Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Mark Meadows Gets Ultimatum to Show up or Risk Contempt; Rittenhouse Defense Rests, Closing Arguments Monday. Aired 9-9:30a ET

Aired November 12, 2021 - 09:00   ET

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

[09:00:01]

KEILAR: I think the big fat kiss, that is -- that is what the sacrifice is, Berman, you know, for his family, it's giving up that forever and for other families it's giving it up for a long period of time when normally you don't have to.

BERMAN: I'm so glad he got to hear that.

KEILAR: Yes.

BERMAN: CNN's coverage continues right now.

ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Good Friday morning. I'm Erica Hill.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: It is Friday. I'm Jim Sciutto.

But really alarming new audio this morning, former President Trump it appears defending the January 6th rioters who were chanting "Hang Mike Pence." It's from a call he had in March with journalist Jonathan Karl for his new book "Betrayal." Just pointed today by Axios. Please have a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, AUTHOR, "BETRAYAL": Were you worried about him during that siege? Were you worried about his safety?

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT: No, I thought he was well-protected and I had heard that he was in good shape, no. Because I had heard he was in very good shape. But no, I think --

KARL: Because you heard those chants. That was terrible. I mean, those, you know, the --

TRUMP: He could have -- well, the people are very angry.

KARL: They're saying "Hang Mike Pence."

TRUMP: Because it's common sense, Jon. It's common sense that you're supposed to protect -- how can you -- if you know a vote is fraudulent, right, how can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress?

(END OF VIDEO CLIP) SCIUTTO: It's common sense, he says. This comes as the January 6th Committee is giving Trump's former chief of staff an ultimatum, telling Mark Meadows he must testify privately about the events of that day or risk contempt charges. He has one hour, one hour, left to decide if he will appear for that deposition.

HILL: Former President Trump meantime receiving a slight reprieve in his court battle over executive privilege. White house records from January 6th of course were supposed to be handed over from the National Archives to the committee starting today. A federal appeals court however ruling yesterday there's going to be a pause here for a moment. A three-judge panel from the D.C. Circuit of Court of Appeals will now hear arguments on these issues at the end of the month.

SCIUTTO: CNN's Kara Scannell is following all the latest developments here in Washington.

Kara, let's begin with Mark Meadows. This will be the second person after Steve Bannon to be charged with contempt. Do we have any idea whether he might comply in the next 60 minutes?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, he seems to be playing a game of chicken with the committee. But as you said, I mean, the committee chairman Bennie Thompson issued this letter to Meadows' attorneys yesterday, threatening that he will hold him in contempt if he does not show up with documents and be prepared to testify at 10:00, so just an hour from now.

In that letter, Thompson wrote, "There is no valid legal basis for Mr. Meadows' continued resistance to the Select Committee's subpoena. The Select Committee will view Mr. Meadow's failure to appear as willful, noncompliance, which could result in a referral to the Department of Justice for criminal charges."

Now this letter came just hours after the White House informed Meadows' lawyer that President Biden would not be asserting executive privilege or offering any immunity to the documents that Meadows has. And in response to that, Meadows' attorney George Terwilliger said they will not cooperate until a court comes to a conclusion.

He said, "Biden is the first president to make no effort whatsoever to protect presidential communications from being the subject of compelled testimony. Mr. Meadows remains under the instructions of former President Trump to respect long-standing principles of executive privilege. It now appears the courts will have to resolve this conflict."

And that is where this is heading. I mean, already yesterday, three- panel judges on the appeals court here have decided to give the former president a brief reprieve. It's a momentary victory for the former president, blocking some 46 records that he did not want to be turned over from the National Archives to the House. Those include White House visitor logs, that includes drafts of speeches on January 6th, and it includes three handwritten notes from Mark Meadows.

So he's really kind of at the center of this. Now, the judges here, they said that while they are looking at this, that no one should be construed in any way as this decision to pause this as a ruling on the merits. They'll hear oral arguments on November 30th. We could have a decision soon after that -- Jim, Erica.

HILL: We will be looking. Kara Scannell, appreciate it. Thank you.

Joining us now former assistant U.S. Attorney Kim Wehle, "New York" magazine columnist and CNN political commentator Errol Louis.

Good to have you both here.

Kim, as we look at this, you know, the fact that these three judges said, OK, we're going to move forward, we're going to put this on an expedited schedule, we have the dates on the calendar, was that a smart legal move and does it blunt some of the politics, Kim?

KIM WEHLE, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY: I'm not surprised at all that the judges did this because there would be, I think, a tremendous amount of political backlash if they were to order that the documents be delivered while the case is pending.

