Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Harvard President Under Fire; Trump Leading Biden in Polls; Trump Special Counsel Asks Supreme Court to Answer Immunity Question; Russian Opposition Leader Alexey Navalny Missing. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired December 11, 2023 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:01:03]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A major development in the investigation into former President Donald Trump and his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, news that the special counsel plans to go directly to the Supreme Court to answer some key questions about immunity in this prosecution.

Plus: new polls and major questions for President Biden. Right now, he's trailing former President Trump in two critical battleground states that helped propel Biden to the White House in 2020. So is it time for a new approach? We're going to dive into the numbers.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: And back on X. Elon Musk welcomes conspiracy theorist Alex Jones back to the platform. What will the decision cost him?

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: We start this afternoon with a stunning development today in Russia. A key critic and chief political rival of Vladimir Putin is now missing.

Allies of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny say they haven't had contact with him in six days. Navalny is serving sentences totally more than 30 years in maximum security penal colonies near Moscow. The news of his disappearance comes just days after Putin announced his intention to run for reelection in March.

Want to go now to CNN's Fred Pleitgen, who's following these developments.

And, Fred, Navalny was scheduled to appear in court today. What happened?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi there, Boris.

Well, he simply didn't show up. And it's really something that's been building up over the past couple of days, because his lawyers went to try and see him on Friday in that penal colony about 150 miles east of Moscow, high-security prison where he's being kept. And they were already brushed off back then and told that they couldn't see him.

Now, today, he was supposed to appear at a hearing via video link from that penal colony. And the way that his anti-corruption foundation spokespeople tell it, they say that, originally, the people inside that jail said there was some sort of power issue, but then the lawyers asked again, and then the people in the penal colony said that he wasn't even listed as being a prisoner inside that colony anymore.

Now, of course, this raised all sorts of alarms among those lawyers, and they then phoned around other prison colonies in that sort of vicinity of that area, Russia obviously a very huge country, and they couldn't -- simply couldn't find him anywhere.

And so as of this moment right now, Alexey Navalny's anti-corruption foundation says simply that Alexey Navalny is missing. Now, one of the things that we do have to point out is that, apparently, Alexey Navalny, who has been under very harsh conditions already inside that Russian prison, he was supposed to be transferred to a different prison, which has an even harsher regime.

It's not uncommon for prisoners to sort of go AWOL, go silent in the time that they are being transferred to another jail, but, again, right now, there simply is absolutely no information at all. And one of the things that the spokeswoman for Alexey Navalny said is, she said, he has been having some health issues over the past couple of weeks, the past couple of days.

Apparently, he fainted inside his jail cell last week and then needed an I.V. This, of course, also one of the things where he's faced those very harsh conditions, a lot of time in solitary confinement. He's lost a lot of weight, so definitely a difficult situation, and now all the more concerns as his loved ones obviously don't know where he is.

And, also, those who are inside his organization have say they absolutely have no idea where he is and that he simply is missing inside the Russian prison system, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Really surprising news there.

Fred Pleitgen, thanks so much for the update -- Pam.

BROWN: All right, this just in: Special counsel Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to decide whether former President Trump has immunity from prosecution.

This would be a first for the High Court.

CNN's Paula Reid, Kristen Holmes, legal analyst Elliot Williams are with us now.

[13:05:00]

I mean, Paula, this is significant.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's incredibly significant. Here, for the first time, special counsel Jack Smith is going to the

Supreme Court and asking them to decide a key question that is being litigated here, which is whether former President Trump is immune from criminal prosecution.

Now, that is a very important constitutional question, but it is also something that is being litigated. And, because of that litigation, there are questions about whether this could delay the trial possibly even until after the election. We're talking about a trial that is now scheduled to begin in March of this year.

So, here, the special counsel is saying, Supreme Court, we need you to just take this issue and decide it now, because they argue that there's a public interest in making sure that this trial goes ahead as scheduled.

Now, right now, Trump has lost at the district court level on this question. He said he's going to appeal. Usually, it would go to the Court of Appeals. But, instead, the special counsel wants the Supreme Court to just take this and decide by the end of the term.

Now, they use as precedent a similar situation during the Nixon Watergate investigation. And they say, look, during that case, the Supreme Court was able to take a question and do things in a very expedited manner.

Now, alternatively, they said, look, Supreme Court, if you don't want to take up this question, if you don't want to decide this, could you at least tell the Court of Appeals to make their decision very quickly?

So, yes, there's a fascinating constitutional question about immunity here, but, really, the true issue here is timing. And the special counsel is trying to ensure that this trial goes ahead as scheduled, even if not as scheduled, that it at least goes off before the election next year.

