Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

WH: U.S. Steel Sale To Japanese Company Deserves "Serious Scrutiny"; Breaking News: Supreme Court Won't Expedite Appeal In Trump Immunity Dispute. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired December 22, 2023 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30;00]

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN ECONOMICS COMMENTATOR: And I think it is probably likely that they would've looked at this anyway.

But the president wouldn't have released a statement about suggesting that there was some great threat to national security.

It was the same deal with the Trump tariffs on steel. They also used the excuse of national security to impose what was essentially a protectionist measure.

Biden kept --

(CROSSTALK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Catherine, I'm so sorry to interrupt you.

We have Some big breaking news out of the Supreme Court that we need to go to.

I want to go now to Joan Biskupic.

Because the Supreme Court, Joan, has rejected Jack Smith's request for justices to hear the Trump immunity dispute. Take us through this.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Yes. Brianna, we just got a one-sentence order without any recorded vote or explanation.

They have denied Jack Smith's request for immediate consideration of the claim that Donald Trump should be immune from criminal prosecution for interfering with the 2020 election, trying to disenfranchise millions of voters.

The special counsel, Jack Smith, had laid out a case for why it was compelling for the Supreme Court to decide this sooner rather than later. Just a second ago, the Supreme Court denied it. Again, with no

recorded vote or explanation.

It means that this case now stays in a lower appellate court. It could take months before it gets back to the Supreme Court. It means the trial of Donald Trump that was supposed to start March 4th certainly will not start on March 4th. KEILAR: That is huge.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: Yes, so, Joan, what we are talking about here is this is now going to go through the normal appellate process and it will go to the court of appeals. The process will play out. Then maybe it might go to the Supreme Court after that.

For all intents and purposes, this is a log jam, a legal log jam, I suppose, in the way of that March start date as you were saying.

BISKUPIC: That's absolutely true. Jack Smith, on behalf of the federal government, has said, Supreme Court, you'll have to resolve the sooner rather than later. Please come in now, to do this quickly. And the court said, no.

And as I said, no explanation. Just obviously, the implication is Jack Smith, the federal government, will have to go through the usual hoops of the lower court. That is what is standard procedure.

What the special counsel had tried to argue was that this case was so compelling, so important, to have a former president held accountable for actions from the 2020 election -- he did not invoke the 2024 election. Here we are right on the eve of that.

Now this trial of former President Donald Trump and all of the related proceedings are just going to go right through to the summer. And who knows if it is going to bump right up against the November election.

KEILAR: Let's remind people, Joan, what's at the heart of this, which is this question of whether Donald Trump had presidential immunity in his actions surrounding the election.

BISKUPIC: Yes. The issue is Jack Smith had charged him with four felony counts for the interference with the 2020 election, everything up to the January 6th insurrection at the capital.

What Donald Trump said is he should be immune from this kind of criminal prosecution because any actions taken were part of his official actions.

And a lower court trial judge rejected that. They said, essentially, no one is above the law, especially the president, the former president in this case.

That was the situation that Jack Smith has tried to emphasize, is that no one should be above the law, especially a man who tried to defy the Constitution and perpetuate his time in office.

ACOSTA: And what is fascinating about all of this, Joan -- and we're getting Evan Perez and Jeff Zeleny to join us on set, as well.

But the other part of this, Joan, which is fascinating is we just got this new story out of the "Detroit News" in the last 24 hours where there are new revelations, at least the revelations are on audio now.

That Donald Trump and the chair of the RNC, Ronna McDaniel, we're trying to pressure those election workers in Wayne County to not certify the election results in that county.

This feeds right into Jack Smith's case. That the then-president who was not acting as president of the United States. He was just trying to cling to power.

BISKUPIC: Yes. Jack Smith made a big point about the former president trying to disenfranchise millions of voters. There was a situation right there in Detroit, Michigan.

Again, allegations.

(CROSSTALK)

BISKUPIC: But those will be tested in trial. But now that trial, where both sides would be able to present their case, is now months away.

ACOSTA: Evan, what is your takeaway from this? This came down pretty quickly. If I'm not mistaken, Jack Smith asked once, then asked again and said, hey, we really need you to give us something on this. The Supreme Court said, OK.

[14:34:59]

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Well, the Supreme Court actually told -- gave these tight deadlines to both sides to weigh in before making this decision.

It was clear that at least somebody, John Roberts, perhaps some others on the court were -- did want to at least take a look at this and decide whether to consider this for request.

And what we see here now is that they're saying, well -- we also know that the appeals court had also decided to move very quickly. They set very tight deadlines. And they have scheduled January 9th for oral arguments on these very same questions.

