Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Testifies In Own Defense At Defamation Trial; Court Adjourns After Trump Briefly Takes Witness Stand; Biden Talks Economic Vision After Robust Report; Jennifer Crumbley Charged In Connection With Son's Crimes; Republican National Committee Considering Move That Would Declare Trump The Presumptive Nominee. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired January 25, 2024 - 15:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:57]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: On the stand, former president, Trump, just finished testifying at his civil defamation trial in New York, going face-to-face with his accuser, E. Jean Carroll, in court. What Trump said while briefly, very briefly, taking the stand.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Plus, attacked while waiting for aid in Gaza, forcing that huge crowd to run for their lives as gunfire reverberates in the background. The Hamas-run ministry of health now accusing Israel of killing at least 20 people. That number is expected to rise.

And a critical tool for law enforcement shutting down, Amazon will no longer allow police to request footage from its ring doorbell users. Some saying it's a major step toward addressing privacy concerns. But could it make you and your neighbors less safe?

We're following these major developing stories and many more, all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

An extraordinary moment in federal court today as Donald Trump testified in his own defense at his second civil defamation trial. The former president answering a handful of questions in about the time that it takes us to go to a commercial. And in that brief time, Trump still managed to get cut off by the judge. But the big headline here is that he mostly stuck to the parameters laid out by the judge before he took the stand, mostly.

We have CNN's Kara Scannell who is at the courthouse in New York; CNN's Paula Reid; and CNN Legal Analyst, Joey Jackson also with us.

Kara, to you first, walk us through Trump's testimony.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Brianna. I mean, he was on the stand for less than five minutes. He actually spent more time discussing what he could and could not be asked about than he was actually on the stand. So he went up and took the witness stand, rose his hand, swore that he would tell the truth.

And then his attorney asked him just three questions. She asked him: "Do you stand by the testimony in your deposition?" Trump said, "One hundred percent yes." But the jury had seen earlier in the day excerpts of Trump's deposition where he denies E. Jean Carroll's claims. He calls her a whack job. He says she's mentally ill and he says that he doesn't know her. So Trump's saying, yes, 100 percent he stood behind that.

Then she also asked did you make this statement in response to the accusations that were made by E. Jean Carroll. And Trump said, "Yes, I did. That's exactly right." He was starting to say that he considered these to be a false accusation and the judge cut him off, telling the jury that they just needed to - all they needed to hear from him was that, yes, he did make his statements in response to her accusations.

And then the third question, Trump's attorney had asked, did he instruct anyone to harm E. Jean Carroll. Trump said, "No, I just wanted to defend myself, my family and frankly the presidency." Again, the judge cut him off and said that the jury should only listen to what he said in that, yes, he made these statements to defend himself.

So Trump really having to walk a fine line there. The judge very much controlling what he said. And then E. Jean Carroll's attorneys got their chance to ask him questions. They were only able to get one through asking him if he attended and was aware that there was a previous trial in this case. He said that he didn't know there was a trial in the case.

His attorneys came back to him and asked him if he had an attorney representing him at that other trial. He said he did. They wanted to ask another question. The judge cut that off. So he - the judge really kept this under control. A big contrast to when Trump was on the stand just a few weeks ago in the civil fraud trial where he was campaigning from the witness stand. That did not happen today.

KEILAR: Yes, that may come down to the judge here in this case.

Paula, to you, as I mentioned, he mostly stuck to the parameters, but he also didn't entirely stick to the parameters here and we should be very clear about this, that the parameters were crystal clear, because the judge had repeated them time and time again, and yet there was still some of Trump's testimony that was struck down.

[15:05:05]

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's true, but it was pretty small. I mean, compared to what we expected. Legal experts, including myself, a legal reporter, they'd all been debating for the past several days: will he take the stand, won't he take the stand, but everyone seemed to have consensus that once he got on that stand, he was going to grandstand. It's going to be a 2024 campaign event.

That's not what we saw here today. Primarily a credit to the federal judge here who kept the command of his courtroom made Alina Habba commit to a plan ahead of time, kept her and her client to stick to that plan while he was on the stand and then wrapped it up and moved it along. But also, Alina Habba and former president, Trump, they could have easily tried to play more at the edges of this, tried to say a little bit more before the judge cut in. So, again, people weren't sure if he was going to take the stand, but everyone seemed to think he was going to make a scene like what we saw just a few weeks ago in state court, but that's not what happened here. She got in her three quarters, exactly as she told the judge she would. And he answered them, though he did call her outside the lines a little bit. That was stricken from the record.

And overall, it appears that this was a successful appearance on the witness stand in terms of the judge's plan and what he told people to do.

