Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Convicted; Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired May 31, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:38]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to CNN News Central. I'm Brianna Kiellar along side Boris Sanchez. And we are standing by for remarks from President Biden as we're learning Israeli forces are in central Rafah, and we're going to bring those to you live.

First, though, one day after a New York jury convicted Donald Trump on 34 felony counts, the former president, now a convicted felon, reacted to the historic verdict. In remarks at Trump Tower, railing against the trial and making numerous untrue statements about the case. In a speech that targeted the verdict, Judge Juan Merchan, District Attorney Alvin Bragg and some of the prosecution's key witnesses.

BORIS JOHNSON, CNN ANCHOR: At one point, Trump called the US a fascist state and vowed to appeal his conviction, which could see him spend up to 20 years behind bars. CNN's Kristen Holmes joins us now live from New York. So, Kristen, what more did Trump have to say?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Former President Trump gave what seemed to be kind of rambling 35 minutes each. He did not use a teleprompter. Actually, in fact, they had brought one out and they actually removed it before he stepped up there. All he did was take a few notes on a note card.

He was all over the place. He aired his grievances. He said exactly, as we had reported, the same messaging he has been saying since before the trial. That it was a rigged trial, that it was election interference, that it was political persecution, something that his team believes is resonating, at least with his base and Republicans.

But one thing he said that really perked up a lot of our ears, particularly given us that are following the case closely, is he appeared to violate the gag order. Just a reminder, he is not allowed to talk about any witnesses, he is not allowed to talk about people who are prosecuting the case other than Alvin Bragg. This was the moment in which it seemed that he could not help himself but talk about one of the witnesses Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER US PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: By the way, this was a highly qualified lawyer. Now, I'm not allowed to use his name because of the gag order. But, you know, he's a sleazebag. Everybody knows that, took me a while to find out. But he was effective, he did do work.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Now, I will remind you that last time he violated the gag order, the judge said they were going to consider jail time. Now she did not say Michael Cohen's name but it was pretty clear when he continually refer to the person as a former lawyer, and a former fixer, so, of course, we'll have to ask our legal experts about that.

But overall here, it was very clear that this is going to be Donald Trump's campaign strategy, at least for the next couple of weeks, talking about this, airing those grievances. And it was clear by what we saw that he was rattled, he was all over the place. He felt the need to walk through various parts of this case because it is still on his mind.

Now his team says that they again think this will help them in November. We saw that poll yesterday that just among Trump voters, 7 percent of people who said that they were likely to vote for Donald Trump so they will be less likely to vote for Donald Trump if he was convicted.

And sorry about this, this is also the finest bus stop outside of Trump Tower that we're part of right now, live TV. But that's a big margin. I know it doesn't sound like a lot but when you're looking at an election like Joe Biden and Donald Trump, where they are expecting whoever wins to win by such a narrow amount of votes, 7 percent of one space could be quite significant.

But again, no matter what is said right now, nobody can predict what is going to happen in November. I actually heard someone say this on Donald Trump's team, they were skeptical as to what exactly was going to happen next. He said the people who are going to decide this, are you, you, and me, the country, is what they meant by that. The fact that people will be casting those ballots in November to decide essentially what this means to them moving forward.

KEILAR: Wild times there behind Kristen Holmes. We appreciate the report, Kristen.

So what is next for the former president? For that let's turn to CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams and former Trump White House lawyer and CNN legal commentator Jim Schultz.

What is next, Elliot? Where do we go from here?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Sentencing in about a month, and that's standard in cases. Now, what will happen is both parties, the prosecution and the defense, will, in effect, submit memoranda to the judge saying this is how you think -- we think the defendant ought to be punished.

[13:05:14]

Now, obviously, the prosecutors tend to ask for a longer sentence than the defendant does, I would assume that the defense here would not ask for any jail time, prosecutors can. And they'll lay out the reasons why, whether it's the criminal history of the defendant, the nature of the conduct, how the defendant has behaved since and prior to the crime, and all the above. Then the judge will ultimately make a decision at that hearing in July.

JOHNSON: Trump says that he could be put in jail for over 100 years, probably not going to happen.

WILLIAMS: Probably not going to happen, I think you're spot on there. If you were to add up the four year statutory maximum on all 34 accounts, then yes, in crazy town, that does not exist, one could go to jail for several hundred years, or whatever the number is. That doesn't happen.

Number one, virtually no one ever gets the statutory maximum of any crime no matter what. And number two, someone with no criminal history for a -- what's called a Class E felony in New York, probably won't even see jail time at all, let alone the statutory maximum. And finally, number three, because of the nature of how this crime was committed, in all likelihood, the judge would stack all the sentences on top of each other. So you wouldn't put four years on top of four years, you know, be just one sentence for all.

