Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Supreme Court Now At Center Of Trump Legal Fights & 2024 Election; Colorado Voters Weigh In On Trump Being Barred From Ballot; House Launches Plagiarism Probe Into Harvard President. Aired 10- 10:30a ET

Aired December 21, 2023 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:01:20]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: The Supreme Court is now smack in the middle of the 2024 campaign and Donald Trump could be asking the High Court to both stay out of and jump into his legal troubles at the very same time.

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Exactly. And a Republican-led House Committee is now launching an investigation into Harvard's president over plagiarism allegations what the university is saying in the face of renewed scrutiny of the now embattled president.

BOLDUAN: And CNN flies over the volcano in Iceland.

JIMENEZ: That's all you need to say.

BOLDUAN: Best assignment ever or worse.

JIMENEZ: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Depending. The volcano that is still erupting. I'm Kate Bolduan with Omar Jimenez. Sara and John are off today. This is CNN News Central.

The Supreme Court of the United States now in the spotlight and unwittingly front and center in the 2024 presidential election, the High Court is facing a number of decisions that could directly impact how this election will play out. Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked the justices to fast track a decision on whether Trump is immune from prosecution in the federal election subversion case.

Now Trump and his legal team have filed a request with the High Court to stay out of that case for now. Said another way, no fast track please, the slower the better for Donald Trump there. And while his team hasn't yet asked for an appeal to the Colorado ruling disqualifying him from that state ballot, they are expected to take that to the Supreme Court sometime next week asking the court there to step in.

Let's get right to CNN's Katelyn Polantz in Washington with more on this. Katelyn, let's start with the immunity question now that we have the Trump team's response. When could the court announced if they're going to take that up?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Kate, any moment the Supreme Court could decide that they want to look at this issue, this issue of presidential immunity for Donald Trump, if he has it, if he can be protected by it, if he can even go to trial, because of what he did after the election in January 6th, that is all related to his criminal case.

And so it is before the Supreme Court right now, because Donald Trump is scheduled to go to trial in March, it could affect the election, but it really is about when he can be tried when the Justice Department wants him to be tried. And when the court has scheduled it, which is March, that date is still on the calendar. But what's happening here is that the Justice Department, they have to have somebody figure this out in the appeals courts of whether Donald Trump has some sort of immunity around the presidency that can protect him from a criminal prosecution like this.

And so it's going to get to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Justice Department wants the Supreme Court to step in right now. Trump's team is saying there shouldn't be a rush here. We don't want anyone to make any judicial decisions with reckless abandon. They use those words in their filing yesterday. And so there is an issue on the table where the Trump team is hoping that the Supreme Court doesn't want to deal with this just yet that it will go through a different appeals court lower down first with some oral arguments coming up in January.

BOLDUAN: So then the Colorado case what happens next?

POLANTZ: What happens next is this also could be before the Supreme Court and something that they will need to look at quite quickly. So in that Supreme Court ruling from the state of Colorado, so the Supreme Court in Colorado, they have put the situation on hold. They're allowing Donald Trump the time to go to the Supreme Court and get some intervention before it's ultimately resolved at least in their decision that he should not be on the ballot.

[10:05:06]

But if Trump goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court wants to look at that issue and give some clarity around the law there rather there can be the choice of states to keep him off ballots either primary or general election ballots to keep him from running for office because of this insurrectionist clause in the Constitution, it is a question of whether the Supreme Court is going to want to take that and tell the whole country what to do or if this went to being a thing that state by state, they're going to have to figure out.

BOLDUAN: So a little bit of standby to standby with, man, there's a whole lot going on. It's good to see you, Katelyn. Thank you.

JIMENEZ: So we've been talking about Colorado, but we're not in Colorado. So the question is, what do Colorado voters think about the ruling that bars Trump from the primary ballot? Our Gary Tuchman always quick on the draw, traveled to the state to ask just that.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

GARY TUCHMAN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This coffee shop in Douglas County, Colorado goes by the simple name of coffee and a tear where we have a simple question for customers.

TUCHMAN: Tell me your gut feeling. Do you think it's a good thing the Colorado Supreme Court did that or not a good thing?

CHRISTIAN LYLES, DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: You know, I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, but I don't think people should be taken off the ballot, necessarily.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): This man is a political independent in a very Republican county. So here in the county seat of Castle Rock, it's easy to find loyal Trump Republicans who feel the same as this man.

TUCHMAN: What do you think of the Supreme Court decision?

TRAC STEPHENSON, DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: I think it's unfair.

TUCHMAN: How come?

