Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
Inflation Continued to Cool in November; Former Mar-a-Lago Staffer Contacted by Trump; Danya Perry is Interviewed about the Trump Cases; Texas Court Rules Against Abortion Request; Giuliani Defamation Trial. Aired 9:30-10a ET
Aired December 12, 2023 - 09:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:33:47]
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: New data out just this morning. The latest read on the closely watched inflation gauge appears to show signs of progress. Annual inflation continuing to cool in November.
CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich has all the details for us. She's joining us now.
So, what happened, what do we see, what does it mean?
VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: This is in line with expectations. So, this is a good report. Dare I say a little bit of a boring report, which is actually good news. You don't want to see crazy, elevated prices right now. You want to see prices continue to cool. And that's what we're seeing.
So, the top line number, in line with expectations, up 3.1 percent on an annual basis. Economists were hoping that month over month, so October to November, that that was going to remain at zero, so unchanged, up 0.1 percent. Not dramatic.
BOLDUAN: OK.
YURKEVICH: So, overall, this picture looks really nice.
So, for consumers, though, there are some bright spots. Energy prices, gas prices continuing to fall from October to November, down 6 percent. That's significant. Down almost 9 percent on the year.
BOLDUAN: Wow.
YURKEVICH: Food prices, prices at the grocery store, still high but cooling. So that's really good going into the holiday season as people are going to be shopping, making a lot of meals.
BOLDUAN: Yes.
[09:35:00]
YURKEVICH: But the one thing that we're still keeping our eye on is shelter. Rents still really expensive.
BOLDUAN: That has been stubborn.
YURKEVICH: That's been stubborn. That's up 0.4 percent from October to November, up 6.5 percent year over year. And that is why this report is probably not even sort of lower than what maybe people were hoping or what people would like to see. Shelter still really that pain point.
But the federal reserve is meeting today for their two-day meeting. They're going to be looking at this entire picture. This is the last piece of economic data that they're getting before they're going to make a decision whether to pause rates or hike rates.
What they're seeing here is a continuing cooling trend. Will they be upset about shelter still being too expensive? Yes, probably. But is that enough to hike rates? Probably not. This is a good sign. We want to see a pause in rates, and then hopefully next year cutting of rates because that means mortgages become more affordable, student loan interests, auto loan, and anything that you're having debt on that you have to pay interest on, that hopefully will start to cool. So, this is a good report. It's a good report. And hopefully a sign that this trend will continue.
BOLDUAN: The trend continues. And we want boring CPI reports.
YURKEVICH: We do.
BOLDUAN: It's good to see you, Vanessa.
John.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: But that was a very exciting explanation of the CPI report, to be sure.
BOLDUAN: That's what we're paying for, John.
BERMAN: Right.
This morning, exclusive new reporting on a key witness in special counsel Jack Smith's Mar-a-Lago probe. Sources tell CNN a former employee who says he moved boxes for Donald Trump detailed to prosecutors alleged offers Trump and others made him after the FBI seized classified documents.
CNN's Katelyn Polantz has this reporting.
Katelyn, it's the timeline here that's so important. Explain.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: The timeline and who this person was. Now this is a former employee at Mar-a-Lago, someone who had worked there for two decades, and was really ingrained in that community. And after he quit his job at Mar-a-Lago, just a couple months after the FBI search made public this investigation into Donald Trump and others, he gets a personal phone call from Donald Trump. So, the thing that was really unusual for him in that - in his position, Trump asking him, you know, why are you leaving the club at a time where it was quite clear that this person was a witness to several things, conversations and also had moved boxes at the club.
And then after he had this conversation on the phone with Trump, got word back that Trump thought he was a good man. Now, could that just be some pleasantries from his boss as he's exiting his job, of course it could. But the timing was very interesting here. There were also a couple other interactions he had that he noticed, even close friends of his who eventually were charged in this case along Trump, talking to him about the lawyer that he was choosing, why wasn't he using a Trump paid-for lawyer for free, did he want tickets to a golf tournament, Trump probably would really like to see him there now that he didn't work at the club anymore, and also repeated reminders that he could return to his job at Mar-a-Lago if he wanted.