KEILAR: Paula, what's the effect on the jury when they hear what the former president has said, but then the judge strikes it, right? So the judge makes clear that this is not supposed to be part of the record. But they have obviously witnessed it come out of his mouth.

REID: Yes, of course. And this is something that happens in courtrooms all the time, right? Things are said, then stricken from the record. And during the jury instructions tomorrow, they will likely be reminded. Those are not things that they can take into consideration when they decide the amount of damages that E. Jean Carroll will receive from the former president.

Of course, they're human; of course, they heard it, but most jurors take their obligations, the rules here, very seriously. And in the grand scheme of everything at this trial, it's unlikely that that's going to sway the jury by a million dollars or so.

KEILAR: Joey, what do you think the former president got out of his participation in this trial, considering he didn't participate in the other civil defamation trial?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Brianna. I think it was very significant testimony, although it was brief, it was very important, so the question becomes why. When you ask the question, did you view the allegations as false and you say yes, it's an indication that you were acting in good faith. It's your view, it's your perception as to the statements being false. That's number one, very important, going to the issue of punitive damages, which are designed to punish what this is all about.

And then you pivot to other questions. For example, did you at all, right, direct anybody to give the indication or to pile on or anything else, the answer being no. Then you ask the question, right, which was previous to that, which really is about what was this about. You were responding. You weren't affirmatively trying to trash or impugn anyone's reputation. The nature of the comments you made were in response to your defending of yourself. You couple that with saying, hey, what other people may have done on social media, Brianna, they may have done. But that was not at the behest of me, it was not at the direction of me and, therefore, I should not be held accountable.

And so that's the essence of the defense. That's why these statements were important that the president got out. And the fact that he stayed within the parameters while surprising is very important. Because I think it shows the jury some semblance of respect for the process, which they certainly can take into consideration in evaluating the amount of damages to award.

And real quick, Joey, what did you think about the cross? Look, I mean, at the end of the day, crosses are important because what you want to do is you want to try to impugn a person, right, and really get at the fact that this is about going after someone maliciously. It's about doing something purposely. It's about engaging in misconduct.

The fact that you're so limited on cross, though, and that's not really a full cross where you can attack a witness, I think that goes to the detriment really of the plaintiff because you really want to get at the witness. You couldn't because the questions were so limiting, Brianna.

KEILAR: Joey, thank you so much. Paula and Kara as well, thank you. Boris?

JACKSON: Of course.

SANCHEZ: This just in to CNN, Donald Trump's attorneys are joining calls for the dismissal of Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, in his 2020 election subversion case. Trump's legal team is pointing to alleged misconduct between Willis and her lead prosecutor.

CNN's Nick Valencia is live outside the Fulton County courthouse with more. Nick, what's the latest? What are you hearing?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting, Boris, because, Steve Sadow, Trump's attorney here in the Georgia case, had initially said that he wasn't - that he didn't have sufficient evidence to adopt this motion to dismiss the case, but that has seemed to have changed here. Now they are formally adopting the motion to dismiss the case, not only because of the improper relations, they say, but also because of Fani Willis' statements - her first statements after this alleged affair was first made public.

[15:10:06]

They say that she injected racial animus and prejudiced the co- defendants in this case by, in their words, playing the race card.

I want to read you a statement here very briefly by Steve Sadow, Trump's attorney. And this is what he says in part to CNN: "DA Willis violated her Special Responsibilities of a prosecutor under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Her attempt to foment racial animus and prejudice, against the defendants in order to divert and deflect attention away from alleged improprieties, calls out for the sanctions of dismissal and disqualification."

A lot of moving parts here in this case, remember we reported earlier today that we're also expecting subpoenas to be leveled against Fani Willis, members of her staff, as well as the current and former law partner of Nathan Wade. The attorney who first leveled these allegations of an improper relationship wants them to testify in open court at an - at evidentiary hearing, which has been scheduled for February 15th.

The subpoenas on their surface may not seem like that big of a deal, but what this really does here is it sets the stage for the potential of these sordid details of this alleged affair to be broadcast publicly. These hearings are broadcast live and now Fani Willis has not directly addressed the alleged affair. She did say, however, that she believes Nathan Wade was hired because he was the right man for the job.

And now this latest news that Trump and his defense team are trying to get this case dismissed for this alleged affair, as well as what they say is her injecting race into this case, Boris?

SANCHEZ: Yes, a big development in Fulton County.

Nick Valencia, thanks so much for the update.

So from taking on Fani Willis to taking on his last remaining rival in the Republican primary race, former South Carolina governor, Nikki Haley, President Trump is now going after Haley's donors. This is a significant deal as the president tries to narrow down the rest of the field, which is really just Haley, and win the nomination.

