Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Police: NJ Imam Shot Outside Mosque, In Critical Condition; Biden To Open 2024 Campaign Push With Jan. 6 Speech; Trump Again Asks Fed Appeals Court For Immunity; Official: Epstein Document Unsealing Expected To Begin Today. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired January 03, 2024 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:31:49]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Officials in New Jersey say that an Imam is in critical condition after he was shot outside a mosque in Newark.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN HOST: CNN senior national correspondent Miguel Marquez is on the scene there in New York. So, Miguel, what are we learning about this?

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, great concern here in Newark about what transpired here this morning. Want to know what's what the situation is right now. This is the mosque the Masjid Muhammad Mosque in Newark, New Jersey. Police had just moved us back, press was up closer to the mosque a short time ago. There are members of the mosque out there now. Investigators from Newark PD and other investigative agencies are on scene looking into this.

The very few details at the moment. (INAUDIBLE) six o'clock this morning, just before the morning dawn prayers. The Imam Hassan Sharif was shot in the parking lot, just outside of this mosque. And I want to show you on this side of us just how intense the media interest is, we expect shortly to hear from somebody from the mosque and possibly from the Council on American Islamic Relations as well about this mosque and this Imam and just how central they are to this part of New Jersey. But there is a great concern given the large number of anti- Islamic incidents that have happened since the October 7th incidents in Israel. And there were concerns that this may be in that line as well.

But investigators are looking into it. They have now said we had thought we might hear from investigators here shortly. But now they're saying that this afternoon around 4:30 this afternoon at the prosecutor's office they will hopefully have more to share with, with us. So, we will certainly keep you guys informed. Back to you.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we look forward to finding out more from officials and more about his condition as well. And Miguel Marquez from Newark, thank you so much.

MARQUARDT: President Joe Biden will be kicking off his 2024 campaign push with a pair of speeches laying out the stakes for this upcoming election, protecting democracy and personal freedoms starts on Saturday when Biden will be traveling to Valley Forge in Pennsylvania. That is the Revolutionary War site where George Washington and his troops endured a brutal winter. And of course, the date is also significant. It will be January 6th, the third anniversary of the insurrection at the -- at the Capitol following the 2020 election.

Joining us now is former Ohio Congressman Tim Ryan. He also ran for president himself in 2020. Ryan is also the founder of We The People. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us today.

I want to ask you about the Biden campaign. They told CNN today that they plan to argue that Trump and what they call MAGA Republicans pose an existential threat to American democracy. Now this is a message that President Biden has repeatedly hit on and now looks poised to do more of again with this speech and going forward for presumably the next 10 months. But do you think that that fear the stoking of that concern, that message lands with voters?

FMR. REP. TIM RYAN (D-OH): I think that message is a must a starter for articulating really how dangerous another Trump presidency would be I mean the retribution, the revenge that he's going to, you know, espouse during the second term would be mind boggling and very dangerous to most Americans.

[13:35:14]

But I also think there needs to be a strong and hard pivot to the future. This -- this can't be about the past this election. And I think most elections are about the future and the future of the economy in the United States for working class people, whether they're white or black, or brown, men or women, gay or straight. The economic wellbeing of the people has to be front and center, in articulating how Trump would destabilize our economy, would be bad for our economy, bad for people's pockets -- pocketbooks because he would be focusing on revenge, not on helping the American people.

MARQUARDT: Now, one of the issues that is hotly debated not just among Republicans, but Democrats as well, is the border, is immigration, this today's the day that we're talking about this, because we have these dozens of Republican Congress, members of Congress who are going down to the border, of course, it's being discussed among Democratic, Republican senators here in Washington.

But among Democrats, you have mayors of -- of Democratic cities, saying that the administration needs to do more, but then you also have progressives on the left wing of the Democratic Party, which are rejecting some of the potential harsher measures. So how do you think President Biden can navigate such an important issue within his own party?

RYAN: Well, you have to be very clear and firm, that we have to know who's in the United States of America, we have to know who these people are. It's not mutually exclusive for saying that, you know, if you're coming from a country that's threatening you run by gangs, you know, putting women into sex, the sex trade, that we are a big enough hearted country, a compassionate country to accept these folks. But we need a strong border. And you -- we shouldn't have play offense on this and say, we want a verify, because we need to know who's in the country. We want stiff and heavy penalties for businesses who everybody knows, are looking the other way, because they want the cheap labor.

And so, we have to crack down on those businesses, and then have an orderly process to get people into the country. Most people accept that immigration is a strength in the United States. They just want it to be orderly. They want it to be by the book. And so, let's set up whatever we have to right outside the border to process people coming in. But if we don't have a strong position, with E-Verify, cracking down on businesses, even putting up barriers where they may be needed around -- along the border (INAUDIBLE) --

MARQUARDT: All right. I think we've lost the audio for former Congressman Tim Ryan. Will try to get that back. But he is making the point that we've been talking about that this is such a critical issue for -- for Democrats as well. I think oftentimes it is seen as something that Republicans hammer on about. But this is something that is being hotly debated among -- among Democrats as well.