So it is quite possible that some of the other justices thought, well, let's wait for that.

But let me just say this. Smith makes a pretty strong argument here that this case, if you compare it to precedent, right, which is, 1974, the Nixon case and those urgent questions being put before the court.

At that point, they took a look at that case. They expedited it. They skipped over the appellate process. They heard that case in two months and they rendered a decision in 16 days after oral arguments.

So what Jack Smith said in his request, he said, here the stakes are at least if not higher for a resolution to come.

Because obviously we all know the electoral calendar, we know that the ballots are being printed, literally, in the next few weeks. So the question that is before this court is really, really, urgent.

So what this means, guys, I think, clearly the March 4th trial is in grave danger of actually happening at that point. It will most likely not be anywhere near there because of this process.

But again, you know, these courts can act quickly if they choose to do so.

KEILAR: I do want you, Jeff, to look at this through a political lens.

But first, I just want to bring in Elie Honig real quick. Because we do have him on the phone. And we should certainly talk about the legal side of this before we look at it through that political lens.

It's important to note, Elie, and I wonder if you think this may have had some bearing on what the Supreme Court's decision. In fairness, it is a very short ruling. We do not know the reasoning behind it.

But Jack Smith, as he was explaining why he wanted this expedited, he did not give a specific reason in his filing other than to talk about the public interest.

The problem here is he could not invoke the 2024 election. Although, I think when a lot of people look at this, they say, maybe it should be expedited because maybe there should be a trial before the election so the people who are voting yes or no on Trump, you know, have a full picture of what's going on here.

Do you think that had a bearing? His argument maybe not as strong as it could've been?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Brianna, I think that is exactly the biggest weakness in Jack Smith's argument that this needed to be expedited.

Let's remember, the party who is asking the Supreme Court to do something unusual here was Jack Smith. He was saying we want to skip the court of appeals, which now will not happen. The next step will be the court of appeals.

Jack Smith was saying we want to skip the court of appeal and have you, Supreme Court, take on this case immediately.

And if you are going to take on this request, legally, you, Jack Smith, bear the burden of explaining specifically why there is a need for speed here.

Jack Smith, because he has been unwilling and remains unwilling to acknowledge that he wants to try this case before the election, instead, decides, if you look at his briefs, to argue these vague generalities around speed good, it's in the public interest. But he never says because we need to get this in before the election.

In his brief, Donald Trump's lawyers attack that. They say that all that Jack Smith has offered up here is generalities that would apply to any case. They do not offer a specific reason.

Brianna, as you say, we do not know the specific reason why the Supreme Court has turned us down for now. But it is really important to keep in mind that the next step will be the court of appeals. Donald Trump lost the argument at the district court, the trial court.

He will now get to go to the court of appeals. That will take a few weeks. They set a very quick briefing schedule.

The Supreme Court might take it then. This does not mean the Supreme Court will never take this case. They are just going to have the court of appeals take it first.

What this does, as Evan said, makes the March 4th trial date almost impossible to hold. I think this means the trial date will be pushed back, perhaps substantially.

ACOSTA: Joan, you're still with us and you want to respond to what Elie is saying.

But it sounds as -- I mean, we are not getting a resolution on the immunity issue. We are getting an issue on whether this will be expedited.

BISKUPIC: That's exactly right. I think the Supreme Court, eventually, is going to have to decide this. The Supreme Court is the only bench that can decide this.

I would just respond to what Elie said about the Trump lawyers' arguments. Jack Smith had a chance to come back and respond to Trump's lawyers' claims that he wasn't specific enough. He didn't even try to take that on.

[14:40:02]

What he wanted to take on was the very important first principles question here involving the separation of powers, involving a presidential shield from criminal prosecution.

And he likened it to some of the weightiest issues out there. Essentially saying I don't need -- the message was I don't need to be specific on why.

This is such a big question of a former president trying to allude accountability for his actions. We need an answer on that, sooner rather than later.

Finally, Jim, to your initial point, there is no way that this doesn't go back to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because no matter what the appellate court does, the Supreme Court is going to have to resolve this once and for all in this case of Donald Trump.

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: As they should. Yes.

KEILAR: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: Well, actually, we have to sneak in a quick break. And then it is all you and Jeff when we get back.

ACOSTA: And Norm Eisen is here.

KEILAR: And Norm Eisen, who joined us, as well.

We have so much to explore here. The Supreme Court rejecting Jack Smith's request that they expedite this question of presidential immunity and whether it applies to Donald Trump when it comes to election subversion.