BERMAN: All right, put this in the big picture and explain what may be the implication here, what might have investigators interested in this individual beyond just what he witnessed.
POLANTZ: Well, John, this is not just a mishandling of classified documents case. It was an obstruction investigation for quite some time. Now nothing around any of these particular conversations ever made the indictment of Donald Trump or his two co-defendants. But this is something that this particular former employee who eventually was subpoenaed, eventually testified, spoke to investigators, he told investigators about. And they were clearly very much paying attention to this pattern of conversation, not just with him but also how others were being provided lawyers, that there is just a way in Donald Trump's world where people keep tabs on the people in that universe, especially in south Florida.
BERMAN: You know really interesting new reporting.
Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much for sharing that.
Kate.
Sara.
Whoever.
Sara.
SIDNER: I'm here. I'm here for you, John, any time.
BERMAN: Hi, Sara.
SIDNER: Let's talk about some of the cases that are facing former President Donald Trump with former federal prosecutor and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danya Perry.
Thank you so much for being here.
I want to start with actually what is happening with Jack Smith. He's asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for crimes allegedly committed while he was in office. How unusual is it to bypass the appellate court and say, I'm going straight to The Supreme Court, and for the Supreme Court to say, OK, we'll look at the case?
DANYA PERRY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It's unusual, but not unprecedented. There's case law going back to the Nixon era where the appellate court has been bypassed in the same way.
[09:40:02]
It's usually with matters of national importance where there's a particularized need for urgency. And certainly both of those exist here.
And so it -- what's interesting here is that Jack Smith won at the district court level. He got the judge to rule in his favor that, in fact, presidential immunity does not apply here. But he's the one appealing it, and, as you said, bypassing the court of appeals, going straight to the Supreme Court. And within a matter of hours, they granted, not on the merits, but an expedited schedule. And so they gave former President Trump's lawyers just about a week to respond to this expedited appeal.
SIDNER: What does that tell you if the Supreme Court is saying, yes, we are going to expedite this, and look at the scope potentially of the presidency and -- you know, no one is above the law, correct? What does it tell you about the Supreme Court and their decision-making here?
PERRY: They have ruled on immunity issues before, including with respect to this former president. But this particular issue, whether the president has immunity from criminal prosecution is a novel one. And, you know, for obvious reasons, this doesn't come up very often. So, you can see why they're interested in it and why they will rule on it one way or another. And they're probably thinking, might as well get this done quickly because it's going to be in front of us anyway. And there is a trial schedule, and there is also, of course, presidential campaign that is already in motion. And so let's get this going.
SIDNER: Yes, it's been very clear, Jack Smith is looking at the calendar, the Trumps are looking at the calendar, and the court is looking at the calendar as we tick ever closer to the presidential election.
I do want to ask you about this issue as this comes up in front of the Supreme Court, two senators, Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal, have called for the Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, to recuse himself because of the actions of his wife, Ginni Thomas, who, for lack of a better way to explain it, pushed to overturn the 2020 election results that were very much legal and right. How do you see this playing out? Do you see him recusing himself? How would this work?
PERRY: I'm going to go with no on that. He hasn't before, including when there were matters before the court in which, you know, his wife arguably was involved. And he failed to recuse himself there. The Supreme Court is basically a self-policing institution. And so it really is his own say-so, will he recuse himself or not. We've seen in the past that he hasn't. And so I would imagine that past is precedent here and that he's unlikely to do so now, even though we know a lot more about his wife's activities involving January 6th and surrounding that date. So, it will be his decision, but it seems unlikely, I'd say, based on previous decisions he's made.
SIDNER: Yes, that's all we can base it on is an educated guess.
Danya Perry, thank you so much for all of your analysis.
John.
BERMAN: All right, thanks, Sara.
At this moment, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is behind closed doors with U.S. senators. We could hear from him shortly and learn if he has had any success securing crucial aid.