SANCHEZ: Definitely. I mean, the numbers make it so that it's impossible to avoid a conversation about the issue. We'll see how it works out in those two upcoming town halls where we're having Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis.

MARQUARDT: Back-to-back.

SANCHEZ: Back-to-back. Talking to CNN. Stay tuned for that. Our thanks to Tim Ryan of course. And stay with "News Central" because we're back in just a few moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:42:25]

SANCHEZ: A federal appeals court in Washington D.C. will soon weigh a critical question, does former President Donald Trump have immunity for alleged crimes he committed while in office? Trump's attorneys and Special Counsel Jack Smith are scheduled to present oral arguments next Tuesday. And until that is resolved, the Federal Election subversion case is on hold.

Now we got a preview from Trump's team overnight because in a new court filing, they write, quote, the Constitution's text, history and policy support this conclusion. The 234-year unbroken tradition of not prosecuting presidents for official acts despite vociferous calls to do so from across the political spectrum provides powerful evidence of it.

Let's dig deeper now with CNN senior law enforcement analyst, Andrew McCabe. He was also Deputy Director of the FBI. Andrew, great to be with you as always.

Central to Trump's argument that he has immunity is the idea that everything he did after the 2020 election, whether January 6th, or his efforts to overturn election results, fake electors, et cetera. were official acts carried out by the President. Would you say that those are official acts? Does that argument hold weight?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: I think that the strong suggestion from courts that have addressed similar issues is that it will not hold weight. We know from prior Supreme Court holdings Nixon versus Sherald, for instance, that there is a definition to what constitutes official acts, it is at least defined by a perimeter, the court refers to it has acted within the outer perimeter of the President's official -- official duties. So therefore, there's -- there are some things that are beyond that perimeter.

In other cases, obviously not -- not with former President Trump courts have determined that efforts to seek re-election do not fall within the official acts of a sitting president. That is a personal thing that the President does as a candidate. So, I think that that argument is likely to fail.

SANCHEZ: Also central to the question of whether he's going to stay on those primary ballots in Maine and Colorado, likely those cases are going to wind up in the Supreme Court. Right?

MCCABE: That's absolutely right.

SANCHEZ: And central to those arguments is the question of whether he committed insurrection or not. Because it's based on the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban. What do you make of the argument that he was just using the First Amendment and he was speaking as a free citizen of the United States, making the argument that he believed that there was fraud in the election, and that he didn't actually incite the rioters?

MCCABE: It's the type of argument that once put in front of a jury might be compelling to a juror. And let's remember, if, when he is eventually on trial for these under this indictment, he only needs to convince one juror that there's reasonable doubt and then there'll be no conviction.

[13:45:08]

However, on a as a legal matter, the First Amendment does not protect. There's all sorts of speech that's part of criminal offenses like fraud and deception and things like that that are not protected by the First Amendment.

So, I think, again, it's a legal matter. I don't think it's a particularly effective defense. But it could be the sort of defense that's appealing to a juror.

SANCHEZ: I'm also curious about their argument that the Secretary of State in Maine who's a Democrat should have recused herself. They make the case that she's taking the will away of voters, she's taking the rights away as voters to express themselves. What do you make of that?

MCCABE: Well, it's fascinating whereas this appeal they filed last night, 11-page appeal, he starts out talking about exactly that, claiming that the Secretary of State is biased, he then moves into some very procedural arguments. I don't find any of them to be particularly persuasive. Secretaries of state very, you know, in every state are political to one degree or another. That doesn't prohibit them from administering the election laws in their state.

He does, however, towards the end of the appeal, make some arguments that you can expect to hear him make in front of the Supreme Court. And those specifically are he claims that the President does not qualify as an officer of the United States in the Constitution. He also cites Section 5 of the 14th Amendment in claiming that the Section 3 cannot be held against him unless Congress takes some sort of legislative act.

Again, I think the -- the constitutional scholars and law professors have a much stronger argument here that those clauses do not help him in the way that he hopes they will. But we'll have to see what the courts do with them.

SANCHEZ: He also argues that they could potentially set a dangerous precedent in the -- on the immunity side by saying that, quote, mushrooming politically motivated prosecutions and future cycles of recrimination are far more menacing and crippling to the presidency than the threat of civil liability.

They're basically saying that charging Trump with anything could make it more difficult for presidents to act in the future without fear of some kind of criminal liability.