We are going to get in a quick break, as I mentioned. We are back in a few moments. Huge legal and political implications here. We will be looking at all of them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:45:40]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KEILAR: We have breaking news coming to us from the Supreme Court. They have rejected a request by Special Counsel Jack Smith to expedite a decision on former President Trump's presidential immunity when it comes to alleged crimes he may have committed in office. Does he have presidential unity?

It's not that they will ultimately decide that. But they are not going to do that quickly as Jack Smith had asked them to do.

This is really important. Because it speaks, Jeff Zeleny, to the politics of this, which is of the utmost importance. It speaks to the timeline of what this is going to do as it will likely push the trial date. And now let's look at how it affects things.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: One thing it does not change is the dates of the primary election. Those are fast.

So if you walk through it, the oral arguments at the appellate level will be the 9th of January. The Iowa caucuses that open the Republican nominating contest on January 15th. A week later it's the New Hampshire primary.

And as Evan was saying earlier, this almost certainly delays the actual start date of the trial, March 4th, right before Super Tuesday.

That is the day he could, potentially -- it's a very important day on the calendar because, after that, it is winner-take-all. So he wins all, or whoever, wins all of the delegates from the state.

The early part of the primary process, January and February, is very important.

So the bottom line on what all this means is the voting will be well, well underway long before this likely hits a courtroom in terms of a trial.

That is significant because the rivals of the former president will say that voters should have all the information here. They may not.

ACOSTA: Yes.

Norm, what is your take on all of this? Is this a supreme punt by the Supreme Court? The ball just will land back in their laps anyway in short order.

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It is. It is going to be back at the Supreme Court, very likely in January.

We know that the case is working through the ordinary courts. It should not come as a surprise. Smith was really asking for unusual relief. It is relief that was sometimes granted by the Supreme Court, against Joe Biden on some of his moves. But still, it is very unusual, very rare.

It is on a rocket docket in the D.C. circuit, the appellate court, a first resort from Judge Chutkan.

As Jeff says, they will have oral arguments on the ninth. They will likely issue a decision in days. It will go back to the Supreme Court.

I think the bottom line is probably we are looking at 60- to 90-day delay in the commencement of Judge Chutkan's trial. That is assuming, as most experts feel, the presidential immunity arguments, the merits of them are weak. And Trump loses. We go back to trial.

It means one other thing. The first trial of Donald Trump may not be the 2020 election interference case. It may be the 2016 election interference case.

New York State Court, Alvin Bragg, saying hush money payments were made and covered up, over 30 felonies, because Donald Trump, he alleges, did not want to lose the 2016 election.

Another sex scandal after "Access Hollywood." That case may now go first.

KEILAR: The merits of this argument, that he has this presidential immunity, listen, I think we all know the president is not going to be totally immune. They're not supposed to be able to commit crimes. Americans know that, right? That is not part of the American fabric.

But the merits, as weak as they may be, buys him time, Jeff, with this is happening now as it is now. And that buys him strength.

ZELENY: Absolutely. All of these very separate cases that Norm was laying and we always talk about, they are not necessarily separate in the minds of voters. It sounds like it's just one.

When I talk to the Republican voters, they believe it is one giant sort of cabal and conspiracy against him. Of course, it is in every jurisdiction. It is totally separate.

But politically for him, this has made the former president much stronger. You talked about the Alvin Bragg case. Before that, last April, he actually had some weaknesses. Some of his other rivals were gaining ground and traction.

[14:50:01]

This has completely rallied the troops and the base around him. That is why this is likely to continue long before this ever actually hits a courtroom.

ACOSTA: And Harry Litman, I think, is standing by.

So, Harry, what's your take on all of this?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL & FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, I do not think the Supreme Court failed to understand the momentum and the important of the question.

After all, they had already agreed to take up whether to take it up in an expedited fashion.

Rather, I think the point that Norm made about the D.C. circuit, the important thing is that happened is that happened after the petition for a judgment before - a judgement arrived before judgement occurred.

And so within the court, there was -- and this is really important -- that unanimity with no descent for saying, look, we would like to have, as they normally would, a full judgment and opinion by the D.C. circuit that will help us out. That is about three weeks.

I think, in general, the court will be looking in these polarized cases to speak without a lot of dissent. I think they all agree, let's give it a few weeks, and we'll get that opinion.

It doesn't mean they don't think it's not important. It surely doesn't mean that they are not going to take it. But rather I think they now know they will get the full treatment that helps them in short order.

ACOSTA: Norm, you --

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: And they have to be mindful of the campaign.

PEREZ: Of course, they are very mindful.

For Jack Smith and the Justice Department, this is increasingly uncomfortable, right, because you are -- already we were looking at a trial in March, right, before Super Tuesday.

And now, we're talking about a trial that gets pushed further and further into the summer and closer to the summer.

