Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Pence Reacts To Latest Trump Indictment; Trump Expected In Court Tomorrow For Jan. Six Case; Trump Camp Lashes Out After Latest Indictment. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired August 02, 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]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: The former vice president talking about Trump's indictment now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: January six was a tragic event. I've spoken and written about it extensively like I have nothing to hide. By God's grace, I believe we did our duty that day, fulfilling the oath that I'd taken to the Constitution and to the American people.

The Constitution is quite clear about the role of the vice president in the counting of electoral votes, which essentially says the vice president presides over a joint session of Congress where the electoral votes that are certified by the states shall be open and shall be counted. And irrespective of the indictment, I want the American people to know that I had no right to overturn the election. And then on that day, President Trump asked me to put him over the Constitution. But I chose the Constitution. And I always will.

And I really do believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be President of the United States. And anyone who asked someone else to put themselves over the Constitution should never be President of the United States again. I've been very forthright about this issue and I'll continue to be.

Now, with regard to the substance of the indictment, I've been very clear, I had hoped it wouldn't come to this. I had hoped that this issue and the judgment of the president's actions that they would be left to the American people. But now, it's been brought in a criminal indictment.

And I can't assess whether or not the government has the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt with the assertion in the indictment, and the president is entitled to a presumption of innocence. But for my part, I want people to know that I had no right to overturn the election. And that what the president maintained that day, and frankly, has said over and over again over the last two and a half years is completely false. And it's -- and it's contrary to what our Constitution and the laws of this country provide.

You know, I'm a student of American history. And the first time I heard in early December, somebody suggested, as vice president, I might be able to decide which votes to reject and which to accept. I knew that it was false.

Our founders had just won a war against a king. And the last thing they would have done was best unilateral authority and any one person to decide who would be the next president. I dismissed it out of hand.

Sadly, the president was surrounded by a group of crackpot lawyers that kept telling him what his itching ears wanted to hear. Well, I've made my case to him, but what I understood is my oath to the Constitution, to require the president ultimately, ultimately, you know continue to demand that I choose him over the Constitution.

And so, in this moment, irrespective of how this case plays out, I want the American people to know that I believe with all my heart, by God's grace, I did my duty that day. And as I stand for the Republican nomination for president, I want them to know whatever it means to me, I'll always stand on the Constitution of the United States of America.

Look. Our country is more important than any one man. Our Constitution is more important than any one man's career. And that's true of me, and that's true of the president -- former president of the United States. So we're going to stand on the facts and we're going to stand by what happened that day. The stand that we took. And trust ourselves to the judgment of Republican voters and ultimately, the American people.

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sir, the statewide near-total abortion ban is still in legal limbo. What are your thoughts regarding this issue?

PENCE: Sorry, I couldn't quite hear you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, the state's near-total abortion ban is still in legal limbo, what are your thoughts regarding this issue?

PENCE: Well, I'm pro-life. I don't apologize for it. And I couldn't be more grateful to the Republican leadership --

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[14:05:08]

KEILAR: All right, you're listening there to former vice president, Mike Pence, of course, his actions on January six and when he chose not to do very much at the heart of this indictment last night of former President Donald Trump. Pence, by the way there in Indianapolis, talking about the economy, but he was asked about the indictment. Specifically, about a conversation that he had with President Trump, and also whether the former president should be indicted. Very interesting because previously in this case, when it comes to the January six case that the special counsel is investigating, he had said very recently that he thought the conduct was reckless, but not criminal. Again, reiterating here that he feels that former President Trump put himself above the Constitution and that that is disqualifying for a candidate for president. So, he's saying here that the 45th President, Donald Trump, should be disqualified from running for president.

But he also said that he had hoped it wouldn't come to this, that he wanted this left to the American people, obviously to determine their as they vote ahead in the election. Of course, Pence, a rival of Donald Trump's in that election, though is polling significantly, significantly behind the former president.