KEILAR: Yes. If -- we are kind of living in crazy town --

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: -- but not the crazy town that doesn't exist. Jim, to you. Todd Blanche said, you know, everyone in this jury knew Trump from his time as obviously president and on "The Apprentice," and because of that he doesn't accept that Trump could get a fair trial. I mean, where would you go that people wouldn't think, oh, that, of course, this is the President. This guy was on "The Apprentice." I mean, we're could you get a fair trial?

And I guess my real question is, if that's sort of the point he's making, how does that speak to having success with an appeal?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think that's the strongest argument they're going to have on appeal. I think that's a political talking point. That is also a legal talking point. I think you're going to see other mechanisms for appeal. I think the one thing that's going to -- that's certainly going to be an appellate issue is the whole Harvey Weinstein issue, right? The case that came down recently where he was -- where one of the chart -- where one of his convictions was dismissed.

This was not a sex crimes case. So all 34 convictions, if you will, if that testimony relating to what happened that night in that room was found to be more prejudicial than probe -- is found to be more prejudicial than probative by the appellate court, then it could have the effect of, you know, of overturning all of these convictions. You know, and this wouldn't be on a case by case basis.

I think another avenue for appeal that they're going to look at strongly on the defense side is this whole issue of notice and due process as it relates to these underlying crimes, right? The underlying crime that kind of brings it to the felony count, the crime that they were covering up, if you will, that was alleged that they were covering up. It's the whole campaign finance issue.

Was that properly charged? Is that properly and underlying crime in this matter? Were they given appropriate notice, by way, the indictment? They'll -- all those issues are going to play out on appeal. This is going to be a long appellate process. We're, you know, going forward after sentencing.

JOHNSON: Elliot, what do you think of the substance of those potential appeals?

WILLIAMS: They're not frivolous. You know, a defendant always has a right to appeal, whether it's his sentencing, his conviction and so on. These were somewhat complex legal issues. Now, the prosecution ably argued the judge was incredibly careful in substantiating the reasons why he was doing different things. But, you know, these aren't -- these won't be laughed out of court even if they ultimately lose.

KEILAR: Yes. I mean, to that point, the idea of what the underlying crime is, is that super clear here?

WILLIAMS: Well, it --

KEILAR: -- could have been clearer in the way the process should have had the jury outline that.

WILLIAMS: I don't know, and it's hard to say. Now, look, many statutes are -- arson or homicide where you kill the guy or not, it's very straightforward. Most statutes, particularly when you deal with financial crimes, business crimes are actually quite complex, where judges have to be creative and how they explain something to the jury. And prosecutors have to be creative and how it's argued to the jury.

But the simple fact of falsifying business records you commit or conceal another crime is quite straightforward, regardless of the fact that it's not murder.

JOHNSON: Let's play some sound from Trump right now. He talked about deciding not to testify in his own defense. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I would have testified. I wanted to testify. The theory is you never testify because as soon as you testify, anybody. George Washington don't testify because they'll get you on something that you said slightly wrong and then they sue you for perjury.

[13:10:05]

I said, what do you need to go through and all you wanted to do is testify simply on this case? Because I would have loved to have testified, to this day I would have liked to have testified.

(END VIDEO CLIP) JOHNSON: Jim, do you think the outcome would have been different if Trump could have been able to testify?

SCHULTZ: No, no, not at all. And, you know, and quite the opposite, right? Because he would have opened -- the door was wide open to all kinds of questioning that would have impeached his testimony, that he and his defense lawyers wouldn't have wanted to come out.

So no, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the trial in any way, shape or form. The strategic decision by the lawyers for him not to testify was a smart one. And, you know, I just think this is more political bravado than anything else in typical Donald Trump fashion.

KEILAR: How do you see, Jim, the gag order at this point, and Donald Trump's rough clear references to Michael Cohen?

SCHULTZ: So I think he's going to blow through this gag order. I think he's going to continue to blow through the gag order. You know, post sentencing, I don't think it applies at that point. But up until sentencing, I think it does. And I think he's probably going to exercise his -- what he will call his ability to exercise his free speech and defend himself in the public domain that the trial is over, and that the gag order should no longer apply in his mind.

JOHNSON: Jim Schultz, Elliot Williams, great to get your perspective. Thanks for being with us.

Still to come, cashing in on his conviction turns out that losing a major legal battle is a winner with donors. We're following the donation line,

KEILAR: And vowing revenge, how right wing media figures are using their platforms to spread dangerous rhetoric after the Trump verdict.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:06:20]

JOHNSON: From 34 felonies to $34 million, the Trump campaign says it raised that staggering amount in small donor donations since the guilty verdict, adding the figures nearly twice as large as the previous biggest day on the campaign's donation portal.

KEILAR: The influx of cash is one of the reasons that many Trump allies are arguing this guilty verdict could pay off for Trump politically.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL) From a political side, you know, this is a big win. I mean, Trump's website last night crashed. I mean, there's so many people giving money politically. I think Trump benefits from this. I think they elected a president last night.

