Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Barred From 2024 Primary Ballot In Colorado; Trump Asks Supreme Court To Stay Out Of Immunity Dispute For Now; Several Palestinians Reported Killed In Series Of Major Explosions Near Hospital In Southern Gaza; Israel Back At The Table for Hostage Negotiations. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired December 20, 2023 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:08]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: We've been following some major breaking news into CNN NEWS CENTRAL. Some major political and legal developments today involving former president, Donald Trump, and the Supreme Court.

Just a short time ago, Trump's lawyers asked the nation's highest court to stay away for now from the dispute over whether Trump has immunity from federal election subversion charges. This is a separate but equally unprecedented case to the other one that is likely going to go in front of those nine justices soon.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That's right. Trump has been barred from Colorado's 2024 primary ballot after the state's Supreme Court found that he violated the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. Trump's lawyers taking, of course, the opposite approach here. They're going straight to the U.S. Supreme Court on this.

We have CNN's Katelyn Polantz and Evan Perez tracking both of these stories for us.

All right. Katelyn, walk us through this immunity issue, what we were expecting compared to what happened here.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Right. So Donald Trump headed to trial in March in the court in Washington and the Supreme Court has to resolve. They're going to have to figure out whether Donald Trump is immune from going to trial because he was president, because he was already tried in the Senate after his impeachment and acquitted there.

And so before they can do that trial, somebody is going to have to figure it out. Ultimately, it will be the Supreme Court. The Justice Department wants to skip the middle court, the appeals court, the D.C. Circuit and go to the Supreme Court straight away. The Supreme Court is considering that and we now just have this new brief in from Donald Trump's team. So it's before the Supreme Court to look at and decide whether it's time for them to take the case or if it should stay at this middle court that's planning to have arguments in about three weeks and resolve - get their say in whether Donald Trump has immunity from this criminal prosecution.

And so what Trump's lawyers are writing today is: "The Special Counsel urges this Court," the Supreme Court, "to bypass those ordinary procedures, including the longstanding preference for prior consideration by at least one court of appeals," that's the D.C. Circuit, "and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. This Court should decline that invitation at this time, for several reasons."

One of the reasons they say is that Jack Smith's - Special Counsel's office, the Justice Department, their argument is that the Supreme Court should decide this issue quickly of presidential immunity for Donald Trump because it's in the public interest.

Trump says that's a partisan argument you're making because he's on the camp train trail. Everybody slow down. He doesn't have to go to trial in March.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Trump's attorneys have been pushing for delays seemingly at every juncture of his legal battles.

POLANTZ: Exactly.

SANCHEZ: Evan, let's focus on Colorado now, a 4-3 majority deciding that Donald Trump should not be on the primary ballot there. This is now on a collision course with the Supreme Court.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right, absolutely. Look, that was a surprising decision because of a number of these challenges have been made around the country: in New Hampshire, in Michigan, in Minnesota. All the other courts have found that this doesn't hold water, that the 14th Amendment cannot be used in this way to disallow a presidential candidate, especially in this case, Donald Trump, who was previously president.

And what this court has ruled is the opposite, right? This is the first court that has found that the former president was essentially an insurrectionist and that the 14th Amendment does hold that he should be barred from being on the ballot.

Now, the collision course is the calendar, right? Because January 5th, the Colorado supreme - secretary of state has to certify their ballot for the primary. And so the Colorado Supreme Court has already put a pause on their decision, saying if Donald Trump appeals before then, by January 4th, then he - his name gets to remain on the ballot, at least pending the litigation, right?

The view is that it's going to take some time for the Supreme Court to get this. The issue is that now you have twin cases, right? You have this one, which if this is successful, you have to imagine other people are going to bring similar challenges to remove Trump from other ballots in other states, states that he's much more likely to be competitive in, right? And certainly, we also have this trial and so there's twin cases that are now on their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which I think we haven't been in a place like this since Bush v. Gore in 2000, where the Supreme Court was weighing such important decisions on the future of the presidency.

POLANTZ: Yes, they're in the thick of it.

