Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Following Trump's Altercation with Judge on The Stand, Ivanka Trump Will Next Testify; Ivanka Trump to Testify as Court Returns Tomorrow; Interview with Federal and White-Collar Criminal Defense and Columbia Law School Lecturer in Law Attorney Caroline Polisi; Protest Turns Deadly in Southern California; New Warning to College Leaders: Stop Hate or Risk Losing $$; Today: Supreme Court to Hear Major 2nd Amendment Case. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired November 07, 2023 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Tomorrow, it is Ivanka Trump who takes the stand and could be the final witness in the 250 million fraud case against her father and her father's business. This comes after Donald Trump put on a show on the stand but also gave testimony that could have a serious impact in this case.

CNN's Kara Scannell is with us now. Kara, what can we expect?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, John, Ivanka Trump is expected to take the stand when court resumes tomorrow, and she is someone that the A.G.'s office wants to testify because she was involved in the Trump organization's relationship with Deutsche Bank, with some of the loans at play in this case.

All of this goes back to this question of these financial statements and were they fraudulent that the judge said that they were. Now, she is the third Trump child who will be testifying. Donald Trump Jr. said he didn't prepare the financial statements. Eric Trump said he wasn't aware of his father's financial statements until this investigation got underway. And I obtained an excerpt of Ivanka Trump's deposition from last year and she says a little bit of both of those. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LOUIS SOLOMON, NY AG'S OFFICE: Do you have any recollection of your father having personal financial statements?

IVANKA TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP'S DAUGHTER: Not specifically.

SOLOMON: What about generally?

TRUMP: Well, see, I combine them all in my mind. Like the statements of the company, and so I -- no, I mean, not like specific to him. I've --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Question --

Trump: -- look, I have my own -- I've never prepared one. I don't know. I've never made one. I'm not an accountant.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCANNELL: So, John, some of that we also heard when Donald Trump was on the stand yesterday for nearly four hours. He acknowledged that he did look at his financial statements, that on occasion he suggested values for some properties, and that he knew that the banks had relied on them. But he also put up a number of defenses. Arguing that the -- that he never inflated the property values.

He did acknowledge there was a mistake with his triplex apartment, but he said he thought Mar-a-Lago was undervalued and he never caused its value to be increased on the statement. He also said there was a worthless clause saying that these people shouldn't rely on them because there are some disclaimers in there. Now, that is something that the judge has already ruled, it was, "A worthless argument."

In addition, Trump maintained repeatedly on the stand that nobody lost money, the banks were not victims, and foreshadowing that when they begin their defense in this case as soon as Monday, that we may begin to hear from some of the bankers in this case who are expected to say that these statements were not material to their decisions in making these loans.

John.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN NEWS CENTRAL CO-ANCHOR: Kara, thank you so much.

Joining us now is Caroline Polisi, Federal and White-Collar Criminal Defense Attorney. She's also a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School. It's good to see you, Caroline. Thank you so much for coming in.

Ivanka Trump up next. What do you think the state is looking to get with her and what do you think she's going to try to do here.

CAROLINE POLISI, FEDERAL AND WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND LECTURER IN LAW, COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL: Yes, well, Ivanka has tried purposely to really distance herself from this case, from the get-go. Remember, she was a defendant, initially, in Tish James' case. She successfully got that dismissed against her because of statute of limitations issues. She tried to evade testifying in this case. She argued that she wasn't sufficiently tied to the Trump organization in New York. That failed.

So, I think you're going to see her, really, in line with her brothers, Don Jr. and Eric. Sort of the I didn't know anything, you were -- you heard that quote there, you know, I'm not an accountant, that's almost echoing what Don Jr. said.

[09:35:00]

So, I think she'll try to do as little damage as possible to her father and her brothers, while at the same time maintaining, you know, complete, ignorance with respect to the financials here.

BERMAN: Yes, this is the most we will have seen, I think, publicly of Ivanka Trump in some time too, so that'll be interesting in and of itself. We're in this interregnum between Donald Trump's testimony yesterday, Ivanka Trump's testimony tomorrow. Trump, as Kara noted, and as Kate has noted repeatedly, said he was aware of valuations. He weighed in occasionally on the financial statements, and he knew that banks relied on him. All of those things emerged from his testimony. So, where does that leave the case going forward?

POLISI: Yes, I love this. This was classic Trump. It's the -- I call it, the perfect call defense. He -- his hubris really wouldn't allow him to take the path that his sons had taken, which is I really wasn't involved at all. He did. You're right. He admitted to weighing in on these valuations. In fact, he said that they were undervalued in some respects. My favorite was, you know, with respect to the square footage of his apartment, he said, well, maybe that was including the roof.

So, he really, really you know, tried to defend these valuations while at the same time admitting that he had something to do with them. I think it was a wash in terms of his testimony. I don't think there were any like slam dunks yesterday with Tish James' case. But, you know, I think little by little they are, you know, stacking up against him.

