Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Israel PM Netanyahu Visits With Troops In Gaza; Trump Asks Appeals Court To Toss Federal Election Subversion Case; Navalny Team: Putin Critic Found In Siberian Penal Colony. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired December 25, 2023 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Putin's top critic and opposition leader has been found after disappearing from a Russian prison, two weeks ago. Why Alexei Navalny was located some 2000 miles away.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Plus Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza with troops today vowing the fight is far from over as Israel ramps up strikes against Hamas.

BOLDUAN: And Donald Trump asking for to grant him absolute immunity. The case Trump's legal team is making now to get his election interference charges thrown out. I'm Kate Bolduan with Sara Sidner. John Berman is off today. Still, this is a very Christmas CNN News Central.

This morning big news out of Russia. Opposition leader and Chief Putin Critic Alexei Navalny has been found after simply disappearing for two weeks. The Head of his Anticorruption Foundation says to volunteer is now in a penal colony in the far reaches of Northwestern Siberia, 1000s of miles from the jail where he was last known to be.

He was moved from a detention center near Moscow where he was serving a 19 year sentence. CNN's Nada Bashir following these developments for us. Nadia, what is the Navalny's team saying about this move now?

NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER: Look Kate, we are still getting more information from Navalny's team regarding his current location. But as you mentioned that this is a moment of relief for his supporters and of course his legal team after they lost contact with him a little over two weeks ago as we understand it.

Now according to his spokesperson and the Director of his Anticorruption Foundation, Navalny was able to meet with his lawyer today who could confirm his location in the region of Harbin, Northwestern Siberia, some 2000 miles away from Moscow. It is in this penal colony that he is now being held after two weeks of losing contact with family members, with legal representatives and we have just a couple of hours ago received a statement from the Director of his Anticorruption Foundation.

This is what he had to say about Navalny's location. He is in colony IK-3 in Kharp called Polar Wolf, one of the northern most and most remote qualities. The conditions there are harsh with a special regime in the permafrost zone. It is very difficult to get there. And there are no letter delivery systems.

Now of course there will be concern around Navalny's safety, security and the conditions that he will face in this penal colony. As we've understood it in the past, he was held at a penal colony some 150 miles, east of Moscow where he had faced poor health conditions as well. So that is a point of concern. He was sentenced back in August of this year to 19 years in prison on charges related to extremism.

He had already been serving charges of 11 and a half years but of course, important to underscore these are charges that he has repeatedly and consistently denied. Many of his supporters believe these are politically motivated charges because of his vocal criticism of President Vladimir Putin.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. Nadia, thank you very much.

SIDNER: All right back here in the states, ten weeks from today, Donald Trump is scheduled to stand trial on his federal election subversion charges, but there are now new bumps in the legal road ahead. This as the former president prolongs his quest to get immunity and the case tossed out of court. CNN's Katelyn Polantz is joining us now with more on this. Katelyn, another try to try and get rid of this one case although he is facing many.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Right. Well Sara, this is the federal court case against Donald Trump charging him as a criminal defendant related to his actions after the 2020 election.

[12:05:00]

He is set to go to trial in Washington DC in March but he's tried many different tactics so far to get that case moved or dropped or get the charges tossed. And one of those options that he has tried is basically saying that he has immunity, total protection from sitting trial and from being prosecuted because he was serving as president at the time that these events took place that he is now being prosecuted for.

And so that question of whether he has immunity, that is one of the only things that has to have some sort of conclusion by the appellate courts, the appeals court, potentially the Supreme Court, before Trump can go to trial. Everything else that he's lost on so far in trying to move his case or toss his case that won't get decided until after the trial.

But this particular issue, it's now in the appeals court in Washington, DC, the court below the Supreme Court, they're going to have to look at it, decide what they want to do with this question. Is there some immunity to be given to Donald Trump that would allow him to avoid being tried on these alleged crimes. And so that issue is likely to be decided in the coming weeks after they hear arguments on January 9, it could delay the trial date. Trump is going to try and make sure it does, because he has been very

clear with his team. He doesn't want to go to trial in 2024 but there is a lot up in the air as we head into the New Year, Sara.

SIDNER: And so many cases, when you look at that caseload, it's a lot for lack of a better word. Katelyn Polantz, thank you for keeping track of it all for us.

BOLDUAN: Let's talk about it if we can piece by piece somewhat. Joining us now is former U.S. Attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman. It's good to see you here. Let's talk first about this appeal that was filed over the weekend, late Saturday night. I want to read just some of the argument that Trump's legal team is making in this appeal to get your take.