(END VIDEO CLIP) KEILAR: CNN congressional correspondent Lauren Fox is joining us now. Lauren, what more are you hearing from Republican lawmakers after the verdict?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, Republicans have been very swift to come out in support of the former president, making clear that they are standing with him from their posts on Capitol Hill. You heard very quickly yesterday from Speaker Mike Johnson, and here's what he said about Donald Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: This is a purely political exercise, not a legal one. And everybody knows that. They know intuitively that it's wrong, and the people are outraged.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: And other members of his leadership team including the Majority Leader, Steve Scalise, Elise Stefanik, the conference chairwoman, and even the Republican whip Tom Emmer were also quick to release statements right after the verdict. On the Senate side, we even heard from Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. He traditionally doesn't weigh in on Trump's legal issues when he's asked about them on Capitol Hill. He and Trump have had a notoriously icy relationship since January 6.

But here's what he tweeted last night, "These charges never should have been brought in the first place. I expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal." And it's not just about words, lawmakers on Capitol Hill may also take further actions to try to defend the president already. You're seeing Jim Jordan, the Judiciary chairman, asking for Alvin Bragg, the district attorney, to come before his committee and testify on June 13th.

Now, that's another matter entirely, whether or not Brad agrees to come before that committee, but just a sign of the ways that lawmakers on Capitol Hill are trying to use their posts, trying to use their positions to show Donald Trump that they are standing with him. Brianna, Boris?

JOHNSON: Lauren Fox, thanks so much for the update. Let's dig deeper now with Bryan Lanza. He was Deputy Communications Director for Trump's 2016 campaign. He's also a partner at Mercury Public Affairs.

So, Bryan, this conviction seems like a political gift for the Trump campaign.

BRYAN LANZA, DEPUTY COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN: First of all, thank you for having me, Boris. I think everything in the criminal space has been a gift for President Trump, whether it's the four indictments or where he's able to raise a lot of money. But I think you'll always see this example pop up of where the party rallies behind him and his voters for rally behind him. And that's what you're seeing with the $34 million in.

Not even 24 hours, I think in seven hours, they're going to have an update in next couple hours, which could easily double that number. I mean, they're getting tremendous amount of support.

KEILAR: It seems like a gift in some ways. And yet, Trump's demeanor is pretty clear. We can see it here even just in the pictures. He's not happy with this.

LANZA: I don't think anybody would be happy. But the good thing we know is that President Trump is, after he gets the mood of not being happy and sort of analyze the situation, he'll fight back. And we'll see a very aggressive push back over the next five months from the political standpoint. You'll see an aggressive pushback from the legal standpoint.

I mean, this is not a guy who sits down and just says punch me more. This is a guy who punches back, and I think we should be prepared for that.

JOHNSON: And if it's not overturned on appeal, and he faces some kind of sentence. How does that play with voters going into this presidential election?

LANZA: Listen, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, I watched the OJ Simpson trial during college. My understanding is that, the appeal process is going to take several years. It's probably going to go well beyond the November election. And he'll probably won't see any jail time before the election, y'all

[13:20:09]

And so that, you know, he'll still continue to campaign. I think the question becomes, and I don't know that answer, maybe a lawyer does is, you know, if he's given probation, he can't leave the state of New York. So what happens then?

KEILAR: Yes. And we'll be posing a lot of questions about the different parameters, certainly to our legal experts here. When you look at some of these different polls about Trump supporters, it's a small group who would not vote for him if he were convicted in a trial.

When you look at that number, how do you see it actually playing out? And how dependent is that on the messaging of people around Trump, just undercutting what this conviction actually means?

LANZA: Well, I think it's important to look at the election and the right framework, though this election is not necessarily a binary choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. This election is whether Joe Biden has earned a reelection.

So he has to go to his constituency, he has to go to his coalition and make the case that he's fulfilled those promises. The reason you see Joe Biden doing so poorly in the polls, the reasons you see President Trump doing so well even as the trial went on, is because the consensus is from Joe Biden's coalition's that he hasn't met the promises and he hasn't met their expectations and failed.

So the election isn't necessarily, you know, Trump's convictions during Joe Biden. Joe Biden's asking to be president again, he's asking to be rehired. He's got to make that case regardless of what President Trump's position is. And the case is hard to make that it's been better.

I mean, the economy is, you know, the worst that -- it's not that good for the middle class, you have inflation at a high rate. You have the wars all around the world. I mean, let's just look at Israel, you have --

KEILAR: You started to say the worst it's ever been and then you stopped.

LANZA: Because I didn't want to talk hyperbole.

KEILAR: It would be so unlikely, Bryan.

