Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Supreme Court Upholds Law Banning Domestic Abusers From Owning Guns; Biden and Trump Continue Debate Preparations; Mar-a-Lago Case Hearing. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 21, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:48]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: No trial date in sight, but more hearings and further delays in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump.

The judge in charge, who the former president appointed himself, is now hearing Trump's longshot argument for why special counsel Jack Smith shouldn't be prosecuting him in the first place. We have an update on that.

Plus: turning his conviction into cash, Donald Trump erasing Joe Biden's edge and fund-raising, both candidates heading into summer with millions of dollars to spend and a big opportunity to sway voters just six days from today as they go head to head at the CNN debate.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And at the Supreme Court, a decision that actually restricts gun rights, as one justice suggests the court made a mistake in a landmark gun case two years ago.

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

SANCHEZ: Happening right now: Former President Trump's long shot bid to get charges in his classified documents case dismissed is playing out in federal court.

Today, Trump attorneys and outside conservative groups are trying to quash the special counsel's work by arguing that Jack Smith was unlawfully appointed, one of their main claims being that Smith wasn't confirmed by the U.S. Senate, this as "New York Times" reporting indicates that two federal judges, peers of Trump-appointed Judge Aileen Cannon, personally advised her to step down from the case last year.

She obviously declined.

Let's get the latest now from CNN senior crime and justice reporter Katelyn Polantz.

Katelyn, we could see up to three days of arguments from the defense team trying to get Jack Smith removed. This is highly unusual, right? KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, we will

see three days of arguments, and it is unusual how much time Judge Cannon is devoting, not just how much time she's devoting to these challenges of Jack Smith and his appointment, his funding as the special counsel's office within the Justice Department, but also how many people she wants to hear from.

You never see that in a criminal case at the trial level before a judge like this, but here Judge Cannon is going to this afternoon hear from law professors, people who have nothing to do with this case, arguing for and against the special counsel.

And the other thing that is really interesting about this and the way Judge Cannon is handling it is, she keeps pushing things off in this case. She's having hearings like these. She's hearing some other very important parts of this case too on Monday and Tuesday as these hearings stretch out over the next couple of days, requests from prosecutors about a gag order on Trump, another attempt from Donald Trump's team to toss out evidence and testimony in the case.

But even, in some of this, it's just not the thing that you're seeing. And this morning -- and we're going to hear this multiple times over the next couple of days -- Trump's team keeps asking for more hearings. She can't resolve this yet. They want more. They want an evidentiary hearing about Jack Smith and his relationship with Attorney General Merrick Garland.

And so they're before her making their legal arguments, but they also keep asking, do more, bring us more to Fort Pierce, Florida. Have us in court more and more and more. Every time that happens, Boris, that's another...

SANCHEZ: Delay, delay, delay.

POLANTZ: Yes, another time you can't put the trial date on the schedule.

SANCHEZ: That has been the playbook for the Trump team, not only in this case, but across the legal issues that he's faced.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much for the update.

Let's discuss further now with former federal Judge John E. Jones III.

Judge, thank you so much for being with us.

Are you surprised that Judge Cannon gave this much time for arguments on whether the special counsel appointment is invalid?

JOHN E. JONES III, FORMER FEDERAL JUDGE: Well, Boris, it's good to be with you again.

And, yes, I am. A couple of things come to mind. One is that the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't give anybody three days to argue anything. And, typically, you have got to wrap it up within a very brief portion of time. [13:05:00]

And I would rather cliff-dive than hear three days of arguments on anything, let alone something of this import. In two words, this is absurd and it's unnecessary. It's one thing to let these outside parties intervene, meaning that they can file briefs.

You know, you can just decide it on the briefs. This is wholly unnecessary. And, moreover, every court that has dealt with an allegation that the special counsel is unconstitutional, illegal, what have you has come down on the side of saying that those arguments are unavailing.

There's a great opinion by the D.C. Circuit right on point. I don't know why she's doing this. And this is just running the clock even further.

SANCHEZ: At least cliff-diving takes less time, right?

(LAUGHTER)

JONES: That's right. That's right.

SANCHEZ: I did want to ask you about something you mentioned, those outside groups.

It's really rare to see this sort of thing, especially in a criminal trial. What do you think is the basis for that decision?

JONES: I think that this is unfortunately an inexperienced judge, but a judge who's not even trying to talk to her colleagues, who I think would dissuade her from turning it into this kind of a circus.

