Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Delivers Economic Speech in New York; Georgia School Shooting Investigation; Hearing in Trump Election Subversion Case. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired September 05, 2024 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:22]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A high-profile hearing, the first for Donald Trump's federal election subversion case since the Supreme Court weighed in on presidential immunity, some tense moments in the courtroom as the judge and lawyers argued over how the case should move forward. We have all the details.

Plus: another community reeling, four people killed after a 14-year- old student opens fire on classmates. How the suspect got the weapon into school and why officials warned about him before the shooting.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And steeling themselves for a fight, U.S. Steel warning it can't survive unless a Japanese company's plan to purchase it goes through. But President Biden appears ready to kill the deal, thousands of jobs on the line. We're going to speak to the union's president about what should happen.

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

SANCHEZ: Former President Donald Trump just wrapped up his economic speech to business leaders in New York, where he touted the strength of the U.S. economy under his first term. And he vowed that, if reelected, he would impose sweeping tariffs on imports.

Also wrapping up earlier today, a critical hearing in Trump's federal elections subversion case here in Washington, D.C. Special counsel prosecutors and Trump's attorneys argued in front of Judge Tanya Chutkan about how the case should move forward following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on presidential immunity.

We will get you more on that hearing in a moment, but let's begin with CNN national correspondent Kristen Holmes covering former President Trump's economic speech in New York today.

Kristen, what more did we hear from the former president this morning?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris, just forgive me. I'm going to be talking a little bit softer here. We're in a smaller room. Donald Trump is still speaking.

He was outlining his economic proposals. Of course, in true Trump fashion, he spent the majority of the first part of the speech bashing Kamala Harris, her economic policies under the Harris administration -- excuse me -- the Biden administration.

Obviously, she is the vice president there. But then he laid down a six-point policy of how he envisions the economy if he was to be reelected. Among the things he talked about was tackling government regulation. At one point, he said, for every new regulation, they would cut two old regulations.

Then he said he would cut 10 old regulations for every one regulation, which he said would save money. The other thing he talked about was something we had previously reported was going to come up, which was creating this government efficiency commission proposed first by Elon Musk.

Take a listen to what he said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (R) AND CURRENT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I will create a government efficiency commission task with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms.

We need to do it. Can't go on the way we are now.

(CHEERING)

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: And Elon, because he's not very busy, has agreed to head that task force.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Again, as we said, this is something that Musk had proposed to Donald Trump, the goal there being -- this is according to senior advisers -- to eliminate waste and fraud.

Some of the other things he talked about was a national emergency declaration that he would impose immediately going -- if he was elected to increase the energy supply domestically. Again, one of the things you mentioned, Boris, was adding sweeping tariffs on imports.

Now, it is important to note that some economists have said this would actually hurt the economy, cause more inflation. Donald Trump addressed that directly, saying -- quote -- "smart tariffs" were something that would combat inflation, not encourage more inflation.

Obviously, we'd have to wait and see how that would play out and talk to more economists about that. The other part that was interesting here, he wanted to make the Trump tax cuts permanent, essentially saying he wanted to do even more tax cuts and then going back to what we have heard him say before about no taxes on Social Security, as well as on taxes on tips, two policies that they believe are very popular among voters.

Just one quick note, Boris, this is all because Donald Trump's campaign believes its core issue in this election is the economy. We have seen that obviously in polling among voters, and they do believe at the end of the day that Donald Trump can pull ahead of Kamala Harris when it comes to the economy.

They want him stressing this every opportunity that they get. That's why you see him here today laying out these kind of policy proposals.

SANCHEZ: Interesting to contrast his proposals with the vice president, who is also laying out her economic vision for the country.

[13:05:05]

Kristen Holmes, live for us in New York, thank you so much for the update.

Let's take you now outside the federal courthouse here in Washington with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

Paula, obviously, a big day in court. The Supreme Court kind of hitting the reset button this federal election subversion case with their immunity ruling. What got sorted out today?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, not many things were resolved in court today, but this was the first hearing since that historic Supreme Court decision really limiting what prosecutors can charge former President Trump with and what evidence they can use.