A milestone ruling on near total abortion bans. The Texas Supreme Court rules against a woman who sought an emergency abortion for her high-risk pregnancy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:48:01]
BOLDUAN: One of the most significant abortion lawsuits since Roe versus Wade was overturned. That's what we're talking about. A pregnant woman in Texas sued the state in hopes of getting an emergency abortion. The state fought back once a judge agreed to allow Kate Cox to get that abortion. And now she's left the state to get the procedure done elsewhere.
Doctors diagnosed her fetus with a rare and deadly genetic condition called trisomy 18, putting her health and her fertility at risk if she carried it to term. But still the final word from the Texas Supreme Court that her doctor failed to show that her life was enough in danger to warrant an exemption to the state ban.
CNN's Ed Lavandera has much more on this. He's been following this since this all really started rolling.
So, Ed, what now?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting. You know, we spoke with several lawyers yesterday, Kate, and they talked about how the Texas Supreme Court issued its ruling yesterday, several hours after Kate Cox and her lawyers announced that she had left the state to have the procedure -- the abortion procedure done elsewhere. And essentially what some of these legal observers said is that is kind of sending a message to other people in Texas that this path of trying to request an emergency injunction for legal permission to obtain an abortion simply isn't going to work in the future. The Texas Supreme Court, in its ruling, said that Kate Cox had not met the standard of the -- of a medical exception in this case despite her severe conditions and her -- and the complexity of her pregnancy, that that still didn't meet the medical exemption standard.
Kate Cox's lawyer said, "this past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate. Her health is on the line. She's been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn't wait any longer." So - and that is what many -- critics of the Texas abortion law have been saying for some time is that, you know, for most women in these situations, these are decisions that are often made quickly and having to go and, quote, "beg" for an abortion in front of a judge simply isn't tenable.
[09:50:08]
That's why there's so much frustration and anger over the clarity or the lack of clarity over the medical exemption aspects of the Texas abortion law right now.
Kate.
BOLDUAN: Yes, and not - and this situation does nothing to provide that clarity, which clearly is necessary.
It's good to see you, Ed. Thank you so much.
Sara.
SIDNER: I'm just going to say it, Rudy Giuliani is lying and hurting people because of that. He is still pushing baseless claims about two Georgia election workers even as a jury determines how much he's going to have to pay for publicly smearing them after the 2020 election. Why he's saying he has no regrets about what he's done, up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: This morning, this will be the end of Mr. Giuliani. Those words from lawyers for Rudy Giuliani, who is in the middle of a defamation trial in Washington. A court has already determined Giuliani defamed two Georgia election workers. The trial is now trying to figure out the damages he has to pay to them for spreading false claims that they tampered with ballots in the 2020 election, or as their lawyers put it, engaging in a campaign of emotional terror.
[09:55:07]
CNN's Zach Cohen is all over this story for us.
Zach, where do things stand?
ZACH COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, John, Giuliani may have actually opened himself up to more liability in this case. After he left court yesterday, he spoke to reporters and he reiterated some of the same defamatory statements that he's really - that are at the center of this case right now.
Take a listen to what Giuliani said after he was in court yesterday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RUDY GIULIANI: But everything I said about them is true.
QUESTION: Do you regret to what you did to -
GIULIANI: Of course, I don't regret it. I told the truth. They -- they were engaged in changing votes.
QUESTION: There's no proof of that.
GIULIANI: Oh, you're damn right there is. Stay turned.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COHEN: So, as you mentioned, the judge in this case has already ruled that Giuliani defamed Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss. And now, this morning, a judge rebuking Giuliani for those comments, saying they may also warrant another defamation suit against the former mayor of New York.
So, this trial has three more days left in it, but not a great start for Giuliani so far.
BERMAN: Wow, I mean those are stark comments to make when you've already ben found to have defamed those two election workers.
OK, this could be a very interesting day in that trial. Zach, keep us posted. Thank you very much.
Kate.
BOLDUAN: Yes, when you've got nowhere to go or no chance, you just keep going? It's crazy.
Coming up, Ukraine's President Zelenskyy in Washington on The Hill and meeting with lawmakers. He needs more aid to fight the war against Russia. Did he change the minds of the lawmakers, though, who are right now balking at that request? We'll see him very soon and we'll take you there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