And I just don't know, Boris. I think she's judging, I would say, defensively. She appears to me, biased or not -- and I can't speak to that. Only she knows whether there's an actual bias, and I'm not going to make that allegation. But, at this point, what she's doing is judging in a way that she's trying to avoid a mistake, it seems to me.

And she's overdoing it. When you're the trial judge, you have got to be bold. You have got to be a person who can make a determination and call it as you see it according to the law. She's temporizing. And that's just not a good look.

SANCHEZ: I want to explore what you just said about her trying to avoid a mistake.

In this sort of unprecedented case against the former president, wouldn't you want a judge that is deliberate, that is meticulous, that goes over every detail?

JONES: Well, you can be deliberate and you can go over every detail, and that's what you're supposed to do as a jurist, and not take forever to do it.

Remember, she's got chambers full of really bright law clerks who can help her at every step of the way. You have to be decisive, Boris. I mean, that's what you get paid to do as a judge. The time does not mean that a particular judge is doing all the things that are necessary to be an exemplary jurist.

And, in this case, she seems to be getting lost in minutiae and things that she can wrap up. There are a lot of motions that are out in this case. What I would do is, I would hand them to U.S. magistrate judges, who are there actually to help judges move the freight, so to speak. And she hasn't sent one of them to a magistrate judge, which is really hornbook judging, in the sort of trade of federal judging.

I don't understand why and how she's handling the case the way that she is. And I hate to say that and sort of backseat judge, but it's absolutely apparent to me that she's got this thing screwed up.

SANCHEZ: On the question of her relationship and the way that she's relating to other judges, there's this reporting in "The New York Times" that these judges with more experience than she has approached her and essentially counseled her to let this one slide.

This is obviously a complex case. They sort of argued that she might be better off just handing this off to someone else. You sort of have kind of given me an idea of where you stand on that idea, but I am curious about what you think regarding this story popping up in the press, the fact that this is out there now.

What do you think that means? What does it imply to you?

JONES: Well, I don't know why it leaked and how it leaked.

And it's unfortunate, because it sort of invades the province of interjudge communications and that's unfortunate. But that having been said, my theory, Boris, is that her colleagues, her elder colleagues, saw that she really crashed and burned in the prior case that she had involving former President Trump, where he brought the lawsuit to challenge the search and so forth and she appointed a master.

And I think they have ascertained that, at this point in her career, she's out of her depth. And I think they probably went to her sort of gently and said, look, maybe this isn't the case for you at this point in your judicial career.

That's unprecedented, by the way. I have never seen that happen. I spent almost 20 years in the bench, and I never saw that happen once. I saw judges who received cases ask for advice from other judges as to whether or not they might have a conflict or should stay on a particular case, but never did I see colleagues approach another and suggest that she ought to relinquish the case.

[13:10:15]

So I can't know how that was received exactly, other than the proof is that she's staying with the case at this point. And, unfortunately, those two colleagues were probably right.

SANCHEZ: Judge John E. Jones III, we very much appreciate you sharing your analysis with us. Thanks for joining us.

JONES: Good to be with you, Boris. Thanks.

SANCHEZ: Thanks -- Brianna.

KEILAR: That court battle playing out as former President Trump is suddenly outraising President Biden on the campaign trail for the second month in a row, Trump campaign donations having topped Biden's.

Trump hauled in a staggering $141 million in May. That's according to his campaign. And much of it came right after his criminal conviction in the hush money trial. Biden and the Democratic Party falling well short of that, even though they reportedly raised quite a bit, more than $85 million last month.

We're also learning new details about how the candidates are preparing for their looming debate and some very important logistical details about that first presidential debate as well, which will be next Thursday right here on CNN.

And I'm joined now by CNN's Alayna Treene and Kayla Tausche.

Alayna, I mean, first, this big fund-raising number. It's pretty huge.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN POLITICAL REPORTER: It is.

And, I mean, look, Donald Trump has really all but erased Joe Biden's and his political operation's cash advantage, which is a huge deal. We know that really the Biden campaign -- and you can speak to this, Kayla -- has been able to outspend Donald Trump and fund-raising on battleground strategy.

But now the Trump team really does have the ability to further close the gap. So, you mentioned this, but Donald Trump's campaign says they raised $141 million in May. The Biden camp only raised $85 million. I shouldn't say only. That's a huge number.

KEILAR: It's a lot.

