Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Prominent Names in Epstein Documents; Lisa Bryant is Interviewed about the Epstein Documents; Trump Takes Ballot Case to Supreme Court; U.S. Targets Iranian Proxy Group; DeSantis and Haley at CNN Town Halls. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired January 04, 2024 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:39]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Names revealed. Who was mentioned in unsealed documents and their ties to Jeffrey Epstein as the next document drop is imminent.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, and can Donald Trump be disqualified from running for president? He's urging the Supreme Court to settle the matter once and for all. Will the high court, though, take the case, and how quickly might it move?

BERMAN: A drone strike in Baghdad. A high-ranking commander with a pro-Iranian militia is dead.

Kate is away. I'm John Berman, with the star of New Year's Eve, Sara Sidner. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SIDNER: John. John.

All right, we're waiting for the next batch of unsealed documents to drop related to the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Hundreds of pages were already released, that happened on Wednesday, under a December 18th court order. They included deposition transcripts naming several prominent figures, including Prince Andrew and former presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton.

CNN's senior crime and justice correspondent Shimon Prokupecz is joining us now.

A lot of people were waiting for these names to come out to see who was in his orbit. It doesn't necessarily mean that they did anything illegal, but it does tie them to Jeffrey Epstein, who is a fallen figure by all measures.

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Right. That's correct. And it is important to note that none of these people that have been named have been accused of any kind of criminal activity or wrongdoing. These are not names that are necessarily new. We were that - we were expecting these names, of course, Sara. But it sort of highlights just the relationship and sort of what Jeffrey Epstein -- what his relationships were with these individuals. And for the first time, really for years, people have been fighting to look at these documents and now finally we're getting our look at some of these documents and some of the new information.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PROKUPECZ (voice over): Long-awaited documents finally released. The first batch of sealed court filings pertaining to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were made public Wednesday. The documents stem from a civil defamation lawsuit brought in 2015 against Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. Prominent figures including Prince Andrew and former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump included in a 2016 deposition of Johanna Sjoberg, a former employee of Epstein. She says in the document that she and Epstein had a conversation and, quote, "he said one time that Clinton likes them young, referring to girls." When asked if Clinton was a friend of Epstein's, she said she understood Epstein had, quote, "dealings" with Clinton.

Clinton has not been accused of any crimes or wrongdoing related to Epstein and has denied any kind of criminal activity. But in 2019 he admits to having flown on Epstein's private plane but knew nothing of the financiers, quote, "terrible crimes."

Sjoberg also recalled a time she was with Epstein on one of his planes and pilots said he needed to land in Atlantic City. "Jeffrey said, great, we'll call up Trump and we'll go to - I don't recall the name of the casino, but we'll go to the casino." She says in a deposition, she never gave a massage to Trump. This is the first reference to Donald Trump, but he is not accused of any wrongdoing.

LISA BRYANT, DIRECTOR, "JEFFREY EPSTEIN: FILTHY RICH": Right now the only person who has been prosecuted is a woman, Ghislaine Maxwell, who certainly, you know, should be behind bars. But it's interesting in this, you know, network of all these men who have been trafficking, you know, young women and under age women for decades and yet the only person that's been prosecuted, you know, is a woman. There are many, many other people that, you know, are -- should be held accountable as well.

PROKUPECZ (voice over): The documents also contains excerpts of depositions taken of Virginia Roberts Guiffre, who previously reached an out-of-court settlement in her sexual abuse lawsuit against Prince Andrew. Guiffre alleged in her deposition that Maxwell directed her to have sexual contact with people, including former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Prince Andrew, and tech guru Marvin Minsky.

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell said in a statement on Wednesday, "she has consistently and vehemently maintained her innocence."

This is the first set of documents to be unsealed under a December 18th court order, with more expected in the coming weeks.

[09:05:07]

The documents are expected to include nearly 200 names, including some of Epstein's accusers, prominent business people and politicians.

(END VIDEOTAPE) PROKUPECZ (on camera): And so later today we do expect to see more documents. Certainly at any point the court will be releasing more documents. And this is expected, Sara and John, to go on for days perhaps where we're going to be seeing more documents. There's thousands and thousands of records. I mean this was a lawsuit that's been going on since 2015 and finally now, after years of fighting, we're getting to see what was in them.

SIDNER: And, you know, we should also mention that some of what happened in the case, he had so many people around him who were powerful and there's a lot of questions about if that power played a role in how he was treated even in the court system.

PROKUPECZ: Correct.

SIDNER: Shimon, great reporting. Thank you.