KEILAR: Yes, it is incredible times that we are witnessing here.

Evan and Katelyn, if you could stand by for us, I want to discuss now with former federal prosecutor, Jennifer Rodgers and former Nixon White House counsel, John Dean.

[15:05:03]

Jennifer, to you first.

Just your reaction to this immunity argument, basically stay out of this dispute, the Trump team is saying, and how you think that is going to impact what the Supreme Court does here.

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, it's no surprise, Brianna. This is what they've been trying to do all along is delay it, ideally till after the election. So it's no surprise at all.

I don't know what the Supreme Court will do, to be honest. It is unusual to fast track it and skip the appellate court process. On the other hand, we are in extraordinary times, and so they can do it. It's a little bit ironic that after all the times the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for emergency consideration while they were in charge, they now say, hey, what's the rush? Hold back. No need to go the quick route. So we'll see what they do.

I suspect, given the stakes, they will decide it quickly without D.C. Circuit having weighed in first, but it's anybody's guess.

SANCHEZ: John, is there any benefit to the Trump team, other than just to delay the proceedings, to have this go through an appellate court before it gets to the Supreme Court?

JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: There is a possibility that they can get a negative ruling in the D.C. Circuit, so it's a risk, if you will. The record is actually pretty complete in the lower courts, so I don't think there's an advantage for them.

I think, as Jennifer said, it's - this is delayed. This has been standard operating procedure. Notwithstanding, they're complaining that every day the lawsuit exists. It hurts them. They're saying, well, we still want to delay. So it's a very inconsistent, hypocritical position they're in.

KEILAR: John, do you think there's any interaction here between the Colorado issue and this immunity issue and how the Trump team could see these things as twin issues before the court, since they could be things that they were taking up in close proximity to each other? DEAN: I think it's just a unique circumstance the two things are conflated and the possibility of both being before the Supreme Court. I would be less surprised if they said, hey, let's pull back from appealing the Colorado decision and let's see how that plays out in other states rather than try to get that in front of the court, too.

So I don't see a connection. I think there will be other cases. I think other states will go down the 14th Amendment route. The ones that have gone down have been really largely procedurally dismissed, not substantively dismissed. It's because they don't have an apparatus or a machinery to bring this to court and to make a full judgment on it that provides due process. So this is a unique proceeding as we're going to keep saying, I guess, with Trump.

KEILAR: Yes, it certainly is. Jennifer Rodgers and John Dean, if you could stay with us.

Plaintiffs might have succeeded at removing Trump from the Colorado ballot, but other major 14th Amendment lawsuits have been rejected by judges in Minnesota, in New Hampshire, in Arizona, also in Michigan. Appeals in those states underway.

Let's talk about those legal challenges and also the fallout from Colorado with Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for us.

Secretary Benson, thank you so much.

I know you have declined to take a position on the lawsuit playing out in your state, which is now being appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court saying that it's for the courts. But what was your reaction to this ruling in Colorado?

JOCELYN BENSON, (D) MICHIGAN SECRETARY OF STATE: I think - well, first, thanks for having me - I think this is a critical issue and it's one that we need clarity on. A state court ruling in a separate state doesn't apply, of course, to Michigan. And so we're all, as we have been since this emerged over the summer, as an issue looking to the U.S. Supreme Court to help clarify this issue and really give us some finality on the substantive issue as soon as possible.

And this is important not just for our state, but for the Republican Party, which needs to know that it has a qualified nominee. It's important for election officials everywhere so that we know who we can put on the ballot. And also more important than anything, it's really critical for voters to be able to go into this primary season with clarity so that they can make informed decisions as they cast their ballots.

KEILAR: What do you think the Supreme Court should do in terms of timing as you, a state official charged with carrying out elections, are looking for clarity ahead of the primaries?

BENSON: We'd like to see them expedite a decision as soon as possible, obviously taking the gravity of this moment seriously, weighing all of the considerations, but also recognizing the urgency for all of us in the states, in every state as we enter this primary season and getting together - I know it's the holidays - but let's get together and get a decision to the states on this, especially as you now will likely have diverging opinions among the states.