(CROSSTALK)

TREENE: But compared to $141 million, they raised a lot more. And look, much of that money, particularly in the later days of May, came from, I mean, tens of millions came in the aftermath of his guilty verdict in his Manhattan trial.

Now, what I also found interesting, just digging into some of these reports, is that one of Donald Trump's leading super PACs, MAGA Inc., that supports the former president, they raised $65 million last month. They also attributed a lot of that to the guilty verdict.

But the majority of that money, $60 million, I believe, was from three wealthy donors; $50 million was raised by this man Timothy Mellon. He previously had given to RFK Jr., but instead has switched loyalties.

So, all to say, what Donald Trump has been doing over the last several weeks and throughout his trial was fund-raising, very much focusing on having these closed-door fund-raisers where he's courting these wealthy billionaires. And, clearly, it's seeming to pay off.

KEILAR: Does it change the Biden campaign strategy at all?

KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, it might mean that some of these ad buys will need to be smaller. The one across the battlegrounds that they just launched was $50 million.

I mean, they still have a significant amount of cash on hand, $212 million at the end of May. And they did raise $30 million at a fund- raiser that was co-helmed by former President Barack Obama in Los Angeles over the weekend. That will count toward the June number. So, that's not in the May haul that we were just talking about.

But I do think that it's important to note this shift in momentum, because this really started when Donald Trump's criminal trial began. It was April that was the first month that the Trump campaign and his associated entities began outraising Biden.

That went up even further in may, and it could go up even further in June. Alayna was talking about that dinner that Trump held with some financiers the night of his conviction. I'm told by an attendee that it raised $40 million. There were only two dozen people there.

And so Trump really has this ability to mobilize not only high-dollar donors, but a very small number of them, to give very large amounts, whereas President Biden and his campaign strategy has been to hold these very large-format ticketed events where they raise less per attendee, and it costs more to put them on.

So, it's a decidedly different strategy, but the Biden campaign would argue that $212 million is more than enough for what they need to do now, especially considering that this election is going to be decided by just a few hundred thousand voters across a few states.

Do you risk oversaturating them if you have too many ads on the airways, too much mail stuffed in their mailbox? Certainly, there are a lot of strategies to reach those voters, but I think that there is a hope that the debate will help shape some of the thinking of donors going forward.

KEILAR: Yes, we will see if enough is enough, or if maybe more is more, right? We will see what happens here.

OK, I mentioned logistical details and prep details for the debate, Kayla, and I know that we have some new reporting on Biden, who is helping him prepare, but also this thing about what happens with the microphone when you're not supposed to be talking. And I wonder what Biden thinks about that.

[13:15:07]

TAUSCHE: Well, first, on the people who are helping him prepare, I mean, he is a creature of habit. He has a close-knit group of advisers that's really been around him for a number of decades. And he believes that they have served him well. They helped him win in 2020, and he's going to go back to the well.

And on that front, Bob Bauer, who I know has been on CNN several times in the last few days promoting his book, is expected to be reprising the role of Donald Trump in the mock debates that they're holding at Camp David. I just saw him in the hall. He would not engage on whether he is actually doing that, how he is preparing, when he's going to Camp David.

But we know from our sources that that is the expectation of the Biden camp, that they will lean on him once again to play that role. As for the microphones, I think there's generally an agreement that the first debate between Trump and Biden in the 2020 cycle was quite chaotic. It was quite disorganized. It devolved into a shouting match. It didn't serve the voters.

And so I think there is a little bit of a collective exhale that there will be an opportunity for each candidate to speak. And the Biden camp certainly believes that having the mics muted, especially for Trump, who is prone to speaking over the other people on the stage, will serve them well in particular.

KEILAR: All right, you guys, thank you so much. Obviously, we're looking forward to this debate.

And be sure to join CNN for it, as President Biden and former President Trump will be meeting for the first time in this cycle on stage, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash moderating the CNN presidential debate next Thursday live from Atlanta beginning at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.

And still ahead: The Supreme Court is upholding a federal ban -- a federal law that bans domestic abusers from owning a firearm. This major Second Amendment ruling was nearly unanimous.

And we're going to speak with a domestic abuse and shooting survivor who gave testimony for the brief filed in the case.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:21:20]

KEILAR: A major ruling on Second Amendment rights from the Supreme Court today.

The justices, in an 8-1 decision, upheld a federal law that bans domestic abusers from owning guns.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in part -- quote -- "Our tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others," adding: "Some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases and that the reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding."

Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. He wrote: "The court and government do not point to a single historic law revoking a citizen's Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence."

And he goes on to say: "Yet, in the interest of ensuring the government can regulate one subset of society, today's decision puts at risk the Second Amendment rights of many more."

Joining me now is Kate Ranta. She is a domestic violence and shooting survivor. She's also a gun reform advocate who gave testimony for the brief supporting gun restrictions in this case.

Kate, thanks so much for being with us.

For you as a survivor of gun violence at the hands of a domestic abuser, your ex-husband, what is your reaction to the ruling?

KATE RANTA, SHOOTING AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVOR: I mean, it's -- we're celebrating in a sense. I mean, the court did the right thing. They did their job.

The fact that this had even gotten to the Supreme Court in the first place was extremely concerning. And given the rulings, the recent rulings by the Supreme Court, I, as a survivor, was not convinced that they would do the right thing. So, today, we were definitely relieved.

KEILAR: A lot of partners who are killed by their partner, their abusive partner, especially when you look at statistics with women, it is gun violence that takes their lives. It is a perpetrator using a gun.

So when you look at the protections that this enshrines, how do you see this protecting people?

RANTA: Well, I mean, we wouldn't want to make it easier for abusers to get guns across the nation, right?

Unfortunately, it's a difficult situation. I'm just glad that we're not -- it's not easier for abusers to get their hands on guns. State to state, it varies. In my case, when I went and got a temporary restraining order, I was living in Florida, and police were allowed to go in and confiscate the guns.

He had many, many guns in our home at that point. But in the next breath, they said that, unfortunately, there was no law prohibiting him from getting legally another gun, which is exactly what he did.

So, this is a small -- it's a small step forward, and it does protect women and children, but we still have a long way to go.

KEILAR: Yes.

I mean, in your story, from what I have read about it, I don't think you necessarily understood at the time -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- but, at the time before your ex-husband shot you and shot your dad in front of, by the way, your then-4-year-old, if you quite knew what a risk he was going to be.

[13:25:17] So I wonder, for you, what is your message to other women and to men who find themselves in abusive situations and may also be looking at this ruling?

RANTA: I mean, right.

I actually found myself in greater danger when I left. I would never purport to say, stay in the situation. You need to get out, and you need to get out safely, and you need to have a safety plan.But I think that we can have some relief in knowing that, across the nation, it's not going to make it easier for abusive, primarily men to get their hands on guns.

In my case, the gun was the weapon of choice. He didn't try to stab me. He didn't try to run me over with a car. And he went for a gun. And that's the easiest and most deadly way to erase your partner from this world. And that's what happened.

KEILAR: Do you think -- you talk about the need for a safety plan, which is something that advocates emphasize so much.

Do you think this ruling helps with that? Do you think that we could see more protective orders or restraining orders as part of a safety plan, or, in your experience, is that not the case?

RANTA: I don't -- this ruling, I mean, wouldn't go far enough, I don't think, as far as safety planning and, overall, protecting women and children more.

I believe that -- I strongly believe that we need much, much harsher consequences for abusers right from the start. I mean, growing up, for me, it was a guy's abusive if he hits you. But, in my case, I wasn't physically abused until he attacked and ambushed with a gun.

We don't go far enough in our laws in order to protect women and children that are in this situation. And even if you're not getting hit, there needs to be much stronger laws, like, even around coercive control and emotional abuse.

KEILAR: Kate...

(CROSSTALK)

RANTA: ... doesn't ago far enough.

KEILAR: Yes, I mean, you will hear that from many victims in similar situations who have dealt with things in the category that you have.

Kate Ranta, thank you so much for speaking with us and also for the advocacy work you do. We appreciate it.

RANTA: Thank you so much for having me.

KEILAR: I do want to read a statement that we just got in from the executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. It says -- quote -- "The Supreme Court's narrow opinion offers no endorsement of red flag laws or of the dozens of other unconstitutional laws that the NRA is challenging across the country that burden the right of peaceable Americans to keep and bear arms. This decision holds only that an individual who poses a clear threat of violence may be temporarily disarmed after a judicial finding of dangerousness," so, emphasis there on the judicial finding of dangerousness.

Still to come: Former Trump strategist Steve Bannon throwing a Hail Mary to pause his prison sentence, but will it work?

And a first-of-its-kind crackdown. New York Governor Kathy Hochul signs a bill into law that aims to protect children and teens from what she calls addictive social media feeds.

We will take a closer look at that ahead on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)