Trump, meanwhile, is scheduled to be in court tomorrow after federal prosecutors charged him with four separate counts in this indictment, all related to his attempt to hold on to power after the 2020 election. It's a 45-page indictment that says Trump "enlisted co- conspirators to assist him in his criminal efforts." It repeatedly referenced to six unindicted co-conspirators. CNN has been able to identify five of those six. They are former Trump lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, and Sidney Powell. Also former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, and pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz is outside of the federal court. We have our Evan Perez here in the studio with us. Evan, to you first. Let's talk about these charges that Trump is facing, and then we'll kind of go back to something that Pence said. But take us through these charges.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know these four charges, right, which are the ones that frankly match what he was warned about in his -- in his target letter. And really, what prosecutors do in this -- in this 45-page document is they lay out that the former president has every right to challenge the election results -- to go to court and challenge those results. And to even lie about it.

What he does here, according to prosecutors, is he engages with these co-conspirators -- co-conspirators in this conspiracy -- this series of conspiracies. One of them was to defraud the United States and the ability of the electoral system to count these votes. The conspiracy to impede the ceremonial function of Congress to certify the vote.

And then, of course, to destroy -- the conspiracy to deny the right of Americans to have their votes be counted -- their lawful votes be counted. And so that's what prosecutors are charging him here for. And they lay out all of the different ways in support of this.

One of the things that they point to is, of course, interfering with the vice president's ceremonial responsibility on January six, which is to certify the election. And they go into a conversation that happens on January first -- January first of 2021. And they describe a conversation between the former president and then-Vice President Pence at the time. And they say the vice -- you know, the vice president, Pence, was refusing to join a lawsuit that would have helped try to delay some of this.

Pence responded that he thought there was no constitutional basis for such authority, and that it was improper. In response, the former president tells the vice president, you're too honest. And within hours of that conversation, the former president reminded his supporters to meet in Washington before the certification proceeding. Again, setting in motion the events that happened on January six, telling them of course, that this was the Stop The Steal effort.

KEILAR: That conversation is what Pence was just asked about there by a reporter in his Indianapolis event.

PEREZ: Yes.

KEILAR: And it's interesting because, look, we know that Pence is looking at this through a political lens, right?

PEREZ: Sure.

KEILAR: We're in the middle and he's running and Trump's running. But there's also the legal lens. And you're starting to see, I think, you know, Pence is a smart guy and he's starting to see how perhaps these things are -- you know, he can't run away from the legal aspect of this.

PEREZ: Yes.

KEILAR: He said he can't assess whether the special counsel has the evidence to back up the indictment, but he seemed to get a little closer than he'd gotten before.

PEREZ: Sure, he does.

KEILAR: Before, he said you know the conduct was reckless but not criminal. Now, he's talking about the Constitution -- he's talked about the Constitution. Before, he's also mentioning the law.

PEREZ: Right, exactly. And I think -- look. I think you can see the struggle of the former vice president. And you've seen it over the last few months, right, where he has been struggling to decide what to do. Whether he was going to -- how far to fight the effort to go testify.

[14:10:09]

He's done all of the things to try to make sure that he's looked to the -- you know, he's not exactly helping the Justice Department against Donald Trump, but also to make it clear that what Trump did was not lawful. And what he -- well, the words he used in that very interesting extended soundbite there was he said that what former president was doing was not in concurrence with the Constitution and the law. And that -- those words, right, is exactly what the Justice Department and what Jack Smith is accusing Trump of.

They're saying that you broke the law by going beyond just lying about the fraud and going to court, right? They're saying, you went beyond that. And that's -- those are exactly the words that Mike Pence seems to finally be comfortable saying, look, he's going to be a -- he probably is going to be a trial witness because of exactly things -- the things he just said.

KEILAR: It's tough when you want to hew back to that traditional Republican sense of law in order --

PEREZ: Right.

KEILAR: -- to not make that very easy cognitive leap between someone broke the law and they should be prosecuted. But he is still trying to thread that needle.

PEREZ: This could not --

KEILAR: He still is.

PEREZ: You should not be that difficult things --

KEILAR: Yes.

PEREZ: -- certainly for constitutional conservatives to do.