And, Boris, I was a little surprised by just how contentious this hearing was at times, especially the exchanges between Judge Tanya Chutkan and lawyers for former President Trump, the judge outright rejecting a suggestion by Trump lawyers that she should just toss the indictment entirely against their client.

She made it clear that is not going to happen. She also made it clear that she is not taking into consideration the date of the election as she moves forward with this case. Now, she's been pretty consistent about, that she does not take politics into consideration as she decides how this criminal case will proceed.

But the one thing that everyone seemed to agree on is that they have to first resolve these outstanding questions about immunity. The judge needs to look at the Supreme Court case, look at this revised indictment that was filed last week, and make decisions about how the Supreme Court's decision could impact this case.

That has to happen before they can move on and litigate many other issues that they are going to challenge. For example, the defense attorneys will likely try to challenge the legitimacy of the special counsel, the judge signaling that is not likely to succeed in her courtroom, also questions about obstruction of justice and January 6 and discovery issues. So there's a lot to do in this case. And now we are watching and

waiting for the judge to release her schedule that will lay out exactly how she is going to tackle these issues. But the one thing she is not ready to do is set a trial date for, Boris. Today, she said there's just too much to do before she can even contemplate that.

But sources close to the case say, look, if this even goes to trial, it wouldn't happen until likely next fall at the earliest.

SANCHEZ: Paula Reid live outside the federal courthouse in D.C., thank you so much.

KEILAR: All right, let's talk more about this now with former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams and former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore.

OK, Elliot, who prevailed more today? What do you think?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: We will see.

And a lot of that is going to depend on this first wave of decisions or rulings that comes from the judge in terms of the timeline. Now, certainly, she's not going to set a schedule. This is as Paula had noted.

But how are they going to decide some of these questions about immunity and which evidence is going to be in and out? How and the process for which she sets up there is really going to decide who the big winner is today.

But, look, this isn't going anywhere anytime soon. There's a lot of big decisions that need to be made.

SANCHEZ: Tim, what's your take on who had the advantage today in arguments in court?

TIM PARLATORE, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I agree with Elliot.

It's one of those things where they made the arguments, the judge didn't decide. And, ultimately, the thing that's kind of the most immediate concern is what is the next briefing schedule going to be? And both sides have argued over essentially who's going to file their brief first on the immunity issue.

Traditionally, it is something where the defense will file a motion first. The government then responds. The defense gets a reply. Here, special counsel's office has suggested kind of reversing the order, letting them go first and having the defense reply and then giving special counsel the last word.

And I think that the subtext that they were trying to get into there is, if you do it that way, right now, this close to the election, you're essentially dictating which side gets to put their argument, not only before the court, but also before the public in what order before the election. So, yes, ultimately we will see what the judge decides on that. KEILAR: Tim, do you think the judge seems inclined to accept the

indictment as it is? Or do you think that the special counsel is going to have to do some significant tinkering with it?

PARLATORE: Well, she's definitely not going to accept it just simply as is without proper briefing and potentially hearings.

That, I think she made very clear that this is something the Supreme Court wants her to go through a detailed analysis before she even gets to that point. And I do think that they have cut it down significantly. There's a lot of things that were immune under the Supreme Court case law that have been taken out.

But there may still be a few things that she decides to cut out a little bit further. So I do think that there's going to be just a little bit more shaving to go on here.

SANCHEZ: Elliot, on how this is weighed, it seems like the special counsel says, we can do this through legal briefings. The Trump team is like, no, let's have hearings. Let's discuss this further.

Obviously, one would put the case back even further than it is now, as Paula pointed out, potentially into next fall.

[13:10:05]

WILLIAMS: Right.

SANCHEZ: Is there going to be a mix? How do you foresee that playing forward?

WILLIAMS: You know, it's -- I think the judge has acknowledged that we're not seeing a trial anytime soon. That's why she's very clear about not setting a trial date because of the number of issues.

Now, the prosecutors have been clear that they can -- that they ought to be able to just lay out, this is the evidence that we think ought to support the indictment that we have supported here. Let's put that on paper and then after that we can debate what's immune and what isn't.

