Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Ruling in Trump Civil Fraud Trial Today; Former FBI Informant Charged with Lying about Bidens; Inflation Hotter Than Expected. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired February 16, 2024 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: A Russian prison.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Nikki Haley, U.S. presidential candidate, just wrote, "Putin did this. The same Putin who Donald Trump praises and defends. The same Trump who said, 'in all fairness to Putin, you're saying he killed people. I haven't see that'."

Now, again, we are waiting for confirmation. Confirmation we might never get about how Alexei Navalny died. But the fact is, he crossed Putin, he's dead. Yevgeny Prigozhin, crossed Putin, he's dead. This is a pattern we have seen over and over in Russia across the years.

Clarissa Ward, Matthew Chance, thanks to both of you. We're going to come back to you as soon as we get more information.

Today is the day that Donald Trump could find out how much he will have to pay for defrauding his lenders. Get used to the word disgorgement. All right, the ruling could come from a New York judge any minute. We know it will come today. It's only a question of when. When will we find out how much control over his business empire will Donald Trump lose?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:26]

BERMAN: We are standing by for a ruling in Donald Trump's civil fraud trial. Any moment now Judge Arthur Engoron will post his decision - won't read it out loud. It will be posted for us to all read. He has already found Donald Trump liable for fraud. But Trump and his two oldest sons and his real estate empire could be hit with millions of dollars in penalties, called disgorgement. The New York attorney general also wants Trump permanently banned from doing business in the state.

CNN's Kara Scannell, taking a break from staring at a computer screen to wait for this ruling to be posted to talk to us. How is this going to happen? What will you be looking for? KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John, I mean this is going to

be a big moment for Donald Trump and the Trump Organization, really hitting him where it hurts, which is his wallet. So, were waiting for Judge Arthur Engoron to issue his ruling in the New York attorney generals case, as you said, where he already found that the financial statements that included the values of Trump Tower, of Mar-a-Lago, were fraudulent.

So, the issue now is, how much will the judge say that Trump benefited from that, and how much will he order him to pay. The New York Attorney General's Office is seeking more than $370 million. So, this could be a significant amount of money. But also - I mean you'll remember at this trial Donald Trump himself testified, as did his two adult sons. Trump, in his testimony, acknowledged having some involvement with these financial statements, although he said he relied on accountants and lawyers as well. So, he -- his actual liability in this will be something that we'll look for what the judge will say on that. You know, the attorney general's office is seeking to ban Trump from doing business in real estate in New York. Also seeking a five-year ban against the sons. So, that could have big implications for the Trump Organization and how it operates.

You also remember the judge previously canceled the business certificates, and that is up on appeal. So, whatever today's ruling is, exactly how this will unfold on a practical matter is still very much up in the air. I mean the judge has already signaled that he did not buy a lot of Donald Trump's defenses in a - in a ruling a couple of months ago. So, it's really going to be a matter of just exactly how much money the Trump's might have to pay, and what does he say about the liability of Trump and his sons? And we'll be looking for that today when it hits.

But, John, you know, this -- whatever the dollar amount is here, this comes after Donald Trump was already told he has to pay $83 million to E. Jean Carroll after the jury awarded her that amount as part of a defamation suit. So, the dollars are really starting to rack up here on Donald Trump, someone who many people for a long time thought escaped accountability for anything.

John.

BERMAN: Getting expensive.

Kara Scannell, keep us posted. To say the least, a lot of today is about staring at a computer screen waiting for this ruling to be posted. We do appreciate it.

Back with this, legal analyst Michael Moore, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, and Elie Honig.

Karen, I want to start with you. As a member of the New York bar, you are watching and waiting for this ruling to come in. What will you be looking for as you read through it?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, the -- Donald Trump and his co-defendants, who which are his children and others, are charged with multiple charges. Only one of them has already been found to be liable by the judge, and that is in violation of this persistent fraud statute. What I'm looking for is, what about the rest of the counts? Are they going to find him liable? Is Judge Engoron going to find him liable for those? And - and -- or are the - or are the children, for example, are they going to find them liable for those? And that's significant, I think, because that has a criminal element to it. And it goes to - it kind of shows what some of the issues of the case are. So, I'd like to see who's going to be found liable for the rest of those.

And, of course, the number. The -- whatever the number is that - that this judge finds Donald Trump and his companies illegally profited from, because it's a math equation that this judge is going to have to determine for himself, whether or not he agrees with the attorney generals math equation or whether he finds that Donald Trump profited unjust enrichment is sort of the terminology that he's going to look for and - and disgorge him of those profits, whatever that -- whatever that number is. And then, of course, there's the other remedies that could be found against him that really could -- that could impact his ability to do -- he could dissolve his businesses here in New York.

