Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Judge Pauses Trump Election Interference Case Over Immunity Claim; Giuliani Won't Testify in His Trial, Despite Saying He Would; House Votes to Formalize Biden Impeachment Probe. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired December 14, 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]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: A federal judge in Donald Trump's election interference case is pressing pause for now, where the Trump team is saying as an appeals court is going to weigh in.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: He said he would, and now he is not. Why did Rudy Giuliani, who long said he wouldn't want it to testify, suddenly just announced he will not do that today? That defamation trial continues right now.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: So, new reporting just in on where the impeachment investigation into President Biden is going next and how the White House now plans to respond.

I'm John Berman with Sara Sidner and Kate Bolduan. This is CNN News Central.

SIDNER: A federal judge has hit the brakes on Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case. So now what? Judge Tanya Chutkan has paused the case because she says she recognizes that she does not have jurisdiction while the court of appeals considers whether or not the former president has immunity. This move could push back Trump's March 2024 trial a bit further and further into the 2024 campaign territory.

CNN's Zachary Cohen is joining us now. Zachary, Trump's team called this a huge win, but this is a judge looking at the realities here and saying, okay, the appeals court needs to speak, and we know Jack Smith has also gone to the Supreme Court to get a decision as well. What more are you learning?

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, that's exactly right, Sara. The judge in this case effectively had no other option but to put this temporary pause in place. And, you know, the judge acknowledges in her order that these two fundamental questions need to be resolved by an appeals court before a trial could even happen.

And the first one of those issues, it deals with double jeopardy. And whether or not Trump could even be tried because he was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial, that needs to be resolved by a higher court. And as you said, too, the second issue is this issue of presidential immunity. Does Trump have some protection over alleged crimes that he committed while in office? Does the status of being a president and actions you took while president protect you from prosecution once you leave office?

So, we're going to see what kind of timeline we're on. As you said, too, Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to jump in and effectively expedite this process. You know, Trump's team on the other side doing everything they can to slow this process down.

But the reality is, too, that the March 4 trial date still holds, even though this pause could delay or push that date back. At the moment, March 4th is still the scheduled trial date. We'll have to see what effect this pause ultimately has. But as of right now, we are still moving toward that time. And even if it's delayed a few more months, we'll see how close it bumps up to the campaign schedule.

SIDNER: All right. Zachary Cohen, thank you so much, some huge legal questions that will have lasting effects. Kate?

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. And any delay in any Trump trial means that it gets pushed, could get pushed further into the presidential election cycle. So, what does that then mean for Trump and all of the Republicans running against him in the primary?

CNN's Alayna Treene joins us now from D.C. with more. Alayna, what are you hearing right now about how Trump and his team are shifting their strategy as we're kind of going full bore into the Iowa caucuses?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Yes. Well, look, and, first, just to answer your question on some of, you know, the trials kind of stacking up and his legal battle, stacking up at the height of election season, I do think this is something that is clearly going to become more pervasive as we enter primary season.

Donald Trump has a series of different scheduled trials, things that are going to his campaign, excuse me, is trying to balance right now with primary season. And it's something that they recognize is only going to get tougher as we enter next year.

So, it's something to keep in mind as we talk about some of his speeches and hearing him rail against a lot of these charges in there.

But, look, in Iowa last night, Donald Trump did have a very clear message for voters. He really has been leaning into this new strategy of trying to teach people in Iowa how to caucus, urging them not to get complacent, not to take their foot off the gas pedal when it comes to aggressively campaigning there, but urging these people to make sure they get out on January 15th and actually vote.

And that is a concern that I know the Trump campaign has.

[10:05:01]

They want to make sure that they don't just win Iowa but they want to win it in a really big way. And part of that is to try and encourage, you know, if he can win in Iowa, but also win in potentially New Hampshire, they think that will encourage his opponents, particularly Nikki Haley, and Ron DeSantis to drop out.

But he also had a very specific message about the economy. And essentially it was that, you know, beyond the primaries and the caucuses, they also are focused on a general election. And they were trying to use Joe Biden's unpopularity to really convince and galvanize these voters to come out for him. Take a listen to some of that messaging.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: During this holiday season, families all across America are struggling under the brutal weight of Bidenomics, you know, Bidenomics. It means a lot of bad things. This year alone, the typical American family is $7,500 poorer because Crooked Joe's globalist blunders and greedy betrayals have really hurt us badly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: Now, Kate, the economy is something that Donald Trump's team very much thinks will not only help them in the primaries and in the caucuses on January 15th, but also in a general election.