The defense wants to drag things out a little bit more by sort of having a series, in effect, of mini-hearings or mini-disputes. Again, that's all the things that the judge has to sort out in the next -- we might even see something today.

I don't want to get -- people to get too excited, but just at least in terms of a preliminary outlining of what the next timeline is going to be.

KEILAR: What did you think, Elliot, about how she said this court is not concerned with the timing of the election and how realistic that is when you can't ignore, at least politically, that there is an election?

WILLIAMS: Yes. It's like getting the band back together, Brianna, because you and I and Boris, we talked about this a lot in the spring and fall, right?

And I have long taken the view that we have a political calendar, but also the legal system doesn't need to bend the need of that. But, of course, we don't live in fantasy lawyer land. We live in a world where there are elections and people care about what happens in these legal cases. And so she's right.

Well, anybody -- pardon me. Anybody who believes or says that we ought to think about elections is right. It's true. It's reality, but the judge has a job to do and her job is to make decisions that adhere to the rule of law and not what's best for voters on November 5.

SANCHEZ: Tim, it seems like one of the angles of attack for the Trump team on this is going to mimic what we saw play out in Florida in the classified documents case.

One of the arguments is going to be that special counsel Jack Smith was unduly appointed, that his appointment itself is illegal. How successful do you think that argument is going to be before Judge Chutkan?

PARLATORE: Oh, it's not going to be successful at all in front of her.

The D.C. Circuit case law on this is very unfavorable to the president's position, but the reason he was successful in Florida is in part because that D.C. case law wasn't binding on Florida. And so I think that, for that argument to ultimately succeed, it's not going to succeed in front of Judge Chutkan. It's not going to succeed at the D.C. Circuit.

It may succeed in the Florida case on appeal up to the circuit and then ultimately to the Supreme Court to where, if they prevail there, then that decision can essentially be dropped back down to Chutkan.

But as far as succeeding in this courtroom, not a chance.

KEILAR: Tim, just turning to a different high-profile case here, which is Hunter Biden's felony tax evasion case in California, supposed to start today with jury selection.

And then moments before that started, his lawyers offered to change his plea to avoid trial. What did you think of what Biden's lawyers were asking here and why are they asking this, Tim?

PARLATORE: It's a very unconventional ask what they're looking for here. It's something called an Alford plea, where essentially he wants to plead guilty to the indictment while at the same time maintaining his innocence, essentially saying that he's unable to contest them at trial, but he still wants to be able to publicly say that he's innocent.

It's something that it's very uncommon for these types of pleas to happen. Usually, when they do happen, it is something that's negotiated with the prosecutors, where you get at least some form of a reduction in your sentence. But to do an Alford plea to the indictment without any agreement

whatsoever from the government, I think it actually is something that can backfire for him significantly, because, while he avoids the trial, he essentially then goes straight into sentencing, where he will be sentenced on the full freight as if he was found guilty of everything at trial, but with no credit for acceptance of responsibility or any other bargain for benefit.

So it is very unusual and not something I was expecting at all.

SANCHEZ: Elliot, what do you think of this move?

WILLIAMS: I agree fully with Tim here. Number one, it is very much in Hunter Biden's interest to try to plead guilty to get out of going to trial. The evidence is damning against him and if he's convicted of everything, he's going -- he faces a significant amount of time in prison.

Now, to Tim's point, were he to strike a deal with the government, he could agree to plead to some charges, but not all. And so I'm really curious to see what the prosecution agrees to do here. They don't have to. And, frankly, they can use this to almost turn the screws on him a little bit and get an even tougher plea deal than they would have had they agreed to one several weeks ago.

But, again, criminal defendants across the United States, it is always, sadly, in many ways in their interest to plead guilty because of the penalties and effect that you get if you do go to trial and cost the government all the resources of trying it.

[13:15:06]

Notably, he had a plea deal in place.

WILLIAMS: Oh, yes.

SANCHEZ: And that one fell apart, so even more resources to these cases.

WILLIAMS: All the more resources.

SANCHEZ: Elliot Williams, Tim Parlatore, thank you so much for the conversation. Appreciate it.

WILLIAMS: Thanks.