BERMAN: Yes, you can't play here anymore.

AGNIFILO: Yes.

BERMAN: Michael Moore.

MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I agree with all that. I mean I think its really, to me, the number and what that means. I mean in a really twisted way, I think the higher the number of the finding, the more it plays into Trump's claim that he's been -- the system is being weaponized against him and there were no real victims and this is just again, you know, me being beat up by the - the court system.

[09:40:12]

So, I really do think it's going to - it's going to be the number. I don't think, you know -- and to be clear, he's not running to the ATM to get his cash out or anything, right? This - we're just - this is the beginning of the step now that we move forward through the rest of the - the process -- appeals process and all on top of that.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I want to see how the judge explains and justifies the number because this is an unusual case when we're talking about fraud cases in the following respects. Typically in a fraud case the defendant is ripping someone off, is taking money through fraud from investors, from shareholders, from the public, what have you. Here, it's a different fact scenario, Donald Trump vastly inflated his assets, the allegations go, and I think were amply proven at trial, submitted those inflated numbers to billion dollar sophisticated banks, some of whom testified at his trial, we didn't really care, we were comfortable making him loans. Those loans were then repaid, typically with interest.

Now, that brings us to our word of the day, disgorgement. What does that mean? Usually in a civil case you're talking about damages. I have to pay back the people I ripped off. Disgorgement means you just have to give up, as Karen said, wrongly gotten gains. Gains that you wouldn't have been entitled to. And those actually don't go to any particular victims, they actually go back to the state of New York.

So, I want to see how the judge explains how he arrives at what would sure to be a monstrous number.

BERMAN: And to be clear, this is part of New York law.

HONIG: Yes.

BERMAN: The reason there is this, disgorgement, even though there may have been no victim out there saying, hey, I lost money here, it doesn't matter.

MOORE: Right. Right.

BERMAN: The New York law says if there's consistent and repeated fraud with intent, there is disgorgement. You have to pay that back.

I want to turn our focus, of I can, back to Fulton County, Georgia, for a second, because we just got reporting from our team down there that Fani Willis' team, this is the DAs office, this is the prosecutors, and people get mixed up about who is who here. But this is Fani Willis' side, decided not to put her back on the stand today -- this is our reporting -- because they feel they already got everything they need. They feel that they met the bar. It was enough to beat disqualification, they say, so why risk putting her back.

Now, that could be spin. I assume they would say that no matter what. But what about that argument?

HONIG: Yes, I wouldn't say from my view so much as they got what they needed, but that she wasn't damaged enough to cause a disqualification. Now, that doesn't mean it's game over because, again, we're flipped here. That defendants, the people who are challenging Fani Willis, are still going to have a chance to put on their case, including the witness, Mr. Bradley, who we're waiting for, potentially his texts.

But I think they were right. If I was in the DA's shoes, if I was an ADA and Fani Willis' office and the other side said were done, I'd say, good, go back to your office and don't come back unless we absolutely need you. Yes, I think -- I think if you have a win and I think by and large, again, I'm not saying Fani Willis' testimony settled the issue, but I think the damage done to her was minimal and I think that's a win.

MOORE: Yes, I think it was really -- if I were looking at it, I think it's more like they just snatched the apple back to keep the other side from getting a second bite at it. That's really what happened. They didn't want to put her up there and, you know, overnight I'm sure the lawyers for the true defendants have been working on their questions, polishing the things, thinking about what they weren't able to get from her, why weren't they able to push her in a certain direction to answer a question a certain way and refining their examination, which they expected to be today. So, the state was just able to take the apple way and not give them a second option (ph).

BERMAN: Another way of asking that, Karen, is, who's more bumped that she's not testifying today, you know, the team, the DA's team, Fani Willis' team, or the defendants team, who were pressing her?

AGNIFILO: Well, definitely the defendants team because it was a very smart, strategic decision on the part of the prosecution to not cross- examine Fani Willis and not open the door because they made the calculation that the defense didn't meet their burden, they didn't show an impermissible disqualification. So, why do their job for them? That's all that could happen by call -- by putting her on the stand and allowing them to have a second bite at the apple, as you say.

BERMAN: And what's happening down to Fulton County right now, were the discussions behind closed doors about who may testify next. They're trying to get a hold of some of these witnesses. We, of course, we'll let you all know the minute we get decisions on that.

All of you, please stand by because there is a lot more going on today.

Why the Justice Department is now charged an FBI - a former FBI informant, and that could -- how that could deal a major blow to the Republican impeachment efforts against the president.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:48:57]

BERMAN: All right, this morning, charges against a former FBI informant for lying about President Biden and Hunter Biden, Charges that could be embarrassing for some Republicans. Special Counsel David Weiss charged Alexander Smirnov for lying about the Bidens' involvement in business dealings with a Ukrainian energy company and creating false records. The indictment says the story Smirnoff told the FBI was, quote, "a fabrication, an amalgam of otherwise unremarkable business dealings."

