Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Sources Say, Fulton County Prosecutors Think Fani Willis' Fiery Testimony was Enough to Beat Disqualification Bid; Russian Prison Service Says, Putin Critic Alexey Navalny Dead at 47; Today, Ruling Expected in Donald Trump's Civil Fraud Trial. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired February 16, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ACHOR: And that breaking news, something of a lesson from Georgia this morning. Expect the unexpected. We had thought that Fani Willis, the district attorney at the center of Donald Trump's felony charges, she, of course, charged Donald Trump with trying to overturn the election in Georgia, we thought she would be testifying. Right now, she is not.

We were just told by sources that Fulton County prosecutors think the fiery testimony from Willis yesterday was enough to beat the bid to disqualify her from the case following misconduct allegations.

Let's bring in Laura Coates, who's outside the Fulton County courthouse, to get a sense of what is going on there. Laura?

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, yesterday was so explosive. And if anyone had any impression that Fani Willis, the D.A. of Fulton County, who brought this case against 18 co-defendants, including the former president of the United States, for election subversion here in Georgia, if you had the impression that she was going to be a shrinking, wallflower, you were sadly mistaken.

It's unclear whether the team who sought to disqualify her were prepared for her explosive testimony, where she was indignant, she was defiant, she was confrontational, and, frankly, she was persuasive. They did not create a through line from the perception that there had been a financial benefit derived from her in her relationship with Nathan Wade that was resulting in a way that would undermine fatally the opportunity for a defendant to get a fair trial.

That is the requirement, John, of what needs to happen to disqualify somebody. The conflict cannot be something that's purely speculative. It has to actually be tangible. And so far, it is their burden to prove as much. We thought she'd be back in the courtroom here today. That was the expectation of all who were watching. But they feel as though that she has performed enough, in a sense.

And I'm here right now with Robert James, former solicitor general for DeKalb County, Georgia, and the former DeKalb County district attorney.

You know what? It is so fascinating to see where we are right now, because it was already anxiety-producing for every lawyer in the world to watch a district attorney take the stand in a case where she was being sought to be disqualified. You had your own notions about what that would look like. Should she have testified?

ROBERT JAMES, FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA: No. In short, no, I don't think her team wanted her to testify. I think her team wanted to argue the motion. It felt like that Ms. Cross (ph) and who I know very well had momentum and perhaps had persuaded the judge that the subpoena was either, A, going to be quashed or, B, her testimony would be very limited. I think she's --

COATES: Ms. Cross was the woman whose job it was to try to protect Fani Willis from being disqualified?

JAMES: Absolutely. She was the state's prosecutor who was protecting D.A. Willis.

So either A, the subpoena was going to be quashed, it appeared, or, B, her testimony would be significantly limited. And I don't think she gave them an opportunity to do that.

COATES: That was a surprising moment, because when she came in the courtroom, the judge seemed to be asking those who wanted to have her testify, well, is there a reason you need to have her? Is there a conflict or a question you have? He was leaning towards not having her called, in my opinion, and then she appeared. And when she appeared, she was very defiant. She was very willing and wanting to talk about the personal affronts that she experienced.

You have been in this similar situation before. It must be very difficult to have the cameras on you, to have your reputation besmirched, to have your credibility questioned and still have your spine straight.

JAMES: Well, it's the three Ps, you're a person, prosecutor and politician, right? And so the prosecutor, the lawyer, should listen to the people that are advising you, and you should very clinically apply the law, which would be like don't say anything, let your people do their job.

But the person and the politician who has to run for office and the person who was personally offended feels the need to respond. They feel like they have to respond. It seeps through your armor, right? You've got this facade of, I'm strong, I'm tough, I'm Superman, Superwoman, but, ultimately, you hear what people are saying about you, and you're a human being and you react like a human being.

COATES: I wonder if it was equal parts that personal affront and also professional strategy, because she has a trial that she's hoping to have jury pool that she wants to ensure knows that the prosecutors who are behind the case should be credited that they have integrity, that they're not slippery when it comes to things that matter.

[10:05:12]

But the jury pool was on my mind, as I'm sure it was for you yesterday, because the more she spoke and Nathan Wade, there's always the risk that there are those who are going to cheer her on and others who were going to sit back and shake their head in question.

JAMES: Well, speaking works both ways, right, because she's very passionate, she's very defiant, you know, even angry at times, it seemed, right, and perhaps justifiably so but angry. And so the people that already support her, you know, they've got their hands up and they're saying, you know, go, Fani, go right?