STEPHENSON: The government shouldn't get in that position to control votes for certain candidates.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): But we did find this Democrat who says that's precisely what this court needed to do.

STEVEN FERRADINO, DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: I think it's a great decision. I think that when you try to overturn an election, you don't get to run again, you know, we have a 14th amendment for a reason.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Back inside coffee, loyal Trump supporter, Tony Clonaris, doesn't take this decision seriously. She thinks the Supreme Court taking Trump off the primary ballot is the result of being playing.

TUCHMAN: Why do you think they're playing a game and not doing their job?

TONY CLONARIS (ph), DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: Because I think they're part of the game.

TUCHMAN: And what's that game?

CLONARIS (ph): Not being honest.

TUCHMAN: But you think that Trump has been honest?

CLONARIS (ph): For the most part, yes.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Her friend concurs, saying that she feels --

KRISTINA KARFORD, DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: Outrage, absolute outrage.

TUCHMAN: Why were you outraged?

KARFORD: They're going to take away our choice based on their personal beliefs, because I don't believe they're speaking for the people.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): But Elle Gray believes the justices are. She's an independent who has voted for Donald Trump, but says she won't be voting for him again, if he ends up back on the ballot.

ELLE GRAY, DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: I agree with their ruling that he engaged in insurrection. Yes.

TUCHMAN: So do you think it was the right thing to do?

GRAY: For my state? Yes.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Keith Raymond has voted for Donald Trump twice. It says this time around, he's supporting Chris Christie. His opinion is more nuanced.

KEITH RAYMOND, DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: It's a complicated issue. But if the law is the law and the Supreme Court is stating it we have to abide by it. It doesn't mean I'm a fan of it.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Many Coloradans are still digesting the court ruling, the varied opinions in the shop about Donald Trump, symbolic of countless discussions in the state and this country. Kelsey Nistel is a Democrat.

KELSEY NISTEL, DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: I think that what he did was unacceptable for our country. And we should have faced the consequences for that.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): Jake Herman is a Republican.

JAKE HERMAN, DOUGLAS COUNTY, CO RESIDENT: I think if he -- if that was a legitimate thing to happen if he was part of an insurrection he would have been arrested. He wasn't arrested.

TUCHMAN (voice-over): The Colorado primary is March 5th.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCHMAN (on camera): Omar at least on this day, we did not talk to any fervent Trump supporters who plan on switching to a different Republican candidate on primary day if Trump's name is no longer on the ballot. Instead, what we heard from some people is they plan to write in Trump's name. But under this ruling, a widened vote for Trump would not count. Omar?

JIMENEZ: Gary Tuchman, thank you.

BOLDUAN: And joining us now to talk more about this and all of the legal troubles facing Donald Trump right now. CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig is here. Elie, I want to -- if we can I've had a lot of questions about the kind of the immunity question, Jack Smith asking the Supreme Court to step in, the federal elections case, because we now have the Trump team filing their response in saying they don't want the court -- the high court to get involved. And here is just a piece of the filing. Katelyn Polantz was kind of alluding to this.

Trump's team writing, the Special Counsel never explains why March 4th, 2024 is supposedly the only appropriate timetable for this historic prosecution. The legal team also says this date has no talismanic significance. His team also argued that the matter should be resolved in a cautious, deliberative manner, not at breakneck speed. What do you think of the Trump's team's argument here?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think that's a very effective argument in this particular case, because the issue here is all about timing, right? Jack Smith won the immunity argument below. Donald Trump lost. The district court judge said you're not immune Donald Trump. Jack Smith is saying rather than the normal way this would go which is it goes to the Intermediate Court of Appeals and then maybe the Supreme Court. Jack Smith saying, let's and it's unusual, but it happens, he says, let's skip the middle layer and go right to the top.

[10:10:15]

The problem for Jack Smith is you have to have a specific reason for that. And Jack Smith will not say it's because the election because he doesn't want to look --

BOLDUAN: Why not right?

HONIG: Right. Why won't he say it? Because he believes -- I believe that he understands that would be inherently political. If he said, I want to try Donald Trump before the election --

BOLDUAN: I don't want to look political.

HONIG: Exactly. Well, the fact that Jack Smith refuses to say it I think is telling in its own right.

BOLDUAN: OK.

HONIG: But Jack Smith won't say it's because the election instead, if you look at his brief, it's all this vague generalities about what we need speed because speed is good and speedy resolution and delay is bad. And Donald Trump's team in that brief that came in last night sees that weakness and they go right at it. They say he has not offered us any specific reason. And they suggest strongly. It's obviously because the election date. And I think they have the better argument there whether that's a cause to expedite or not. We'll see what the Supreme Court does.