[09:05:03]

Now, of course, this is the same thing that happened with SB-8 in Texas when it came to the abortion laws. And the Supreme Court did not stay that. So I think what we're seeing is the fact that when it comes to presidential records and here we have really dueling presidents, a former president and a sitting president. The sitting president said the records go to Congress, the former president said, no, that the courts take this very seriously, politically.

But honestly, it's kind of amazing that Donald Trump still manages to sort of muck up the workings of government, even though he is no longer has any power under the Constitution in this moment.

SCIUTTO: Errol, that's part of the strategy, is it not, to punt, right, to stretch the timeline as far out as possible and as close as possible, frankly, to the midterms when Republicans believe they will take over and therefore nix this committee?

I wonder, did the court, with that in mind, in effect help that strategy regardless of it making very clear here it wants to rule later on the merits?

ERROL LOUIS, COLUMNIST, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Well, good morning, Jim, you raise a good point. The Trump strategy as is often the case when he goes to court is to delay, distort, deceive, try to find more favorable terrain and get a reconsideration of an argument that he simply cannot win. There is no executive privilege that attaches to an ex-executive. The courts, though, are going to take their time and go through the process and make clear that this nonsensical argument really has no standing.

It's best that it'd be done this way. It may take a few weeks. I don't think it's going to last into next year, but, you know, you never know. The point, though, is that we've got to get the information about what happened on January 6th. And if the courts start to feel some public pressure, including from Congress, I think they will understand that their duty includes wrapping this up expeditiously so we can get to the truth of what happened during the insurrection.

HILL: And the question is, too, is if this then, you know, is ultimately ends up in the Supreme Court, how expeditious will that be?

Kim, I do want to get your take, though, on -- when we talk about pressure, right, as we're waiting to see what Mark Meadows will decide to do, these threats from the committee, the reality is there are still questions about if and when the DOJ, if the attorney general will act on Steve Bannon.

Does this situation with Mark Meadows add further pressure to the attorney general?

WEHLE: For sure. I mean, I think this is a game of chicken. That is we're going to see more witnesses refuse to comply with a valid subpoena of the United States Congress unless there are consequences. It's like speeding through a red light, if there is no consequence or a speed limit, people will keep going. And so I think it is absolutely vital that Merrick Garland step in and take some action, either criminally or civilly.

Technically the decision is by the U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. and the new person was just installed a few days ago. So it's possible that that was -- accounts for some of the lag time here because we're about three weeks out since the Bannon contempt citation came out of Congress.

SCIUTTO: Yes. It's not exactly flying through the process there.

Errol Louis, on a separate point, what we led the broadcast with this morning, and that is this new sound of the president on tape seemingly defending the rioters, even as they threaten Mike Pence. Does the president face any legal jeopardy and if not, why not for comments like that? Because I imagine if you or I did the same, we might.

LOUIS: Well, I think you have to put it into a larger context. I mean, there is no criminal proceeding against the president in this matter. At least not yet. And so there would be nothing that you would take the statement to indicate culpability for. On the other hand, if you're talking about sort of a political liability, or commonsense liability, I think everyone watching this knows what lay at the end of Trumpism.

We saw it when people were being beaten at his rallies in 2015. We saw it in the violent rhetoric, we saw it in the nonsensical arguments that were made about why duly cast votes should be overturned in order to benefit Donald Trump and we see it now in this final audio recording, the final betrayal of his closest aides, saying, look, if they wanted to put hands on him and hang him, on the scaffolding that had been built outside the Capitol during the riot, he says it's common sense.

That's who Donald Trump is. That's what Donald Trump said he was going to do. That's what Trumpism is. An attempt, in this case, to violently overturn the results of an election that he lost. I mean, that's where we are. That's the plain truth of it. It's unfortunately the courts cannot rescue us from this, Jim.

SCIUTTO: Yes.

LOUIS: It's going to be the American people who have to decide what all of this means.

HILL: Taking into account this audio, Kim, how important could that be to, for example, the House Select Committee investigating what happened on January 6th?

WEHLE: Well, it's absolutely -- I mean, I agree with Errol that this is about the viability of American democracy itself. The Select Committee has now under 12 months before the midterms where if the House goes to the Republicans, all of this will end.

[09:10:07]

They have under 12 months to basically figure out how to make sure this doesn't happen again. We are not out of the woods here. And the audio is just a blood curdling reminder of the lack of compassion or thought for other human beings when it comes to Donald Trump, including Mike Pence.

Now, as far as legally, I think that would really be for potentially any referrals to the Justice Department. They're floating around ideas of conspiracy potentially to defraud the United States. We saw this out of the Mueller report, obstruction of Congress, things like that do require a showing of criminal intent. So if Donald Trump were looped into something like that, down the road, these statements would bear on his state of mind to the extent to which he has criminal liability on a broader sense for the carnage of January 6th.