But that's not the question. Because when you try a jury trial, you're picking a jury that is presumably unbiased and they're going to be several of individuals on there that do not support her or that are even indifferent. And so you have to ask the question how did they perceive yesterday, right?

And so, you know, I'm not concerned about how the judge is going to rule on this in terms of dismissing the case or dismissing the office but I am concerned about the effect that is going to have on a potential jury.

COATES: And, by the way, that works both ways for the prosecution and the defense, because we all saw the defense attorneys, four different clients, trying to make their case and trying to present, and you saw their expertise on display, or at times, lack thereof in questioning.

But at the end of the day, it was truly stunning to see this moment, and I keep going back to this. We're at a moment where I cannot imagine, say, the special counsel, Jack Smith, answering questions in this way, on a stand, while the underlying facts never raised.

JAMES: Yes. Look, it seems a bit ridiculous, right? If this were precedent and every time prosecutors in the Fulton County courthouse, you know, try a murder case, say, for instance, um, if the defense lawyers filed a motion to disqualify because he or she found out that the prosecutors were having a relationship, right?

I mean, this seems like the biggest smokescreen in the history of American jurisprudence. And so I understand why she's upset. I understand why she said, you're trying to put me on trial and I'm not the one on trial. But, ultimately, you know, this could wear on potential jurors.

COATES: It certainly could. And, John, we're here, and Robert James, thank you so much. I mean, the word, avoidable, comes to mind when you think about all of this and all that's been conceptualized. There certainly were some missteps. Will it lead, however, to disqualification? A very different answer.

BERMAN: No, and that's what we're waiting to find out, as we wait to find out who will testify next and when that might happen. We're in this strange pause right now, and we're really waiting for any sign that this will pick up again. And, Laura, we will come back to you the minute we get a sense that it does. In the meantime, more breaking news this morning, shock, outrage after one of Vladimir Putin's sharpest critics, Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny was reported dead in a Russian prison, reportedly dying after taking a walk, a fatal walk.

U.S. officials are still waiting to confirm the Russian state media claim. Navalny's wife had this to say just a short time ago in front of dozens of heads of state.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

YULIA NAVALNAYA, ALEXEY NAVALNY'S WIFE: But if it is the truth, I would like Putin and all his staff, everybody around him, his government, his friends, I want them know that they will be punished for what they have done with our country, with my family, and with my husband. They will be brought to justice and this day will come soon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BERMAN: What strength to stand there in Munich.

With us now, CNN's Chief International Correspondent Clarissa Ward, and Matthew Chance, Chief Global Affairs Correspondent.

Clarissa, you could see the anger and also the resolve from Alexey Navalny's wife there.

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It was a very emotional moment, and she actually started out, John, by saying, you know, I thought for a moment, do I go home to my family right now, or do I stand here and address you? And then I asked myself, what would Alexey do? What would Alexey want me to do? And I have no doubt that he would want me to stand here, to address you, and to issue that withering rebuke to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Of course, at this stage, we don't know exactly what killed Alexey Navalny. We have only been told through Russian media that he took a walk at the penal colony, where he was suffering terrible treatment, where he had, at times, been in less than good health, and yet, when we saw him yesterday via teleconference from a courtroom, he appeared healthy, he appeared jovial.

[10:10:06]

We've also heard a report from his mother who told Novaya Gazeta, the Russian publication, that she wouldn't be accepting condolences because she couldn't believe it, because she had seen Alexey Navalny on February 14th, that he had appeared to be in good health and good humor.

And so there are real questions about exactly what happened to him. But you heard also at the Munich Security Conference, the vice president, Kamala Harris, saying whatever happened, Russia is responsible. He was in the custody of the Russian state.

And so the question really now becomes, what does this mean for Russia's opposition, which has already been so brutally stomped out? Does this mean could we see potentially more protests or resurgence of the sort of protest movements that Alexey Navalny had previously galvanized in Russia, or is this it? Is this the end? Is this message that there is absolutely no opposition of any shape or form to be tolerated inside Putin's Russia? John?

BERMAN: Yes. And to that point, you heard from Alexey Navalny's wife saying that Vladimir Putin, Russia will be punished.

I suppose, Matthew Chance, the question is, you know, will they will Russians blame someone for this?

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: I mean, look, we don't know the answers to that yet. But, look, I can tell you that many Russians that I've spoken to and have expressed their views in the media are expressing their shock that this has happened, that Alexey Navalny, who is undoubtedly the most high-profile opposition figure in the country, has died whilst in the custody of the Russian prison authorities.