BROWN: Yes, what do you think, Elliot?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, look, they can do it. And the Supreme Court can grant this.

And, as Paula had said, they have the clock on their minds here. And, look, everybody knew that this was eventually going to make it to the Supreme Court in one way or another. Now, the normal course of action would be to go to the appeals court. That could take months and months. And they'd ultimately draft a decision there, and then it -- which would be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Parties are allowed to go straight to the Supreme Court. This is an important constitutional question. It's never been resolved. And that has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It is just a complex question. It has to go to the Supreme Court. Who knows what they're going to do with it. They may -- as Paula said, they may kick it back down to the appeals court and either say, expedite it or simply just answer first this question of immunity. There's other claims that Trump's team is raising, but the immunity

one, is he immune from prosecution, is really the big one that has to be resolved pretty soon.

BROWN: And the reality is, these are conservative, majority conservative justices, several appointed by Trump. I mean, the reality is, they could say, yes, he has immunity. You can't move forward with his case.

WILLIAMS: They could. But even before you get there, the very question of whether the Supreme Court takes this kind of case on is itself an open question.

The court has been, since 2019, far more frequently granting these emergency requests to go straight to them. Now, that may be a function of the justices who are on the court, or something's changed in their heads. We don't know, because we're never in that room, but they have been doing it more frequently. They might do it now, and we just have to wait and see pretty quickly how they're going to resolve it.

BROWN: Yes, and just reading through the filing that just came in this afternoon, the special counsel is arguing: "Nothing could be more vital to our democracy than that a president who abuses the electoral system to remain in office is held accountable for criminal conduct."

I know this is just coming out, Kristen, but are you hearing anything from the Trump camp on this?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: They haven't responded yet, but I do think that we should pay attention to, as Elliott said, looking at the timeline.

And that's really what it is about for the Trump people as well. When I talk to them about when this is going -- when this trial is going to happen, they do believe that the March trial is going to happen before the election, that, of course, being the special counsel's investigation into his overturning or attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

But they do still think there is some wiggle room because of the fact that this was going to the appeals court, because of the fact that they believe that they can delay it. I mean, they are going to try and do every single thing they possibly can to push this past the election, because they think that Donald Trump can win the election, and he's not sitting in trial every single day.

So that is very interesting in this to me, the fact that they have clearly kind of called them on their game and said, OK, you're waiting here, you pushed us to the appeals court. Now we're just going to get it over with. So that takes one element out, one of the things that actually Trump and his team were relying on, having this be a lengthy process.

BROWN: Yes.

WILLIAMS: There's a little bit of gamesmanship there because the Trump team could have appealed to a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. If they didn't get a decision they liked there, they could have then appealed it to the full Court of Appeals.

And then if they didn't like the decision there, they could have then taken it to the Supreme Court. Even under the best of circumstances for the Trump team, that could have taken months. And I think, like you said, it's calling the bluff.

BROWN: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Now, again, the Supreme Court doesn't have to agree to it, as we know, but this was a very aggressive step by the prosecutors to move this case along.

BROWN: Yes.

REID: It's huge, because, really, the Trump legal strategy boils down to delay, delay, delay. And there was a hope that this constitutional question, which has never been decided before, would take a little while to get through the appellate process, possibly even go en banc, then go to the Supreme Court.

[13:10:08]

And they hope that it could at least delay this trial, which has a ripple effect and other criminal trials, until after the election. So it's clear the special counsel is like, nope, we're going to try this option.

This is aggressive. This is the first time they have gone to the Supreme Court. Now the question is whether the Supreme Court wants to do this, if they want to completely reject the request or meet them halfway and maybe just say to the appellate court, look, we all know time is of the essence here. There is a public interest. Let's move it along. Let's not sit on this one for a year.

(CROSSTALK)

BROWN: How long? So, just timeline-wise, when can we expect to hear from the Supreme Court?

REID: I mean, it's the Supreme Court. They kind of do what they do when they want to do it. So I would expect that they too are probably mindful of the timeline here.

So I would expect we will hear from this soon. But they don't -- they don't have a deadline.

BROWN: Yes.

And it's just a reminder, right, of the collision between these legal cases, and the fact that Trump is running for president. And he has -- we're in the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses, right?

And, just today, he was going to testify and then pulled out last- minute, and these... (CROSSTALK)

HOLMES: Pulls out last-minute, doesn't show up. Looks like, OK, this case is wrapping up. But that doesn't mean his legal problems are wrapping up. They're really just ramping up.

And that is happening at the same time that his campaign is ramping up. And you look at the schedule for January, with both the Iowa caucuses, as well as New Hampshire primary, and he's going to be on the road a lot more. And he has to be in many of these states.