They write the 234-year tradition of not prosecuting presidents for official acts, despite ample motive and opportunity to do so provides powerful evidence that the power to do so does not exist. What do you think of that?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, or maybe it provides powerful evidence that presidents don't normally commit crimes. I think the Court of Appeals is not going to be very welcoming of his general immunity arguments. What he's trying to say, basically, Kate, as he was acting as president here, not as a candidate, not trying to do anything wrong, just looking out for the election integrity.

I don't think that's a position that's going to fly. On the other hand, right now, it does delay the start of the trial. And in that sense, you know, he gets an important advantage on one level though, the one that Sara was just discussing,

BOLDUAN: Because I was going to ask you, if they rule on this quickly, which they seem to be indicating that they're going to try to do, how does this likely impact the calendar and the timing of all this, the domino effect, if you will, on the trial dates ahead?

LITMAN: Right, right. Well, so right and by the way, another one that's coming up is the is the fraud trial in New York that he's going to get walloped on that was just in abeyance for 30 days, that's about to come up. Right now, things are really frozen. Every day that passes is a day that pushes back the start of the trial.

But as you say, the Court of Appeals is really moving very quickly. They'll have oral argument two weeks from tomorrow, and probably issue an opinion after that. And if the Supreme Court, which was primed to move quickly before it continues, then it shouldn't be all that much. Trump will try, of course, to string it out by going to the full court of appeals, or the Supreme Court.

But if the Court of Appeals gives us stay with a short fuse, which is just what the Colorado Court did, a few days ago, that we'll ham him in and that's going to be the real lookout. Will they keep him from delaying? They seem to be on to his game, and worried about letting things trail long, too long. BOLDUAN: Let's talk about, you mentioned two of these important cases that are almost assured to end up before the Supreme Court, which really thrust the High Court back into the center of a presidential election, not the place that the justices want to be. And on that note, Steve Vladeck and Steven Mazie, they made it they had a really interesting piece in The New York Times making the case in this Op-Ed, that no matter how the justices decide on these election related cases, if you will, speaking with one voice may be more important than ever.

[12:10:00]

They write this in part, "A universe in which the court somehow splits the difference - for example, keeping Mr. Trump on the ballot," he's talking about Colorado, "while refusing to endorse if not affirmatively repudiating his conduct and spurning his kinglike claim to total immunity could go a long way toward reducing the temperature of the coming election cycle. Such an outcome could also help restore at least some of the court's credibility." What do you think of that?

LITMAN: It is a great point. Compare the Nixon case, which was unanimous with Bush v. Gore, which was five to four I think it's really uppermost in the court's mind. I think the reason they just summarily denied the - the petition that Smith raised for cert before judgment with no dissents was because they were looking to form - to have a united front if they can. The seven to two or six to three kinds of opinions and politically charged cases is terrible for them. And I think it's true, they'll be looking for ways to coalesce around compromises even if that's not how they would hold individually in the first instance.

BOLDUAN: So interesting. Harry, it's good to see you. Thank you for coming in.

LITMAN: Thank you, Kate. Merry Christmas.

BOLDUAN: Thanks.

SIDNER: All right, let's get more analysis with Tim Natality - Naftali. He's a CNN Presidential Historian and Former Director of The Nixon Presidential Library. We are truly in unchartered territory, I think with the words and deeds and trials of a former president, now a front runner in the race for the White House. Can you give us some sense historically, of where we are in the history of this country, when you're looking at all of these different things that President Trump is facing?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: Well, we've had former presidents run again for president that hasn't happened that often. But neither Grover Cleveland, nor Millard Fillmore, nor Theodore Roosevelt were facing constitutional challenges, nor were they under indictment for any crimes whatsoever, the time that they were seeking to return to the Oval Office.

So where we are writing history as we go right now. I think - I think a lot, even on a Christmas Day, or for those that would like to wait a day, I can understand, those would like to think about the significance of all of this, I would say ask yourself, whether you think that the founders of this nation after a revolution to overturn the power of a tyrant would - would have wanted to create the possibility of having an elected absolute monarch.

And the answer I know is no. So the idea that our founders and our Constitution makes it possible for a president to have an absolute immunity is a nonsense. President Trump's lawyers made the argument that in 200-year - 200 plus years, despite the motive and opportunity to do so, a no- no - no president has ever been charged for an official act.

That's not true, in the sense that President Nixon had motive and opportunity to seek criminal immunity from acts that he had committed while president and he didn't and why didn't he? Because Richard Nixon, as a good lawyer understood that that's nonsense. He did, as a former president seek immunity from civil prosecution for which he got limited immunity.

But during the time he was president, his lawyers never sought immunity for criminal - from criminal prosecution. They sought immunity from judicial orders. So Richard Nixon clearly had a motive and was a lawyer. And he didn't try what the Trump team is trying to do. And what Harry, the point here we made is really important. We want a united voice from the - from the court, not simply for the court's credibility.

That matters, of course, but for the credibility of our Constitution. So we need to define the limits on presidential power yet again. And that needs to be done with one voice by the conduct - by our Supreme Court.

SIDNER: It's a really good point. And we all know the thing. No one is above the law. The court is going to have to put that very starkly and plainly including the President of the United States. I do want to ask you about this political upheaval, though, that we're seeing. I mean, is the United States capable of dealing with what could be a constitutional crisis here? And still, democracy exists?

NAFTALI: Well, you know, it's up to us. Democracy exists, because both of institutions but also civic responsibility, our responsibility as citizens. We, as the American people need to set limits on the chaos that some of our provocateurs, our elected provocateurs have created.

[12:15:00]

I think it's up to us to show that we want our leaders not to be above the law, that our freedom comes from the fact that they are - their power is limited both by the fact we have three branches of government, but also by the fact that we have a hearty judicial system. We will be going through a stress test, a judicial and democratic stress test in 2024.

But this country has the ability to innovate and respond to crises. It has done so over two centuries. This coming year will be one of its greatest tests. I have confidence that we as a people will meet that test. But in the end, it will be up to us.

SIDNER: Tim Naftali, that was some good news this morning and I'm just going to leave it there because you have hope that we will all get through this in the best way possible. I thank you so much for coming on. Have a happy holiday.

NAFTALI: You too. Thank you.

BOLDUAN: Coming up for us, the Israeli Prime Minister visiting troops in Gaza today. The Prime Minister's promise and vow after his visit with the IDF. And when Congress returns in the New Year, they are almost immediately hard up against deadlines. And having to hit the ground running to avoid a shutdown, to bolster the border, to provide aid to Ukraine before its military supplies run out.

And that's just a few of a look at what's ahead and on deck for Congress and what they're now up against. And we're keeping an eye to the skies for you on this Christmas day. What the weather may have in store for everyone preparing to travel in or out, home or abroad, in the coming days. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SIDNER: As Israel intensifies its campaign in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a special visit to the war torn region. The Prime Minister flew to Northern Gaza this morning to meet with IDF troops on the ground there. He vowed to continue the long fight as he put it against Hamas.

This is his second visit to the area since the war began 11 weeks ago and it comes on the heels of one of the deadliest nights in Gaza. The Hamas-run health ministry says at least 70 people were killed after an Israeli attack on a crowded refugee camp in central Gaza. They're now reporting at least 250 people killed over the last 24 hours in central Gaza.

CNN's Will Ripley is joining us now from Tel Aviv. What are you hearing about first of all the Prime Minister's visit and the response to this large number that the Hamas run ministry is putting out there of 250 people killed?

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, this makes it one of the deadliest 24 hour periods in this entire 80-day war that has claimed a staggering more than 20,600 lives and injured. Well, over double that figure, more than 53,000 people have been wounded in this war. And they are wounded, many of them, most of them in a place where there are barely any functioning hospitals left.

Like you can count them on two hands. That's how many functioning hospitals are left in all of Gaza right now. And they're all in the south. In the north where the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his visit, you can see the handout images from his office meeting with the troops. In some photos, they were all together, they were smiling. They were trying to project confidence and project victory. And in a sense, they do feel like they've won the north, so to speak,

because they have operational control there. And they are now confident enough that they can send in their Prime Minister and have him make a visit to that devastated area, relatively safely. But in central Gaza, and in the south, the situation is far more volatile, because the IDF, the Israeli military is now moving its operation into these areas.

People who've been displaced several times already are being told they have to pack up and move again, in many cases. These are people that have nothing left other than their lives, and hopefully the lives of their families, although nearly everyone in Gaza now knows many people and has lost many people close to them.

And by the way, the same situation on the West Bank, the occupied West Bank. When we were there, everybody knows somebody who is either displaced or dead. That's how close to home this is hitting for so many millions of people touched by this tragedy. The Israeli military says it will continue to fight until they eliminate Hamas, until they eliminate the risk to Israel of another attack like the horrific attack on October, the seventh.

But that is going to be a very, very long road ahead because Hamas is still fighting. They're still able to launch rockets, they're still getting resources, weapons sent in from their supporters, among whom they've actually gained credibility. Hamas itself has gained credibility dramatically since the seventh of October, according to U.S. intelligence as other terrorist organizations have watched them wage this war against Israel.

They've decided that Hamas is credible and they actually want to help them at the expense of the tens of thousands of lives and injuries in Gaza. Not to mention the food situation which is so dire right now according to the World Health Organization. Just listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN CASEY, W.H.O. EMERGENCY MEDICAL TEAMS COORDINATOR: Anybody who we speak to is hungry. There's the risk of a feminine here in Gaza actually and even here in the hospital, everybody says that they only have rice. They have very often only one meal a day and they're hungry. I went to Gaza today. There was a challenge with food that we brought for one hospital that was taken along the road because people are so desperate for food.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RIPLEY: He touched on that desperation. We saw it unfold in real time yesterday at the Rafah crossing in southern Israel. That crossing, Sara, as you know, from Egypt, into Gaza, where people basically ambush the aid trucks. There were gunshots that were fired. It was absolute pandemonium because people wanted to get their hands on anything, anything to help ease this hellish situation that they're in right now.

[12:25:00] SIDNER: You have the war operation. You have the humanitarian crisis and you still have the hostages who are there, have been held for all these weeks. It is an absolute and utter mess. Will Ripley, thank you so much for all your reporting. Thank you to you and your team for coming on today. Kate.

BOLDUAN: And joining us now for more on this is Democratic congressman from California Brad, Brad Sherman. He's a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, thank you so much for being here.

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Good to be with you, Kate. Merry Christmas.

BOLDUAN: Thank you. Will was just laying out what a deadly weekend it has been on multiple fronts. He was laying out the casualties from the Hamas run, as claimed by Hamas run health ministry in Gaza, in - in Gaza, but also we know that it was a very deadly weekend for the IDF as well. 15 soldiers killed over the weekend, I think bringing it to 154 members of the IDF killed since October 7. What do you see as the trajectory here?

I mean you've been on Foreign Affairs, as we were saying for nearly 30 years. What do you see as the trajectory of this war here?

SHERMAN: The trajectory I see is more of the same for several months. What I'd like to see is an immediate end of the fighting with Hamas agreeing not only to release the hostages, but to relocate to Iran or some other place where they would be less of a threat to Israel. If Hamas can't agree to do that, then Israel needs to continue its operations and that will be several months.

BOLDUAN: President Biden spoke with Benjamin Netanyahu this weekend. And according to the White House readout, they described it as this. The leaders discussed Israel's military campaign in Gaza to include its objectives and phasing. The president emphasized the critical need to protect the civilian population.

I was reading it knowing you're coming on and wondering what you think of President Biden's - of the message coming from President Biden. Where it was when the when October 7 occurred and the military operation began and where it is today?

SHERMAN: I think he's showing his experience, his knowledge. And you if you take polls, you'll find that significant chunks of the American population disagree with what he's doing. But half of those think that he should be more pro-Israel, and less critical of Netanyahu and the other half who disagree think he should be less supportive as Israel. He's reflecting the American people who want to support Israel, but want to see Israel adhere to the rules of law of war.

BOLDUAN: You think he's - you think he's getting it right?

SHERMAN: I think he's getting it right. But it's obviously a terrible situation. What would have been right is if Israel had had sufficient forces near Gaza to prevent this from happening, but once it happened, there's no good solution. I think he's doing it well. BOLDUAN: And what then is - is the civilian death toll in Gaza does increase? The World Health Organization, they describe it as it's reaching, you know, a level of famine amongst civilians there. When you see that, and you say, well, you know, this continues for months, are you afraid or concerned about what Lloyd Austin has warned of, warning of a tactical victory will be replaced by a strategic defeat?

SHERMAN: Look, there's no way for this to look good. I've had other elected officials saying Israel should wage war in a humane way. But I'm a student of history. And I've never seen war waged in a humane way. And we've seen 60,000 Ukrainians die, we've seen 500,000 people die in Tigray. We haven't seen this kind of - of coverage, or demonstrations or reactions. We're all concerned about the over 20,000 Gazans who have died. And that is, of course, getting wall to wall coverage.

BOLDUAN: So let me ask you, was - did you attend Harvard and also teach at Harvard Law? I -

SHERMAN: I taught a little seminar while I was there as a student, I'm no - I'm no professor of law.

BOLDUAN: You're connected to Harvard.

SHERMAN: Yes.

BOLDUAN: I can say that. What - what do you think of what has happened on college campuses in the United States with regard to this? We've seen real evidence of antisemitism and Islamophobia kind of igniting on college campuses. Obviously Harvard has been in the spotlight because of the president's approach in how they're handling antisemitic and Islamophobic incident incidences on campus and also that testimony. What do you think?

SHERMAN: Well, I think students are not getting a full view of the world.

BOLDUAN: Who's getting it so wrong? It's not just Harvard. It's in college campuses all over the country.

SHERMAN: It's peculiar to see professors around the country and the world think that this is the only conflict worthy of telling their - their students about. Yeah, you know, I know the folks demonstrating at my office, not a single one of them mentioned Tigray to me when 500,000 people died. It's as if these professors are focused on one thing.