Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Two Trump Co-Defendants Ask Judge for Separate Trials; Road to Recovery Begins for Devastated Coastal Towns; Justice Clarence Thomas Officially Discloses Private Jet Trips, Vacation Paid for by GOP Mega Donor. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired August 31, 2023 - 10:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL): -- in jeopardy when it gets to be that high.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:00:03]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Roughly $2.2 billion, New York's top prosecutor claims that's how much former President Donald Trump may have inflated his net worth in just one year. We have the details behind some new allegations.

RAHEL SOLOMON, CNN ANCHOR: Also, a major sentencing today in Washington, two members of the Proud Boys convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the January 6th attack will learn if they will spend decades in prison.

SANCHEZ: And a horrifying situation in South Africa, more than 70 people killed, dozens more injured after a building goes up in flames overnight. We have the latest on the search for survivors.

I'm Boris Sanchez along with Rahel Solomon, in for John, Kate and Sara. And you're watching CNN News Central.

This morning, two of Donald Trump's co-defendants in the Georgia election subversion case want separate trials. Former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell and pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Cheseboro are asking a Fulton County judge to sever their cases. Both have denied any wrongdoing and have already invoked their rights to a speedy trial.

For Cheseboro, the judge has already set a trial start date of October 23rd. No date has been set yet for Powell.

Now, Trump's team opposes this quick timeline. They want to delay. They say they want to sever his case as well, though no motion has yet been filed.

Let's bring in CNN's Katelyn Polantz, who has the details? So, Katelyn, why the argument for separate trials?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, both of these lawyers who were working around Donald Trump after the 2020 election, they want distance from others. Boris, in this case, there are 19 criminal defendants, including Donald Trump. They're all accused of this sprawling racketeering criminal enterprise conspiracy.

And what Ken Cheseboro and Sidney Powell are saying is that they both want to go to trial fast. They want to be looked at by the jury separately from the other defendants. And that a lot of the accusations that are being levied against them are not things that pertain to them.

So, in this racketeering conspiracy, there's 160 overt acts. Sidney Powell is saying she only knew about some of them, that she wants to be tried on and contest that those would be crimes. So, she doesn't want to be lumped in with the rest of the case. Ken Cheseboro is making a similar argument.

And so they're seeking distance. Whether that's going to be successful is a big question. The D.A. wants to keep all of the defendants together when they go to trial.

SANCHEZ: Katelyn, you also have some new reporting about Rudy Giuliani. He's been found liable for spreading lies about two Georgia election workers.

POLANTZ: Yes, Boris. There are going to be consequences as well. So, he's been found liable because he essentially didn't show up to fight this lawsuit from Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss in Georgia, a defamation case that they brought.

And now, what happens next is that he will go to trial, not on the facts of this case. He's conceded those, and the judge has ruled against him, he will go to trial on how much he has to pay, both as punishment and also to make these two women whole.

Their lawyer, Michael Gottlieb, was on CNN last night. Here is what he said about the amount that Giuliani could be fined.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL GOTTLIEB, ATTORNEY FOR SHAYE MOSS AND RUBY FREEMAN: But our expectation is that we'll be able to prove tens of millions of dollars in compensatory damages before you get to punitive damages.

So, we expect it to be a significant damages case that we'll present to the jury, and we're confident in our ability to document and demonstrate it.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Tens of millions?

GOTTLIEB: Yes, you heard me correctly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POLANTZ: So, that trial for Giuliani related to damages in this lawsuit will take place either later this year or beginning of next year. But, remember, Boris, this is only one of the legal fallout pieces that Giuliani is facing. There are other lawsuits related to his words about companies after the 2020 election. And also, he is a criminal defendant in Fulton County as well.

SANCHEZ: And we should point out there's recent reporting that indicates he's inundated by legal bills, having a difficult time paying them off. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much. Rahel?

SOLOMON: Okay, Boris. In New York, lawyers at the Attorney General's Office are claiming that Donald Trump inflated his net worth by as much as $2.2 billion in one year. The new allegations were made public in a pre-trial court filing in the civil fraud lawsuit against the former president, his adult sons, and the Trump Organization.