BOLDUAN: Caroline, the defense has the option to cross-examine any of these witnesses. They haven't yet. Do you think they should or need to when it comes to what you saw from Donald Trump yesterday?

POLISI: Yes. Well, Chris Kise, made a statement after the testimony. Saying that in all his years of practice, Donald Trump was the best witness he's ever had on the stand. I mean, that blows my mind. I don't know if he's, you know, I think that's just bravado.

Interesting that they didn't choose to cross-examine him. Usually, you know, you would see him try to sort of clean up some of that questionable testimony. You know, it could just be the fact that there was nothing more to give. The judge, after sort of that first, you know, back and forth in the morning, the judge did let him go on these soap bops, soliloquys, long rants. And he did get to say a lot of, I think what he had -- what he wanted to say. So, I think that was a calculated move on the defense's part.

BERMAN: I think Christopher Kise probably had that statement prepared before the testimony. No matter what Trump was going to do.

BOLDUAN: It was going to be said.

BERMAN: It was going to be the best testimony he'd ever seen.

POLISI: Yes.

BERMAN: What's left? Besides Ivanka Trump's testimony, what's left for the state to make its case? POLISI: Nothing. The state has said that Ivanka will be, you know, they're wrapping up after Ivanka. Now it's time for the defense to put on their case in chief. I think there will be somebody from Deutsche Bank coming. Remember, the issue here in this case is reliance and materiality with respect to that inducement on the statements whether or not the banks relied on them. So, I think they're going to try to fight back on that aspect of the case.

BERMAN: Caroline Polisi, you always make things so understandable. Thank you for coming in. We really appreciate it.

BOLDUAN: And whereas, bankers are normally very boring. Bankers may be very interesting in this regard.

BERMAN: Are you married to a banker?

BOLDUAN: I might be.

BERMAN: OK.

BOLDUAN: Great to see you, Caroline.

Coming up for us, dueling protests over the Israel-Hamas war turned deadly in Ventura County, California. So far, no arrests. Police are investigating this as a homicide and a possible hate crime.

And a new warning this morning to colleges who won't or can't seem to find a way to stop hate from spreading on their campuses, it could cost you a lot.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:00]

BERMAN: This morning, police are investigating the death of a Jewish man who died following an altercation at a dueling pro-Israel, pro- Palestinian demonstration in Thousand Oaks, California. Police say the victim, 69-year-old Paul Kessler, had a confrontation with at least one counter protester. His death has been ruled a homicide by the Ventura County Medical Examiner's Office.

CNN's Stephanie Elam joins us now. Stephanie, bring us up to speed on where things stand here.

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: All right. So, this happened on Sunday, John, that's what we know. There was a protest going on where there's pro-Israeli protestors and pro-Palestinian protestors that were at the same intersection in Thousand Oaks, which is northwest of Los Angeles here in Southern California.

What law enforcement is saying that witnesses said that there was an altercation with at least one other counter protestor. And that what they understand is that Kessler fell backwards, hitting his head, according to the sheriff's office. Now, this is new video that we just got cleared here in the aftermath of what happened. You see the woman there with the Palestinian flag bending down, which looks like she's trying to help the man that fell -- Kessler who fell in this moment. He was taken to the hospital but he later died the next day. He died yesterday of his injuries.

Now, it's unclear what led up to this altercation at this point. They don't know how many people were involved either. We also know that no suspect has been named yet. But we also know that the Ventura County Sheriff's office is not ruling out that this could have been a hate crime.

So, what is also interesting here is that you're looking at the neighborhood. We know that also there is a rabbi from a nearby temple who has spoken to law enforcement. He's telling CNN that there were conflicting reports, is what he has understood. He's also encouraging the community to wait for the results of this investigation before anyone jumps to conclusions.

Also, we have a statement that we have received from the executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, and the statement says this, "We are deeply saddened by this tragic and shocking loss. We join law local Jewish leaders and calling on all individuals to refrain from jumping to conclusions, sensationalizing such a tragedy for political gains, or spreading rumors that could unnecessarily escalate tensions that already are at an all-time high."

[09:45:00]

Obviously, the Sheriff's County -- Sheriff's Office looking for any more video from anyone who was there to share that with them so they can further investigate this. But they are saying that this blunt force injury, according to the autopsy, is what led to Kessler's death, and the manner of death being a homicide. But still, many questions out there, John, about what led up to this and what happened. There will be a press conference later this morning that we will be tuning into for sure.

BERMAN: All right. Well, stay tuned for that. They just need more information at this point. Stephanie Elam, thank you so much.

Kate

BOLDUAN: So, facing fear and hate on more and more college campuses, the White House, the Biden administration is taking new steps. The Department of Education just pushed out new guidance to schools, even going as far to warning that federal funding could be pulled if campuses don't step it up to prevent antisemitic and Islamophobic hate.

