Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Lashed Out At Legal Process As Civil Fraud Trial Wraps Up; Trump Goes Into Campaign Speech Mode In Court Address; Two House Committees Vote To Advance Hunter Biden Contempt Proceeding After His Surprise Visit; Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) Talks About Hunter Biden; South Africa Outlines Its Case Of Genocide Against Israel. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired January 11, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:48]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Thanks for being with us on CNN NEWS CENTRAL. Just moments ago, Donald Trump lashed out at his civil fraud trial that's about to wrap up in New York. Nothing really new there. What is new, he was able to make some more of those very same claims inside the courtroom today during closing arguments. The judge made the unorthodox move of letting Trump address the courtroom with $370 million and his ability to do business in New York on the line. Trump spoke from the defense table.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And after five minutes, the judge actually cut him off. Right now, prosecutors for the New York attorney general are giving their closing argument. We have our reporters scattered across lower Manhattan, including in the courtroom.

Let's start now with Kristen Holmes, who got in a few questions there with Trump down in Wall Street. Kristen, what else did we hear at this press conference?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brianna, at the top, it was very much what we've heard before, that this is election interference, a political persecution. He again said that this case was working in cahoots with President Biden because Biden did not want to run against him in 2024. A lot of the same.

But I did ask him about something that was brought up by a judge in the case on Tuesday, which was this hypothetical scenario, essentially asking how much immunity a president should have and does Donald Trump agree that if he were to order SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent, should he not be prosecuted. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, do you agree with your lawyers what they said on Tuesday, that you should not be prosecuted or could not be prosecuted if you ordered SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, you're talking about a totally different case, the immunity. I say this, on immunity, very simple, if a president of the United States does not have immunity, he'll be totally ineffective because he won't be able to do anything. Because it will mean he'll be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted, perhaps, as soon as he leaves office by his - by the opposing party.

So a president of the United States - I'm not talking just me, I'm talking any president has to have immunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: It certainly sounds there like he is saying in some ways the president is above the law. And of course, what we're talking about is when the immunity claims case that we saw on Tuesday, part of what Trump's lawyers are arguing is that what he was doing in the election subversion case is actually part of his official duties. Jack Smith has said that that was not part of his official duties.

And the other thing I want to point out is that I asked him if he was going to be attending the E. Jean Carroll case next week. He said, yes. He indicated he was going to speak. I have questions out as to whether or not that is even a possibility. This is just the beginning, the opening remarks of that case, second defamation trial against Donald Trump from E. Jean Carroll.

But clearly he is going to continue. On this path, he does not have to be in that court either. He did not have to be here today and he did not have to be in a federal court on Tuesday. He is choosing to do this as he is merging his campaign events with his legal events. He is using all of these legal issues to elevate himself on media - with media coverage to try and suck all of the oxygen out of the race and to try and really move the focus away from Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis, who are both right now duking it out for second place in Iowa.

KEILAR: It's a very good point. Kristen, thank you. Actually ...

SANCHEZ: Let's get to ...

KEILAR: That's right.

SANCHEZ: ... Paula Reid, she's live outside of the courthouse to give us an update on where things stand with closing arguments. Paula?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, right now, the Attorney General's office making their closing arguments. This came after an eventful morning when the Trump team presented their closing arguments to the judge. Closing arguments are a chance for lawyers to summarize their case.

And after two hours of Chris Kise summarizing their defense, Trump used five minutes to attack the district attorney, the judge and declare himself an innocent man. Boris? [15:05:00]

SANCHEZ: All right. Paula Reid, live outside the courthouse in New York, thanks so much.

Let's expand the conversation now with a pair of legal experts. Former federal prosecutor, Seth Waxman, is with us and so is CNN Legal Analyst, Norm Eisen.

Thank you both for being with us.

Seth, if you're the prosecutor in that trial taking in the Trump defense argument, how do you feel about your case?

SETH WAXMAN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, very strong. I don't think Donald Trump or his lawyers were really trying to fight back against this particular allegation. I think this was more about political theater.

Look, the judge in this case has already ruled that Donald Trump and his entities are liable. That was determined last fall. This was supposed to be about damages.

