Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Attends Civil Fraud Trial as Testimony Nears End; Trump Rivals Spar at Debate, Iowa Caucuses 39 Days Away; University Presidents Face Backlash Over Anti-Semitism Testimony. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 07, 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: Plumes of smoke rising over Gaza again this morning as we're now hearing from freed hostages confronting the Israeli prime minister in leaked audio why she's angry at the Israeli government.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: A killing spree in two major Texas cities leaves six people dead and two police officers wounded, and investigators say one suspect is behind all of that violence.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, just a few moments ago, Donald Trump walked into a New York courtroom. This is the civil fraud trial that threatens his business empire.

We're getting pictures of him from inside the courtroom itself before each day's hearing begins. The cameras are allowed in to take pictures with no one talking. You can see Donald Trump there obviously sitting down at the defense table with his attorneys there.

It is worth noting that Trump takes the stand next week in his own defense.

Today, he is an observer, and moments ago, he made a series of comments as he walked in there, comments that are worthy of analysis, which we'll get to in just a moment.

At stake here, $250 million at least and control of his business empire. $250 million is how much New York Attorney General Letitia James wants Trump and his sons to pay after they were found liable for fraud. And important to note, they have already been found liable for fraud.

So, as we move off of those pictures, CNN's Brynn Gingras is outside the courthouse this morning. Brynn, what's the latest?

BRYNN GINGRAS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John. And so a lot more on those pictures you're showing your viewers, we know that, of course, Donald Trump is seated there at the defense table. We also know today his son, Eric Trump, who was scheduled to testify yesterday, but didn't take the stand, it was a dark day in court, they decided not to put him on the stand, he is also in the courtroom.

And it's notable that we're learning that Tish James, the New York attorney general, she so far is not expected to attend court today.

[10:05:06]

So, that is what we are getting from inside the courtroom before testimony begins.

As you just mentioned, the former president expected to take the stand in his own defense, be the last witness for the defense on Monday. But today, he is just a spectator at the defense table, a defendant in this case, of course, and he wants to listen to the testimony of an NYU professor of accounting who's expected to be the second to last witness and back up the defense's claims that Trump never overinflated his -- didn't break any accounting rules when it comes to those financial statement of conditions.

Remember, a core claim by the New York attorney general in this case that they inflated the values of assets to get better loans and interest rates. This witness is expected to say that there was never, ever intent to do so. So, that is one of the outstanding claims that remains in this civil lawsuit.

As you just mentioned, John, you're going to get to more of what the former president said outside the courtroom. He does need to be careful with what he does talk about. We didn't hear anything about that gag order when he just spoke because that gag order, remember, remains in effect. He cannot speak ill of anybody of the judge's staff, which, of course, he has violated twice so far in this trial.

But, listen, this is the full last week of testimony in this New York civil fraud trial that has been going on for a couple of months now. And we, again, do expect the former president to take the stand in his own defense on Monday. John?

BERMAN: All right. Brynn Gingras outside the courthouse, watching the developments there, Brynn, thank you very much. Sara?

SIDNER: All right. We did hear from Trump, as you heard John say, he gave a couple of things that gives you an idea of what his defense is going to be. He said he did nothing wrong, no victims, and he never defrauded anyone.

With us now, CNN National Correspondent Kristen Holmes. Kristen, he doesn't have to testify. He has been in court being an observer, which he is doing today. Why do you think he chose today to sit in, because he hasn't been there every single day?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and this was actually a last minute decision, Sara. We were not expecting this until roughly Monday or Tuesday that he would actually sit in, that he would be in New York before Saturday when he has an event. And as you've noted and Brynn noted, he is expected to take the stand on Monday. So, that's one big thing to point out here. This is really the ramp up to him taking the stand, part of the preparation, hearing what the arguments are, hearing what his own witnesses are saying before he takes the stand.

The other part of this that we have to remember is that these witnesses that are going forward have been picked by his team.

One point I want to make here is that earlier this week, there was a witness who took the stand who said that Mar-a-Lago was worth more than a billion dollars. Again, this was a witness that was called by Donald Trump's team to support the defense. And that is exactly what Donald Trump wants to hear.

Remember, we have talked about this multiple times. He is fixated on that number, particularly when it comes to Mar-a-Lago. He believes that it is worth more, and it really goes to the core of who he is. He's built an entire business empire on this idea that he was this rich business mogul who had these expensive properties. Essentially, this cuts to all of that, saying that all of this was inflated for tax purposes. So, he is really invested in this case.

And it is interesting to watch because at times he has been more invested in this case than he has in several of the criminal cases and the criminal charges that he has been faced with.

SIDNER: Yes, that's a really good point. And I do want to just mention this isn't just about the $250 million fine, but this is about the dissolution of his businesses here in New York and being able to do business here. So, it's a huge -- would be a huge blow to Donald Trump and the Trump businesses here.

Thank you so much, Kristen Holmes, for all of your reporting. Now let's toss it over to Kate.

BOLDUAN: Joining us now for more on all of this is CNN Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney Joey Jackson and CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former Federal and State Prosecutor Elie Honig.