We are seeing the economy do better. You know, stock prices going up, or the stock market doing well, gas prices going down, but it's still something that they recognize voters are worried about still, especially around the holidays.

And so Donald Trump was really, you know, honing in on that messaging last night as he continued to try and paint the campaign as a general election rematch between him and President Biden.

BOLDUAN: It's going to be really interesting to see where he really -- how he and where he hones that and focuses that message is message in the next 30, where are we, 3 days now to the caucuses? Thank you so much, Alayna. John?

BERMAN: All right. With me now, Senior Political Analyst John Avlon. John, I want to go back to the trial delays for Donald Trump, not the legal side, but his federal election trial might get delayed past March 4th, it might never get heard. If he wins, he would throw it out. Aside from the legal implications, what are the moral implications of that?

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: The moral implications, the constitutional implications are massive for our country. Because as you have pointed out, you know, without accountability, an attempt to overturn an election, a slow-motion coup, is just practice. It's a green light if there's no accountability for this.

And the implications down the line are striking, right? I mean, you know, for example, if people -- if the Supreme Court or a court should say that a president is not permanently liable for anything he did win an office, well, that's a green light for authoritarian action for people when they're president. They're officially and permanently above the law, not just simply because of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

BERMAN: You know, I don't know what will happen, but it's possible, at least possible, this case never gets heard.

AVLON: Yes.

BERMAN: How then should one look upon the decision by Merrick Garland, who waited to launch a special counsel investigation until after the January 6th committee did a year's worth of work on this?

AVLON: Badly. And, look, I think Merrick Garland was motivated by a desire to seem above politics, right, to try to not see -- have the Justice Department be perceived as being politicized, which it had been under Donald Trump.

I think the difficulty now is that time is finite and delay can be denial. And that's what Donald Trump has predicated upon with his army of lawyers. I remembered of something truly chilling that Peter Thiel once said, which is single-digit millionaires can't avail themselves of the legal system, i.e. if very rich people could get a phalanx of lawyers to keep delaying justice, and if they're running for president, perhaps, evade it forever.

BERMAN: It's a hell of a quote right there.

Shifting gears, former House Speaker Paul Ryan, who was once the leading Republican in the United States, one who did work with then- president Donald Trump when he was in office, now has this to say about Donald Trump. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI): Look, Trump is not a conservative. He's an authoritarian narcissist. He's a populist authoritarian narcissist.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: A populist authoritarian narcissist. Paul Ryan, who is on the board of Fox, by the way, I don't hear that on Fox so much.

AVLON: You don't so much. Look, this is another example of a Republican and a conservative of good standing who served either in the Trump administration or alongside him in Congress, in this case, speaker of the House, saying something that people would freak out if a Democrat said, an authoritarian narcissist, not a conservative.

So, this is a time as Republicans are considering their options in primaries and caucuses to listen to their fellow Republicans who have worked with this man. Take them at their word. They know him better than the people who simply have sort of are fan-boying Donald Trump, you know, post-January 6th. It's serious.

BERMAN: If we can, I want to take a live look at the stock market right now because it had been going up after hitting record highs yesterday. You don't have to take my word for it, but the stock market is up. Retail sales numbers are up, inflation is low, gas prices are sinking, a lot of really positive economic signs. Yet, as we just heard from Alayna Treene, Donald Trump is campaigning about how bad the economy is.

AVLON: And this becomes another test of whether truth matters and whether how much reality exists in a fragmented, partisan world.

[10:10:00]

We already know that partisan perceptions tend to color people's idea of how the economy is doing. But this is that extreme example because so many of the market fundamentals are fundamentally good. You just saw in the defense appropriation bill, potentially the largest raise for service members in 20 years. Yes, inflation and interest rates have taken a lot out of people's sales early on, but those trends are getting better.

And if you look at where the country was in 2020 at the height of COVID and all those crises, there's no question the country is better off to date than it was three years ago.

BERMAN: John Avlon, great to have you. Thank you very much.

And, Sara?

SIDNER: Hello, John and John.

In abrupt about-face just moments ago in Rudy Giuliani's defamation damages trial, his team just announced he will not testify in his own defense, even though he said he was going to.

The judge has already ruled Giuliani defamed two Georgia election workers simply doing their job after he spread lies and conspiracy theories about them in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

Now, he could be forced to pay up to $43 million in damages.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz is live outside the courthouse in Washington.

I don't know why, but I'm not quite surprised about this. Do we know why Giuliani reverse course?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: We don't, although this has been a week where Giuliani has pledged that he would testify. He said that he would double down and explain himself and continue talking about Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss and backing up the lies that he told about them after the 2020 election.