So if they were really trying to attack this case, they would be saying, look, judge, we think you got it wrong last fall, but we respect your honor's opinion. Let's talk about damages. And what the Attorney General wants, $370 million, is wildly inflated. The idea that we should be forever barred from business in New York, that's a ridiculous result.

And so you take those issues on, you wouldn't be saying that this whole case is not good and that there's no basis in law to a found liability. The judge has already done that. That ship has sailed.

KEILAR: Yes, it's a foregone conclusion that issue of fraud, which you couldn't tell if you were just listening to Trump and his lawyer and that's a very important point to consider.

NORM EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It is. The gravitational force of the judge's summary judgment finding on that one count, on the first count in the case, is now slipping down through the remaining six counts, where Trump is struggling to find a way to resist the judge reaching the same conclusion, and then the damages issue, the money and the injunction, which is like a corporate death penalty for Trump and his family.

They may be forced out of their businesses, depending what the judge does here. I thought that there were technical arguments and at times during this very long trial, Trump's team actually scored some points, but they didn't focus on that in the argument today, certainly not in Donald Trump's press conference.

And all - I listed the defenses that he laid out, that his financial valuations were perfect, that's not persuasive. We know his condo, 10,000 square feet, he said it was 30,000 square feet, and the same with Mar-A-Lago, and 40 Wall Street, and the Seven Springs Estate that there were no witnesses. No.

The state put on witness after witness, expert witness, fact witness. He put on members of Donald Trump's own - the prosecutors - the state - AG's lawyers - put on members of Donald Trump's own family to substantiate that, and on and on and on. It just was not persuasive.

SANCHEZ: Seth, I'm curious about the argument from Trump and his team that the result in this case, the ultimate verdict, perhaps barring him from doing business in New York, could impact other businesses in the city. Is that a fair claim?

WAXMAN: Well, not really. I mean, so Donald Trump could be barred. His entities could be barred. Now, that raises the question of Donald Trump incorporated a new company across the river in New Jersey, and that company were to do business. Is that going to be barred by this rule if the judge imposes it?

And what we'll end up seeing maybe is decades of litigation over that. Every time Donald Trump wants to do business in New York, he creates a new entity or has one of his consiglieries create a new company, and they try to do business. It could be a cat-and-mouse game for years, if not decades.

But the idea that this could bleed over into some other company, like, each case stands on its own. ABC Company that's being run by John Jones across the street has nothing to do with this case. This is focused on Donald Trump and his entities.

EISEN: If Trump would only allow his lawyers to make real arguments, we saw this with the assassination position that his lawyers were forced into. That absolute immunity, he says, absolute immunity will - the lack of absolute immunity will expose every president. We've gotten a long fine for 250 years without absolute immunity.

You can see the Trump pressure on his lawyers. The smart thing, one of the many smart things that his lawyers should have done today is, as Seth says, hammer the remedies, not just the money, but this corporate death penalty. Why? Because the appellate division has already expressed skepticism about that remedy on the earlier one count holding, the summary judgment. They put that on hold.

Why not surge there, make the judge second guess, say, judge, whatever you do on damages, you can't do this. But Donald Trump, once again, his own worst enemy.

KEILAR: Seth, were you surprised there were negotiations between the defense and the judge, because Donald Trump did want to take part in the closing arguments.

[15:10:00]

The judge wanted there to be preconditions. Donald Trump's lawyers couldn't agree to them, because he wouldn't agree to them. In the end, they go past a deadline, so it looks like he's not going to be part of the closing arguments. And then he shows up in the end, and he ends up being part of the closing arguments anyway. Were you surprised it went down like that?

WAXMAN: Not at the end of the day. I mean, this is all about political pageantry for Donald Trump, speaking to voters. And from the judge's perspective, look, this is a bench trial. There's no jury to worry about. Certainly, if we had jurors sitting in there that aren't schooled in law, there could be some concern that if there are inflammatory arguments, irrelevant arguments, political speeches made, that this jury may be unfairly tainted.

But the judge knows what evidence is relevant, what he should and shouldn't be considered and then I think at the end of the day, Donald Trump has been talking about how he's been muzzled in this case. I think the judge gave him an opportunity to speak, so he no longer - he, Donald Trump, no longer has that muzzling argument.

EISEN: Very important what's actually going on and the judge has been clever about this. He's getting ready to give a gigantic damages verdict and very severe injunctive relief against Donald Trump. He's preparing his case for appellate scrutiny.

So now, Donald Trump can't complain. He wouldn't let me speak in court in my own defense on the last day. He says, I'll let you speak, but only a little bit, then he cut him off.

SANCHEZ: Norm and Seth, appreciate the expertise, thanks so much.

WAXMAN: Thank you.

EISEN: Yes.

SANCHEZ: Still plenty more news to come on NEWS CENTRAL, including Hunter Biden arriving at a California courthouse. He's set to face a judge for an arraignment on federal tax charges in just minutes. All of this happening one day after he crashed a hearing on Capitol Hill. In just a few moments, we're going to speak to a Democratic lawmaker about that surprise appearance.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:15:58]

SANCHEZ: Hunter Biden is set to appear in a California federal courtroom on tax-related charges here in less than an hour after a plea deal collapsed last July at the very last minute. Truly in court, as the judge's questions revealed, the prosecution and Biden were not on the same page about what the deal actually meant.

Prosecutors alleged that over four years, Hunter Biden failed to pay $1.4 million in federal taxes, potentially even more. The younger Biden faces nine counts, including failure to pay - failure to file, rather, and pay taxes, evasion of assessment and filing a false or fraudulent tax return. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of 17 years in prison.

KEILAR: And on Capitol Hill, two House committees have now approved a contempt resolution against Hunter Biden for not complying with a subpoena to testify in a closed-door deposition as part of an impeachment inquiry into his father. That vote happening just hours after he unexpectedly showed up to be in the audience at the hearing right as Republicans began the contempt proceedings.

As lawmakers argued with each other, we heard from one Democrat who called out what he described as GOP hypocrisy saying he'd vote with them to hold the president's son in contempt if they would support an amendment to add the names of Republican lawmakers who also refused to comply with congressional subpoenas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): Here is the subpoena to Rep. Scott Perry, who did not comply. I'd like to enter this into the record. Here is the subpoena to Mark Meadows. I'd like to enter this into the record, who did not comply. Here is the subpoena to Jim Jordan, who did not comply with a lawful subpoena, I'd like to enter that into the record. And here's the subpoena to Mr. McCarthy, who did not comply, I'd like to enter that into the record.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: And joining us now is a member of the House Oversight Committee, Democratic Congressman from Illinois, Raja Krishnamoorthi.

Sir, thank you so much for being with us.

Dramatic moment there. Intellectually consistent, I'm not so sure. Here's my thing as I look at that. Why would Republicans refer Jim or - Jim Jordan et al to DOJ for contempt when your party, Democrats in the House, didn't bother to refer Jim Jordan to DOJ when they had the chance, and they did have the chance?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Yes, I think that - I think the bigger point is that, unfortunately, people aren't complying with these subpoenas, and yet it seems like there's a double standard with regard to whether some are sanctionable, and others are not. In this particular case, again, Hunter Biden wanted to testify openly, and yet the Republican majority doesn't want that to happen.

KEILAR: But some are sanctionable and others are not, and part of that has to do with how Congress itself has policed itself, right? I mean, Congress has, in a way, determined which ones are sanctionable, and there's a question of a double standard, standard for members of Congress. What about members of Congress referring members of Congress to DOJ, maybe just refer them to ethics as Democrats did with Jim Jordan ...

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Right.

KEILAR: ... which ultimately just died in committee because Republicans took over. But aren't members of Congress, all of you, part of the problem here when it comes to taking the teeth out of congressional subpoenas?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I'm shocked that you would accuse us of hypocrisy, Brianna. Yes, I think, look, I think this place is unfortunately sometimes a circus and there's a lot of that to go around. But I think in this particular case, what we do know, and this is something that a lot of Republicans even say, is that regardless of what's happening with Hunter Biden, I have not seen a shred of evidence implicating his father in any wrongdoing, let alone a high crime or misdemeanor or an impeachable offense.

KEILAR: What do you think would happen if Hunter Biden did proceed with a closed door testimony in a Republican-led committee like this?

[15:20:06]

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, what we've seen, unfortunately, is that the testimony gets distorted. It gets selectively disclosed. And so what his lawyers are saying is, look, let's just avoid all those problems. Let him testify in public so everyone can see that real time.

KEILAR: I know and I just heard you say this, Democrats are certain that there's no wrongdoing on the part of President Biden. You find yourself - you find yourselves many members in your party backing up Hunter Biden, who's certainly a flawed individual. What do you think about being in that position and do you see that as an argument to go forward with the deposition if you're sure it's not going to show anything untoward?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I have no problem with a deposition going forward. I think that if it could be in public where everyone can see, that's the ideal. And I think a court of law is likely going to see it that way as well.

With regard to Hunter Biden, there's no doubt, Brianna, he has problems, he has challenges, he has legal problems, including gun and tax charges that have been filed against him. He deserves his day in court, of course.

KEILAR: Do you think that Hunter Biden will ultimately be found in contempt by a full vote of Congress?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I don't know. I think that a lot of my colleagues on the other side don't want to even take that vote. It's just something that I think I hear privately they view as a complete distraction and something that their constituents - just that's not something that they're focused on this moment.

KEILAR: I do want to ask you, while I have you, there is a new report out today from the inspector general of the Pentagon who is in charge of DOD oversight, and it finds in part that the U.S. did not properly track more than $1 billion worth of weapons that were sent to you. The Office of Defense Cooperation in Ukraine is saying they don't have enough personnel to properly inventory this massive volume of weapons coming to Ukraine. What are your concerns finding this out?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I'm very concerned and I think that we have to basically do a couple of things. One, we have to make sure that the Pentagon has the resources to actually conduct oversight to make sure the weapons end up where they belong. And then secondly, just going forward, we should take extra precautions in this regard.

But the overall point with regard to this being an excuse not to provide Ukraine with the aid that they need in this moment of desperation against Russia, that I can't agree with and I think they absolutely need assistance to repel this criminal invasion by Russia.

KEILAR: All right. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thank you for your time today.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you so much.

KEILAR: We appreciate it.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you, Brianna.

KEILAR: Today, Israel pleading its case at the International Court of Justice, after the country was accused of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, accused by South Africa how the outcome of this case could affect Israel's war with Hamas.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:27:52]

KEILAR: Israel is preparing to make its case to the world as the U.N.'s International Court of Justice hears arguments about whether it committed acts of genocide against Palestinian civilians.

SANCHEZ: During a hearing today, South Africa urged world leaders to order Israel to stop its bombing of Gaza, claiming that Israel's intentions are to destroy not only Hamas, but the Palestinian population inside the enclave.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMMAR HIJAZI, PALESTINIAN ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR MULTILATERAL AFFAIRS: Humanity is at crossroads. The case before the ICJ is a test to the international system. It is a moment of naked truth and an opportunity to provide hope to humanity at a time when it's sorely needed. Leaders have a historic responsibility and their actions will be judged by history.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, Israel vehemently denies the allegations of genocide and says its war on Hamas is an act of self-defense.

We have CNN's Melissa Bell, who is live for us at The Hague with more.

And Melissa, Israel will be presenting its case tomorrow. But how did the court react to today's arguments as South Africa is really seeking what's akin to a restraining order to bring about a ceasefire?

MELISSA BELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That was the point of today and tomorrow's hearings, Brianna and Boris, that the South Africans are seeking from the world court behind me, the U.N.'s highest court, almost an injunction that would order Israel to stop the war, whilst the more substantive question of whether, as South Africa alleges, genocidal acts are being committed in Gaza by Israel.

And what was so interesting about today's testimony, chilling at times, difficult to listen to often, was the forensic categorization of what Israel is accused of having done and continues to do in Gaza. The killings of civilians, but also the wider siege, and the impact that that is having on everyday life.

You heard several barristers get up and make their case, including one woman, one - at one point, one of the barristers pointing out that this was the first genocide, she said, in the history of humanity, where a people's own destruction had been livestreamed by themselves, for the time being, to the global indifference of the entire world.

[15:30:09]