So, let's talk about what we just saw and heard from Donald Trump going in because it is telling. I mean, Elie, why is Donald Trump saying that he won the case when we know that he already lost a portion of it and has been found liable of fraud even before this trial began?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So, first things first, Kate, we just heard Donald Trump say over and over again, we already won this case, that is false. He has not already won this case. To the contrary, he's already lost a portion of the case. The judge, even before the trial, started, ruled for the attorney general and against Donald Trump on one of the causes of action here.

Now, what Donald Trump appears to have been referring to, he kept talking about this appellate division ruling. There was a ruling by the appellate court before this trial started about Ivanka Trump. Originally, the attorney general named Ivanka Trump in her individual capacity as one of the defendants, but the appellate court said, no, she's out of the case because the allegations against her are too old. They fall outside the statute of limitations.

[10:10:01]

So, that's my best attempt to decipher what Donald Trump was saying there. His claims to have already won were vastly hyperbolic and flatly incorrect.

BOLDUAN: And then, Joey, the defenses that he basically summed it up in a few really quickly as before he went into the court, kind of the defenses that they're trying to lay out in terms of we did nothing wrong, there are no victims, the banks love us, is how he kind of ended it, what do you make of this defense argument if, and it does seem that it's become central to the legal argument that they're making in court?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So, Kate, remember that there's two imperatives here, right? It's in the midst of a presidential campaign. And so, on the one hand, he has to speak to his supporters. And on the other hand, far differently, he has to create a narrative to the judge.

Now, I say the judge. There is no jury. There are instances where you have jury nullification, which is the jury says, hey, we acknowledge a defendant did something wrong, but we're not going to find against them anyway, right? Now, this is civil, not criminal. But you're talking to a judge.

The last time that Donald Trump testified, he entangled with the judge. He went off into rhetorical flourishes. He made campaign speeches. The judge said, I'm going to remove you from the witness stand. Why do I say all this?

I say this, Kate, because he's going to testify again. And when he testifies again, I think it'll be about branding this with respect to the witch hunt, with regard to which had never been brought, with regard to what are you doing against me, and then, of course, spinning to how great his properties are, how they are undervalued, we did nothing wrong, the bankers love us, everyone made money, and the only one who thinks I did something wrong is the, according to him, corrupt attorney general.

So, it's about the presentation. It's about the narrative. It's about seizing the moment politically. And let's see how it plays in front of the judge so far. It has not played well at all.

BOLDUAN: Yes, and maybe preparing to spin and try to control the narrative of what is going to -- and whatever comes in the end from the judge and how he decides.

Elie, finally on, as Joey was saying, was attacking the attorney general, we've been talking about this gag order that remains in place. But what we heard from Donald Trump just standing outside that courtroom, just before he walked in and attacking the attorney general, I think he called her a lunatic, that does not violate the gag order, right? HONIG: You're correct. Believe it or not, Donald Trump, despite what he just said, as aggressive and inflammatory as it was, does not violate the gag order. Really important to keep in mind, this is a very narrow gag order. All the judge has said is, you cannot comment on my staff, on my clerks, on the deputies in the courtroom. That's it. Donald Trump is free to criticize, even in aggressive terms, like we just heard. This is the First Amendment in action, the judge, the attorney general, the case against him.

And I think it's worth keeping that in mind, this is a very, very narrow gag order. This is why the appeals court upheld it. So, yes, Donald Trump made some very aggressive statements. This is court. This is not about manners. You're allowed to be aggressive. You're allowed to defend yourself aggressively. And what he just said outside the courthouse, even if it may offend, in some respects, did not violate either the First Amendment or the gag order.

BOLDUAN: Yes, and now court will begin. Let's see what happens in court and the reaction of Donald Trump when he comes out. And, importantly, this all builds up to the star witness, Donald Trump himself taking the stand on Monday to basically bring it all home for the defense team, which will be a very big moment.

It's great to see you both. Thanks for jumping on. John?

BERMAN: All right. We're getting some new details just in on the shooter who terrorized the UNLV campus killing three people, what police are now saying about a possible motive.

And we're seeing the latest impact from the Republican presidential debate last night. So, Donald Trump walked into the courtroom didn't even bother to mention it. What does that say?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SIDNER: Well, Donald Trump is in a New York court today, his Republican rivals hitting the campaign trail fresh off a fiery debate that he wasn't at. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy are in Iowa. Chris Christie will be in New Hampshire and Nikki Haley in Iowa tomorrow. With that state, it's just 39 days away from the caucuses.

But will anything that happened last night rattle Donald Trump's commandingly in the polls? CNN Senior Political Analyst John Avlon is here with us.

I will not make you answer that question. This is what I want to talk about first. There was this sort of last chance before the Iowa caucuses for all of these candidates to come out swinging against Donald Trump. But it wasn't until 20 minutes into the debate that we heard the acknowledgement. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS CHRISTIE, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The fifth guy who doesn't have the guts to show up and stand here, he's the one who, as you just put it, is way ahead in the polls. And yet I've got these three guys who are all seemingly to compete with, you know, Voldemort, he who shall not be named.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: All right, Christie, true to form, was the first to come out against Donald Trump, come out swinging publicly. Did anybody else jump in and take their chance?

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANLYST: Not a real shot. I mean, the pattern has been this sort of tiptoeing around Donald Trump, trying to come up with slight shades of difference, growing as we get close to the actual voting, but as Christie said, it's totally insufficient to the threat he represents not just to the Republican Party, but to the republic. Christie calling him a bully, a would-be dictator.

And so it's not about just you know policy differences You got to deal with the reality of Donald Trump, and they've all been reluctant to do it because they've been playing politics.

SIDNER: Yes, the elephant in the room, Christie named it, but then nobody else full-throatedly came after him.

[10:20:01]

All right, let's talk about Nikki Haley, because Nikki Haley has had some really strong debates. Her numbers have been looking good. She's gotten some big GOP backers. She seemed actually to be the real target last night. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIVEK RAMASWAMY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The only person more fascist than the Biden regime now is Nikki Haley.

Nikki, I don't have a woman problem. You have a corruption problem. And I think that that's what people need to know, Nikki is corrupt.

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: She caves. Anytime the left comes after, she will cave to the donor. She will not stand up for you.

NIKKI HALEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: First of all, he's mad because those Wall Street donors used to support him and now they support me.

And I love all the attention, fellows. Thank you for that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: That was a very smooth way of handling it. How did she do, and clearly the attack is because she's on the upswing? AVLON: She's rising, so the incoming is coming towards her, so it's a backhanded compliment of a kind. Look, I think she had a more muted debate because she was trying to appear above the fray to some extent, one might say presidential. She didn't respond to Vivek's attacks in kind, in part because they were ridiculous and childishly scrawled on a notepad, but she didn't take debate. So, she was more restrained, but she had a good debate if you believe the first role is to do no harm.

I think Chris Christie came out really swinging out of the gate and I think had a pretty commanding debate as well.

SIDNER: All right. There was a remarkable moment with Chris Christie where he came in defense of someone he is up against. Let's listen to this. He's talking about Nikki Haley.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIE: We're now 25 minutes into this debate, and he has insulted Nikki Haley's basic intelligence, not her positions, her basic intelligence. She doesn't know regions. She wouldn't be able to find something on a map that his three-year-old could find.

Look, if you want to disagree on issues, that's fine, and Nikki and I disagree on some issues. But I'll tell you this, I've known her for 12 years, which is longer than he's even started to vote in a Republican primary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Okay. So, he was pointing to Vivek and going after Vivek. Why did he do this?

AVLON: Some folks said, gosh, is there some strategy behind this, because they were competing for the same base of voters in a state like New Hampshire. I think it was simply instinct. I think it was decency, something we're a little not acquainted as much within our politics today.

But I think it's great to see politicians stand up for someone else's integrity when they come under cheap, slanderous attacks. So, good for Chris Christie for doing that. I'd like to see more of that in our politics.

SIDNER: That is not what happened by Vivek Ramaswamy. He was perhaps the nastiest last night, really nasty lowball jabs, but he also gave a litany of conspiracy theories. Listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAMASWAMY: Why am I the only person on the stage at least who can say that January 6th now does look like it was an inside job, that the government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, that the great replacement theory is not some grand right wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic Party's platform? (END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Oh my gosh.

AVLON: Yes. And, look, on the one hand, playing that bile, that conspiracy theory sandwich, is important, I think, even though it's controversial, because it shows the dangerous game he's playing. That was a litany, as you say, of every major conspiracy theory from this century, from 9/11 to January 2020, the great replacement theory to January 6th, saying it was an inside job.

And that's a dog whistle to folks on the far right. That's not an accident. He had that all ready to stitch together for folks.

And that is disqualifying. It is pandering, it is pathetic, it is so offensive, especially so many of these conspiracy theories have a body count behind them, not least, great replacement theory, which has been attached in manifestos to at least four or five mass shootings.

SIDNER: Mass shooters, yes.

AVLON: So, that's the real stakes. So, that's -- you know, he has given up his right, in my mind, to be taken seriously on any other issue, because he did that kind of a disgusting pander to the out of reaches politics.

SIDNER: All right. We're going to leave it there with those strong words from you, John Avlon, I appreciate it. John?

BERMAN: All right. The testimony from the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT on genocide that just stunned Congress and many Americans, the new gymnastics they are performing to backtrack.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

SIDNER: There is growing backlash against the presidents of three universities, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT, over their Capitol Hill testimony this week on anti-Semitism on campus. Critics say none of them explicitly condemned calls for genocide in Israel or said it would violate their school's codes of conduct. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's, rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?

LIZ MAGILL, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.

STEFANIK: I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews. Does that constitute bullying or harassment?

MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment. STEFANIK: So the answer is yes?

MAGILL: It is a context-dependent decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: And that's how all of the presidents pretty much answered that question.

[10:30:01]

Now, they are all facing calls for them to resign.

CNN's Athena Jones is joining us now.