[15:10:04]

We need that clarity and we need it to come as soon as possible.

KEILAR: There is a similar case in Michigan. Of course, it went the other way. The judge didn't even allow a trial. An appeal is now pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. Do you think the Colorado ruling could affect their decision?

BENSON: I don't think so, no. I think our case has proceeded in Michigan in a different way, along a different path. And I trust the justices of our Supreme Court to look at this from a Michigan standpoint and a constitutional standpoint and do what's right under the law and under the Constitution, certainly other considerations and court precedents in other states can be persuasive, but they won't be definitive. And I expect our court in Michigan to make an independent analysis and decision when it reaches the Supreme Court, hopefully rather soon.

KEILAR: There's the legal, of course. There's also the political. Michigan is a battleground state. Colorado leans blue. Do you worry about political fallout in your state if the ruling stands?

BENSON: Well, I've said it a lot, the law is the law and the Constitution is what it is, and we all have a responsibility to follow it and then provide secondarily clarity to citizens as they enter this election season. That clarity is what I'm most concerned about, especially with the uncertainty of this moment and that waiting for other courts to weigh in, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

So in my view, the fallout is really going to be rooted to the uncertainty, and that's why my hope is that the Supreme Court won't punt on this issue as they potentially could, but make a substantive final decision on this entire issue under the 14th Amendment so that going into the primary season, all states and political parties have clarity on who and who is not qualified to serve.

KEILAR: And I certainly appreciate that opinion, but what's clarity to you, right, that's not going to be clarity to everyone. There are people who would look at this no matter which way it goes, there are folks on both sides. They're not going to see clarity. They're going to see an incorrect decision, something that politicizes the system. That's not concerning to you even if you feel that the courts are doing the right thing?

BENSON: Yes, it's so concerning to me because we're in a moment where all of us, at least in Michigan and in many battleground states, are obsessively focused on trying to ensure and restore faith in our elections processes. So, yes, I am deeply concerned about the way in which this issue could harm or impact citizens' faith in the integrity of our elections.

We're going to work in a transparent way to be clear about what the law is, the courts will tell us that. And then we'll work to ensure our processes remain transparent and open and we communicate to citizens, listen and respond as well, but make sure we're doing everything we can on the process side to at least ensure they can have faith in the mechanics of our elections and our responsibility as election officials under the law is to follow the Constitution, whatever the decision may be.

KEILAR: Secretary Benson, thank you so much for being with us. We really appreciate your time this afternoon.

BENSON: Yes. Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: We want to bring Jennifer Rogers and John Dean back into the conversation with us.

So, Jennifer, how do you see this Colorado issue playing out over the next few weeks as it likely heads to the Supreme Court?

RODGERS: Well, I think, Boris, the court certainly will take it, particularly with other states having the same issue pending. They won't want there to be differing rulings in different places. And, of course, primaries are coming up.

So I think the court will take it. And then what they do with it is the big question mark. There's no precedent on this. This has never happened before. It is a matter of interpreting the United States' Constitution.

So ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of that. It has the final say.

The Colorado Supreme Court decision was very solid, I think. There wasn't a lot to criticize there. But I - it's just so hard for me to believe that the Supreme Court is going to allow a presidential candidate to be taken off the ballot by one state, given that that impacts all the other states.

So we'll look to see what they do, but my bet would be that ultimately they find a way to overturn it.

KEILAR: John, I wonder what you think just of the state of things, the politicization of the court. I mean, we've seen - look, we've seen the court be involved in presidential electoral politics before - to quite an effect, right. When you think of Al Gore and George Bush and their race.

These are different times, though. I mean, we thought. The country was divided back then. It is incredibly divided now. And whatever decision is made, you are going to see - in any of these cases, you're going to see the court very, I think, maligned by either the left or the right, depending on the outcome. How are you reflecting on that and the legitimacy of the court at this point in time?

[15:15:03]

DEAN: It's very troubling. It's troubling that the candidates last. Night reached the immediate conclusion. Oh, the court shouldn't handle this. This should be handled by the electorate.