MCCABE: And the opposite is actually true. Right. The fact that presidents could be held criminally responsible for things they've done while President that were crimes, not part of their official responsibility is something that keeps presidents from doing exactly that. So, I think that, you know, on the immunity argument, I think the deck is stacked very heavily against him. His claim for absolute immunity, while President is basically antithetical to everything we know and believe and hold sacred about the Constitution. It would lead to ridiculously absurd results of a president who, you know, who must leave at the end of a four-year term, just deciding they're not going to leave, because violating that part of the Constitution would bring no criminal effect.

So, you know, there's many other arguments that I think are laid out persuasively by the court, and I'm sorry, by the trial judge, Tanya Chutkan. I think there'll be I think this appeal is going to be dispatched pretty quickly by the D.C. Circuit Court. But time will tell.

SANCHEZ: Yes, we sort of crisscrossed cases there. But --

MCCABE: Yes.

SANCHEZ: -- that's the way that the conversation flowed, so. Andy, before you go, I did want to get your thoughts on -- on some breaking news that we've been following. There were these e-mail threads to at least 23 state capitals that led to evacuations, the threats of bombs being placed at the state capitals, in states like Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi, and others. What do you make of that kind of threat?

MCCABE: Very similar to what we're seeing happening targeting the Jewish community, Jewish community centers, synagogues, places like that. It is a common form of harassment, and dare I say terrorism, trying to terrorize the population in which incredibly sounding bomb threats and threats of active shooters are sent to different organizations that have been targeted by extremists for one reason or another. I think that state and local officials can expect a lot more of this.

Unfortunately, it imposes an additional massive drain on their resources, their time and attention during a period of increased threats. It's important that folks who are involved in this activity are identified and prosecuted. But for the for the time being, I think we can expect to see more of it.

SANCHEZ: It's really frightening giving -- given that we're in in an election year and we're headed into primaries and caucuses and then a general election. But we should point out also none of the threats were found to be credible. So.

MCCABE: As typically they are not, but of course law enforcement has to err on the side of caution.

SANCHEZ: Andy McCabe always good to have you.

MCCABE: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Thanks so much.

Still to come on "CNN News Central." We have new details on the unsealing of documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein. We're going to bring you the details on that in just moments.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:53:38]

SANCHEZ: This just into CNN. An official with the Manhattan Federal Court says that he expects the unsealing of documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein to begin today.

MARQUARDT: CNN's Kara Scannell has been following us. So, Kara, what can we expect?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Boris, Alex, we've just learned from the judge overseeing this year's long litigation that the parties will be filing these unredacted, unsealed records with the identification of about 150 people. In the judge's order, she said the parties have informed the court that they will begin filing the unsealed records outlined in this Court's December 18th order later today.

Now this is this long running litigation that began back in 2015 brought by Virginia Roberts Giuffre, someone who is accused Jeffrey Epstein and his longtime girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell of sexually abusing her using her as a sex slave. She had sued Maxwell in a defamation lawsuit and that is the case that is at issue here. So, it has been nine years of litigation. They have taken multiple witness interviews. They've done a lot of what's known as discovery that is issuing subpoenas, obtaining documents and records. And it had been sealed because the case had been settled several years ago. But news organizations had sought the unsealing of a number of these records. That is what the judge was deciding on last month. And that's when she said that the identities of some 150 or so, John and Jane Does would be unsealed in these court records.

[13:54:59]

So, we're expecting the disclosure to begin hitting the court docket on a rolling basis. So, some beginning later today as the judge said. And this is expected to be a large volume of records, so it could continue hitting the docket, you know, at least through today, but potentially into tomorrow.

And a lot of the information is being unsealed because the judge has acknowledged that it's already in the public record. You know, the plaintiff in this case, Virginia Roberts Giuffre has been very public with her allegations and accusations of who she was allegedly forced by Epstein and Maxwell to have sex with, names of prominent men who have all publicly denied this. And her most famous person that she is alleged was -- that she was forced to have sex with his Prince Andrew. She had also sued him separately in a civil lawsuit. And that was settled with him agreeing to make a donation to a charity of her choice.

So, we will likely see a lot of these names that we already know included in these documents. Now, the judge also saying that she would unseal the names of some alleged accusers, because they have also been public in this case. You know, Ghislaine Maxwell was on trial several years ago, and a lot of information came out and that court hearing that over the course of the several weeks of that trial, as well.

So, we'll be looking to see if there's new information that we learned from this, but there's already so much in the public record about Jeffrey Epstein and these allegations by this woman.

SANCHEZ: Yes, just because the names tie -- are tied to Jeffrey Epstein doesn't necessarily imply criminal activity. However, to your point, Kara, we could see similar lawsuits filed like the one by Virginia Roberts Giuffre.

Kare Scannell, thank you so much for the update.

Still plenty more news to come this afternoon. The death toll is climbing after two deadly explosions near the burial site of an Iranian commander. Why this only fans the flames to what is already a dangerous situation in the Middle East.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)