CNN's Rene Marsh sat down with Education Secretary Miguel Cardona for an exclusive interview on this. What did you hear from the Secretary on this?

RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Kate, this is an urgent message, and it's coming from the agency in charge of policy for all of America's schools. And it's coming at a time, as you mentioned, that we've seen these unprecedented number of antisemitic incidents on campuses nationwide. And in this new letter this morning, the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights reminds K through 12, colleges and universities, that they have the, "Legal responsibility under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide all student, a school environment free from discrimination." And if not, their federal funding is at stake. Here is the education secretary on that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARSH: How aggressively will the Department of Education pursue actually pulling funding in these scenarios?

MIGUEL CARDONA, EDUCATION SECRETARY: Withholding federal dollars is in our toolbox, that wouldn't be the first thing that I would do. I would want to provide support for these universities, provide guidance. And if there are egregious acts, I want to make sure that we're investigating.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARSH: And he went on to say that the point at which a school could potentially lose their funding is if they just absolutely refuse to combat these issues that we're seeing on campuses. The agency says that it has seen an uptick in complaints filed with its civil rights office, eight to nine complaints, they're expecting that number to rise. They're also crafting additional guidelines for schools and universities to help them essentially be guided through how to handle these incidents on campuses. You know, it is TBD on when exactly that new framework will be available for campuses, Kate.

BOLDUAN: Look, it's tough, it's fraught, but it is the school's responsibilities to allow students to be able to live campus life, get their education, free from the hate and fear for their safety that we have seen since the Hamas terror attack on Israel on October 7th. It's great that you're leaning into this, Rene. Thank you so much.

John.

BERMAN: All right. In just minutes, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a key Second Amendment case, one that could ultimately impact almost every gun safety law.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:50:00]

BERMAN: All right. In just minutes, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether the government can deny access to guns for those placed under a domestic violence restraining order. This is a very important issue. It will be the first case the Supreme Court will really hear on the Second Amendment since 2022 when it struck down New York's handgun licensing requirements which marked the broadest expansion of gun rights in decades.

CNN's Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid is outside the court today. Paula, what do we expect?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, good morning, John. The Second Amendment back before the high court this morning, a little over a year after the conservative majority issued a gun rights decision that really threatened restrictions on gun ownership nationwide.

At the center of this case is a Texas man who was accused of domestic violence after an altercation with his girlfriend. He was then subject to a restraining order. And under federal law, people who are subject to restraining orders are prohibited from owning firearms. Now, this man then engaged in a series of subsequent shootings. Law enforcement searched his home and found multiple firearms. And now, he is challenging his conviction under federal law. And the Fifth Circuit, in the wake of that Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights overturned his conviction.

Now, look, John, gun rights advocates will concede that this individual is not exactly who they want to make their case. This man is a drug dealer. He's been accused of domestic violence. And he engaged in series of very bizarre shootings, including just shooting into the air at a Whataburger after his friend's credit card was declined. But instead of focusing on his personal characteristics, they emphasize that this should require a conviction, not just a restraining order, but a domestic violence conviction to restrict anyone's gun rights.

But it's also important to note that restraining orders are an important tool for law enforcement when it comes to combating domestic violence, which is a massive problem in this country. 70 women every month are shot and killed by an intimate partner, and women are five times more likely to die from domestic violence if their abuser has access to a gun. Arguments on this are going to get underway in just a few moments.

BERMAN: Yes, it's a great point you bring up there. This is being seen as a gun safety case, a Second Amendment case, but there are people in the domestic violence -- the anti-domestic violence community who are also watching this very closely because it's very important to the work that they do. It's a bucolic setting behind you Paula, but I do understand there are already protesters out?

REID: Yes, there's a sizable demonstration. This is clearly a case that brings out a lot of opinions. A lot of thoughts. There are people who believe that this is a first opportunity for the Supreme Court to really clarify what exactly they meant in that decision a little over a year ago. I mean, did they mean that every case would have to have an equivalent from the time of the country's founding? Is that what they meant?

[09:55:00]

Did they intend to include some nuance? Some context like for this and domestic violence and the realities of how rare it is to get a conviction on something like that? This is an opportunity for them. So, it's brought out a lot of people before the court today to express their opinions on this case.

BERMAN: Yes, I'm so glad you brought that up. That's what people are really looking for today. How closely they reference the past here now that the Supreme Court seems to have set that bar in Second Amendment cases. Paula Reid, great to see you. Thank you so much.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Coming up for us, key races in several critical states today. What it could mean for 2024? We have all the details for you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: The polls are open. The stakes are high. From Mississippi to Rhode Island, Kentucky to Ohio, and don't forget about Virginia.

[10:00:00]