PROKUPECZ: Yes. Thanks.

BERMAN: All right, with us now is filmmaker Lisa Bryant, who director the docuseries "Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich."

Lisa, thank you so much for being with us. We saw you in Shimon's piece right there speaking with Kaitlan Collins.

You followed this case so closely. What's the important thing that came out of the first batch of documents?

LISA BRYANT, DIRECTOR, "JEFFREY EPSTEIN; FILTHY RICH": Well, I really think -- I haven't seen any real bombshells yet. I don't really expect to see them because we've seen snippets of this information come out through the years. But I really think the new revelations are going to illustrate the scale that -- of Epstein's trafficking ring. You know, how the power and influence among all these powerful people has allowed them to really continue to keep this under wraps, keep this information private, evade justice or prosecution. Of course, we know that just because their name might come out in these documents, it doesn't mean any -- you know, necessarily that there's any guilt. But there are some people that are guilty. Let's just face it, there will be.

I think for the survivors, and, you know, the attorneys who have been working so hard to bring this to light, I do think it gives them a sense of at least some satisfaction and some justice that we're keeping the conversation going and hopefully those that have, you know, participated or helped facilitate in the sex trafficking might be looked at again.

So, it will be interesting to see, you know, what details really are new because, you know, there are some things that are new. But the names so far have not been surprising to me.

BERMAN: You've been speaking with survivors. How do they feel about this document release?

BRYANT: Well, I think there's some mixed emotions. I spoke to two who were featured in the documentaries that I was involved in last night and both of them, you know, do share that they're glad that there's attention, you know, being focused on this because there are so many people in this orbit, you know, thousands of people over decades who, you know, have been involved in some way or, you know, have denied knowing him and now suddenly, you know, there's going to be some accountability that, hey, guess what, now you're mentioned in these depositions.

But these depositions, you know, for the victims, a lot of these women, you know, they told their stories in depositions hoping, you know, to get some sort of, you know, action taken against these - these people who abused them, and nothing happened. But - and so top line information they might have given us, you know, in the documentary and - and they told part of their story. But now part of them is, you know, kind of upset that the full deposition is going to be out there with very intimate details of what happened to them and the sex trafficking and who they might have been trafficked to.

So, I think there's - you know, they do want, you know, to see this (INAUDIBLE), you know, in the limelight so that hopefully, you know, more people will be behind bars, behind -- besides Ghislaine Maxwell, who, you know, is - is basically still denying, even though she's been convicted in a court of law, that she had anything to do with it, which is, I think, one of the most interesting things that -

BERMAN: So, this first - yes, this first batch was about 40 pages, 40 documents. We expect up to 250. What specifically will you be laser focused on as these further documents are released?

BRYANT: I'm interested in anything that I haven't seen. I think some of these depositions I have been privy to just through different, you know, court access or attorneys and whatnot.

Again, I guess I'm looking to see if there's anything that's going to really put the focus, you know, on particular individuals who continue to deny that there was any involvement. You know, there's little snippets of, you know, President Clinton that, you know, oh, he likes them young. You know, does that - does that mean anything? Those are little tidbits that I have not heard.

You know, I think the same Prince Andrew stories and all of that are, you know, they've become tiresome actually.

[09:10:01]

Let's focus on the David Copperfields and the people like that, that they have been mentioned. But, you know, let's face it, some of these people -- another point the survivors have made is, you know, most of these people's names that are going to come out are going to be bankers, politicians, Hollywood types and, you know what, are people going to keep supporting their lifestyle, are they going to keep going to their movies, are they going to keep banking with these people that have already been proven, you know, involved in some way. You know, it's not saying they had sex with these young girls, but it is proving that there was some, you know, culpability when, in fact, they had been denying any involvement in the past. So, you know, I think that's what's interesting is that, you know, are

people going to keep supporting these people and backing them and just, you know, going to their movies and voting for them and, you know, that kind of thing.

BERMAN: Lisa Bryant, we appreciate your time this morning. Thank you so much.

SIDNER: Unprecedented stakes don't get much higher than this. Right now, the Supreme Court is facing a decision that ultimately could determine whether Donald Trump could ever become president again. Trump is asking the highest court in the land to reverse a state level ruling in Colorado that disqualified him from their primary ballot because the Constitution bars insurrectionists.

His lawyers arguing, quote, "the Colorado Supreme Court erred in how it described President Trump's role in the events of January 6, 2021. It was not insurrection and President Trump in no way engaged in insurrection."

So, how will the Supreme Court respond? The 2024 election and dozens of Donald Trump's criminal and federal charges are all hanging in the balance.

CNN's senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic is leading us off here.

Joan, what more are Trump's lawyers arguing here, and in the end isn't it pretty likely that the Supreme Court is going to take up this case because you don't just have Colorado, there are other states that have made rulings on this.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SENIOR SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Good morning, Sara. You're right, you know, we got the -- Donald Trump's filing last night and he argues, as you say, that he did not engage in insurrection. But as a threshold matter, he says that this provision in dispute of the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, Section 3, that says that anyone who was in - who held office, took an oath to uphold the Constitution, but then engaged in insurrection should never be able to hold future office. And he says even as a threshold matter that does not apply to the presidency and he also says that it doesn't stand on his own. Congress would have had to have passed a law to enforce it. So, there are several steps that the justices will have to consider before they even look at the key insurrection question that you raised.

But then we get to the real question here of what are the justices going to do. Right now, Sara, they have three sets of petitions before them, from Donald Trump, from the Colorado Republican Party and from the Colorado voters who started this case, who said that Donald Trump should be disqualified from the ballot because of the insurrection on January 6, 2021. The justices, as I expect, over the next couple days, will likely decide whether they're going to take it and on the timetable.

I agree with most of what people have said, that the justices are likely to take this case. I should stress that they have discretion. They have discretion about when, how and exactly what questions they resolve. But I think because of what's happened in Colorado, what has happened in Maine also to keep him off the ballot, these justices are going to have to weigh in.

Tomorrow, Sara, they will meet for the first time in the new year, privately in their conference room, to look at several cases that have been pending. I can't imagine that they would not give this a first look together. And we could know by the end of Friday or a few days into next week exactly what questions the justices will take up and a timetable. And I want to just give one other thing about the timetable. The Colorado voters who started all this have asked the Supreme Court to rule by February 11th, because on February 12th, that's when ballots start to be mailed out to Colorado voters who have until Super Tuesday, March 5th, to submit those. So, they want a decision by then. The Colorado Republican Party said, you know, just as long as you decide by March 5th we'll be OK. Donald Trump didn't have any kind of timetable, but he said this should be decided promptly, Sara.

SIDNER: I wonder if the Supreme Court will really look at the voters and what they need. So, that February 11th date is coming up really fast. We'll see what happens.

BISKUPIC: That's right.

SIDNER: Joan Biskupic, thank you so much.

BERMAN: All right, with us now, CNN's senior legal analyst Elie Honing.

Elie, I'm going to ask you to do something here.

[09:15:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: OK.

BERMAN: Which is, put yourselves in the minds of the Supreme Court justices here. You, for the purposes of this discussion, are a Supreme Court justice.

HONIG: I've been confirmed?

BERMAN: We should be so lucky.

HONIG: OK.

BERMAN: You've got a lot on your plate. And it's not just this Colorado case.

HONIG: Yes.

BERMAN: You've got maybe three separate, huge election related issues to decide in the next few months. Walk us through piece by piece how they might approach this, starting with the state cases and the 14th Amendment. HONIG: OK, so thinking like a pragmatic and practical justice, and I

think they are that, the Supreme Court generally likes to rule as narrowly as possible but also with as broad an effected as possible.

So, looking at the Colorado case. If they take the case, I absolutely, of course, agree with Joan, very likely, not certain, very likely they'd take this case. Then there's really two ways they can go in terms of how broadly they rule. They can, if they want, rule narrowly as to Colorado. The ruling would read something like, yes, the states do have the ability to administer the 14th Amendment themselves and, yes or no, Colorado did or did not do that in a constitutional way and therefore the Colorado ruling would fall or rise. But that would leave us questions as to all the other states. What happens with Maine? Did they do it correctly or not?

Option b is, they can rule more broadly. They can say, for example, the president is not an officer for purposes of the 14th Amendment, or it's up to Congress, not the individual states. If they rule that way, it will answer Colorado. It will also answer all the other states.

So, if I had to guess, I would guess towards the latter because I don't think they'd want to invite dozens more of appeals.

BERMAN: They don't want to hear any more cases on this, but they also probably don't want to weigh in on the biggest issue after all, which is, was Donald Trump an insurrection.

HONIG: They're not going to. I feel safe saying that. This is not what the Supreme Court does. They don't take an established body of facts and say we therefore concluded such and such.

BERMAN: Right.

HONIG: That's for lower courts. They're going to focus on the procedures here.

BERMAN: All right, as I said, this is part of a larger picture here. And I think the justices might look at it as such. They don't just have the Colorado case, they have the case of immunity, criminal immunity, which goes before the appeals court next week.

HONIG: Yes, let's not lose sight of this one. This is Jack Smith's criminal case. January 9th, so which is Tuesday, there will be arguments in the court of appeals in D.C. I think it's very likely Trump loses his immunity claim there, in which case he certainly will ask the Supreme Court to take the case.

Now, I don't know that it's a given the Supreme Court takes it. On the one hand, it's a big issue. It's a constitutional issue. We don't have a lot of guidance on it.

On the other hand, there hasn't really been that much disparity, right? Every court that's looked at this, civil, criminal, lower courts has said he's not immune. And so if they choose to stay hands off, then whatever the court of appeals rules will hold. BERMAN: So, they can split the baby, say, you know, overturn the

Colorado decision but allow the immunity cases - or basically say doesn't have immunity.

HONIG: Yes.

BERMAN: And then the third thing, which I think is getting brushed under the rug here to much -

HONIG: Yes.

BERMAN: Is the idea of obstruction. They have said they will rule on this.

HONIG: Yes, this is really important too. They've taken the case. They haven't ruled yet, but there's a case of another January 6th rioter, a guy named Fisher (ph), who stormed the Capitol, who was charged and convicted with obstruction. And his argument -- he made this, a lot of people made this argument, well, that doesn't apply to what happened January 6th. That was rejected uniformly across the board below, but now the Supreme Court said, we want to take it. If they say obstruction does not apply to January 6th, two of Jack Smith's four charges, the two most serious charges, are that charge. So that would seriously jeopardize two of Jack Smith's four charges. So, you can see the stakes on that one too.

BERMAN: I guess what we're trying to say is, there's a succession of decisions the Supreme Court has to make.

HONIG: Yes.

BERMAN: It starts right now but could continue for months to come.

HONIG: It's history - it really is history in the making.

BERMAN: Elie Honig, great to have you here. Thanks.

HONIG: Thanks, John.

BERMAN: Justice Honig, I should say.

All right, tonight, Iowa voters, they ask tough questions of Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis in back-to-back CNN town halls.

The now ex-president of Harvard University speaks out in a new opinion piece. The mistakes she admits to and why she says the push to oust her is a symbol of a bigger problem.

And dramatic video of a criminal defendant leaping over a judge's bench to attack her. The new charges he is facing when he is back in court this morning.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:22:49] SIDNER: This is just into us. CNN is learning from an official that it was the U.S. that targeted an Iranian proxy group, striking that militia base in Baghdad that killed a high-ranking commander and another fighter. The strike comes as Iran-backed militias have ramped up their attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria since October 7th.

CNN national security reporter Natasha Bertrand is joining us live from the Pentagon.

Natasha, what are you hearing from officials?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Sara, this is the second time in just over a week that the U.S. has targeted members of Iran-backed militias inside Iraq. And we are told that this time the U.S. targeted a commander of an Iran-backed militia inside Iraq, inside Baghdad, who was traveling in a vehicle. And we are told that that vehicle was really the only target here. It also killed an associate of this commander of this pro-Iran militia.

Now, this comes at a moment, of course, when tensions in the region are extremely high. The U.S. has been retaliating against Iran-backed proxy groups who have been launching strikes on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Syria really relentlessly. Over 100 such attacks since October 17th according to a defense official. And in asking -- when we asked the Pentagon about this latest strike on this individual in Baghdad, a defense official told us that the United States is continuing to take action to protect our forces in Iraq and Syria by addressing the threats that they face.

Now, it's unclear at this point whether the Iraqi government was notified in advance of this latest U.S. strike because it did take place in Baghdad, which, of course, is the capital of Iraq. And so it would be interesting if the U.S. decided not to notify the Iraqis, who have expressed a lot of anger over the continued U.S. strikes inside Iraq on these pro-Iran militia groups. The Iraqi government saying in a statement last week that these strikes constitute a violation of their sovereignty. But, look, the U.S. has continued to insist that they are going to take action wherever these pro-Iran militia groups have been attacking U.S. forces. And they have conducted as well a number of strikes in Syria where we have seen several of these attacks take place in recent months.

Sara.

SIDNER: Natasha Bertrand, this certainly portends a worry about a regional war that may be sparked. Thank you so much for all this new reporting for us.

[09:25:01]

Appreciate it.

BERMAN: All right, a huge night in Iowa. Back-to-back CNN town halls. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, they will answer voter questions as both try to beat each other, even as they still struggle as to whether to take on Donald Trump.

Now, DeSantis was pressed by a voter about why he has gone, quote, :soft on Trump."

Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RON DESANTIS (R-FL), 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I mean, first of all, he won't debate. I mean like how am I - I mean like I -- he's not willing to get on a stage. He's not willing to answer questions. You know, he's in - he's in Mar-a-Lago. I mean, like, so, yes, show up and debate.

We're doing a debate on January 10th in Iowa. He was invited. He declined.

The reality is, is he's basically making a mockery of this whole process by not showing up and answering people's questions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: All right, Steve - CNN's Steve Contorno is in Des Moines this morning.

Steve, what are you expecting tonight in these CNN town halls? I can see you in the room right now.

STEVE CONTORNO, CNN REPORTER: That's right. They're going to be holding this event right behind me in Des Moines, Iowa. And these candidates are, at this point, just trying to do everything they can to move the polls. They have stayed pretty consistent over the last few months. But I have to say, you know, in talking to Iowans at these events over the past few days, there are a lot of people who are still making up their mind and they are open to alternatives to Donald Trump. And you're going to hear some of those individuals ask questions of Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley later today.

Of course, Haley and DeSantis have very different objectives for Iowa. Governor DeSantis has put a lot of effort into this state. He's spent a lot of money here. He has spent a lot of time here. And anything short of a second place finish would be a major disappointment for them.

Haley's camp, though, however, they said they have set lower expectations for Iowa. They just want to have a good showing. In fact, last night at a town hall in New Hampshire, she sort of said a little -- had some interesting things to say about what she saw -- how she saw Iowa and New Hampshire shaking out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY (R), 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have an opportunity to get this right. And I know we'll get it right. And I trust you. I trust every single one of you. You know how to do this. You know Iowa starts it. You know that you correct it. You know that you continue to go -

(applause)

And then my sweet state of South Carolina brings it home. That's what we do. That's what we do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CONTORNO: Now, the DeSantis campaign took issue with that statement. They posted on social media, quote, "unreal. Nikki Haley belittles Iowa caucus growers claiming their decisions will need to be corrected by New Hampshire voters."

And I will say, there is some historical precedent here that Iowans don't necessarily pick the winner. They're more of - they've had a historical job of sort of winnowing the field. We don't - we don't have a president Ted Cru or a president Santorum or a president Mike Huckabee. Those are some of the past winners here.

But, you know, she will have to convince Iowans to give her a strong showing, to put some momentum at her back. Although, you know, we had a conversation yesterday with the chief adviser for her super PAC and he said, quote, "I'm encouraged by the direction we're headed, but we don't have to come in second place, Ron has to come in first."

John.

BERMAN: All right, Steve Contorno for us, at the site of the CNN town halls in Iowa. Steve, thank you very much.

SIDNER: All right, joining me now is senior political analyst and anchor John Avlon.

JOHN AVLON, CNN SENOR POLITICAL ANALYST AND ANCHOR: Good morning.

SIDNER: You heard all that and we know that Iowa doesn't necessarily pick the president, if you look at past, but it is a - has an important role.

It is crunch time. Trump, obviously, promising to win, win big. The polls agree with him. Is there anything that you see that might change caucus goer's minds at this point?

AVLON: Yes, because that's the nature of the caucus, right? I mean this is a deliberative process among fellow citizens in Iowa. And it's interest, you know, in 2016, when Trump lost to Ted Cruz, Trump was ahead in the polls right before that caucus. So, they -

SIDNER: Not this big ahead, but, yes.

AVLON: Not this big ahead, and that's very important to say, but there are a lot of undecided voters, you know, that our reporters are talking to, particularly between DeSantis and Haley. And I think that's where the rubber meets the road. DeSantis really does. He's all in. He's got the governor's endorsement.

SIDNER: Right.

AVLON: He's got Bob Vander Plaats and the evangelical (INAUDIBLE). He's got a ground game. If he can't convert that into a strong second, I think he's toast. Nikki Haley's got a lot of momentum nationally. And Trump has been basically MIA.

SIDNER: Right.

AVLON: I mean you heard - you heard DeSantis say, I mean, you know, it -- his refusal to debate, but also really campaign in the way the others, could be seen as an insult to Iowa voters. One thing we know is that the voters of Iowa, and then New Hampshire, are going to have a disproportionate impact on the direction of the Republican Party and the republic in the next few weeks.

SIDNER: So, we don't know what's going to happen in Iowa. We never do. But we do know what has happened in the House. House Republicans, the whole leadership, all of them, every single one, endorsing Donald Trump before we even see a single vote cast.

[09:30:04]

What are your thoughts?

AVLON: That's what - that's what drives me crazy.