HILL: Kim Wehle, Errol Louis, great to have you both with us this morning. Thank you.

Up next, the defense in the trial of three white men accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery asks the judge not to allow any more black pastors in the gallery.

Plus, we're hearing from the mother of Kyle Rittenhouse who calls the judge in her son's murder trial very fair. So how are these trials, those two trials and more shedding a light on the racial and political divisions in the country today?

SCIUTTO: Also, sad news, a ninth person has died from injuries sustained at the Astroworld concert. There she is. And we're getting new details about exactly how that deadly tragedy unfolded. Houston's fire chief will join me live coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:01] HILL: On Monday, jurors will hear final arguments in the Kyle Rittenhouse double homicide trial. The trial speeding to a close after jurors heard from 31 witnesses over eight days of testimony.

SCIUTTO: The jury will then decide if Rittenhouse acted reasonably when he killed two people, shot another during a night of protest last year. Rittenhouse could on the highest charge face a mandatory life sentence if convicted.

CNN's Adrienne Broaddus joins us now from Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Adrienne, so how (INAUDIBLE) final arguments, and there is a possibility of bringing up lesser potential charges, is there not?

ADRIENNE BROADDUS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There is that possibility. We could see more charges on Monday, Jim. There is an indication the prosecution may ask for lesser included charges. But on Monday, we know each side will have two and a half hours for their closing arguments. The prosecution is planning to show video clips from that night Kyle Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two of them. Those clips, when combined, add up to about 30 minutes.

By contrast, the defense says it only needs an hour and a half for closing arguments and I'm certain because we have seen it play out over the last eight days that the defense will continue to hammer home that point, Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. He was here in Kenosha to help protect when someone else or others attacked him. That's the point the defense is trying to make.

Meanwhile, inside of the courtroom, over the last two weeks or so, Kyle Rittenhouse's mother, she spoke out on FOX News last night. Listen in.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WENDY RITTENHOUSE, KYLE RITTENHOUSE'S MOM: The judge is very fair. People that I talk to that live in Kenosha all their lives, they told me that Judge Schroeder is a very fair judge and he doesn't allow no nonsense in his courtroom. I know him and he probably would do it again because that's the type of person he is. He always wants to help people.

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

BROADDUS: And the fate of her son will be in the hands of the jury come Monday. The judge has said it will take him about 45 minutes to read through those jury instructions. Inside of the courtroom today, without the jury, defense attorneys and the prosecution are going over the language for those instructions for the jury.

And right now, keep in mind, there are 18 jurors, that number will decrease to 12 on Monday -- Jim and Erica.

HILL: Adrienne Broaddus with the latest for us this morning. Adrienne, thank you. Joining me to discuss, CNN political commentator Bakari Sellers. He's

also an attorney and a former South Carolina state representative, and Scott Jennings, CNN political commentator and columnist for "USA Today."

Good to have both of you here this morning. There has been so much focus on this case around the country and I would say real visceral reactions as well. We just heard from Kyle Rittenhouse's mother. You know, Bakari, I know you've seen this. Rittenhouse has been held up in many areas as a real hero in this case. That is not how everyone sees it.

How are you seeing things this morning?

BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, I see a growing just love or admiration for Rittenhouse, particularly on the far-right. You see JD Vance, who's a candidate for the Ohio United States Senate seat just envelop him and hold him out to be some type of hero.

For many of us, though, and maybe I need to talk to my therapist about it, there is a certain level of resentment, I believe. And I think it's a very human nature type of resentment because when we see him, we see Trayvon Martin who didn't get the benefit or grace of his youth. We see Tamir Rice, who didn't get benefit or grace of his youth. And even more probably on point is Kalief Browder who was in Rikers Island and he committed suicide after being in solitary confinement for stealing a book bag.

[09:20:06]

And these individuals, none of them, who look like me, did not get the benefit or grace of their youth and people are treating Kyle Rittenhouse as someone youthful individual who made a youthful mistake. Instead, he committed a murder or two murders and attempted to murder someone else. And whether or not they find him guilty of those crimes or not is up to the jury. I don't think they will. But there are definitely two Americas and two criminal justice systems in this country. And that's where my resentment comes from.

HILL: Scott, do you see this highlighting those two Americas, those two different justice systems?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I try to resist the urge to link all these cases together because I think every case has its own unique circumstances. And I don't see Kyle Rittenhouse as a hero, candidly. I don't see the rioters as heroes. I only see the law. And in this case, the law is pretty clear. And I agree with Bakari, that I think Rittenhouse is likely to be acquitted because he was acting in self-defense. And I think that's how the jury is likely to see it.