Now, whether that will have an impact in the way that Alexey Navalny has had an impact in the past, he's been able to bring out tens of thousands of people onto the streets and towns and cities across the country when he's called for them in the past. But we're in a different environment now. And there's been this chill descend over the Russian opposition. And this is yet another very potent message to opponents of the Kremlin about the terrible consequences that can befall you if you stand up to Vladimir Putin and his regime.

Because remember, no matter how shocking this death of Alexey Navalny is, it's not all together surprising. I mean, Alexey Navalny was himself poisoned and narrowly escaped death a couple of years ago. He chose to come back to place himself at the center of Russian politics, having narrowly escaped death himself.

And then, of course, there's a long list of opponents of Putin, opponents of the Kremlin and its critics who have met tragic ends. I mean, just last year, although perhaps I wouldn't describe it as a tragedy, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who was a supporter of Putin, turned somebody who staged a military uprising against Putin's authority. Well, he was killed in a plane crash under suspicious circumstances.

Before that, the list goes on, but in 2015, I went to the funeral and covered the assassination of Boris Nemtsov, who was the sort of Alexey Navalny of his time, if you like. He was the most vocal critic, the most prominent opposition figure against the Kremlin. He was gunned down outside the walls of the Kremlin. And the list goes on.

And so, again, this is shocking but it does fit into a pattern of critics of the Kremlin who meet sticky ends.

BERMAN: You cross Vladimir Putin, a lot of people end up dead. A lot of people have fallen out of windows, literally, or pushed, who knows? Defenestration is an interesting word in Russia.

Clarissa Ward, can you speak to the years of courage that Alexey Navalny showed? It's something that you saw firsthand.

WARD: Well, the decision, John, to go back to Russia, when I interviewed him shortly after he was recuperating from being poisoned with Novichok, and I said, why would you go back? You know the risks. You know that they tried to kill you. But he was very sanguine about the risks. He was very determined to see and fulfill his mission, which he believed was to serve the Russian people. He understood implicitly that he could not do that in exile. He knew the risks, and yet he decided to go ahead and do what he felt was necessary and important to do.

And I think that any criticism that one could possibly level at Alexey Navalny, certainly, cowardice is not one of them. This is a man is one of the most -- or was one of the most extraordinarily courageous individuals, certainly that I have ever interviewed, John.

[10:15:07]

BERMAN: He walked into the fire. Clarissa Ward, Matthew Chance, thank you both so much for being with us. I know we're going to talk to you again very soon.

Any moment now, Donald Trump could find out how much he will have to pay for defrauding his lenders. The New York attorney general is pushing for a $370 million penalty. Judge will issue his ruling at any moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: Right. The word of the day is disgorgement. Any moment now, we could get a ruling in Donald Trump's New York civil fraud trial.

[10:20:00]

Judge Arthur Engoron will post the decision. He's not going to read it out loud. He's going to post it. He has already found the former president liable for fraud with this ruling. Trump and his co- defendants, including his two older sons, could be hit with millions of dollars in penalties. He could also be barred for life from doing business in New York.

CNN's Kara Scannell staring at the computer, waiting for this to post, joins us now with what you're waiting on.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, John. So, we're waiting for this big decision that will have big implications for Donald Trump and for his company, not just the future of his role at it, but also how much this could cost him.

The New York Attorney General's Office is seeking more than $370 million, and as you said, a ban on Trump from doing business in the state. Big question will be also whether his sons are also found liable and if they are also banned from doing business for five years, that's what the New York Attorney General's Office is seeking.

You know, this was the result of a three-month civil fraud trial where Donald Trump and his sons all took the stand and testified in this case. They were trying to distance themselves from the financial statements that the judge has already ruled to be fraudulent. So, the issue at this trial and what we'll be looking for today is the consequence of that. That is the dollar amount here.

And what else the judge may say? He previously had also canceled the business certificates of the Trump Organization, which has left a lot in question about what that actually means and how that would play out. That issue is up on appeal. And Trump's lawyers have already indicated they are going to appeal this decision because they expect to lose.

And one of the reasons why is in December after the trial ended, the judge issued a ruling rejecting Trump's argument to find in favor of them at the time. And in that ruling, he had discussed his findings on some of the evidence that had already come into this trial. Trump's lawyers have said that these valuations for properties, like the triplex apartment at Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago, were subjective. And the judge rejected that, saying a lie is still a lie.

So, we'll be looking to see exactly how the judge frames this decision and what it will end up costing Donald Trump. John?

BERMAN: All right. Kara Scannell, standing by for us, thank you. Keep us posted.

Back with us now, Legal Analysts Michael Moore, Karen Friedman Agnifilo and Elie Honig.

