number 4, that's former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. He's accused of pushing these fake election claims to try to get state lawmakers to overturn the results in their state.

Interestingly, it was just about a year ago, last summer that FBI agents did search Jeffrey Clark's Virginia home. So, could there be legal trouble coming for him? Very possible.

And, finally, we have co conspirator number 5, that's pro Trump lawyer Kenneth Cheseboro. He endorsed the fake electors plot. He has also, like Sidney Powell and John Eastman, faced ethics complaints in other states, maybe could face charges here.

But a lot detailed in this indictment, John and Kate, and, obviously, this investigation still continuing. The special counsel made that clear yesterday. And they could potentially face charges.

BOLDUAN: Jessica Schneider, thank you so much. It's always good to see you. Thank you.

All right, so the indictment says that Trump and the co-conspirators exploited the violence and chaos of the January 6th attack. In the aftermath, more than 1,000 people had been arrested in connection with the breach of the U.S. Capitol. The special counsel praised law enforcement who faced down the rioters that day. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK SMITH, SPECIAL COUNSEL: The men and women of law enforcement who defended the U.S. Capitol on January 6th are heroes. They are patriots and they are the very best of us. They did not just defend a building or the people sheltering in it, they put their lives on the line to defend who we are as a country and as a people. They defended the very institutions and principles that define the United States.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: As many as 140 officers were injured that day. One of those officers is D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges. He joins us now.

Daniel, it's good to see you again.

I mean, no one will ever forget the video of you being crushed as you all were trying to hold the line and hold back rioters on that day. With that in mind, what does this indictment mean to you as someone who is on the frontlines defending the Capitol that day?

OFC. DANIEL HODGES, D.C. METROPOLITAN POLICE: This indictment has been a long time coming and I'm just grateful that it's finally here. And in so many ways, it's just the beginning, really. So, while it is great to finally see some movement on that front, it's just another step in the process.

[10:10:00]

So, I'm looking forward to the trial and I'm looking forward to being as speedy as it is effective.

BOLDUAN: Does this feel like accountability to you?

HODGES: Like I said, it's a step in the process. Accountability is the end of the trial when he is hopefully found guilty of his crimes, and then sentencing is carried out. That is personal accountability for Trump and hopefully his co-conspirators. Ultimate accountability would be cultural, how the name Donald Trump would be held and discussed by Americans, but that's a long way off.

BOLDUAN: What do you think of that statement from Jack Smith, noting the heroism shown by you and hundreds of other officers that day? I mean, the fact that he spoke for only a couple of minutes in announcing the indictment and as part of it, he spoke to you all in that time.

HODGES: Jack Smith was very free with his praise, and I'm very grateful for his acknowledgment. And I really have to return it, that he took this assignment knowing that he's going to put himself in the crosshairs of so many pundits and people who are members of the Donald Trump cult.

But he's clearly done his job. He's put together a very compelling indictment. And I'm grateful for him and his team and the work that they've done.

BOLDUAN: In a very different reaction to all of this, a statement from Donald Trump and his campaign after this indictment is comparing the case to the persecutions from Nazi Germany. The statement from his legal team is that this is all protected First Amendment speech. He's expected to plead not guilty when he's arrested and arraigned tomorrow. And I want to play for you also the statement from one of the unnamed, uncharged co-conspirators Rudy Giuliani, in reaction to all of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Violating the right of free speech of an American citizen, never mind whether he was president or not. It could be anybody. It could be a homeless person. You don't get to violate people's First Amendment's right, Smith, no matter who the hell you are or no matter how sick you are with Trump derangement syndrome. And this isn't the first time you've acted like an unethical lawyer. It should be the last.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: What's your reaction when you see that? I mean, that encapsulates just some of the reaction that we've heard from those supporting Donald Trump. What's your reaction to that?

HODGES: I'm not a constitutional scholar, but I don't think the First Amendment covers inviting tens of thousands of people to D.C. to be your foot soldiers, and then telling them you have to fight, fight, fight for your country, knowing that they're armed, sending them to the Capitol, and knowing what they are capable of, what's on their minds and in their hearts. That's an insurrection. That's not protected by the First Amendment.

BOLDUAN: You're still on the job. You're still working. I know that you told my colleague recently that your life, it hasn't changed -- I mean, it's changed your life. You've never needed to experience something like that. But you're back on the job. You're still doing what you need to do.

This is all now happening in the middle of another election cycle. Are you concerned or, I don't know, do you have any fear about what this trial could mean for the country, considering the violence that you saw on January 6th?

HODGES: Well, I'm more afraid of what would happen if there wasn't a trial, if Donald Trump was allowed to do what he did and face absolutely no consequences, that would just mean that it was only a matter of time until someone tried it again, because I would call it a dry run, but it wasn't a dry run, because it was a very real attempt.

It was -- but with regards to future violence, I think the FBI making consistent arrests over the years and continuing to do so today, has been a huge measure against any threats of future violence of that nature, because everyone's afraid to come back to D.C. now. They try to save face by saying any rallies or marches are a honeypot operation, but the truth is they just don't want to get arrested, which means that what they want to do is commit crimes.

So, the arrests have been effective, and I think that any future violence would be of a smaller group or smaller nature, but potentially destructive as well.

BOLDUAN: Daniel Hodges, it's good to see you again.

[10:15:00]

Thank you so much.

HODGES: It's good to see you, too. Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Thank you. John?

BERMAN: It was a really interesting discussion.

We're getting some new reporting this morning on how Donald Trump's team is planning its defense.

And on the campaign trail, his Republican rivals weighing in, including former Vice President Mike Pence, whose testimony, by the way, may be key in this case.

And Donald Trump's web of election lies creating new legal trouble for other Republicans for their alleged role in different plots.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: So, this morning, we're getting a new sense of the defense that Donald Trump will put forth against the new charges.