We know that he is looking at New Hampshire. He sees the field there. They are not feeling as confident as they feel in Iowa. So he has to be traveling. Well, when they're trying to plan, it's actually been very difficult, according to the people around him, because they can't plan that far ahead.

Even if they think that they know the dates of the hearing in March that is going to be here in D.C., they don't think they're set in stone, because of these various legal maneuverings that his lawyers are doing to try and get those dates delayed.

WILLIAMS: I think a lot of folks don't realize that these are two completely different government systems that exist independently of each other.

And, yes, we have these elections every four years. But it's not -- many judges regarded as not their responsibility to time their proceedings to accommodate other things in government, like elections and so on. And they take a long time to get to trial sometimes. So..

HOLMES: And we've seen that argument.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HOLMES: We've seen that argument that judges shouldn't have to worry about the election.

But that's exactly what Donald Trump wants to do.

WILLIAMS: Right.

HOLMES: He wants to tie the politics to the legal to say, look, they're taking this up because they want to rule against me.

And he's going to use that politically.

REID: And you guys just had that graphic up with just the month of January and how busy it is with different campaign events.

The idea of adding potentially oral arguments at the Supreme Court, even, in the middle of January on this central issue that would really decide whether he goes to trial before or after the election, again, a massive development.

BROWN: It absolutely is. REID: We will see what they do.

BROWN: Thank you for helping us better understand what this means. Thank you, Paula Reid, Kristen Holmes, Elliot Williams.

And still ahead: the future of Harvard's president still very much in question after her testimony on campus antisemitism, but now hundreds of faculty members are coming to her defense.

Plus, the Biden administration is urging Israel to -- quote -- "clarify the circumstances" around photos like this showing dozens of men detained, blindfolded and stripped down to their underwear. More on what Israel is saying.

And Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorist who called the Sandy Hook massacre a hoax, is back on X, Elon Musk's version of Twitter. Why did Musk want him back, especially with advertisers already fleeing?

More on that coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:44]

SANCHEZ: We're following breaking news this afternoon.

Special counsel Jack Smith has just asked the Supreme Court to decide whether former President Trump has immunity from prosecution. This is a major move that could have a serious impact on the former president's schedule ahead of the 2024 election.

And there's new CNN polling that's giving us a clearer picture of where things stand right now in that race. Take a look. In Georgia, a hypothetical rematch shows Donald Trump leading Joe Biden 49 to 44 percent. Obviously, this is if Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee. It's notable, though, because Biden narrowly won the Peach State in 2020.

A similar story is playing out in Michigan, where the former president is up by 10 points. And that flip is significant, because Biden beat Trump here by a wider margin.

Let's break down the numbers with CNN's Jeff Zeleny.

Jeff, we will expand more on Georgia and Michigan in a moment.

But, first, let's go to the polling in Iowa, because, as I just said, all of that is contingent on Trump becoming the nominee. And the new numbers out of Iowa don't dissuade anyone that he likely will become the nominee.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: They sure don't.

I mean, they show a commanding lead and a widening lead. And, Boris, the reason this matters is five weeks from tonight are the Iowa caucuses, the first votes in the Iowa campaign. And, look, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis had hoped that he would be gaining some ground. Nikki Haley had hoped she would be as well.

But if you look at these numbers, which I think we have, a 32-point lead in Iowa the former president has over DeSantis, over Haley slightly more than that. You can see the change here, 43 percent in October, up to 51 percent now, slightly over the majority. That is significant, DeSantis holding basically steady, up a slight amount and Haley at 16 percent.

So, Boris, as this field is contracted, gotten smaller, that has benefited Donald Trump.

SANCHEZ: Yes, he now has a majority of those polled in Iowa.

When it comes to attributes for the two leading candidates right now, what were the numbers? What did they show?

ZELENY: Well, look, I mean, Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, they are trying to gain ground and make their arguments in conservative areas.

But if you look at the attributes specifically, we will see what the numbers we have here on this, the Florida governor is -- or the attributes I, guess, of Biden and Trump, we will look at those.

[13:20:05]

SANCHEZ: Yes.

The temperament there, if you look at the former president, it's 58 percent to Biden 47 percent. Of course, this is in Georgia, not in Iowa. So let's go back to our Iowa conversation for just one second, because what is really interesting there is, 49 percent of voters say they have made up their minds, but, of Trump supporters, 70 percent have made up their minds.

So that shows some very solid and sticky support for him. But, look, there are five weeks left. Voters have not voted, but the burden is on these candidates to make the case to voters why it matters.

But one central point that ties all these numbers together, electability. One of the arguments that Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis have been trying to make is that Donald Trump's not electable.

SANCHEZ: Right.