Sources tell CNN that meantime, the Biden team is cheering on the Haley-Trump feud, hoping that it forces the Trump team to use up some resources before the general election. Biden stumped a short time ago, pushing his record on the economy in the critical swing state of Wisconsin. The campaign, his campaign officials believe that Trump will be the Republican nominee, setting the stage for one of the longest and most dreaded general elections ever.

Let's turn to CNN Senior Data Reporter, Harry Enten. Harry, through the latest on how Americans see this Biden-Trump matchup.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yes, you said it. Dreaded is the word. They're not exactly looking forward to it. Take a look here, the unfavorable view of both Biden and Trump.

You can see this, 20 percent of the overall public has an unfavorable view of both. That is on par with what we saw in 2016, of course, in which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump had record levels of unfavorable ratings.

Take a look here, pure Independents, 41 percent of them have an unfavorable view of both. My goodness gracious.

Now, you mentioned that word dreaded. And there was a great poll question that was asked late last year, feelings about a Biden-Trump rematch, dreading it or looking forward to it. Dreading it wins the day with 50 percent, just 47 percent of folks are looking forward to it.

But again, look at independents, Boris, who, of course, are so key in elections. We're - once we get past that primary season, 61 percent of Independents are dreading this potential matchup compared to just 35 percent were looking forward to it.

When you look at all of this data, Boris, my goodness gracious, Americans are not exactly looking forward to a potential rematch, even though at this particular point, that's where it seems like we are going.

SANCHEZ: Harry, I can't imagine what the unfavorables would be if Donald Trump and Joe Biden had record labels. That would be potentially disastrous numbers.

Harry, you're looking at this. Obviously, there's hunger for something different. Does this potentially open up the possibility of a third- party candidate?

ENTEN: Maybe. So let's take a look at just a generic third party. Seriously considering voting for a third party if the leading candidates are, in fact, the major party nominees, that would be, of course, this year, Biden and Trump. Back in 2016, it was Biden and - excuse me, it was Clinton and Trump.

Back in March of 2016, this number was at 30 percent, seriously considering it. Look where we are today in January of 2024. It's even higher than that. It's up to 37 percent. One of the highest levels I have ever seen on a polling question like this.

Now, of course, we're talking generic third-party candidates. Maybe Joe Manchin gets in the race. Maybe somebody we're not even thinking about. But, of course, at this point, the major potential independent third-party candidate who is in the race is RFK Jr.

And this number of support that he is getting, choice for president in a matchup between RFK Jr., Joe Biden, and Donald Trump.

[15:15:02]

In Quinnipiac University, 27 percent; In IPSOS, a recent poll among registered voters, 17 percent. This is the highest percentage of the vote that a named third-party candidate has had this late in the campaign since Ross Perot in 1992.

So the fact is, it's not just that they're saying, hey, we might vote for this generic third-party candidate. They're actually saying when you get a name that a lot of people know, a lot of folks, they're saying, you know what, we may cast a ballot for this third-party candidate. It's truly remarkable, at least historically speaking.

SANCHEZ: Remarkable also given his track record and false statements ...

ENTEN: Yes.

SANCHEZ: ... on all sorts of things ...

ENTEN: Exactly. SANCHEZ: ... including vaccines, et cetera.

Harry Enten, thanks for walking us through the numbers.

ENTEN: Thanks, Boris.

SANCHEZ: Of course. Still ahead on CNN NEWS CENTRAL, the mother of the 2021 Michigan school shooter will testify in her own defense. Jennifer Crumbley's attorneys say she will take the stand in her trial. We have the very latest from Oxford when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:20:11]

SANCHEZ: It's been an especially emotional day at a Michigan courthouse and a historic case as well. Today, Oxford High School staff members took the stand and gave heartbreaking testimony about the chilling day when a shooter opened fire and killed four of his classmates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOLLY DARNELL, OXFORD HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER: I locked eyes, he didn't hesitate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay. About how long was that from the time you saw the peripheral vision and then the gun was raised?

DARNELL: A second.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.

DARNELL: If that - I kind of jump and turn my body this way at the same time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay, and you're - for the record, you're motioning, turning your shoulders ...

DARNELL: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ... to the right.

DARNELL: To the right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mm-hm.

DARNELL: And I feel like my left shoulder moves back a bit and I feel a burn like hot water had stung me. I had texted my husband, I love you, active shooter. And then I started feeling blood dripping down my arm.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, the school shooter's mother, Jennifer Crumbley, is now on a trial. She's facing involuntary manslaughter charges along with her husband, who is being tried separately in a trial that will start here in several weeks.

Here with us now, we have CNN Correspondent, Jean Casarez and also CNN Legal Analyst and Criminal Defense Attorney, Joey Jackson.

