Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

No Charges Against Trump Manager; Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired April 14, 2016 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:15] BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi there, I'm Brooke Baldwin. And it is just a gorgeous day here in New York. We are live from the Brooklyn Naval - Navy Yard. This is the Williamsburg Bridge just behind us here of this gorgeous set that our CNN crew has put together for us here ahead of the big night tonight, a critical Democratic presidential debate hosted by us here at CNN.

Less than seven hours from now, Bernie Sanders will get his final chance to take on Hillary Clinton face-to-face before the all- important Tuesday New York primary. Senator Sanders was born here in Brooklyn. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton elected here, served eight years as state senator. No question the state is special to both of these candidates.

How will they treat such hallowed ground this evening? Will issues prevail over insults? People are asking this because we will be the first debate since Sanders said Clinton was quote/unquote "unqualified to be president."

Let me pause and I want to take you now to a news conference. We're going to hear from the state attorney's office in Palm Beach County regarding the campaign manager of Donald Trump's campaign, Cory Lewandowski. Let's dip in.

DAVID ARONBERG, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY: Simple batter. Miss Ellis (ph) performed a thorough review of this case and made the legal and factual conclusions that I will be discussing today.

I agree with Miss Ellis' analysis in her close-out memo and as state attorney I've made the decision that this office will not be filing charges against Cory Lewandowski for battery. We have notified the parties involved in this matter and will make Miss Ellis' memorandum available to all of you.

It's important to note that despite several media reports, this matter was never charged by - are we all good? All right. It's important to note that despite several media reports, this matter was never charged by this office. It was charged by the Jupiter Police Department, which found probable cause that Mr. Lewandowski committed a simple battery against Miss Michelle Fields. As is the normal process, the Jupiter Police Department made a decision based on probable cause to issue a notice to appear to Mr. Lewandowski. Afterwards, the Jupiter Police Department sent our office a case file and we conducted an independent review to determine whether we would pursue the charges.

Jupiter Police Chief Frank Kitzerow and the town police department do an outstanding job and they acted well within their authority to investigate and make an independent charging decision. We agree that probable cause exists for the Jupiter Police Department to have charged Mr. Lewandowski in this case.

As prosecutors, however, our standard for filing criminal charges is higher than mere probable cause. We have the burden of proving each case beyond a reasonable doubt. In doing so, a prosecutor must have a good faith basis that the evidence presented will sustain a conviction. While the evidence in this case is legally sufficient for the police to have charged Mr. Lewandowski, it is not strong enough to meet the legal burden of a reasonable likelihood of a conviction. It is unethical for us to file cases when we believe there is not a good faith basis to proceed.

Here are some of the facts as stated in Miss Ellis close-out memorandum. On March 8, 2016, news reporter Michelle Fields was covering a campaign event in the ballroom at the Trump International Golf Club in Jupiter. Presidential candidate Donald Trump had just completed a press conference. Afterwards, he left the podium and was moving towards the ballroom exit. He had a number of Secret Service attempting to maintain space between him and the public. The full video recording shows Secret Service agents clearing the pathway ahead of Mr. Trump. Specifically, it appears that Miss Fields was directed to the back of the room, along with other members of the media.

After initially complying with the directive, Miss Fields returned to the pathway area and walked directly alongside Mr. Trump, attempting to ask questions of him. It appears, based on the freeze frames from the video recording, and an independent photograph taken by a "Washington Post" photographer, that Miss Fields brushed or touched Mr. Trump's arm. He then appears to react to Miss Fields by pulling his arm back and away from her. At which time Mr. Lewandowski reached forward and grabbed Miss Field's arm, pulling her away from Mr. Trump. Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Lewandowski then continued towards the exit at the back of the room.

[14:05:13] After reviewing the video recording, there is no reasonable doubt that Mr. Lewandowski and - Mr. Lewandowski pulled Miss Fields back as she was attempting to interview Mr. Trump. According to an affidavit submitted by a former FBI agent, when tasked with the protection of a political candidate, Secret Service agents will create a protective bubble. This protective bubble is created to prevent unauthorized individuals from getting too close to the person, regardless of whether or not they are members of the press. More importantly, under these circumstances, it is not uncommon for a candidate's inner circle staff members, known to the agents, to assist in clearing a safe pathway.