BOLDUAN: Then, so then, jump ahead, if why would the justices want to look at the immunity issue now or not now, what is it hinge on and do -- what do you think if they take it up what they what they would do?

HONIG: OK. So I think this will end up in the Supreme Court. It's a constitutional issue. It's an issue that we don't really have precedent on, and that we need some guidance on. I think they will take it up before the Supreme Court -- before the election happens. BOLDUAN: Before the election.

HONIG: But I'm not sure they'll expedite it anymore. They may want to let it go through the court of appeals, there is some legitimate value having a case go through the Court of Appeals.

BOLDUAN: So the March 4th date is very clearly in probably in question.

HONIG: I think either way, whether it's expedite or not, March 4th is in big trouble. And keep in mind, it's not just March 4th, jury selection starts February 9th. So even if the Supreme Court says we're going to take this and we're going to expedite it to the highest degree, I don't think they get it done by February 9th. Now to your final question, which is if and when the Supreme Court takes this case, how are they likely to rule, a lot of speculation here, but the best indication we have is there was a somewhat similar case a few years ago involving a subpoena from the Manhattan D.A. and the hush money case.

Trump said, well, I'm president. I don't have to argue. He lost 72. He had Thomas and Alito with him. The other seven were against him. This is somewhat similar. I think the way -- I think Alito and Thomas would probably be for Trump on immunity. The three liberals will certainly be against Trump on immunity. And that leaves us with Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts.

If I had to bet I would think Trump loses. I think it's more likely Trump loses. But he's got a shot here. He has a nonzero chance to succeed. If he does win, by the way on immunity, Jack Smith's January 6th case is over. That's how high the stakes are.

BOLDUAN: Yes. And that really is an important thing to point out. This isn't just something. This isn't just like nothing is part of this huge case and investigation that's been ongoing --

HONIG: This -- it's -- there's positive it's all or nothing if Trump wins it.

BOLDUAN: Thanks Elie.

HONIG: Thanks Kate.

[10:13:00]

JIMENEZ: All right, we're following some breaking news right now. A deadly shooting at a university in Prague this morning, according to Check Police who just posted to X, Twitter, that quote police are currently intervening at the scene, the surrounding area are completely cordoned off. We can confirm that there are dead and injured at the scene. Now police said the incident happened at the philosophy building of Charles University in central Prague. We're going to bring you the latest on this developing situation after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) JIMENEZ: Harvard President Claudine Gay is facing an expanded investigation this morning. A House panel is now launching a plagiarism probe as Gay issues corrections to poor citations in her previous work. Now as part of their larger probe into anti-Semitism on campus, which resulted in what some saw is disastrous testimony from Gay and two other university presidents earlier this month. They're requesting a written response to the probe by next week along with the list of any disciplinary actions taken against faculty or students for similar infraction.

So I want to bring in CNN's Matt Egan. Matt, so just break it down for us. What is the latest here? And obviously a lot of this seems to have stemmed from that testimony.

MATT EGAN, CNN REPORTER: That's right, Omar. Well, Claudine Gay remains very much under fire and her writings are under intense scrutiny. Some fast moving developments overnight, first, it's this investigation from the House Education Committee. They are reviewing these plagiarism allegations. They are alleging that there's been a double standard here right, one set of rules for the students, another set of rules for the university president.

Let me read you what Chair of Virginia Foxx said in this letter. And I'm quoting, if a university is willing to look the other way and not hold faculty accountable for engaging in academically dishonest behavior, it cheapens its mission and the value of its education.

Also happening overnight, Harvard confirming that Gay is issuing corrections to her 1997 PhD dissertation because of what they're describing as inadequate citations. Note, this is on top of the corrections that were issued just last week to her scholarly work in the 2000s. One other point here is the way that this has unfolded right in this drip, drip, drip fashion is only adding to the pressure on Claudine Gay.

JIMENEZ: And of course, you know, this was part of the -- her appearance in front of Congress, was part of an anti-Semitism probe. Now it's stemmed into a little bit of a plagiarism probe as well. So has Harvard at this point weighed in on whether they believe this is misconduct at all in any way?

[10:19:59]

EGAN: Yes, almost. Right now they're saying basically that it's regrettable but it's not fireable. Here's why. They pointed the policy around misconduct and they say that it for it to be considered misconduct, which is a punishable offense. It's got to be significant departure from accepted practices. It's got to be done intentionally, knowingly or recklessly and proven by preponderance of evidence. And Harvard is basically saying, we're not there yet.