This is a man who rarely misses an opportunity to speak in front of a microphone, and yet he did this morning confirm, his lawyer confirmed, his spokesman confirmed, that he is not going to be testifying in his own defense. He was going to be the only defense witness in this case.

And, Sara, the way this has played out over the past couple days in front of this jury here is that they have heard deeply emotional testimony, really gripping and scary stuff from voicemails that were sent and left on the voicemails of Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman, those two Georgia election workers, in the days after the 2020 election, while Rudy Giuliani was saying publicly things about them that just were lies, racist comments, things that were very scary, things that made them feel as if people would come to their house and potentially kill them.

Yesterday, we also heard a 911 call from Ruby Freeman. She had called the police in early December of 2020 and told them that there were people banging on her door at her house. And then after that, she had to flee. She felt homeless. She could not go to her home. She couldn't go to any of her friends or family's homes. That testimony really had everyone in the courtroom listening quite intently, including the jurors.

Rudy Giuliani had very little reaction to it. And actually, his lawyer didn't even have any questions for Ruby Freeman after her time on the stand.

And so now, Sara, there will not be much of a defense case at all. It could go to the jury for deliberations today on how much they award these two women and fine Rudy Giuliani for what he did.

SIDNER: We cannot say enough, Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman have been treated in the worst possible way as they are going through this hell created by lies. Now, he will not be able to do so on the stand because he's not taking the stand. We will wait to see what happens with the jury's decision.

Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much for all of your reporting on this. Kate?

BOLDUAN: And coming up for us, House Republicans, they have made it official with their floor vote to formally launch an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Will they now move to hold his son, Hunter, in contempt?

And Russian President Vladimir Putin claims Russia is making gains on all fronts in Ukraine. We have more from his marathon annual press conference and what it means for the war.

And CNN with rare access inside Southern Gaza, what our teams on the ground saw at a field hospital in Southern Gaza in the midst of war.

We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SIDNER: This morning, the White House is slamming House Republicans, unanimous vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Biden called the probe a, quote, baseless political stunt. The vote happening on the same day that Hunter Biden defied a congressional subpoena in the probe, asking him to testify privately on the Hill.

Hunter said he would testify publicly, and in turn, Republican lawmakers now are vowing to hold him in contempt.

CNN's Manu Raju joins us from Capitol Hill this morning. Manu, some of those very lawmakers, i.e. Jim Jordan, did not comply with the subpoena himself. What are lawmakers telling you this morning?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, there's a lot of questions about what exactly will happen next as part of this impeachment inquiry. We do expect more depositions and efforts to try to get records, subpoenas to be sent out because this impeachment inquiry has been actually going on since September.

Yesterday's vote was a symbolic vote, a source to show that Republicans were on the same page deciding to move ahead here. But there are still a lot of questions about what exactly they have in terms of evidence and proof.

Well, some Republicans themselves flatly acknowledge they simply have not proven the case that Joe Biden acted corruptly and tried to aid his son Hunter, his business dealings while working on overseas with overseas business partners.

[10:20:01]

They say they need to actually get the evidence as part of this investigation in order to actually charge the president with a crime here.

But in talking to Republicans, it's clear they're not all on the same page about whether to actually move forward with articles of impeachment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BYRON DONALD (R-FL): I think it's pretty likely that we end up moving towards impeachment, but we don't want to get ahead of ourselves. We want the evidence to speak for itself.

RAJU: Are you ready to go as far as impeaching the president?

REP. JOHN DUARTE (R-CA): No. I'm going to let the committees continue their work, develop their articles. If they develop articles on impeachment, show their evidence, and then we'll make a separate choice there.

RAJU: How close are you to being ready to support impeachment, actual impeachment of the president?

REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): We're not there. We voted tonight to allow for the investigation to continue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So, the question is where does this end up going and how long does this investigation take? It will be kicked into 2024. The House is actually casting its last votes of the year now. They're going to leave town and then the investigation will continue behind the scenes. And then into next year, Mike Johnson, the new speaker, is going to face enormous pressure from his base and from a lot of members within his own conference to move ahead with those articles of impeachment.

But what you heard right there from some members in those swing districts, the ones that are central to the Republican majority, they are simply saying we need time to investigate this further. So, ultimately, that inflection point, that tension will continue to grow as Speaker Mike Johnson decides what to do next, what they have and whether to actually move forward with charging the president with high crimes or misdemeanors, which has only happened to three other presidents in American history. Sara?