[10:05:05]

And in a newly released deposition from the case, Trump testified that he had, quote, very little, if any, involvement in putting the financial documents together.

Let's bring in CNN's Kara Scannell. She joins us now. So, Kara, these allegations spanned a ten-year period. I mean, what more do we know? What more do we learn.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, so this is from this New York attorney general's fraud lawsuit. And what they filed yesterday was some additional material in trying to get the judge to say, we don't even need to go to trial. We can rule on this case just on these documents.

And so they're saying that over this ten-year decade, that every year in these financial statements, the former president inflated his net worth. They said that ranged anywhere from $812 million in one year to as much as $2.2 billion. And that was in 2014 alone.

They also were saying that this big question has always been how much is Donald Trump really worth. And so they try to answer this, and they do the math based on their own appraisers, their own experts. They say that Mr. Trump's net worth in any year between 2011 and 2021 would be no more than $2.6 billion, rather than the stated net worth of up to $6.1 billion, and likely considerably less if his properties were actually valued in a full blown professional appraisal.

So, they're saying that the former president saying in these statements, at least two of the years, he was worth $6.1 billion, some of these other years, $4 billion. They're saying it was really only $2.6 billion.

Now, Trump's lawyers, they say these financial statements are not inaccurate. No one lost any money. In fact, the banks made millions of dollars in interest, and they want the judge to rule in their favor. We're not expecting the judge to rule until late September, and this is scheduled to go to trial October 2nd.

SOLOMON: But essentially saying that, at least according to the A.G.'s office, he potentially undercounted his or overcounted his net worth three times?

SCANNELL: Yes, I mean, that's a pretty big swing.

SOLOMON: Yes, a pretty big difference. Kara Scannell, thank you. Boris?

And actually we're going to keep going and talk now with former Federal Prosecutor Michael Zeldin. Michael, let's start in Georgia, we appreciate the time today, and these efforts by Powell and Cheseboro to separate their cases from the rest. A lot has been said about the strategy behind this. But from your perspective, I mean, talk to us about the why, I mean, they would want to do that.

MICHAEL ZELDIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, first, I think in respect to the speedy trial request, they may have just been trying to call Fani Willis' bluff, saying, you know, we want a speedy trial because most prosecutors ask for a trial and it takes still more time to prepare. Fani Willis said, fine. You want to go to trial? We're ready to go to trial. Whether they now will ask for a continuance of the speedy trial motion, we'll see.

But if it was a real motion, they really want to go to trial early, it's because they want to separate themselves from Donald Trump to try to say we were not the real culprits. He's the culprit. Jury, if you want to convict somebody, convict him.

And they have the advantage now saying, we didn't know these people. We didn't really act under their auspices. We just gave legal advice, Cheseboro and Sidney Powell. We didn't do anything. Wait until the big trial and then you can go get them. So, they want to try to insulate themselves from what is a more broad RICO sort of case.

SOLOMON: What about for the prosecutor, Fani Willis? I mean, she wants to try all of these defendants together. I mean, what are the advantages but also the disadvantages for Fani Willis?

ZELDIN: The advantages are it's a RICO case and she gets to tell a story and say, you see, jurors, all these people all around us, they were part of a wheel. Donald Trump was the hub of it, and they were the spokes doing all of the bad acts. They don't need to know each other. They just needed to act in concert with someone. And so that's what we're going to show you and that's why you do a big RICO case, because it gives you the full view of the case.

Now, the disadvantage for them is there are 19 people, and there's very few courtrooms in America that can have 19 people sitting around that table. And everyone gets to pick their own jury. Everyone gets to, you know, with their own reasons to allude (ph) jurors. Everyone gets to cross examine every witness. The trial could last a year. And so there's a big problem logistically. So, advantage, storytelling, disadvantage, logistics.