It should be noted, however, that one agent was positioned directly behind Miss Fields and appeared to show no concern over her actions. Mr. Lewandowski could have called this agent's attention to her movements before taking action himself if he considered her a threat. In addition, soon after the incident, Mr. Lewandowski publicly denied ever touching Miss Fields in any way. Although these factors might undermine Mr. Lewandowski's potential defense, they do not outweigh the reasonable hypothesis of innocence based on the real-time facts and circumstances recorded on the video.

As stated earlier, law enforcement arrests are based upon probable cause. State prosecution, however, relies upon a good faith basis that sufficient evidence exists to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. This includes consideration of any apparent defenses. Although the facts support the allegation that Mr. Lewandowski did grab Miss Fields' arm against her will, Mr. Lewandowski has a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. There is insufficient evidence to rebut these defenses. Therefore, although probable cause exists, the state will no file this case.

Now, available for any questions you may have, for me or Miss Ellis.

QUESTION: State attorney, would you talk about whether or not -- I'm sorry, Glenna Milburg (ph) from (INAUDIBLE).

ARONBERG: Yes, hi, Glenna (ph).

QUESTION: How are you?

ARONBERG: Good, thank you.

QUESTION: Will you talk about whether or not the political atmosphere entered into what your process was, considering this was for simple battery case.

ARONBERG: Yes. Well, as far as our review of the case, it was just like any other case. I do acknowledge that there is international attention to this case, which doesn't exist in just about any other simple battery case. So that's why, you know, we have a press conference like this. But as far as the actual work that was done, the review, the analysis, it's the same as in every case.

Brian, you had a question.

QUESTION: There have been reports that you attempted to facilitate a deal with Mr. Lewandowski to publicly apologize. Is that true?

ARONBERG: The - the apology - in a case like this, obviously it would be encouraged. I mean it's a good thing to have it. We always appreciate when people take responsibility for their actions. But I can tell you that our decision, Miss Ellis's memorandum and our decision in this case had nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of an apology.

QUESTION: Did you - (INAUDIBLE). Did you speak to Mr. Lewandowski? Did your office interview him before you came to this conclusion?

ARONBERG: Well, since Miss Ellis was in charge of the investigation, I will turn that specific question over to her.

MISS ELLIS: No, we did - no, no, we did not speak with Mr. Lewandowski. We spoke with his attorney. QUESTION: With his attorney?

ELLIS: Yes.

QUESTION: Did you have a personal meeting with him or just over the phone or how did you do that?

ELLIS: Yes, we spoke with him in person, as well as over the phone.

QUESTION: Did he try to persuade you not to charge? Did he give any reason for -

ELLIS: Yes, you know -

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).

ELLIS: Well, he came in with what he believed to be the facts of the case. So he wanted to present what he believed to be the facts of the case. And we took that into consideration.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) with NBC News.

QUESTION: Did you - I'm sorry, just one more. Did the Jupiter Police Department, before they charged him initially, because that happened within two days I think of the event? Did they contact your office at all?

ELLIS: No.

QUESTION: Did they seek any advice?

ELLIS: No. No.

QUESTION: No. That was entirely up to then at that point?

ARONBERG: Correct.

QUESTION: But they later got in touch with you? Did you have meetings about how to go about it?

ARONBERG: The Jupiter Police Department sent over the filing packet after the charges were filed. Then when Miss Ellis did our own investigation for the office, among other things, she interviewed the lead detective in the case from the Jupiter Police Department. In fact, that lead detective was here in this office for more than an hour and a half.

[14:10:07] QUESTION: Kerry Sanders (ph) with NBC News.

ARONBERG: Yes, hi, Kerry.

QUESTION: In addition to the photograph, the statements from Miss Fields, and "The Washington Post" reporter and the videotape that had been released, was there any other physical evidence that you looked at, any other videotapes that we haven't seen, any other photograph that we have not seen? ELLIS: No, we looked at - obviously, there was a photograph of a

bruise on her arm that we reviewed. And in terms of anything else that we reviewed, everything else is taken from the actual video surveillance recording -

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).

ELLIS: Still photographs from these - the freeze frame shots.

QUESTION: Does that include anything where the Secret Service is directing her prior to the (INAUDIBLE) actions even -

ELLIS: Absolutely. Yes, sir.

QUESTION: What is that? Explain it to me.

ELLIS: That is - that is captured on the video surveillance recording.

QUESTION: And it shows or it - we can hear what?

ELLIS: You can't necessarily hear because there's - Mr. Trump is leaving, making his way to the exit. So you can't actually hear what's actually being said. You hear noise in the ballroom. But as they are making their way out, what is captured on the video is her, along with other journalists, media, being directed to the back of the ballroom.

QUESTION: And you spoke to that Secret Service agent to confirm that that's what he was telling her to do?

ELLIS: No, we did not.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE), the Associated Press.

ARONBERG: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Can I ask, has anyone spoken to Miss Fields today and whether she supports this decision or would she rather go forward with prosecution?

ARONBERG: We both spoke with Miss Fields today. And I'll let you speak to her about her thoughts, but it was clear to us she was disappointed by this decision.

QUESTION: How so? I mean what kind of message did she convey to you to make you think that?

ARONBERG: I mean she wanted the prosecution to go forward.

QUESTION: What about the apology? There was a story that if she were to get an apology, she would step back and not ask for you to prosecute?

ARONBERG: There was no deal where we're going to drop charges in exchange for an apology. But as I said earlier, in a case like this, we do encourage an apology. We think it's a good idea. And I think that had an apology been given at the beginning of all of this, we could have avoided the whole criminal justice process for this matter.

QUESTION: Has there been an apology since (INAUDIBLE)?

ARONBERG: Well, I know that they were working on one and they showed me a draft of an apology. I don't know -

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE)?

ARONBERG: The attorneys for the defendant.

QUESTION: Can you tell us what it said?

ARONBERG: I would be paraphrasing it, but it was a short apology. And it's up to them to reach out to Miss Fields and send it to her.

QUESTION: When did they show you that?

ARONBERG: When was it?

ELLIS: It's recently.

ARONBERG: Earlier this - yes, earlier this week.

QUESTION: Did you speak to Miss Fields (INAUDIBLE)?

ELLIS: Absolutely.

QUESTION: At some length (INAUDIBLE).

ELLIS: Yes. I spoke with Miss Fields on three occasions.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).

ELLIS: Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: When you saw the photograph of Miss Fields' bruises, did it appear to you that they were from the incident in question?

ELLIS: Well, the initial photos that we received were a couple of days old because it was a delayed reporting, obviously. And when I met with the detective in my office afterwards, I asked him to reach out to see if he could obtain a photograph that would have been taken more closer - closer in time. And she had taken a photograph on her iPhone that same evening and there was really nothing there. So - so it - it was - it was an investigation that I wanted him to do just to make a more thorough and complete investigation. But the photographs that we have from her, from actually the Jupiter Police Department, do show bruising. But, you know, it wasn't anything that was anything remotely close to what we got from her the actual night that it happened.

QUESTION: Her phone did not show any -

ELLIS: Her phone did not show any bruising, no. It wasn't until the photographs that the detectives would have picked up a couple of days later.

QUESTION: But that's just a quality of the photo issue, that's not that there wasn't any injury?

ELLIS: Well, that's - that's - that's - that could be what happens when someone's bruised, you know.

QUESTION: The bruise comes out later.

ELLIS: Exactly.

ARONBERG: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE). Can you talk about that protective bubble that we see in the memo here and kind of what you say that she did, got - kind of getting into that bubble there?

ARONBERG: You know, we have the video, the full video, and I think you may have it, but we have - and I think, Brian (ph), are we going to be showing that after -- afterwards? Yes, we're going to show you the - the video, the full video afterwards and I think you'll be able to see for yourself what we mean by it.

QUESTION: If you can explain what - what you - what your findings were with watching that video?

ARONBERG: Well, the press was directed towards the back. There's this bubble. And she makes her way beyond the press area and gets right next to Mr. Trump and actually makes slight contact with Mr. Trump. And you can see that he sort of recoils and that's when Mr. Lewandowski comes and grabs her arm.

[14:15:07] QUESTION: Mr. State Attorney, would you say because of that, that in your opinion Donald Trump had a legitimate claim for simple battery?

ARONBERG: Well, it's our belief what we saw in the video that any contact was incidental and that is not contemplated under the simple battery statute, which requires an intentional and unwanted touching.

George.

QUESTION: How common is it for your - for a police agency to file a misdemeanor battery charge like this and your office decline to prosecute it?

ARONBERG: It happens. It's not that uncommon. We review misdemeanors that comes in, charges that are filed by police agencies because, you know, we ethically have to make a decision whether we have a good faith basis to prosecute or whether there's reasonable doubt. If we know in advance that reasonable doubt exists and we're not going to be able to get a convection or even beyond a judgment of acquittal by the judge, we can't ethically file those charges.

QUESTION: So I mean is it - what would you guess, 10 percent of the time, half the time, how often is that a police agency file - brings a charge like that and you guys decline to prosecute?

ELLIS: Oh, it's often. I mean, you know, we have a domestic violence unit where we review domestic batteries all the time. And, you know, instead of them actually arresting the person, they will present us with a filing packet, in which case we would have to then review the case. And a lot of those cases are not filed, as in this case.

ARONBERG: And, by the way, when she says often or a lot, it's far from a majority. It's a clear - the clear minority of cases.

ELLIS: Right.

QUESTION: OK. And did you talk to anyone with the Secret Service directly about the protective bubble or about this incident?

ELLIS: No, sir.

ARONBERG: It was an affidavit from an FBI agent, but, no.

QUESTION: And - and your conversations with Miss Fields, were they in person or on the phone or -

ELLIS: They were on the phone.

QUESTION: OK.

QUESTION: I'm curious, in some parts of the country, district attorney (INAUDIBLE) state's attorney is elected. Did you have any outside political influence on your decision here and how are you registered yourself?

ARONBERG: None. And my political affiliate and my political leanings are all very public, but they don't come inside this office. This is an apolitical office. We're all elected with a political party affiliation. But once you get to this office and work as state attorney, you're a state attorney for everyone and you have to run the office in a nonpartisan manner. And as proof, for example, I have three chief assistants who are here today. I've got Ryan Fernandez (ph), who's a registered Republican, Al Johnson (ph), who's a registered Democrat, and Adrian Ellis (ph), whose no party affiliation.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).

ARONBERG: Well, it's public. I am a registered Democrat.

QUESTION: Did you get a phone call from Donald Trump's campaign directing to you - did Donald Trump try to contact you directly?

ARONBERG: Mr. Trump did reach out to this office.

QUESTION: And who did he speak to?

ARONBERG: He spoke to a few of us, the chief assistants and me.

QUESTION: What did he say?

ARONBERG: He said that he gave his version of the facts and his opinion of the case and then urged us to do the right thing. QUESTION: What was his version of the facts?

ARONBERG: Well, I mean you - we were on the call. The version of the facts was that -

ELLIS: That she touched him.

ARONBERG: That she touched him and pretty much that's it. I mean he - she touched him and he did not think that Mr. Lewandowski should be prosecuted for it.

QUESTION: Did he say whether he felt threatened or scared or concerned?

ELLIS: No, he just said that he - he - that - that she - she - she touched him and - and all that is captured on the video surveillance. And you guys are going to see it. So, you know, she - it was quite evident on the -

QUESTION: Did the campaign willingly give up the videotape or did you have to twist arms to get it?

ARONBERG: The Jupiter Police Department had the videotape.

ELLIS: Right.

ARONBERG: So we just got it from Jupiter.

QUESTION: When was the call from Mr. Trump approximately?

ARONBERG: A couple weeks ago.

QUESTION: Did he make any - I suppose threat at all that he was thinking of filing a charge against her?

ARONBERG: I don't remember any - any such threat. I can tell you that the conversation we had, Mr. Trump had no bearing upon our final decision in the case. Just like I said earlier about the existence or nonexistence of an apology letter had no bearing on our decision in this case. What did have the sole bearing of our - on our decision are the facts of this case and the law.

QUESTION: Because this is a state with such open records, were there any notes or stenographer taken during that conversation, if it was on speaker phone or on the phone, so that we can make a request for those notes of what Donald Trump had to say?

ARONBERG: I don't believe there were any notes taken, but if they - if there were, anything subject to sunshine law would be available to all of you.

QUESTION: Was it a conference call and he spoke to all - several people at once or individually?

ARONBERG: Correct.

QUESTION: OK.

ARONBERG: Correct. Conference call.

QUESTION: Can you, as a longtime person in politics here locally, can you describe your relationship with Mr. Trump, how well you know him and what type of events are -

[14:20:00] ARONBERG: Yes, I got a kick out of the whole political angle because at first they were saying that somehow I was doing this on behalf of Hillary Clinton. And then they found out I was a law school house mates, dorm mates with Ted Cruz. He and I actually shared a bathroom the first year of law school. I assure you that had no impact upon our decision. I knew Marco Rubio in the Florida legislature. So - and I have met Mr. Trump on a few occasions. I've been to Mar-a-Logo. The last time I was there, there were 800 others there. So it's not quite a private setting.

So, you know, I do - the fact that I have a relationship with several of the people who are running for president has no bearing upon our decision in this case. Our decision was made solely on the facts, solely on the evidence and solely on the law.

QUESTION: What law school was that where you shared a room or a bathroom, I guess, with -

ARONBERG: It was Harvard Law School and it was Hastings Hall. And I had a reporter call me to question me a couple weeks ago that somehow that was the reason why I did this. And he asked me, when was the last time I spoke to Ted Cruz. And I believe it was my third year of law school, which would have been about 20 years ago.

Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Last questions and then we play the video (INAUDIBLE).

QUESTION: You know, in Miss Ellis' memo, it talks about how sometimes campaign staff can sort of participate in assisting Secret Service as forming part of the bubble. I mean is there - is that written down anywhere? Is that codified anywhere? Is that just sort of an accepted practice within campaigning - in campaigning?

ARONBERG: I believe that came from the sworn statement from the FBI agent whom we quote in the memorandum.

QUESTION: On the politics side, you made it clear that politics was not a factor in your decision but did people try to influence you politically and -

ARONBERG: No, absolutely not.

QUESTION: Miss Ellis, what's your first name, I'm sorry?

ELLIS: Adriane.

QUESTION: Adriane? ELLIS: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: And an "e" at the end?

ELLIS: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you.

And your title, ma'am?

ELLIS: I'm one of the chief assistant state attorneys. Sure.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there interest in the video (INAUDIBLE)? OK. (INAUDIBLE).

BALDWIN: All right, so you've been watching this news conference. Let me just bottom line it for you. That simple battery charge that Donald Trump's campaign manager had been facing stemming from an incident back in March, that charge has been dropped. Listen, this is news because we're talking about the frontrunner on the Republican side who wants to become the next president of the United States and this is his campaign manager, Cory Lewandowski, who's at the center of all of this.

A lot to sort of parse through. With me now, CNN legal analyst Danny Cevallos, CNN politics reporter MJ Lee, and senior media correspondent and host of CNN's "Reliable Sources" Brian Stelter.

But first, let me bring in Cory Lewandowski's attorney Brad Cohen. He joins me now live from Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

So, Brad, thank you so much for coming on. And just out of the gate, you know, talk of it -

BRAD COHEN, ATTORNEY FOR TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Thanks for having me.

BALDWIN: Thank you. Drafts, you know, of the apologies as we just heard in the news conference, you know, would your client say, I'm sorry. Straight up, is your client going to publicly apologize to Michelle Fields?

COHEN: Straight up, I don't know. You know, to be quite honest with you, Michelle Fields is threatening to sue over a defamation case. So we're going to see exactly where this case goes in terms of the civil aspect. The criminal aspect was very interesting because we did meet with the prosecutors. We did present additional evidence that they didn't have. And that additional evidence was the first 15 seconds of that video where Secret Service is very clearly directing Miss Fields to a different area of the ballroom and insisting that she go to that area, which she actually does, but then when an agent turns his back, she then goes back to the area she was just told to leave from. That was just one of the many things that we gave them in order to establish why we felt that Mr. Lewandowski's actions were justifiable.

The other thing that we gave then was an affidavit from Barton Brown (ph). He is an ex-FBI agent that was the special agent, the supervisory special agent in charge of Eric Holder's security team. And he looked at the video, he saw the video, he analyzed the video, and he thought that Mr. Lewandowski's actions were justified as well.

BALDWIN: OK. Because I'm glad you pointed that out, you know, because it was clear from Palm Beach County that you all had provided something, affidavit or otherwise, that proved to be favorable for your client and your case.

COHEN: Sure.

BALDWIN: But back to the apology bit.

COHEN: Sure.

BALDWIN: So just so I'm hearing you clear, and I - and I know you're saying you're not sure. So if Michelle Fields, as there has been talk she might file a defamation suit against your client, depending on the status of that suit, will then predicate whether or not there's a mea culpa?

COHEN: I think so. It's not even a mea culpa. It's really just something - I think he was justifiable in what he did. Miss Fields sees it a different way, obviously. And other individuals that are kind of with Miss Fields see it a different way. You know, our perception is reality. Her perception was that she was almost thrown to the ground. There was a lot of different things that were going on.

[14:25:14] In reality, I don't think that was really what was shown on tape. So would he apologize to having any contact with her? Certainly, you know, he could. I don't - exactly, I don't know what he's going to do, because like I said before, she's threatening civil action. There's other things that are out there. So now we have to kind of step back and take a look at exactly what's going on.

BALDWIN: And just finally, on the threatening to sue with regard to defamation.

COHEN: Sure.

BALDWIN: When is the last time you heard from her side over that potential suit?

COHEN: I really didn't. I just read about it, that she was considering filing a potential civil suit.

BALDWIN: OK.

COHEN: I don't find it to be that good of an idea to file a defamation claim on this kind of case because it opens up a very large door to your past. It opens up a large door to other things that can be going on. I don't feel that it justifies it, but Miss Fields is going to do what Miss Fields wants to do.

BALDWIN: All right, Brad Cohen, thank you so much, criminal defense attorney for Cory Lewandowski.

COHEN: Thanks for having me.

BALDWIN: Thank you.

Let me just bring in the panel.

And, Danny, I've been looking at you out of the corner of my eye sort of nodding along. You know, you wanted to know what the affidavit, what the materials were that obviously Mr. Cohen and his team have provided. He explained it. Interesting, though, that the state's attorney did point out that there was probable cause in Jupiter, but then there office has a different standard, therefore charges dropped.

DANNY CEVALLOS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's interesting to hear them talk about the different levels.

BALDWIN: Yes.

CEVALLOS: I mean, yes, we know probable cause is a certain level of belief that a crime has been committed, but the prosecutor said that they have an ethical obligation to go more, to go beyond probable cause and only prosecute cases that they believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Now a jaded defense attorney might say, yes, there are a lot of cases that barely have probable cause and prosecutors go forward with those all the time, but this was a good ethical analysis. That is the prosecutor's job.

A prosecutor's job is not to win, it is to do justice and to not bring cases that they don't believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, or said the other way, that a reasonable belief of innocence exists. And that's exactly what they did here in this analysis that I would bet has never been done in any other Florida misdemeanor battery case in the history of the great state of Florida.

BALDWIN: (INAUDIBLE) simple battery.

Oh, and here, this is new video that they're showing live. And perhaps this is what Brad Cohen was just telling us. You know, I can't say for sure whether or not this is the first 15 seconds of the video that they handed over to law enforcement. But this is what's playing out as part of this news conference underway there in Palm Beach County.

So let me just pivot, MJ, to you as we stay on this. You know, Michelle Fields, she had - you know, what has she said? What's the latest thing she's said on all of this?

MJ LEE, CNN POLITICS REPORTER: Yes, I mean, keep in mind that she has actually spoken out in the last 24 hours. We are still waiting for her to react to this new conference.

BALDWIN: To the charge dropped?

LEE: Yes. But just to remind our viewers on what she tweeted yesterday. Shortly after the news broke over the media that the prosecutor, the prosecution would not be happening, she tweeted "for those asking office of prosecutor asked two weeks ago if I would be OK with an apology from Cory. I said yeah but haven't heard back about it."

And something else she tweeted too. She said, "prosecutor's office told me they would inform me of decision tomorrow. If reports true, guess they decided to leak to reporters first, ugh." So clearly a sense of frustration here that she didn't apparently find out from the prosecution's - the prosecutor's office, but found out through media reports.

And I think the news about this apology is really fascinating. We saw this get addressed in the news conference. What the state attorney's office said is that an apology is always encouraged, it's always a good idea. And he also said that there was a draft of an apology, but that it is really up to Lewandowski's attorney to decide whether they actually want to present that apology to Fields.

BALDWIN: And you heard him tell me, you know, they may, they may not. You know, he seemed, you know, maybe a little agitated at the thought that they're being threatened with this potential defamation suit. So maybe that apology would be predicated upon whether or not she actually follows through.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN SENIOR MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: If you think about one of the campaign question that Trump has been asked is, when's the last time you made a mistake? When's the last time you apologized? When's the last time you backed down? This is actually similar in some ways to this very strange case. You know, Michelle Fields quit her job at Breitbart because she felt that the company that she worked for when this happened didn't support her, so she's now unemployed. And I think in some ways she kind of feels scarred by this entire experience. Not just by the few seconds at the press conference, by what happened afterwards. Trump said that he thought she made it up. Cory Lewandowski said he had never touched her. Now the video evidence contradicts that, and that would open up this possibility of a civil action. But, of course, as the attorney was saying just there, that could be very complicated and they're going to bring up her past. Trump's campaign suggested she was an attention seeker, that she wanted to get this attention. A lot of different things that seemed like a smear of Michelle Fields. You know, at the end of the day, I'm not sure anyone comes away kind of satisfied by this moment.

[14:30:07] BALDWIN: Has this dinged the Trump campaign at all?

LEE: Yes, I think it is so important to keep in mind the political ramifications of all of this.

BALDWIN: Right.

LEE: I mean, keep in mind,