Now, Claudine Gay put out a statement of her own earlier this month. Let me read you what she said. She says, I stand by the integrity of my scholarship. Throughout my career, I have worked to ensure my scholarship adheres to the highest academic standards. One other point here, I think it's important to emphasize that when you talk about plagiarism, it really falls into two different categories, right? The first would be copying without attribution. The other more serious charge is stealing someone's ideas.

JIMENEZ: Yes.

EGAN: And what's been uncovered so far about Claudine Gay's writings, really falls into the former camp. So yes, sloppy citations, but no, not idea theft.

JIMENEZ: Yes. And again, we'll see at what point this potentially crosses with that threshold that Harvard has put out to this point. But no doubt, a lot of pressure from a lot of sides right now on university presidents, especially on Claudine Gay. Matt Egan, thank you so much.

EGAN: Absolutely.

BOLDUAN: All right. We are continuing to follow the breaking news out of Prague. Police say a deadly shooting has occurred at a university in central Prague, Charles University. Check Police tweeting out just short time ago that police are currently at the scene where there are several people killed, many people injured. We get the latest after a quick break. We're gathering new detail. We're going to bring that to you.

And also ahead, we're going to be taking you to Iceland once again, new images this morning of Iceland's volcanic eruption. CNN's Fred Pleitgen has an incredible vantage point of what's happening there. We'll be right back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We can see the lava, we can smell the magma, we can feel the awesome force that our planet is unleashing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:26:42]

BOLDUAN: We are following breaking news this hour out of Prague where Check Police now say that the suspect and a deadly shooting at Charles University today has quote been eliminated. Check Police also posted on social media the following, police are interred -- currently intervening, the surrounding area are completely cordoned off. Police say we can confirm that there are dead and injured at the scene.

Now clearly, this is early on and more information is coming out. But the early information from authorities there is that the incident the shooting happened at the philosophy building at Charles University in central Prague. We're working and gathering more detail. There's a lot of, you know, videos that are being seen. We're working to confirm what videos are out there, what we can bring to you and gather more information about the injured and those who have sadly been killed in this and will bring you an update.

JIMENEZ: Yes. Well, continue to follow that throughout this morning as that develops. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., Congress is officially gone for the holidays. But a lengthy to-do list awaits them when they get back making for what will surely be a very busy January on Capitol Hill. A vote on the Senate's border deal and Ukraine aid package has been punted until next year, even as negotiations keep -- as negotiators, I should say, keep working to reach an agreement.

And the government still isn't fully funded. Lawmakers haven't been able to agree on the top line spending number and a partial government shutdown could happen in less than a month. But what is there to worry about? CNN's Manu Raju joins us now from Capitol Hill. Manu, look, a lot on their plate after the holidays. And a lot of what I mentioned on the Senate border deal in Ukraine doesn't even include the House side of things yet. So where do things stand right now for Congress?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's a total mess. And members on both sides of the aisle would say so. And they did what they did best. They punted until the New Year. And they went home for the holidays. And they're not going to give themselves much time. Both the House, the Republican-led House and the Democratic-led Senate will return in Jan -- the week of January 8th and then they'll face a deadline, by January 19th to fund part of the federal government.

Then there was a second deadline in early February to fund the rest of the federal government. And there are sharp divisions among the two chambers between Republicans in the House and the Senate as well about the funding levels that will keep the government open. And that is an issue that has simply not been resolved and is also going to spark fears in the New Year of a potential government shutdown.

And then there's the big ticket item. You mentioned it. Cutting a deal over how to change border policies, to deal with the surge of migrants in the southern border of Mexico. That has been negotiated for weeks in the Senate. They are nowhere close to finalizing a deal. And if they do finalize the deal, they'll have to sell it to the Senate, had to get to the divided, the narrowly divided House, get into the President's desk and that only then would that unlock aid to Ukraine and Israel that Republicans say must wait until the border is dealt with first.

So all of this is uncertain whether any of it can be dealt with. But in talking to members of both sides of the aisle, they're very clear that they are not happy with how unproductive this congressional session has been in our concern about the New Year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): This is shaming getting a political cycle. Everything kinds of sells, they blame it on politics. Well, politics is in everybody's life. Make it work. Get people that want to make it work. Put term limits on so we don't end up staying here for life. That's I think all that should happen.

RAJU: Like the split Congress has not been productive.

MANCHIN: This has not been.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:30:08]