SIDNER: Yes, it's historic and just what Congress needs, more tension.

Manu Raju, thank you so much, I appreciate it. Kate?

BOLDUAN: And joining us now is former Federal Prosecutor Tim Heaphy. He was the chief investigative counsel for the January 6th congressional committee. It's good to see you again, Tim.

So, what we hear from Republicans is that this is an impeachment inquiry. It's not an actual impeachment. You still say this is premature. Tell us why.

TIM HEAPHY, FORMER LEAD INVESTIGATOR FOR JANUARY 6TH COMMITTEE: Yes. It really is no legal significance. Congressional committees have the power to enforce subpoenas. And if a witness defies a subpoena, there is a process by which they can be referred to the Justice Department for potential contempt prosecution, there could be civil contempt pursued by the committee.

So, this vote doesn't really enhance the congressional process in any way. That's why it seems, and the White House is making this allegation, like more of a political step than one with legal significance. It also, Kate, is not based on any evidence of the president's personal involvement in his son's financial dealings. That would be potentially a high crime or misdemeanor. As of yet, we just haven't seen that evidence.

BOLDUAN: And I want to put a finer point on that. It's because Republicans say that they need to make this move. They need to launch this inquiry in order to expand their enforcement powers, if you will, to force the White House and others to comply with information requests. You do not think that is legitimate?

HEAPHY: I really don't. Again, every congressional subpoena or congressional action of any kind has to have a legitimate legislative purpose. The Supreme Court in the Mazars case essentially imposed that standard. So, if Congress is going to go to enforce the subpoena, they have to articulate a legitimate legislative purpose.

The impeachment vote will be the purpose to which they point. But there's no reason why the Ways and Means Committee, the Judiciary Committee, other committees could not have similarly articulated that as the legitimate legislative purpose, right? Again, the body that issues it has the ability to go to enforce this vote might burnish or provide more straightforward, articulated theory as to the legitimate legislative purpose. But any committee could have made that point.

BOLDUAN: I do want to play something for you from the House Judiciary Chairman, Jim Jordan, something he said yesterday about all of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Lawyers for the Oversight Committee, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee will move in that direction. But, look, Congress asked you to come, you know, you're supposed to come and come and testify.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: When Congress asks you to come, you're supposed to come and come testify. He defied himself, a subpoena, from the January 6th committee to come testify. Can you talk to me about those efforts to get him to come in and then your reaction now to hearing him tell others that they need to be compliant?

HEAPHY: Yes. That's rich coming from Chairman Jordan, who received a subpoena from the committee on which I worked, asking him for very directly relevant information about his conversations with the president of the United States during the attack on the Capitol, his involvement in congressional objections, organizing the process of what would happen at the joint session, thumbed his nose at the process.

[10:25:01]

So, for him to say when Congress invites you or Congress compels you, you need to come, given his own personal history, strikes me again as ridiculous.

BOLDUAN: So, Tim, the Supreme Court also has agreed now to hear an appeal brought by a man charged for his actions during the January 6th attack. Essentially, what they're going to consider is whether part of federal obstruction law can be used to prosecute some of the rioters involved in the attack on the Capitol. What do you think of this, from your perspective, and what do you think it could mean for Donald Trump?

HEAPHY: Yes. So, 1512 is the statute at issue, and there are two different subsections of that, Kate. There's the mutilation, alteration of a document or otherwise impede, obstruct or interfere with a joint session.

The Department of Justice says that or otherwise is a very broad catch-all any way a person interferes with an official proceeding, this potentially implicates that statute.

The defendant in this case says the otherwise relates to the first provision involving the documents. There needs to be some sort of document issue in order to trigger Part B.

I think with respect to the former president, it just doesn't matter because there's evidence that the submission of the fake electors, there was sort of a false document used in the scheme. So, regardless of which way the court rules, those counts pending against the former president maintain.

They have big impact on the blue collar, the defendants that were not involved in the fake electors but were simply at the Capitol rioting, committing acts of violence, breaching the barriers. Their convictions under 1512 are directly impacted by this. But the former president's, I think, arguably, there's evidence that he implicated either provision of 1512.

BOLDUAN: That is an interesting perspective. Tim, it's great to see you. Thank you for coming in. John?

HEAPHY: Thanks, Kate.

BERMAN: All right. Deeply revealing comments from Vladimir Putin just a short time ago, rejoicing in the political standoff in the United States, saying that Ukraine will not be getting, quote, freebies anymore.

And CNN goes inside Southern Gaza without an Israeli escort, the first western news outlet to do so.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]