[10:20:01]

His attorney said it's all purely political.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN LAURO, TRUMPA TTORNEY: Our focus is on the fact that this is an attack on free speech and political advocacy. And there's nothing that's more protected under the First Amendment than political speech.

Mr. Trump is entitled to a defense. The government has had three years to investigate this, and now they want to rush this to trial in the middle of a political season.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: Right. With us now, former Federal Prosecutor Danya Perry, she is representing Michael Cohen now in a civil case against Donald Trump, and National Security Attorney Mark Zaid, he is representing the estate of U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick in a civil lawsuit against Trump.

Danya, to the argument being made by Mr. Lauro there, Trump's counsel, free speech, Donald Trump had a right to say everything he said. In fact, in the indictment itself, it says the defense had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election, and even to claim falsely that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election, and he had won. What's the prosecutor's way around that?

DANYA PERRY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: So I think that's a straw man argument. If he had been charged with inciting an insurrection, for example, there might be a legitimate First Amendment defense. The charges were crafted very carefully here and skirted that issue.

So, the question really is not whether or not the former president believed that the election was stolen, and we'll put a pin on that because it's, I think, very clear from the four corners of the indictment that he didn't believe that. But was anything done in furtherance of the scheme to overturn the results of the election? And here, there are so many allegations about, for example, the false slate of electors.

So, I think the question more is, did the president at the time knowingly allow these false names with falsified documents, fake places where the fake votes were taken? Did he know that that was being done and that those fake names were going to be submitted to Congress? And from -- you know, it flies off the pages that he did know that. So, I think that's a false defense, and I don't see that flying in court.

BERMAN: Not so much what he said, he had a right to say it, is what he did. The acts were corrupt, the prosecutors will say, or he coerced people to commit corrupt acts.

Mark, another defense here, and we've begun to hear this, and I know we will hear it more, is Trump was acting on advice of counsel. There were lawyers telling him, you have a right to do this.

MARK ZAID, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: Well, the problem for that is a number of those lawyers are the co-conspirators, yet to be formally identified, although as you guys have reported, five of the six have been identified.

And this district court, unlike in the Middle District of Florida, in the Mar-a-Lago case, has ruled on piercing the attorney-client privilege. In fact, there are numerous emails and information in this indictment. I look particularly at paragraph 30 dealing with Georgia, where it's talking specifically about communications with counsel, but showing that there's a potential unlawful act in having Donald Trump file a known false verification with respect to the civil lawsuit in Georgia.

So, that's going to be a difficult argument. And also we've all reported a number of these lawyers, Eastman Powell, Giuliani, are all facing disciplinary action in their respective bar associations, their licensing jurisdictions, for unethical conduct related to exactly what this indictment is about.

BERMAN: If you can put that in ways that maybe some of us who haven't gone to law school would understand, right, why can't I say a lawyer said it was okay, even if that lawyer maybe was a really bad lawyer? ZAID: Sure. So, I've been watching Better Call Saul and Breaking Bad. So, anyone who's ever watched those can see how a lawyer cannot participate in unlawful activity. You could be a lawyer for a drug cartel but you can't help the drug cartel distribute the drugs and help beat up people to send a message.

So, there's a fine line. There are certain things we can do, and even criminal defense lawyers can do, that some people might not find palatable. But there is a fairly clear line that you can't cross and the argument and certainly the bar jurisdictions are saying these lawyers cross that line.

BERMAN: Danya, you put a pin in the issue of intent before.

[10:25:00]

Let's take that pin out. Because all over this indictment, it does seem that Jack Smith and his team are trying to address that, listing again and again and again how people told Trump he had lost.

PERRY: So, I don't think that's an element or I know, as a matter of law, it's not technically an element of any of the crimes that are charged. But as a matter of storytelling and jury appeal, it certainly would behoove the prosecutors to be able to present evidence to the jury that this guy was lying the entire time, that anyone around him with any credibility, every adviser, every lawyer, every campaign aide, the Department of Justice, White House counsel were telling him there was no fraud, this election was not stolen, you have lost.

And so I do think it might matter to the jury to really understand the depth of the deceit here. And you want to avoid a jury notification issue where you know even one juror could think, hey, you shouldn't submit these fake names but he really thought he'd won, so kind of a conscientious objection kind of a process. So, I think that in terms of explaining this to the public and also to those 12 members of the jury, I think that's an important part of the narrative here.

BERMAN: Mark, how quickly do you think this trial can take place and how do you think that Judge Tanya Chutkan will handle it?

ZAID: So, that's a big issue here. So, unlike the Mar-a-Lago case, which I've handled espionage cases before, they're very straightforward. Generally speaking, they don't go to trial because they're that straightforward. They get decided in pre-trial motions and then the individual pleads out most typically.

This case is a lot more complicated, factually, somewhat legally, but more factually, because there's a lot of players. And that's one of the reasons we probably don't see the other co-conspirators being indicted that will delay the case too.

I am not confident this will go to trial before the election, unfortunately. There are a lot of motions and discovery efforts that the defense can make. This judge has been around now for almost a decade. I've had some cases before her. She's a good judge. I think she's going to be fair and I hope and think Judge Cannon down in Florida will be fair. But there's a lot of other issues or sort of availability that Judge Cannon has to make new decisions because there's no precedent down there, whereas up here, this type of case is legally a little bit more settled. But, factually, it's not going to be an easy case.

BERMAN: Mark Zaid, Danya Perry, thanks to both of you, great discussion. Kate?

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Coming up for us, Republican presidential candidates, they're reacting to the news of their competitor, Donald Trump, now facing criminal indictment over trying to stay in power, trying to overturn the 2020 election, as they all are now running in 2024. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]