And when the Justice Department typically tries to go quiet about anything politics, about anything that could tilt an election, there's a whole sensitivity about it that --

(CROSSTALK)

ACOSTA: The whole Jim Comey issue.

PEREZ: Right, exactly, the Jim Comey issue and before Jim Comey. And they're sensitive about it.

And so that is where, for the Justice Department and why it and Jack Smith were pushing so hard for this. Because they are trying to get out of the way.

I know, as pointed out, they didn't address it, but everybody knows it, and I don't need to address the question. And for the Justice Department, they were really trying to get out of the way for the election.

But they --

(CROSSTALK)

KEILAR: We need to take a quick -- I'm so sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

KEILAR: We need to take a break.

We're moving in time, because we have a lot to explore, but the Supreme Court rejected Jack Smith's request for the justices to expedite a decision on this question of presidential immunity when it comes to Donald Trump.

Which very likely means that it's going to push this election subversion trial that was supposed to be in March or is still scheduled in March. A lot of impatience here.

We'll get in a quick break and be right back with more.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:54:59]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ACOSTA: Welcome back to the breaking news. The Supreme Court rejecting the special counsel's request to hear Trump's presidential immunity dispute quickly.

Although, Norm Eisen, as we were getting to you just before the last break, this doesn't mean it's not going to happen, but every delay for Donald Trump is a win.

EISEN: I think there is a break point that Jeff and Evan were referring to that comes on Labor Day, when you get the height of the political season.

And in fact, there is an unwritten DOJ rule, some say it's a 90-day rule, some say it's a 60-day rule that they're not to initiate action that could cast dispersions on a candidate that close to the election. But here, we're talking most likely about a 60- to 90-delay in this trial. We may get another, the 2016 election subversion case in New York first. Then roll into this case in May or June.

It's estimated to be eight or 12 weeks if we're right about there being no absolute presidential immunity, which, to me, is a crazy idea.

And then you're going to get this trial and you'll get it on the books before Labor Day.

And the polling suggests that, once there's one conviction, much less possibly two -- we don't know if there will be a conviction -- that is a different kind of break point.

The American people say, hey, a candidate who is convicted, that is very different. They don't like that.

ZELENY: But if something significant happens by Labor Day, the Republican convention, whoever the Republican is, is nominated is July 18th. That's when someone accepts the Republican nomination in Milwaukie.

And the calendar, the reality is in all of this -- this just is one of the cases -- they don't line up as perfectly as one would like. So voters will not have all the information.

ACOSTA: Right.

ZELENY: But that is not a surprise. This has not changed, that we always knew next year would be a split screen between the courtrooms and various jurisdictions and the campaign.

PEREZ: Let's talk a little bit about the collision course so all of this is on, because not only is this -- obviously, this is an important question.

But there is the important question raised by the State Supreme Court of Colorado. And we assume and we expect that Donald Trump is going to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. And that will come sometime in the next few weeks.

So now, we're talking about -- you know, the justices will have to consider this hugely important question of presidential immunity.

But also whether the fact that one state court found that he is an insurrectionist, they can strike him from the ballot, which is a huge thing for the ballot.

KEILAR: Can you explain -- so explain this, the delay now goes to January 9th, the appellate court date, but you're looking at a 60 to 90 day delay we are expecting -- just spit-balling here -- on the trial.

Why? Why does it create that? PEREZ: Because one of the things that's going to happen now is,

obviously, the appellate court has to have oral argument and they'll have to consider that we are -- you know, I think Norm is optimistic. He thinks that we might see a decision within days.

It is possible. But typically, those decisions take a couple of weeks.

So every week that that happens, then that counts. And it begins a new clock for, you know, however that decision goes.

We assume it's going to be appealed to the Supreme Court. And there will be briefs. You know, that whole process will begin again, which sets you back another few weeks.

And Donald Trump -- let's remember, he proposed a trial date in 2026. So he has no interest in getting this any time soon.

KEILAR: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

EISEN: If he's elected, it's very likely he will order his DOJ drop these cases or even try pardoning himself.

One other point, Evan, on the timing question, we're assuming that the Supreme Court will take cert. I think you'll see that opinion probably, maybe in the end of the week, so let's say 16th, 17th. We're assuming the Supreme Court will take cert.

But in many of the democracy cases with Donald Trump, they just slammed the door on him. So they may also say cert denied. So then that speeds things up again.

KEILAR: All right, you guys, hang with us, if you bill.

We'll be back in just a moment more on our breaking news. The Supreme Court saying no to Jack Smith's, special counsel, request for expediting the presidential immunity when it comes to former President Donald Trump.

[13:58:36]

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)