SOLOMON: Yes, fascinating. Michael, let's move on to another case. Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, essentially losing this defamation suit with the two Georgia workers now moving to the next phase where damages will be determined. Now, we know the lawyer for those two Georgia workers said on CNN last night with our Kaitlan Collins that they're going to be seeking millions, potentially. But how are damages determined?

ZELDIN: So, there are two types of damages. There is damages, harm, did you lose your job, did you suffer injury, all those sort of standard damages that you think of, like in a car accident, you broke your leg and you had to go to the hospital.

[10:10:03]

And then there are these cases where you get special damages for bad behavior. They're prejudicial damages based on it. And the jury can, generally speaking, be free to say, you were so bad, your behavior was so sanctionable, that we're going to end what they call punitive damages, punishment damages.

So, it's not the injury you caused directly but the way you behaved so recklessly. We're going to punish you as a way of punishing you and sending a message to others who might want to try to do the same.

So, I think the actual damages may not be in the millions. I'm not sure that those two women can show that level of damages. But the punitive phase of this thing could be very severe because they're going to show that Giuliani lied. He lied purposefully, he admitted those lies. These women suffered mightily from all sorts of threats, and their life was ruined as they testified. That's a basis for a lot of punitive damages. And that's, I think, where the Giuliani team has to really work to try to limit that claim.

SOLOMON: Yes. I mean, you remember the sort of example about not feeling safe even going to the grocery store because they were afraid that someone would hear their name, and so a lot to come here. Michael Zeldin, we appreciate the time today. Thank you. Boris?

SANCHEZ: This morning, there are coastal towns in Florida that are having a hard time trying to get back on their feet. These before and after images are now showing us heartbreaking devastation after Idalia struck as a historic Category 3 hurricane in an area that hasn't seen a direct hit like this in 125 years.

This hour, the storm is making its move out to sea. And with the threat now diminishing, the long road to recovery for many is just beginning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAWN PEREZ, RESIDENT OF PERRY, FLORIDA: I'm trying not to get emotional, but this is a beautiful town. The people are wonderful, and I hate seeing my people go through something like this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Let's take you live to Horseshoe Beach, Florida, now, which is just north of Cedar Key. Vic Micolucci from our affiliate WJXT is there. So, Vic, what are you seeing and hearing from residents where you are?

VIC MICOLUCCI, WJXT REPORTER: Boris, if you go around this region, a lot of people will say it could have been much worse. Don't tell that to anyone who lives here in Horseshoe Beach because this is their worst case scenario, the storm of the century.

I want to show you this area right behind us because there used to be a home here, actually a beautiful home built in 1955. It is just gone. Where is it, you may ask? It is over here, a couple of dozen yards away.

We went inside this home yesterday evening and want to give you some looks. We do have permission to be here, a great guy named Lin (ph). This is his family home. He has retired here. He's a fishing guide in this town. He's a retired Army veteran, disabled, and he says this has been in the family. This means a lot to him. He just repaired it after past storms. Now, he can't live in it.

He's right now trying to negotiate with the insurance adjusters, trying to get some help right now throughout this terrible situation.

And this is just one of hundreds of stories that we could tell you about here in Horseshoe Beach. I want to show you this home. This is our friend, Ms. Hope, over here. We met her yesterday. I think she's the unofficial mayor of the town here.

We love you. We love you. We're glad that you're doing well. She's holding a lot of people here together.

And if you don't mind, we're going to show everyone what it's like inside here. So, she is also a fishing captain here, and she runs part of a short-term rental in this house. So, she lost her income from that. She lost her income from fishing. And she doesn't know if she's going to be able to get insurance because of the storm surge.

I want to show you what used to be her home right here. This was the game room. She challenged us to a game of pool. I don't think that's going to be the best scenario right now, but certainly just an ugly situation. She slept here last night, obviously doesn't have electricity. Cell phone service is really spotty here, and there's just not a lot of resources.

People in Horseshoe Beach say, we're looking for help, we're asking for help. Anybody that can come and pitch in, it will be greatly appreciated.

And I just want to give you one more tidbit of information about Hope and her neighbors here in Horseshoe Beach. They're truly incredible.