JOHNSON: There are a sizable number of Republican voters and we saw this in the primaries, even after Nikki Haley dropped out, that seemed to reject Donald Trump because of the baggage, because of the chaos that he brings. I can't imagine that him now being convicted is going to lower those voters back.

LANZA: Yes. I mean, listen, we had a similar phenomenon that take place in 2016 where a lot of voters in the Republican primary stayed out the very end. We even had a discussion at the convention that it was going to be stripped away from Donald Trump. None of those things happened.

And what we saw take place in November is those voters came back. We saw those voters come back in 2020. You know, after the COVID response, people were less than happy with Trump, at least his base was less than happy. And they came back.

I've know reasonably they're not going to come back in 2024. And you'll see more than ever, a unified Republican Party. I mean, the contributions last night are just overwhelming. I mean, the vast majority of them are going to be new Republican saying, you know, we're not happy with the situation.

As for, you know, the Haley supporters, they're going to fall in line they always do.

KEILAR: We're going to have to see how this plays out. I mean, yes, you have the first former president convicted of a felony, but then there's this other side. Could you see the first felon elected president, and that's a very real situation.

LANZA: Well, I would say this, you know, you guys, Boris knows this to, you know, sort of Latin America. It's not uncommon for you know, president's been found guilty of a crime to win an election.

KEILAR: Well, in America it's very weird, I will say.

LANZA: Well, it's different.

KEILAR: Yes, it's definitely different. Bryan, thank you so much, Bryan Lanza. We appreciate it.

LANZA: Thank you.

KEILAR: So as we mentioned, Republicans have been criticizing the verdict ahead, we'll speak to a retired judge to get his reaction to the relentless attacks on it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:25:38]

JOHNSON: Breaking news in CNN, we are awaiting remarks from President Biden anticipated in just moments at the White House. He said to speak with reporters as Israel's confirming that its forces moved into central Gaza.

Keep in mind just a few weeks ago, President Biden speaking to CNN Erin Burnett, had laid out that he had a red line, that he would reconsider supplying Israel with certain arms if they were to unleash what he described as a major ground offensive in Rafah. Since then, we've seen a number of incidents in the area, notably going back to last week. This air strike that wound up killing some 45 people, including numerous children.

The images of that circulating around the world and putting intense pressure not only on Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, but also in the United States in what has been its support for Israel.

KEILAR: And what's clear is that since then, White House officials have kind of rewritten this idea of what a red line is. Of course, this harkens back to President Obama having a red line on Syria that he didn't enforce. And red lines frequently get presidents into trouble. So there seems to be a little bit of confusion on exactly what that is.

But right now, we're seeing Israeli efforts in Rafah, and they're significant. So how is he going to handle this?

Also, we have this question of, is he going to address this guilty verdict when it comes to former president Trump? It seems like it would be very hard to ignore so we're going to have to see what happens there.

JOHNSON: The reporting in recent days was that the White House was weighing exactly how to deliver a message once the jury had reached a verdict. And potentially at any moment, we will hear what President Biden has to say on that.

We have a number of correspondents with us, Priscilla Alvarez is live for us at the White House, and here on set we have CNN's Alex Marquardt as well.

Alex, President Biden has remained vague about what this red line is what it would take for the US to reconsider sending certain weapons for use by the IDF. What do you anticipate he's going to relay today? ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it's unlikely that there's going to be any kind of reversal of position. I mean, that strike in Rafah took place on Sunday night that killed more than 40 civilians. And when US officials came back after the Memorial Day vacation, day off, they were firm in saying that Israel had not crossed the red line.

And we, journalists, have been badgering the administration about what this red line is. And John Kirby, the National Security spokesman, summed it up as Israel smashing into Rafah. And as far as the administration is concerned, that has not yet happened, despite the fact that we've seen numerous strikes that have killed scores of people.

What we're seeing is this operation from Israel grow in a slower way, initially in the southeastern part of Rafah. Now they're in central Rafah, they've kind of looped around the southernmost part of Gaza and taken over this nine mile stretch on the border with Egypt called the Philadelphi Corridor.

So they're not doing it in a major way, at least as far as the Biden administration is concerned. And so, I don't think that we're going to hear the President say anything about withholding any more weapons for Israel. I think what we're certainly going to be keeping an ear out for, of course, is the hostage deal.

KEILAR: And let's listen to what the President is saying.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN (D), PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES): Good afternoon. Before I begin my remarks, I just want to say a few words about what happened yesterday in New York City. The American principle that no one is above the law was reaffirmed. Donald Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself. It was a state case, not a federal case, and it was heard by a jury of 12 citizens, 12 Americans, 12 people like you.

Like millions of Americans who served on juries, these juries chosen the same way every jury in America has chosen. It was the process that Donald Trump's attorney was part of. The jury heard five weeks of evidence, five weeks.

After careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. Now they'll be given the opportunity as he should to appeal that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity.