Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Special Counsel Ending Election Subversion Case And Classified Docs Case Against Trump; Trump Lawyers Investigate Allegations Top Aide Sought Financial Gain From Influence With President-Elect; Hearing Underway For Menendez Brothers; Just Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired November 25, 2024 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:50]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And we continue to follow our major breaking news. Special Counsel Jack Smith saying that he is ending the two federal cases against President Elect Donald Trump, Trump's election subversion case and his classified documents case.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: CNN's Paula Reid and Evan Perez are both with us now. Paula, what are you learning?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So I've learned that the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, he is asked to dismiss both of his federal cases against President Elect Trump. So this morning, the first word that we got was that he was moving to dismiss the election subversion case here in Washington, D.C. but then we're waiting to see what he was going to do with the classified documents case.

It's a little bit different because of course, Trump has two co- defendants. That case is also currently on appeal after the Trump appointed Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed it. She sided with defense attorneys saying that the Special Counsel had been improperly appointed, something that really shocked most legal experts.

So what Smith said is that he is going to dismiss that case as it pertains to Trump, but he will let it proceed as it pertains to those two co-defendants. So they will continue to appeal that case. And it's going to be really interesting to see how the Trump team handles the fact that you have these two sort of Trump allies who are currently on trial still on that case.

Because if they want to continue with that litigation, they could try to shore up potentially the appointments of special counsels if they want to use them. But if they dismiss the case or they pardon those two co-defendants could be problematic because you will have that precedent hanging out there from Judge Aileen Cannon. So it sounds like a law exam question, which it is. But that's going to be one of the first things --

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It is going to be --

REID: it'll be, I'm so sorry to all the law students. I've been there. It stinks. We've made it even more worse for these hypotheticals. But this is going to be a real question for the incoming attorney general.

KEILAR: It could be an interesting challenge for these law students, right? Evan, what are you learning here?

PEREZ: Well, you know, one of the interesting things that we were watching behind the scenes was whether the Justice Department, whether Jack Smith would go to the Office of Legal Counsel, which is, you know, the law firm essentially within the Justice Department that tells the government what is and isn't constitutional.

And what we see here from the filing is that they did consult the OLC. They didn't get a new opinion, but there is apparently, you know, what they did is they read, they talked to the Office of Legal Counsel, and they determined that because Donald Trump is now President Elect that he is -- that he enjoys all of the privileges of a sitting president, which means that they can't be prosecuted.

And in the case of the Justice Department, they're saying they can't even, you know, pursue a case that's already in existence. And it's telling also that if you look at the filings, you'll see Jack Smith points out that this doesn't -- this isn't a reflection on the strength of these cases against Donald Trump, right?

Remember, the thing that -- that should hang over all of this is that Donald Trump, according to the special counsel, according to the Justice Department, resorted to crimes after he lost the 2020 election. And then, of course, in the case of the classified documents case, he left the White House and took hundreds of documents that were classified that he didn't have a right to anymore. And those are the reasons for those two separate cases. Those things will live, I guess, in infamy for, you know, for the sake of history. But these cases will not.

SANCHEZ: Yeah. A historic moment, though, as you pointed out. Not surprising. Paula Reid, Evan Perez, thank you both so much.

Let's bring in Retired New York State Supreme Court Judge Diane Kiesel. Judge, thank you so much for being with us. What's your reaction to Jack Smith dropping these cases against Donald Trump? Did he have a choice here?

JUDGE DIANE KIESEL, RETIRED NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT: I really don't think he did. Obviously, based on longstanding Justice Department policy, the Department of Justice was never going to be able to continue these cases against Donald Trump once he became elected president. And the president is already on record saying he would fire Jack Smith within, what, two minutes of his swearing in. So what would happen is the case would get handed over to a new prosecutor who can -- would be taking marching orders from a Trump appointee, or at least someone who does not have the same zeal for this case that Jack Smith would have had.

[14:05:15]

The more interesting question, though, is what's going to happen if the new Justice Department does decide to continue with that appeal of Judge Cannon's decision? Because as Paula Reid so aptly points out, you know, they may someday want to use the Special Counsel provision in their favor. By them, I mean the Trump administration.

But also think about the result if this case goes forward. That means a valet and the chief janitor down at Mar-a-Lago end up what, bearing the burden for what the president of the United -- former President of the United States at this point allegedly did. It's all rather strange.

KEILAR: So talk to us a little bit about whether if, you know, when Trump eventually leaves office, if the government can reopen the case. But also, as you mentioned, if the Trump administration challenges that Aileen Cannon decision on the Special Counsel, you know, what that could mean for once he does leave office, if the government would consider reopening this?

KIESEL: Look, I don't know what the government might do, but we're talking about five years down the road. And I seriously doubt that the government would spend the time and the money to reopen this old case at that point. But I do think that while the Judge Cannon decision is an outlier and other courts have indicated that the Special Counsel Appointment process is legal and valid, it does hang out there as a possible barrier to, again, this upcoming Trump administration or any future one from bringing cases similar to this one.

You know, again, it just though politically and pragmatically, it calls into mind, does it not? the 2016 situation where Donald Trump is caught on a hot mic saying something very terrible about what he could do to women, he gets elected president. But, you know, the interviewer, was it Billy Bush? What happened to his career? You know, and now you've got these two underlings who could conceivably go to trial and or be convicted and be sentenced to prison.

For final say about that, though, Donald Trump appoints the United States attorneys in all of the federal districts. Is he really going to want to go forward with a case against those two men when all of the evidence that would come in, or much of the evidence would point to Trump -- Trump's alleged behavior? I don't think so. I suspect all these cases are going away. But that's just my prediction, for what it's worth.

SANCHEZ: Judge Diane Kiesel, we appreciate you sharing your analysis and perspective with us. Thanks for joining us.

KIESEL: Thank you. Bye bye. Happy Thanksgiving.

SANCHEZ: Thanks and bye (ph).

We are following more breaking news involving the President Elect. Sources tell CNN that Trump's lawyers are investigating allegations that a top aide sought to gain financially from his influence with the President Elect.

KEILAR: We have CNN's Sara Murray on this. Sara, tell us what you're learning? SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we're learning that lawyers for Trump have been investigating whether Boris Epshteyn sought to gain financially from his access to Donald Trump and others in Trump's orbit.

Now, this is something, this internal investigation that was confirmed to me, Kristen Holmes and our colleague Kate Sullivan by half a dozen sources. Again, this is an internal investigation. This is not a criminal investigation.

In one instance, though, the investigators looking into this learned that Boris Epshteyn requested as much as $100,000 per month in exchange for his services in one of these instances. And I want to tell you what Boris Epshteyn said in response to this reporting. He said, I am honored to work for President Trump and his team. These fake claims are false and defamatory and will not distract us from Making America Great Again.

Now, Epshteyn has served as a Senior Adviser to Donald Trump. At times, he served as an Attorney for Donald Trump. He's rubbed plenty of people the wrong way. But this investigation is an indication to how seriously some around Trump took these allegations that Boris Epshteyn was trying to charge people essentially for access to Trump and those in his orbit. Guys.

SANCHEZ: And Sara, Epshteyn has rubbed a lot of people in Trump's orbit the wrong way over the year but he has managed to survive.

[14:10:08]

And notably, as all these top cabinet officials were being named and ambassadors were being named, his name was not among those in consideration, right? What is his status right now?

MURRAY: Well, he hasn't been offered a formal role in the administration. But you know, one of the initial recommendations that came out of this investigation, we have learned from sources familiar with the matter, was there was a recommendation that Epshteyn should be removed from, from Donald Trump's proximity, that he should not be paid by or employed by Trump entities.

And as of at least Monday afternoon, that does not seem to be the case. The Trump transition is saying this was a broad review of consulting contracts around the former President and that everyone is moving together as a team.

And you know, Boris, Epshteyn has been in Donald Trump's orbit for a very long time. He's very used to the kind of knife fighting that goes on around now the President Elect. You know, he's rubbed people the wrong way in part because he talks about his closeness to the President Elect and also because of the access he gets to Donald Trump. And at least right now, that doesn't seem to be changing. Guys.

SANCHEZ: Sara Murray, thank you so much for bringing us that breaking news. Still ahead this hour on CNN News Central, the Menendez brothers are back in court today. We have a live report on their fight for freedom after nearly three decades in prison.

Plus, airport workers at one of America's busy -- as one -- at one of American Airlines busiest hubs are going on strike right as this holiday week is getting underway. The impact this could have on your Thanksgiving Day travel.

KEILAR: And it is a bizarre but beloved tradition. Meet the two lucky turkeys pardoned by President Joe Biden. We have these stories and more all coming up this hour on CNN News Central.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:16:24]

SANCHEZ: Right now, a critical hearing is underway that could kickstart a path to freedom for two of LAs most high profile murderers. Lyle and Erik Menendez are in court today for the first time in almost three decades after they were convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole for killing their parents in their Beverly Hills home back in 1989.

KEILAR: Attorneys for the brothers want the court to consider new evidence that was not presented at their original trials which they say supports their argument that the two men acted in self-defense after suffering years of sexual, physical and emotional abuse by their father.

CNN's Jean Casarez is live for us now with the latest developments on this. Gene, cameras are not allowed in this courtroom, but our CNN producers are there. What are you hearing about what's going on?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, here's the latest that we are hearing because they can't even take their electronics into the courtroom, but they can come out to give us some notes. But the last word we had is that this hearing has not started yet. In fact, the parties are not in the courtroom.

The judge is not there, defense prosecutor is not there. Now traditionally, what that can mean is that they are meeting in the chambers with the judge. However, we have no definitive word that that is happening. But they are not in the courtroom.

And one interesting point to remember is George Gascon is still the District Attorney of Los Angeles. And he really focused and made it his emotional plea before the election to stand out and say that these two brothers, Lyle and Erik Menendez, even though they were sentenced with life without the possibility of parole, that they should be released.

So you have the prosecution led by Gascon that is for their release. You have the defense that is for their release. So there really is not an issue between the parties here. And I think the judge, if in fact he is meeting with them, has to decide is he going to allow the brand new District Attorney to weigh in or will something happen today?

Now, this is just supposed to be a status hearing. It's based on a habeas corpus motion that was filed last year, which habeas corpus means that you are being unlawfully held and detained. And they're saying that this is the case because there are two pieces of new evidence that a jury didn't get to see. And if a jury did get to see them, they very likely would have been found not guilty.

One is a letter that Erik Menendez wrote, according to the defense, months before their parents were murdered, where Erik is writing, writing to his cousin. I am so in fear of my father. I never know when he's going to come in during the night. I want to talk to my mother, but I'm concerned she's going to tell him. And I'm very afraid.

The second piece of what the defense says is new evidence is one of the former members of Menudo because remember, they recorded for RCA and Jose Menendez, the father of Erik and Lyle, was an executive at RCA. And that man is alleging that when he was in his teens that Jose Menendez sexually abused him, which adds credence to what Lyle and Erik were saying at the time of trial. So that's what the habeas is, which is before the judge today in a status hearing.

But we will see when this begins what actually happens and will it be more of a status hearing than what we believed it to be.

KEILAR: All right, Jean, thank you so much. Obviously, we're paying very close attention to this and we appreciate the update from you and all of our colleagues who are in the courtroom.

Let's talk about this now with Casey Jordan, a Criminologist, Behavioral Analyst and Attorney.

[14:20:07]

And I wonder, Casey, just as you are watching this, and we should note the kind of lives that Lyle and Erik have conducted in jail without the expectation, we should say, of release. And here they are, perhaps with the potential for it, do they have a good case to make?

CASEY JORDAN, CRIMINOLOGIST, BEHAVIORAL ANALYST & ATTORNEY: They are pulling out all the stops to get this to the forefront, not only in the court's attention, but in the court of public opinion.

Because as we know, they've got celebrities like Kim Kardashian rooting for them. And to the extent that people are incredulous, the bottom line is that when they got this habeas brief in front of the court, the District Attorney was running for re-election. We now know that he's lost that re-election and he seems to be of their biggest advocates.

He's the one who seems to be willing to resentence them to perhaps a lesser charge, which would mean immediate freedom for them. So there are three routes to freedom. Resentencing is one of them.

But now that they aren't going to have the DA who was in favor of resentencing them, really, we're not sure what's going to happen next. It's all going to depend not only on today's hearing, but one that is rescheduled or one that it's coming up on December 11th when a new DA will be in effect and kind of a new sheriff in town who was elected on his get tough on crime. So we really don't know what's going to happen next.

SANCHEZ: Casey, given what you've seen the brothers do while behind bars, the degrees that they've earned, the programs that they've started for fellow inmates, do you think they've been successfully rehabilitated?

JORDAN: Oh, that's the million dollar question. And let me explain why. If you ask people do they believe that these young men were abused as teenagers by their father? It usually kind of goes extreme or the other.

Yes, we know so much more about it now. It's been 30 years. We know these things happen within families. You know, we have a better understanding and their behavior, you know, there's no predicting what victims of incestuous sexual abuse might do under those circumstances.

The other camp is in the other extreme. I don't care how rehabilitated they look in prison. They're sociopaths, they're psychopaths. They have been proved to lie and lie a lot and confabulate and make up stories. Why didn't they tell anybody that this was going on at the time?

There seems to be almost no middle ground. People either believe that they were abused or think that they are completely psychopathic. Charming. Want to get over on the system manipulating the DA using celebrities to curry favor.

The real question that people in the middle want to ask is if they are indeed sociopathic, even psychopathic, how did they get that way? Could the reason be from abuse, which they really can't prove because there is no physical proof? It's really just circumstantial evidence at this point.

I don't think what they're doing in prison with getting married and leaving good lives is going to make a difference. Because if you believe that they're psychopaths, that is just an act that they're putting on to secure their early release. It just depends on whether you believe the abuse story is real.

KEILAR: Well, now they're saying, Casey, that this letter proves that it was real and that it was something that was written before and discovered later. But you also have this allegation that, you know, I suppose some people look at, and some people look at in a different way, but of this member of Menudo alleging a rape at the hands of their father, which, you know, would paint sort of maybe a pattern of behavior on the part of their father, alleged pattern here.

These are the kinds of things that have some people looking at this prosecution with kind of fresh eyes. And also a few decades later, as people have learned more about sexual abuse and the reaction to it. And I wonder what you think about that? JORDAN: Well, those two key pieces of evidence, which the hearing is about the allegation that Jose Menendez actually sexually abused or even raped a member of Menudo. Remember, he was managing them as a musical act at the time. And the other one is the letter that has surfaced that was written to the cousin, which everyone believes is legit, but which is very vague.

It doesn't really say abuse. It just says, I'm afraid of my father. He's crazy. My mother is a shell of herself. But it does not specifically say, my father is abusing me. I am the victim of sexual abuse.

It's very vague. And I don't know if a jury, and there's no jury involved in here, would ever look at those two pieces of evidence, neither of which are really substantive in terms of proving the abuse would rise to the level of resentencing or even releasing the Menendez brothers.

[14:25:08]

I mean, they are doing everything to get out.

The question is, is it reasonable to believe that they were sexually abused, or is this one of those cases that's a little more political where people kind of shrug and say, well, they've done more than 30 years. Chances are they're never going to do anything like this again and so we should just let them out.

Honestly, if we didn't have that Netflix special with the Menendez brothers series on right now, I don't know that we would have a hearing. But public opinion is very skewed on this, and so we're all going to be watching with bated breath to see how this hearing goes.

SANCHEZ: Casey Jordan, very much appreciate you sharing your expertise with us. Thanks.

JORDAN: Great to be here.

SANCHEZ: Stay with News Central. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)