Last year, down in the Fort Myers area, Southwest Florida, when Hurricane Ian came through, everyone around here gathered supplies, food, diapers, building supplies, and they drove it down to Fort Myers in a caravan. This was just a year ago. Now it's these residents, this town that need the help. Boris?

SANCHEZ: Our hearts go out to Hope and the rest of that community in Horseshoe Beach. We hope they get the help they need soon.

Vic Micolucci with WJXT, thank you so much.

[10:15:00]

Rahel?

SOLOMON: Okay, Boris. And this just sent to CNN, Justice Clarence Thomas is reeling new details about private trips that he went on that were paid for by Republican mega donor Harlan Crow. We have more on that just ahead.

Also, the Justice Department prosecutors want two members of the far right Proud Boys group to spend at least 30 years in prison for their roles in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Today they'll find out if a judge agrees. We're live outside court with the latest.

And the Canadian government doubling down after warning LGBTQ citizens to be careful while traveling to the U.S. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:20:00]

SANCHEZ: This just in to CNN, Justice Clarence Thomas is now disclosing private jet trips and a vacation paid for by a Republican mega donor. According to a newly released financial disclosure form, Harlan Crow paid for private jet trips for Thomas in 2022 to attend a speech in Texas and a vacation at Crow's New York estate.

CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic has been following the details. So, Joan walk us through what we're learning in this disclosure.

JOAN BIKSUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Sure, good morning, Boris. These are disclosures that Clarence Thomas was set to file in May, but he got a 90-day extension to make sure he completely followed up with the requirements of it.

And, overall, what this report shows, it reinforces the tight relationship between Clarence Thomas and, you know, a very wealthy conservative benefactor who has helped him over the years. This is the first time that Clarence Thomas himself, after many, many years of travel with Harlan Crow, is actually disclosing it on the report.

And, as you say, there were two private jet trips to events in Dallas, Texas, and then another one to a place where he's vacationed with Harlan Crow many, many years up in the Adirondacks, a very expensive estate where Clarence Thomas has summered.

These things were all first reported by ProPublica, but this is in a report in April that showed lots of really lavish travel that the justice had taken, but this is the first time he's actually putting it on the forms. And, again, it takes place against the backdrop of new scrutiny of the Supreme Court justices, their lack of transparency and lack of a formal ethics code for us, Boris. And let me just tell you one other thing we got today, in addition to these reports that I want to add at this first part, Boris, is what Clarence Thomas' lawyer said about this filing. He said, the attacks on Justice Thomas are nothing less than ridiculous and dangerous, and they set a terrible precedent for political blood sport through federal ethics filings.

His lawyer said that Clarence Thomas has always tried to be upfront about what he had to file, and it's just that he now knows more about what he should file. And in actuality, Boris, there had been some confusion in the rules about personal hospitality of the kind that Harlan Crow had given Clarence Thomas, but many ethics experts say that private jet travel, yacht travel, which Clarence Thomas has also enjoyed with Harlan Crow, that that should have always been reported, Boris.

SANCHEZ: there was some disagreement over that, and it wasn't only Clarence Thomas that was under scrutiny, Judge Alito also was under focus as well.

BISKUPIC: He was, too, and he had also gotten an extension, Boris, and submitted his filing today.

Now, some of the controversy over Sam Alito from before, again, arising from news reports from ProPublica, involved trips from more than a decade ago, none of those were listed on his report. What we got on the Sam Alito report was just a lot of extensive travel for speeches that he gave, including a very provocative speech that he had given in Rome right after the Dobbs decision that reversed Roe v. Wade. So, a lot of this arises in that context also.

And one other thing I would mention is that what Clarence Thomas himself put on his form about one of the private jet trips he took on Harlan Crow's dime, it came in May of 2022, just about a week after the Dobbs leak, the leak of the decision reversing Roe v. Wade. He said that he had been advised to start taking private travel rather than commercial because of safety concerns.