Well, if the Constitution says he's not qualified, he's not qualified. He, you know, just as somebody who is not of the proper age, not 35 years of age, hasn't lived in the United States for 14 years, is not a natural born, all those things do apply. And so does the fact you cannot be engaged in an insurrection after you've taken an oath to support the Constitution. It's very unique that the issues come up, but it's a very real issue and I just don't think we can wash aside the role of the courts and politicizing the courts would really be a disaster.

We are divided. Yes. But the courts got to stand its ground. Incidentally, the Michigan case is mentioned in the Colorado case where they say we have a procedure, Michigan doesn't.

SANCHEZ: Jennifer, something that really strikes me about this is that at both levels, the - initially the first judge and then the Colorado Supreme Court, they both weighed in on whether Donald Trump was a party to the insurrection. Do you envision the Supreme Court justices having to weigh in on that on some level as part of whatever decision they potentially make?

RODGERS: They won't, Boris, because that was a fact finding endeavor. So the initial court was the one to collect that evidence and make that determination. And then the higher courts defer to that judgment. So they, I believe, will just be looking at the legal issues.

Whether the presidency is one of the offices to which that provision applies, whether there was proper due process below and whether the mechanism used was correct, those sorts of things, they won't be going back to, I don't think, the issue of whether he actually participated in an insurrection and in fact whether it was an insurrection to begin with.

SANCHEZ: It would be fascinating to get the Supreme Court justices on the record on that question, though.

KEILAR: It would. I mean, so you're saying, Jennifer, that - and correct me if I'm reading this wrongly, but they're operating as if that has been adjudicated, that that is just an issue that is asserted here, that he is a party to insurrection.

RODGERS: Well, yes, for most issues, the fact finding is done below and then the upper courts deal with the issue of the legal issues. In other words, they defer to the fact finding that happens at the trial court level because the trial court is where witnesses testify, where evidence is received and considered and so that is the place where facts are determined. And then above you look at - sometimes you look at the facts in the sense of whether no reasonable jury or judge could have reached that decision.

But for the most part, they're looking at the issue of whether the law was complied with and in this case, in particular, it will be whether or not I believe the presidency is one of the offices that is covered by Amendment 14 Section 3.

KEILAR: It's very interesting.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

KEILAR: Jennifer, John, thank you to both of you. We do appreciate it.

And when we come back, Israel back at the table, returning for talks to pause the fighting with Hamas in exchange for more Israeli hostages held by Hamas. We're following new developments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:22:45]

KEILAR: Now to the latest on Israel's war with Hamas, video today showing people running, showing people being carried here from the site of explosions in Rafah, in southern Gaza. Journalists in the area say these explosions caused by Israeli airstrikes that killed and wounded at least several people.

SANCHEZ: All of this coming as the U.N. Security Council delays for the third time this week a vote on a resolution to pause the fighting and as Israel returns to negotiations attempting to halt attacks in exchange for Hamas releasing Israeli hostages.

CNN's Will Ripley is live for us in Tel Aviv.

Will, what's the latest on the status of these hostage talks?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we know that both sides are at least talking, which is encouraging and it is a pivot for both sides for different reasons. The Hamas political leader traveling from Doha to Cairo to listen to the offer that's now put on the table by Israel, but it is an offer that Israel and the United States believe Hamas will not accept, given that their stance up until as far as we know now has been, in order for the remaining 100-plus hostages who are still alive to be released, there has to be a permanent ceasefire, a permanent end to the ground operations, the airstrikes in Gaza.

And from the Israeli perspective, that is just not going to happen because they have stated clearly from the beginning, ever since the massacre on October 7th, when hundreds of unarmed Israelis, many of them young people, were murdered by Hamas militants, the Israelis said this war is not against the people of Gaza, it is against the leadership of Hamas, and until they are eliminated, this conflict needs to continue.

The problem and the reason why this U.N. vote keeps getting delayed is that the United States, while showing its support for Israel, also has to acknowledge the growing outcry around the world at the horrific civilian death toll. And behind the scenes, CNN sources say, the messaging from the - United States to Israel has been very clear that the civilians need to be kept out of this. You need to find a way to eliminate the Hamas leadership without killing so many people.