SANCHEZ: Next to Georgia and the scene of the latest school shooting, the deadliest thus far this year.

KEILAR: Today, how the alleged gunman's past may offer more questions than answers, as we learn the 14-year-old was questioned just last year about a school shooting threat.

We are live from Winder, Georgia, right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [13:20:00]

SANCHEZ: A community in Georgia is grieving.

And we're learning new details today after four people were killed at Apalachee High School in Winder, the victims, two teachers and two students. Nine others were injured.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL GORDON, STUDENT: I lived in Winder all my life. I'm 15. I have been here, like, a long time. I just never thought -- that's why my parents came here to such a peaceful town, and just nothing ever happened. I didn't think it would be here.

ERIN CLARK, PARENT: I'm just still in shock, and I just prayed that he would be OK.

LYELA SAYARATH, STUDENT: It's a real -- like, this doesn't really feel real, like, all of it that happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Law enforcement officials say the 14-year-old suspect is being held at a youth detention center and his first court appearance is set for tomorrow.

Now, as this investigation unfolds, we're learning that officials in a different Georgia county actually questioned that suspect a year ago about online threats to commit a school shooting. His family then moved to Winder, where the shooting happened.

CNN's Nick Valencia is live for us outside Apalachee High School.

Nick, what do you know about the incident last year and whether school officials there knew about it?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Boris, that incident being brought back into focus because of what was released in a joint statement from the FBI Atlanta office and local law enforcement, saying that, in 2023, this suspect, when he was then 13 years old, was questioned by local law enforcement officials because of anonymous tips that he was allegedly posting threatening messages on social media.

He denied making those posts and it was determined at that time, according to the FBI and local law enforcement, that there was no probable cause to take him into custody. But it was also determined that there were hunting rifles that his father owned in the house. Despite that, the father said that he did not have unsupervised access to it, but it's unclear whether or not this incident at all was reported to Apalachee High School or the Barrow County School District.

Look, for all the question marks this morning about what happened and if there was any red flags or if there was anything more that could have been done to prevent yesterday, it was clear that the school did a lot right. There was automatic locking doors and a new security alert system, which was consequential, according to police, in having them respond as quickly as they did -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: And, Nick, give us an update on these victims. We're learning that two of them were students and there were two math teachers as well.

VALENCIA: It's a really heavy atmosphere here outside of the school, Boris.

And a lot of the focus, of course, is on the victims, those that were killed, those that suffered injuries, and those that suffered emotional scars. Behind me, you see the flags at half-staff, and there's a growing vigil here on campus.

Those four victims have been identified. Two of them were students here, both 14 years old, one of them identified as Mason Schermerhorn, the other as classmates Christian Angulo, and those two adults, both math teachers, one of them, Richard Aspinwall, 39. He was also the defensive coordinator here for the Wildcats football team. They had a football game scheduled for Friday that has since been postponed.

And the other adult who's been identified, 53-year-old Christina Irimie, and, of course, those nine victims. Yesterday, I

reported that one of those victims, an adult, was shot in the stomach and was in surgery yesterday. We still have not been given an update on their condition.

And, of course, the emotional scars, a lot of tears in the eyes of those that we see show up here today, just sort of processing everything that they went through and coming to grips that something that happens so common now in this country happened here in Winder yesterday -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Yes, our thoughts are with the loved ones of those impacted by this. Nick Valencia, thank you so much -- Brianna.

KEILAR: Joining us now is former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Peter Licata.

Peter, the initial hearing for the shooting suspect is scheduled for tomorrow morning. What are we going to learn from it? And I wonder, are we going to see him? He is, after all, a minor. He's being held in a juvenile facility. He is, though, being charged as an adult.

PETER LICATA, FORMER FBI SUPERVISORY SPECIAL AGENT: Correct.

So, usually, your initial appearance, it's -- they're quick. You're not going to hear a lot. It'll -- a plea will be made and he will -- whether or not there's a bail hearing or not or he will be remanded. Again, Georgia law does allow for this individual, I believe it's 13 years or older, if you're convicted or accused of they call it the seven deadly sins -- I think it's up to nine now in their law and statute -- that a juvenile, in this case above the age of 13, can be a convict or charged as an adult, which is a severe penalty for this type of act.