ZELENY: These numbers in Georgia and Michigan, our new polls show that may not be the case at all.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

As a matter of fact, the -- I saw one poll that showed DeSantis actually had less odds of beating Trump than Biden did at one point.

So let's talk about the breaking news here, because we got some numbers regarding the impact the criminal charges might have on former President Trump. How does it look going against this campaign?

ZELENY: Look, that is interesting. I mean, Georgia is, of course, a battleground state. Georgia and Michigan are two of the five states that Biden turned blue.

But look at these Georgia numbers specifically if we have. Of course, that is the central case, the Fulton County, Georgia, case where the -- one of the prosecutions is going to be. In Georgia and Michigan, about 47 percent in Georgia and 46 percent in Michigan say that Trump would be disqualified if these charges to overturn the election are true.

An additional 14 percent say it cast doubts on his fitness for office. Of course, four in 10 Americans say it's not relevant at all. So what these numbers are, are simply a reminder that this is a very fluid race. This is unlike any presidential race that certainly we have ever covered or we have ever seen. He's under criminal indictment.

The Supreme Court is ruling on another case.

SANCHEZ: Right.

ZELENY: For all of these numbers, voters have not yet voted, but it is an indication of one thing. If it is a Trump-Biden matchup, the White House has significant signs of alarm, and they are certainly aware of that.

SANCHEZ: Yes, Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much for walking us through those numbers.

ZELENY: You bet.

SANCHEZ: Appreciate it.

A quick programming note to share with you. Be sure to watch as CNN hosts two Republican presidential town halls, Governor Ron DeSantis making his case tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. Eastern, with Jake Tapper moderating. We also have Vivek Ramaswamy with Abby Phillip. That is going to be Wednesday at 9:00 p.m., all right here on CNN -- Pam.

BROWN: All right, thanks, Boris.

Well, the job of Harvard's first black president is likely on the line today, as the university's governing board meets in a regularly scheduled session. Members are expected to discuss the outcry after president Claudine Gay, along with the heads of MIT and Penn, testified last week on Capitol Hill about antisemitism on campus.

Well, they failed to explicitly say that calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their schools codes of conduct.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-NY): Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?

CLAUDINE GAY, PRESIDENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: It can be, depending on the context.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Well, Penn's Liz Magill resigned over the weekend.

Now more than 700 faculty members at Harvard are saying that Gay should not have the same fate. These are the signatures on a letter backing Gay, saying the university must resist pressures -- quote -- "at odds with Harvard's commitment to academic freedom."

CNN's Matt Egan joins us with the very latest.

So, Matt, tell us more about why these Harvard professors and staff are supporting Claudine Gay.

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: Well, Pamela, Claudine Gay is clearly under fire.

We have heard from CEOs, donors and politicians demanding that Harvard cut ties with its president. But now we hear from more than 700 Harvard faculty members who are coming to her defense. Now, will it be enough to save her job? It's too early to say, but this is a notable show of support at a time when Claudine Gay needs it the most.

Now, what's interesting is that some of the people who've signed this petition supporting Gay, they have actually been quite critical of her. For example, Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe, he slammed Claudine Gay on X, on social media, right after the hearing, right?

He said that this testimony from the Harvard president, he called it -- quote -- "deeply troubling," but now he has decided to back this petition. And I asked him why. He told me -- quote -- "Once external pressures, whether from ultra-wealthy donors or from politicians pursuing their ideological agendas, override the internal decision- making processes of universities, we are on the road to tyranny."

And he added that he fears the history could repeat itself here. Another Harvard faculty member, he told me that this is really all about external pressure. This faculty member said that Claudine Gay has no problem managing the campus. Her problem is managing the donors.

[13:25:06]

Now, listen to what Jacob Miller, the president of the Harvard Hillel, told CNN earlier about the situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACOB MILLER, PRESIDENT, HARVARD HILLEL: I don't know exactly what the right step forward is, because Claudine Gay resigning would look like a capitulation to donors and politicians, which is what not -- which is not what Harvard stands for.

But on the other hand, having Claudine Gay continuing her role in this compromised position is also not a great solution either. (END VIDEO CLIP)

EGAN: And so now we wait to see what the governing board -- bodies of Harvard decided to do.

Will they put out a statement of support for Claudine Gay, or will they decide to part ways? We will see.

BROWN: We shall see.

All right, Matt Egan thanks for bringing us the latest with that.

And still ahead: CNN's team on the ground is hearing loud explosions and seeing heavy smoke and flares in the air over Northern Gaza today. We have a live report from the scene up next.

And Detroit police, well, they say it has taken a person of interest into custody connected with the probe into the murder of a Detroit synagogue president -- more of what police are saying coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)