Jean, the prosecution is making the argument here that Jennifer Crumbley ignored all of the warning signs. What do we hear in court today?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And she is going to take the stand. We heard that in opening statements and there will be direct examination where she explains that she didn't have any warning signs and what her interactions were with her son. And then you're going to have that harsh, I'm sure, cross-examination.

But today was so emotional because it started out with who you just played, Molly Darnell, who was a victim of Ethan Crumbley's shooting rampage that day. She survived. And then also an assistant principal.

Well, the emotion was so strong in that courtroom that after that testimony, the prosecutor, Karen McDonald, got so upset. She stood up because she said, "Your Honor, the defense attorney is sobbing during this testimony." You've got to listen to this exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAREN MCDONALD, ASSISTANT OAKLAND COUNTY PROSECUTOR: I understand the ruling, Your Honor. I do. You're concerned about influence of the jury. I have - I take no issue with it. But it was a difficult thing. It's difficult and we're doing it.

And then to have not just a defendant, her lawyer, sit there sobbing.

SHANNON SMITH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I did not sob.

MCDONALD: I just want to finish, Your Honor. I just want to finish. I just - I think if that is the instruction, we are trying really hard to respect the court's instruction, because I understand the reason for it.

JUDGE CHERYL MATTHEWS, OAKLAND COUNTY DISTRICT COURT: I understand this is a very emotional situation for everyone here, right? I - if someone was audibly sobbing in the audience, I would hope that they would accept. I - and as you said, you know the reason for it, I didn't tell anybody not to show emotion.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: And the ATF just was on the stand to say that that gun case and that gun safe, that that gun that was used for the murders was found open in the bedroom of James and Jennifer Crumbley right next to it, a very empty ammunition box.

SANCHEZ: Joey, the prosecution here is trying to prove that Crumbley's parents were grossly negligent. That means that someone willfully disregarded what might happen to others as a result of their own failure to act. Do you think that the state has enough evidence to prove that?

JACKSON: Yes. Boris, so a jury will make that determination. But I think the ultimate question is to what extent is a parent responsible and what preventative steps they could have taken, knowing that there were warning signs as to hallucination, warning signs as to mental health, giving him access to a weapon, the school indicating he had these drawings and them not taking that seriously.

And so the essence of the charge, to your point, Boris, right, is were you negligent and did you act reasonably. And to the extent the jury concludes they did not, then they will have, or at least in this instance, the mother, Jennifer, will have some problem as to guilt.

KEILAR: All right. Joey and Jean, thank you so much. We'll continue to follow this very emotional trial.

And this just in, a draft resolution circulating among the Republican National Committee. And what it would do is it would formally declare former President Trump the party's 2024 presumptive nominee.

SANCHEZ: This, of course, flies in the face of Nikki Haley's comments saying that she is going to stay in this race, that it's still a race in her mind.

[15:25:00]

CNN's Kristen Holmes joins us now.

Kristen, what are sources telling you about this draft?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is really extraordinary. This would effectively, as you said, declare Trump the 2024 presumptive nominee.

That means that the RNC would be moving forward with Donald Trump and effectively opposing the former governor from South Carolina moving forward. This is a huge break in how the party has originally dealt with this kind of nomination process where they have remained neutral.

Now, it's not that surprising, given that just yesterday we heard the chairwoman of the RNC on television essentially saying it was time to unite behind the eventual nominee, which is Donald Trump. That in itself was shocking when she said that because that's usually a role, again, where you remain neutral.

Now, here's what happens. He would still have to actually get the delegate count to be the party's nominee, but he would get an extraordinary amount of access to RNC resources. That means access to the ground operations, access to their data programs, access to fundraising with the RNC. And, again, a huge break from how the Republican National Committee has handled the nominating process in the past.

KEILAR: Yes. I mean, obviously this is something that would alienate any Nikki Haley supporters, Kristen. I guess the calculus would be that doesn't necessarily matter. And the fact that it would give former President Trump access to these resources, the interest of that sort of supersedes any even possibility of it backfiring.

HOLMES: That's true. And Haley has already brushed this off. Her spokesperson said, who cares what the RNC says. I think they were expecting something along these lines. I mean, we really have seen Republicans circling the wagon for the former president in recent days, a lot of endorsements, a lot of encouraging others to endorse.

But again, for this particular Republican National Committee to essentially come out and oppose another potential candidate is really striking.

KEILAR: It certainly is.

Kristen Holmes, thank you for that report.

Still ahead, a leaked recording of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sparking a diplomatic fallout with the country of Qatar, the mediator between Israel and Hamas. How Qatar is responding and if this could threaten hostage negotiations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)