So I don't like the idea of embracing circumstances like this in terms of heroes and villains. I only think that we should think about that is the law say that we should do, what is fair in our criminal justice system, and are people getting fair outcomes? Rittenhouse should not have been in Kenosha. The rioters shouldn't have been rioting. The rioters should not have been rioting. I don't like anything about this.

The only thing I like is the idea that a fair and impartial trial is conducted and that justice is done. I think that about all the cases. And I try to -- I try very hard not to link them together because I think when you start to apply emotional and political construct to our criminal justice system you can start to get bad outcomes candidly.

HILL: Well, in terms of that emotional political construct, it's also been interesting to watch what we're seeing playing out in Georgia, separate case, but the three men who are on trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. I was really struck by these comments from the defense attorney yesterday. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN GOUGH, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: We're going to start a precedent starting yesterday we're going to bring high-profile members of the African-American community into the courtroom to sit with the family during the trial --

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Just give us a second, we're going to queue up the right sound bite for you. Stay with us.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOUGH: If we're going to start a precedent starting yesterday where we're going to bring high profile members of the African-American community into the courtroom to sit with the family during the trial in the presence of the jury, I believe that's intimidating and it's an attempt to pressure, could be consciously or unconsciously an attempt to pressure or influence the jury.

We don't want any more black pastors coming in here, or other Jesse Jackson, whoever was in here earlier this week, sitting with the victim's family trying to influence the jury in this case. If a bunch of folks who came in here dressed like Colonel Sanders with white masks sitting in the back --

(END OF VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: The judge reacting to that saying he didn't want to blanketly exclude members of the public from the courtroom as long as there are no distractions.

You know, Bakari, I'll let you take this one. First, there has been a lot of outrage over that defense attorney's comments. I don't want any more black pastors in here, saying that they are influencing the jury. At one point said he didn't want this to be political either. There is much more to that comment, I think, and that is why it is getting such a reaction this morning, Bakari.

SELLERS: Yes. I mean, it's -- I mean, it's steeped in racism. And I actually appreciate Scott's comments that we should be able to just look at the law without the emotional or political constructs. The problem is that I can't. And particularly I'm glad that we're having this case in this conversation in the same vein as Rittenhouse because it's hard to decouple those things.

Let me give you the perfect example. Just this week I was in a courthouse in Anderson, South Carolina, I was sitting in the front row and I was actually tweeting on my phone and it wasn't many people in the courtroom at all, I was waiting to go up and make an argument in front of the juror - in front of the judge, excuse me, and the bailiff taps me on my shoulder and says phones aren't allowed in the courthouse.

And I said, what? He said, sir, we're going to have to get you out of here and get your phone out of here. And I said, Sir I'm a lawyer, and he said, oh, I didn't know, I'm sorry. That's not the first time that a bailiff or some member of the court has figured me to be a defendant or somebody that did not belong and so it's hard to decouple when we're having these conversations, decouple that emotion, decouple that race when you're seeing it play out right before your eyes in both Kenosha and om Georgia.

HILL: Scott, go ahead and respond.

JENNINGS: Yes, I -- look, I think that the law ought to be applied here on the courthouse and that is if it's open to the public, and it's OK for members of the public to come in and watch a trial, they ought to be allowed to do that, regardless of who they are, what they look like, what their profession is.

I do think the judge in every case has a responsibility to ensure that the jury is not influenced by anything and I know there are -- I'm not a lawyer, by the way, so -- and Bakari is, so he has me at a bit of a disadvantage here.

[09:25:11]

But I -- and I do know juries are given instructions to try to -- and rules and regulations to try to ensure that they are not influenced by anything. So I do think that's also important. In this particular case, and again, I'm an observer. As I look at this case, I do get emotional about it because Arbery should not have been murdered. He should be alive and it strikes me that this is a clear case where the law would protect him in a criminal justice setting and punish the people who killed him.

Again, I'm not on the jury. I'm not a lawyer. I'm an observer. I have an emotional look on this. At the same time I want to try to apply my own, you know, my own sort of view of the way criminal justice should work here, and that is my emotions about it shouldn't affect the outcome but it's pretty hard to look at this case candidly and conclude as an observer that somebody shouldn't be punished for this person who clearly shouldn't be dead today.

HILL: In terms of the emotions, if these cases point to one thing, it's the fact that there is still this deep, deep divide in this country. And it is a tough thing to have a conversation about, and it is increasingly important that that conversation continues.

So thank you, both, for being here this morning. And let's not make it the last time we do that. Thank you.

SELLERS: Thank you.

JENNINGS: Thank you.

SCIUTTO: Yes, Bakari, Scott, Erica, hats off to you for that conversation. Necessary one, important, valuable one.

Coming up next hour, there are new details in the deadly tragedy at the Travis Scott concert. We're now learning the public safety officials knew there was danger before that crowd turned deadly. We're going to speak to the police chief next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)