CNN's senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz with us now.

This is something.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: It really is. So, this is a long-time informant of the FBI, a man named Alexander Smirnov, and he is being charged with making false statements to the FBI about Joe Biden. Things that he was telling them that would have been damaging about Joe Biden if they were true. And they were things that we've heard before in the ether, in the political conversation. These accusations that he was sharing with the FBI that he was saying he was in touch with Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company where Hunter Biden had a role, and that they wanted to hire him so that Hunter Biden could influence his father while his father was the vice president, and that he wanted to pay them millions of dollars to Joe and Hunter Biden.

[09:50:09] Guess what? That wasn't true because his contacts with the Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, Smirnov wasn't in contact with them until after Joe Biden leaves the vice presidency at a time where he didn't have this sort of role. So, the indictment from special counsel, David Weiss, who's also investigating -

BERMAN: Who's the guy who charge Hunter Biden.

POLANTZ: Yes, in two different courts right now. He is writing in the indictment in short, "the defendant, Alexander Smirnov, transformed his routine and unextraordinary business contacts with Burisma in 2017 and later into bribery allegations against Joe Biden, the presumptive nominee of one of the two major political parties for president, after expressing bias against Joe Biden and his candidacy."

Remember, too, the House Republicans have been trying to impeach Joe Biden over his business contacts, his ties, payments he received. The Oversight Committee chair said, this doesn't fully depend on this guy. We're looking at bank records too. But they just haven't been able to get evidence together. And this evidence that this guy was giving to the FBI certainly does not exist.

BERMAN: No. And, again, the oversight chair, James Comer, says, oh, we weren't depending on just this, but they were using this. This was something that they kept on referring to.

POLANTZ: That's right. And they were talking about this man, Smirnov, be incredible. He had a long history with the FBI speaking to them as an informant dating back, you know, ten years. So, it wasn't a thing where you can keep putting this information into the ether and wanting it to come from true. It's - it's not coming true.

BERMAN: Katelyn Polantz, great to see you. I know it's a busy day for you. Thanks so much for being here.

POLANTZ: Thanks.

BERMAN: All right, new numbers just in show that the fight against inflation is not over yet. What this means for what you'll be paying.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:51]

BERMAN: This morning, a closely watched gauge of inflation, the Producer Price Index, it came in hotter than expected for January.

CNN's Vanessa Yurkevich is with us now.

Explain what it all means, Vanessa.

VANESSA YURKEVICH, CNN BUSINESS AND POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Earlier in the week we got consumer prices. Today we're getting producer prices. This is what businesses pay every single day for goods and services.

It is hotter than anticipated. In January, prices up 0.3 percent. Folks were expecting 0.1 percent. On the year, up 0.9 percent. Analysts wanted it to come in at 0.7 percent.

But just to put it into perspective, we are still below where we were pre-pandemic.

BERMAN: Pre-pandemic.

YURKEVICH: Pre-pandemic. But the problem is, as we're talking about this, everyone wants to see a continued cooling trend every single month. And, unfortunately, for folks this month, it's a little bit hotter than expected. The increases in prices actually did not come around goods, they came around services for business. So we're talking about hospital outpatient services and some traveler lodging. We saw in the Consumer Price Index that people were spending money at hotels. So then you have businesses spending more money on their side.

The concerns are, if you have higher prices for producers or businesses, does that get passed down to the consumer, and do consumer prices rise?

Also, what does that mean for markets, for Wall Street? We saw quite a scene on Tuesday after the CPI number came out. Markets eventually rebounded. But this morning, on this news, Producer Prices, we're seeing markets down a little bit. So, we'll see what the day looks like. The day is very young.

And then, ultimately, what does it mean for the Federal Reserve? We know that they want to see a lot of good data according to the Federal Reserve President in Richmond. He said today, this morning, that the data so far has been messy and not that good. We know the Federal Reserve wants to see good data. Basically it's looking like a rate cut is not going to come until the summer. Wall Street wanted it to happen March, May. But, of course, the Fed is in control here.

BERMAN: Wall Street wanted it to happen yesterday.

YURKEVICH: Right.

BERMAN: But all the data that's coming in doesn't seem to point to it happening anytime soon.

Vanessa Yurkevich, that was a terrific explanation. Even I understood that. Thank you very much for all that.

YURKEVICH: Good. Thank you.

BERMAN: A surprise in Georgia. The Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, did not retake the stand in the misconduct hearing. We all thought she would. It was shocking. They said, no, they were done with there. So, what does it mean about what happens next? We are standing by for word from that courtroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)