KEILAR: So we learned that local law enforcement in a neighboring county, Jackson County, visited the boy and his father last year after the FBI had received a tip about an online threat and passed it on.

And the father told Jackson County officers that his son did not have unsupervised access to his hunting rifles. And the son, officials say, denied that he made a threat.

[13:25:02]

Did law enforcement have more options after that?

LICATA: It's -- Brianna, it's really hard, right?

So, the way it looks like, the initial tip came into the FBI's national threat operations center in Clarksburg, Virginia. It's where all the threats for anything come into. They pass it down to the -- they assess it, and then you turn it to the respective FBI field office. In this case, it was Atlanta.

Interestingly enough, within the Atlanta FBI field office, you have the Georgia fusion center, a fusion center, which is actually called the Georgia Information Sharing Analytical Center. Every state has these fusion centers, which is a series of law enforcement agencies.

It's a joint task force, if you will, that share information, intelligence, and analysis. It's assessed again on the imminence of the threat, how dangerous it is. Is it routine? And in many cases, just like what happened, as you noted, this is deferred to a local law enforcement agency, in this case, the Jackson County Sheriff's Office.

It seems to me, at least on the outset, they have done their due diligence. They did a direct subject interview in the presence of the father, even though the individual is 13. They did it. They didn't have to, but they did. They were able to find his Discord or his online account, which talked about shooting up a school.

Apparently, Gray denied making that, actually joked that he would never -- he wouldn't even do that in a joking manner, because these tips were allegedly anonymous. And they even found out that his screen name was something, I believe, in a foreign language, like a Russian or Slavic language, that it's code for Lanza, which is a reference to Adam Lanza.

So there were a lot of bread crumbs there that would allow -- that law enforcement did dig into. And it's just a matter of, was there enough probable cause for his arrest, which apparently there wasn't, but also was there reasonable belief, different than reasonable doubt in a court of law, but for an investigation, reasonable belief that this should be followed on more?

For whatever reason, without looking at the investigative reports or summaries, the accounting of these interviews, it's hard to say that they were able to determine it. In retrospect, it seems like this interview and slash probably admonishment was enough for Gray to delete his Discord account, and then the family moved, right?

So they go to a different location. And apparently also there was more due diligence with Georgia Child Services. So there's a lot of bread crumbs there to follow on how Gray finally got to this state and why it wasn't even looked to further. But on the outset, this happens all the time, unfortunately.

KEILAR: That's the fear too. Let's talk about that move, because that encounter with law enforcement was in Jackson County, which is next door to Barrow County, where the shooting took place.

And our John Miller reports that Jackson County authorities, they informed their local school district about this visit. So the school that he was in there knew about it. The family then moved to Barrow County. What obligation did the Jackson County district have to inform Barrow County schools about the prior threat?

LICATA: There would be an obligation if they actually knew that the family had moved, right?

So there was no active investigation the individual or the family, for that matter. So they're not being monitored 24/7. So if there's not an active investigation, law enforcement doesn't know that the individual moved. It's not like the family -- to kind of compare it, they're not sex offenders where you have to register every time you move, right? You have to register yourself with the county or the local jurisdiction.

In this case, he was investigated for a threat being made, a severe and heinous threat. It was cleared, the investigation was done. Now, I believe -- I would assess that if the Jackson County knew that the Gray family moved to a different jurisdiction, they would have done their due diligence to notify them.

But that was also an hour -- a year ago. They kind of closed the matter. They closed this lead. It's called a guardian lead that came in from FBI, determined there was no impact based on the interview, the admonishment and the individual deleting their account.

So, unfortunately, in a horrible way, this individual and the family kind of got lost in the system. And if law enforcement's not looking into you in a full-time basis as an active investigation, then there's no way to determine where you travel from one town to another, one jurisdiction or one state.

KEILAR: Yes, you can see how it just slips through the cracks.

Peter Licata, thank you so much for your insights. We appreciate it.

Next, we're following disturbing details about that super yacht that sank off the coast of Italy. Newly released autopsies suggest that some victims were trapped alive inside the ship after it went down.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)