KEILAR: Yes. It's -- we hear him doing some rhetorical gymnastics there as he does.

PEREZ: Right.

KEILAR: I want to bring in Katelyn here. Katelyn, what are we going to be expecting to see tomorrow when Trump makes his first court appearance in this case?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME & JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Brianna, whenever you are charged with a crime in any court, you are arrested on those charges and informed of them officially in the court system. So, Donald Trump, he's going to be doing that tomorrow for the first time -- or I'm sorry, for the third time after his arrest and initial appearances in the New York case and in the Florida federal court. We are going to be expecting him to be here in person in federal court in DC to have his initial appearance.

He very well may have the opportunity tomorrow to enter his initial pleading of not guilty. A pleading we expect him to stick with to get this to trial. We do not expect him to plead guilty. He is not that type of defendant in this at all.

And so, when this starts tomorrow, it brings Donald Trump into this court system, into this courthouse just a couple of blocks away from the Capitol. It puts him before a magistrate judge, so the judge that's doing this initial proceeding. And then essentially kicks him off into the process that gets him toward trial and will give him over then to the federal district judge who's going to be overseeing his case, Tanya Chutkan.

And so, one of the things here is that while this case brings together an unwieldy part of what has been investigated here, there are so many different legs to this investigation. There are so many things that happened after 2020. It actually may be a fairly streamlined case. And so. we're going to be watching for how quickly the judges respond. Both the magistrate judge and the federal district judge on setting deadlines after this.

There are no classified documents in this case like there are in Florida. And Donald Trump, at this time he's the only defendant. And so, we are going to see a very focused hearing, perhaps a very short hearing tomorrow for Donald Trump to appear in court for the first time in Washington, DC. And it will get moving on that U.S. v. Trump case, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right. We'll be watching for that. Katelyn Polantz, live at the courthouse, thank you so much. And, Jim, this is the former president as this case makes its way towards that Judge Tanya Chutkan. I know that you're looking into more about who she is.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Let's take a look at what we know about Judge Chutkan. She's going to preside over Trump's criminal case after she is -- after he is arraigned.

She is, of course, like all judges in cases like this randomly assigned by the courts. Her name, Tanya Chutkan, is a federal judge in Washington. She has presided over many criminal cases including many involving January six rioters.

So, what's her background? She was appointed by President Obama back in 2014. Confirmed by the Senate, 95 to zero. Of course, that would be Democratic and Republican votes. More than a decade prior, as a public defender.

As of last month, she has presided over dozens of criminal cases for January six defendants including more than 30 of them. In those cases, she handed down -- in some cases harsher sentences than what prosecutors recommended, at least nine times. Match the recommendation from prosecutors 14 times.

Here is one example of those cases. It involves Robert Palmer. He admitted to attacking police officers with a fire extinguisher, a plank, and a poll. In December 2021, Judge Chutkan sentenced him to more than five years behind bars.

[14:15:05]

The judge, we should note as well, has referenced Donald Trump in several cases, including -- and one of them saying to a rioter "that he did not go to the United States Capitol out of love for our country. He went for one man." That one man being Donald Trump.

Two years ago, she also rejected Trump's executive privilege claims to withhold some White House records from January six. 700 pages of White House Records, in fact. Writing and you may remember this. "Presidents are not kings, and plaintiff is not president."

Let's speak more about the case going forward with former federal prosecutor Katie Cherkasky. Katie, good to have you on today. First, I wonder. When you look at this special counsel's indictment here, based in large part on lies that the special counsel says in the indictment that the president spread knowingly, knowing that they were lies leading to events on January six, attempt to overturn the election. Is there something missing in the indictment that you think should have been there that is not there?

KATIE CHERKASKY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think a lot of people are probably surprised that there was not a charge directly related to the interaction and to the inciting of violence on that day. But I think big picture here, we would really be remiss to not talk about the jurisdiction of this case from a criminal prosecutorial standpoint. So, there's been a lot of discussion about the facts and I think that Donald Trump obviously has some defenses that he's going to raise, First Amendment-wise, attorney-client privilege-wise.

But ultimately, this case is unprecedented in terms of the constitutionality of it. And I think that is something that is really going to be potentially a showstopper. So, well, his conduct may be very well condemnable, the idea of a criminal prosecution here, I think is very tenuous.

SCIUTTO: Why do you think the special counsel -- and granted you have not seen the evidence you weren't sitting there in front of the grand jury. But why would a special counsel not take the step of that additional charge? Would it be simply a judgment I'm taking the path where I have the best evidence?

CHERKASKY: Sure. Of course, it's based on the evidence. And here, I think any sort of charge relating to incitement of a riot or violence of any sort was very, very weak on the evidence that was presented because there was ambiguity in a lot of the language that Donald Trump used to his supporters telling them at times to go in peace.

When you're talking about inciting violence under the Supreme Court precedent, it really requires imminent incitement of lawless activity, and it cannot be couched in any sort of vague or ambiguous terms. So, I believe that Jack Smith saw that that was a weak charge, even based upon the evidence that we have seen. And, of course, there may be other evidence we do not have. But ultimately, that charge does not appear in the indictment at this point.

SCIUTTO: We already know that Trump's attorneys are going to be taking in part a First Amendment defense here, saying it's a freedom of speech issue here. For those of us like myself who are -- who are not lawyers, in layman's terms, where does the, you can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater kind of thing? Where does it reach the point where your speech is limited by the potential effects like the special counsel is arguing here, in effect that those lies help drive the violence?

CHERKASKY: Well, there are certain categories of speech that are actually criminalized and even with our broad free speech rights. And there are only certain things that kind of crossed that line. Here, we're talking about not only an executive discussing matters of election regularity, which arguably falls within his authority, at least that's what Trump's defense team is going to allege here, I would imagine, but we're also talking about an intent that has to be proven. And again, there's a lot of attorneys involved.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CHERKASKY: There's a lot of advice that's been given. And there is a lot of potential genuine intent on the part of Donald Trump to genuinely look into something even though the allegations are that he "knew that it was false."

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CHERKASKY: That is something that the prosecution has to prove.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CHERKASKY: And that is not necessarily an easy task, again, in a criminal forum. Now, in the court of public opinion, I think a lot of people have very strong opinions about the condemnable nature of this conduct. But when we're looking at actual statutes and evidence that needs to be put forth, I think that it's a very weak case in many respects.

SCIUTTO: We don't know all the evidence, but a comment like one we do know that Trump turned to Mike Pence regarding certifying the electors on January six and said you're too honest, in effect. Is a comment like that indicative that the president knew what he was trying to pressure the vice president to do was on a false basis?

CHERKASKY: It needs way more context.

SCIUTTO: Right.

CHERKASKY: And that's going to be the answer to a lot of evidence analysis, right? So, any sort of conversation and comments maybe tried to be used against Donald Trump by the prosecution but there's going to be a retort by the defense in terms of the greater context of the conversation.

[14:20:09]

And that's assuming we get to the facts of this case. Because again, I know I've kind of mentioned this, but constitutionally speaking, there's never been an attempt to try a former president for acts that were committed while in office. And the argument is that impeachment would be the only remedy. Here, there was a failed impeachment.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CHERKASKY: And I think ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to delineate the line that is crossed where a president is actually acting outside the scope of their executive authority, which is quite broad, especially when it comes to matters of ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed and things of that sort.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CHERKASKY: So, that's a constitutional kind of analysis of that that I think is not being discussed quite as much as the underlying facts. If you had another defendant who wasn't the former president with the same facts and evidence, it could be a much stronger case, certainly.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

CHERKASKY: But I think you have to get over that jurisdictional bar, which is something that the prosecutors I'm sure have analyzed. but it's going to be a strong defense on Trump's side, certainly.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, Mitch McConnell, of course, said -- when he chose to vote to acquit, he said, well, there's a legal process -- a criminal process that a former president can go through, which of course has happened. We'll see if he answers to that. Katie Cherkasky, thanks so much. Brianna.

CHERKASKY: Thank you.

KEILAR: Despite facing three indictments, Trump's campaign says the former president is undeterred in his quest for the White House. We'll have more on his political playbook next. You're watching CNN NEWS CENTRAL, and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:25:30]

KEILAR: Tomorrow, former President Trump will be in front of a federal judge for a historic third indictment. But today, his campaign, his lawyers, and his allies in Congress are flooding the zone. They are trying to discredit the special counsel, claiming these new charges are politically motivated.

CNN's Kristen Holmes is near the president's golf -- former president's Golf Club in Bedminster for us. Kristen, it's really a full-court press today from the Trump team as well as his allies in Congress. And this was something that was weeks in the making.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Brianna, that's right. I mean, they knew about this. They need to potential for an indictment when Trump received the target letter weeks ago and they began planning their response then.

They had statements ready. They had talked to his allies on the Hill, who also as you notice quickly put out statements after that indictment came down. They also had videos that they had prepared.

I saw at least three videos that have clearly been prepared before the indictment actually came down that were blasted out yesterday, again, as them trying to take control of the media narrative. But the other thing to notice here is that part of the reason they are playing this out and saying that this is political is because he is in fact running his third presidential campaign. And at times, it does feel as though we're watching almost two parallel stories playing out.

I just learned from sources close to Trump that last night after Trump was indicted for the third time, he had dinner with Fox News executives who encouraged him to participate in the first presidential debate which Fox is hosting. The reason that is significant is because the president -- the former president is right now the front-runner for the GOP primary. He also has said he's not sure if he's going to participate.

But you see all of that happening on the political side. Whereas on the legal side, he's appearing in court tomorrow. So, this is kind of the unprecedented nature of where we are right now as you watch these.

At times, they intertwine and the legal strategy becomes a political strategy. And at times, it seems like they couldn't possibly be intersecting at all. This presidential candidate having political conversations about being president again, while he is being indicted for charges that he was trying to undermine democracy.

KEILAR: He's due in court tomorrow, Kristen. Is he planning to capitalize on this?

HOLMES: Brianna, absolutely. They want as many eyes on this as possible. Now, there was conversations about whether or not they would take the DOJ up on this offer for a Zoom. If that was the case, they were trying to figure out how to get the media involved in that over to Trump's club at Bedminster.

But we do expect him to appear in court tomorrow in person. That has not been confirmed by the Trump team. However, that is what we are reading between the tea leaves here.

That is the expectation. And based on the past, that is what we have seen. They want to make sure that they take full command of the narrative and try to spin this in their best interests, which of course is to say that this is political.

KEILAR: All right. Kristen Holmes, live for us in New Jersey, thank you for that report. Jim?

SCIUTTO: We're joined now by former Trump White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, also a CNN presidential historian, and former director of The Nixon Presidential Library Tim Naftali. Good to have you both.

Stephanie, if I could begin with you. Trump and his allies are saying that this is a partisan hit job, that he did nothing wrong after the election and leading up to January six. He was just exercising his rights. Do you agree?

STEPHANIE GRISHAM, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, no. I don't agree at all, but I expect this from them. This is exactly what he's always done.

He plays the victim. Even back in the White House when I was press secretary. And you know, the first impeachment with Ukraine, it's everything's a witch hunt. Everyone's out to get him.

But sadly, that message works. It works with the base. And there -- his poll numbers only go up with these indictments. And you know, I'm hoping that the Republican candidates in the primary are going to come out swinging a little harder like Pence today. I was really happy to see that because I think the only way that people will see who he really is, is if people can stand up to him. You stand up to a bully, right?

SCIUTTO: Yes. To Stephanie's point, Tim. Just a short time ago, in fact, on our air, the former vice president spoke about this indictment. Let me -- let me play those comments and I want to get your reaction. Have a listen.

We don't have the sound but let me -- let me read what he said. He said anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president. Our country is more important than one man. On January six, former President Trump demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution. I chose the Constitution, and I always will.

You, of course, are involved in the Nixon Library with a president who resigned in disgrace accused of crimes.