Kara did such a great job, Elie, of laying out what this ruling could say. And she added, what else the judge may say than just the dollars and cents here?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think the judge is going to have some choice words for Donald Trump given his prior rulings. I mean, the judge's initial ruling before the trial where he ruled against Trump and for the A.G. is extensive and he really lashes out at Donald Trump. I mean, he says Donald, this is a fantasy world, paraphrasing what he says in that ruling.

The judge is going to have to justify and explain his ruling. This isn't going to be like when a jury comes out and they just say, we find for the defendant, we find for the plaintiff, here's the dollar amount. This will be a probably 100-plus page ruling where the judge will go through each property, each set of representations, explain why he has concluded that they were or were not fraudulent and how he assigns a dollar value to each one.

He knows that this ruling will be appealed. Everyone has the right to appeal. And I think he's very conscientious to that the last thing in the world this judge wants, any judge wants, is to be reversed on appeal.

BERMAN: Michael Moore, from your mortals, the difference between $200 and $300 million dollars ago is just a lot of money. But is there a difference here in this ruling if he awards $200 million dollars in disgorgement versus $300? What does that tell you?

MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think there's a little bit of a P.R. issue there too. I mean, it just sounds a little different. It means that the judge didn't find that he needed to disgorge Trump of all those monies. And maybe he gives him a little slack saying some of the monies or some of the valuations weren't as far off as we originally thought. And that's his sort of tip of the hat to split the baby, if you will, in a case like this. Sometimes judges will do that.

And also because the case will be appealed, it also makes it look a little more reasonable. There's a little -- when the appellate court looks at it, it's not something that's going to jump out and say, man, this is off the chart. What do we do to clean it up?

It makes it look like some thought goes into it. And when you have competing verdicts or a decision that sort of splits things down the middle a little bit, again, I think the appeals court will take a different view of it than just something that looks completely one- sided.

BERMAN: Karen, explain to us the control over the business empire, Trump and his kids, because it's sort of the sleeper issue here. What will you be looking for there?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It will be interesting to see, for example, if the judge puts in a permanent monitor, because, currently, they are under a monitor ship. And they can't do anything without asking permission of Barbara Jones, who's a former federal judge, who's the monitor there. So, it will be interesting if he puts controls in that really will cut his business abilities down at the knees, where they have to get permission to do certain things.

Also if he cancels his business certificates, right? If you're an LLC, if you form an LLC, that's really an application to the state of New York to form a corporation.

[10:25:07]

Is he going to be allowed? Are those businesses are going to be allowed to exist or is he going to have to sell off properties, dissolve them and dissolve the LLC? Things like that I think will be very interesting to watch.

I'm also looking to see -- don't forget in the middle of this trial, Judge Engoron made Donald Trump testify because there was a gag order issue and he made him come out and sit on the witness stand and swear to find whether or not he meant what he was saying he meant outside, and he found him to be not credible.

That's an astonishing finding on the part of a judge to find the defendant, the former president of the United States, not credible and fined him thousands of dollars. So, it will be interesting to see if that goes into his ruling and his decision-making to kind of punish him for his lack of credibility.

BERMAN: That's a good point. Is that something he would write on? AGNIFILO: He could. He absolutely could.

BERMAN: In what way?

HONIG: This is what judges and juries do. They assess credibility. They have seen in this trial, in most any trials, we're seeing in Georgia, competing, conflicting testimony. And the job of the fact- finder is to say, I credit this person, I discredit the other person.

And there's really sort of two parts to that. Part of it is just the visceral element of it. I saw this person, I believed him, I found him to be believable. And then the other part of it is, well, who does the evidence support? Who does the objective independent evidence support?

And I do think Karen is right. I mean, not a hard prediction to say, the judge is going to say, I found Donald Trump non-credible.

BERMAN: But what about the theater, Michael? Will he back-reference all the theater that took place in the courtroom?

MOORE: I don't expect him to load his order up with all the theater, but I think you'll have some hints of it. I mean, I think it gives a little bit of context, and maybe he does it by talking about credibility of witnesses. Maybe he talks about it, you know, in candor to the court and those kinds of things.

But, again, that to me adds a different layer that an appellate court might look at. This is simply a finding, you know, did he inflate? Did he enrich himself? Has he been unjustly enriched by doing that? And what amount of money should we take back? I think it's almost more now, I think, a mathematical thing. Once he's made his finding, then it is about, I like this person, I didn't like that person.

BERMAN: All right. As you said, do not go far because we could get this ruling very shortly. You've given us something about decoder ring to understand it when we do read through it. We appreciate that.

So, Putin will be punished, those wars from the wife of Alexey Navalny after his shocking death.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]