And yet when, from the Israeli perspective, they insist that Hamas is operating from hospitals, maybe even from churches. Remember, over the weekend, there were accusations of Israeli snipers, although Israel has denied - the Israel has denied this.

[15:25:06]

But Israeli snipers targeting a church, damaging a church generator, the fuel supply, a fraction of the hospitals in Gaza are operational right now. But yet they've gone in and in some cases have claimed to show evidence that Hamas was operating out of these facilities where people were sheltering. Where people were seeking medical care, albeit very limited medical care at this stage, very dangerous conditions because of the lack of food and medicine.

So a humanitarian pause is badly needed. Hamas is taking a heavy hit militarily and yet in some ways, politically, some analysts have said it is to their benefit to drag this out because the more that Israel strikes, the more that we see these pictures of civilians being injured and killed, the more that the death toll takes up, then the more pressure there is on Israel to change strategy, which gives Hamas more time essentially to regroup.

So it's a very, very difficult situation on the ground. But one thing is for sure, there does need to be a stop in the fighting in order to get badly needed relief and supplies in. The question is, how can that be worked out? What is Hamas going to want in terms of their own prisoners? They've said in the past that if there is some sort of a hostage exchange, they're not interested in getting back teenagers and women. They want people who are potentially facing very serious criminal charges or have already been convicted of crimes here in Israel to be returned back.

From the Israeli perspective, that's essentially sending potential militants back in to their own freedom to train and potentially try to launch another strike. And that is something here in Tel Aviv that they say must never be allowed to happen again. Very difficult, if not impossible or near impossible situation all around.

SANCHEZ: Will Ripley, live for us from Tel Aviv. Thanks so much, Will.

Let's get some perspective now with CNN Global Affairs Analyst Kimberly Dozier.

Kim, thank you so much for being with us.

So, let's talk about the fact that certain experts are skeptical that Hamas wants to make a deal here, in part because they believe that keeping hold of hostages is the only leverage that the terror group has at this point. What would be the incentive for them to strike a deal?

KIMBERLY DOZIER, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, just moving towards negotiating a deal is part of Hamas' intended public humiliation of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli state writ large, just holding it over their heads that they've got these hostages and that Israel still has to go through this process to try to get them back. So, is either side serious about a pause this time? Not clear. But Netanyahu has to go through it as well, because he is facing both internal pressure from the hostage families and the Israeli public, especially after the killing of those three hostages by Israeli troops over the weekend, and also internationally. Israel could be facing a situation where the U.S. votes together with other U.N. members to call for humanitarian aid and some sort of a pause that, of course, that language is still being worked on.

The fact that the other U.N. members haven't just gone ahead and called for a vote means that the White House is seriously considering signing on to it. Otherwise, there'd be no reason to keep negotiating over the wording.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Let's get into the contours of the deal, at least as far as we've been able to report. The indications are that Israel wants 40 hostages released as part of this deal. They include women, the elderly, those in need of urgent care. Conversely, Hamas, as we heard Will say, is asking for "more heavy-duty prisoners than before. What do you read into that?

DOZIER: Well, that each side wants to keep fighting, but is doing what their various allies are telling them to do and walking up to the negotiating line with their maximal demands. Will this lead to some sort of resolution? It depends on how much pressure the Israeli forces are putting on Hamas on the ground, how much pressure Netanyahu is under from - mostly from his coalition at home and the Israeli public.

Netanyahu wants to get elected again, and that means showing the Israeli public that he's really trying to get these hostages back. But the far right members of his coalition have several times, including most recently publicly, threatened to pull out of his coalition if he, for instance, gives money back to the Palestinian Authority, owed to them for taxing their people. It's a complicated arrangement.

But basically, what it shows you is that Netanyahu is watching - walking a fine line.

[15:30:00]

Hamas, meanwhile, the more they act like they're trying to negotiate, the more they remind everyone that they're in charge.

SANCHEZ: Wow.