Now, again, that's the first time he has put that in writing, and we've -- you know, the first time we're seeing that assertion. We're not sure if all the justices are now suddenly taking more private travel than commercial because of those kinds of security concerns, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes, it's an interesting question, security considerations, because, as we know, polling has shown that popular opinion of the Supreme Court is near all-time lows.

And on that point, Joan, you'd reported previously that Chief Justice John Roberts has been trying to get all the justices on the same page with a code of ethics, some kind of agreement to say this is okay, this is not okay, this is what we need to report, this is what we don't need to report. What's the status of that agreement?

BISKUPIC: You know, that's a great question, Boris, because there's so much more scrutiny on the justices, very justifiable scrutiny on the justices who decide the law of the land for all of us. And the chief has wanted unanimity, and he has just not been able to get that among his colleagues.

And when they left for their recess in June, they were really deadlocked on it.

[10:25:01]

And they're coming back at the end of September and early October, and there will be the first time that they're actually all in a room together. And I think, no doubt, this issue is going to come up.

But at this point, it's really a stalemate. And the Chief Justice has not been able to, through his usual powers of persuasion, to get them all on board. And we've seen that Justices Thomas and Alito, who we just found the new reports from them today, Boris, they have been signaling that they think that they're already following the rules, that this scrutiny is politically motivated, as Clarence Thomas' lawyer said in his statement today, and that Justice Alito himself has said publicly, too.

SOLOMON: And, Joan, if you can just hang with us for just a moment more, we want to welcome into the conversation CNN Legal Analyst and former White House Ethics Czar Norm Eisen.

Norm, you know, this report coming out just a short time ago. I mean, what are your initial reactions to what we're learning?

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, thanks for having me, Rahel, Boris. I think that the Thomas report and the Alito report, even more so, are too little, too late. Thomas does make a number of 2022 disclosures, and he discloses an older real estate transaction involving Harlan Crow.

But there are many more trips, luxury travel, yacht trips, visits to Crow's properties, payment of a family member's tuition, those are not disclosed in here. There's a footnote saying he's still working on it.

Most ethics experts believe that those disclosures were required. There is a debate about it. Some of them, particularly the luxury private travel, I think were pretty clearly required to be disclosed years and years ago. So, it points to -- and then Alito has a much skimpier ethics report where he doesn't, for example, get into a luxury fishing trip he took years ago that has come under scrutiny.

So, it does speak to the issue that Boris was asking Joan about. How is it possible that we do not have a code of ethics that is binding upon the highest court in the land?

I can tell you when I was doing ethics in the Obama White House for the former president and his administration, not only would I have required anything like this to be disclosed, I wouldn't have allowed it in the first place. Harlan Crow has had a case with interest before the court, and he has ideological interest as a prominent conservative. So, there is an ethics crisis at the court. SANCHEZ: Norm, on the question of trying to enforce ethics within the Supreme Court, I spoke with Senator Mazie Hirono last month, who put forward a bill essentially saying that Congress could come up with ethics rules for the court.

But in speaking to legal experts, there's a lot of disagreement. They essentially say that the Constitution doesn't allow for that kind of oversight to come from Congress over the judicial branch. What do you make of that?

EISEN: Boris, I respectfully disagree with those individuals who feel that way. Congress has historically had regulatory powers over the court. Congress constitutes, for example, the number of justices who can sit on the court. It's clearly within the constitutional structure.

There's an existing ethics law that I believe is already on the books that applies to the court. No less an authority than liberal members of the court have said that they believe there's ethics authority here for regulation.

Now, the conservative wing disagrees, and that is particularly the case with Justice Alito, who's been one of the most outspoken about this, even taking to the pages, very unusual, taking to the pages of The Wall Street Journal to defend his ethics. But he's in a public debate. So, I think the better of the argument, it is constitutional.

SOLOMON: Joan, let me bring you back into the conversation. As someone who has covered the Supreme Court for quite some time, I mean, do you think the backlash, do you think the transparency that we're starting to see will actually start to create a difference or make a difference in terms of what we see moving forward?

BISKUPIC: I think some of the justices themselves hope that it does, because, as I mentioned earlier to Boris, they're divided.

[10:30:05]