Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Soon, Sex-Trafficking Trial Begins for Epstein Partner Ghislaine Maxwell; Update on International Reaction to Omicron COVID Variant; DOJ Accuses Bannon of Attempting to Try Case Through Media; Meadows Not Yet Held in Contempt for Defying Subpoena; Appeals Court to Hear Trump's Case Tomorrow on Whether National Archives Can Give Documents to 1/6 Committee; Cohen: Prosecutors Could "Indict Trump Tomorrow" If They Wanted; 1/6 Committee to Refer Jeffrey Clark for Contempt. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired November 29, 2021 - 13:30   ET

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

[13:30:00]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Sara, Six charges. A lot of them, as Kara just pointed out, date back to the 1990s and alleged activities that took place a couple of decades ago.

So how much of a complicating factor is that for prosecutors?

SARA AZARI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, Ana. It is somewhat complicated. You know, the scope of this trial is very limited. This is not about, you know, the enigma of Jeffrey Epstein.

It's really about whether Maxwell groom and lured these four girls, who are women now, girls underage at the time, to engage in sexual activity knowing that they were minors.

The prosecution has a burden beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that she was a co-conspirator and she participated in this trafficking scheme.

What's really interesting is this indictment, Ana, that you pointed out, you know, it's very picturesque.

Page two has a picture of the two co-conspirators, being Epstein and Maxwell. Not really something that you see in an indictment and followed by the properties of Epstein, which are the crime scenes.

And essentially the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Epstein did these bad acts, sexual acts with minors and that Maxwell lured and groomed them into the trafficking, right, for him to do that.

The government's exhibit number 52, Ana, is really sort of interesting. It's Maxwell's black book. I'm not sure if we actually will see the book or if it's black.

But it contains information that the prosecutors believe will be able to establish Maxwell's knowledge about the sexual activity and the age of the girls. And then, of course, the expert testimony is key because prosecutors will bring up the idea of grooming, how that works in a child sexual abuse case.

And the defense will get up and say, what the hell is grooming other than what you do with your dogs, right? What the hell is grooming?

Just being kind and nice and generous and really interested in these girls' lives does not mean you're doing that for the purpose of sexual activity with Epstein.

So it will be interesting to see this battle of experts.

CABRERA: Right. You mentioned that little black book that we've heard about that Epstein kept with names and contact information.

There's supposed to be testimony at the very least about that black book. But we also know already that he associated with high-profile people, former presidents, Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew, among others.

Do you think we'll hear from any of those high-profile names during the trial?

AZARI: I mean, you know, tangentially, maybe. But Judge Nathan has really limited the scope of this trial to the particular sex acts with these four women that were minors at the time.

So unlike, for example, the Cosby trial or the Weinstein trial where we saw a parade of other accusers to come in to establish prior bad acts, I don't expect to see that here.

So it's unlikely that the judge will allow testimony to go that far into other people, revealing other names.

And, again, to your point about the memory being back -- going back to the '90s, you know, the memory expert for the defense, someone that I've actually relied on, her expertise, is going to be fascinating testimony.

Because she's essentially going to come in and say you can't believe everything that these accusers are saying because their memory have distorted because it's been contaminated.

And her testimony, Ana, is very critical in cases that are historical and that high profile, you know, going back decades.

CABRERA: And given that Maxwell is being tried essentially as a co- conspirator to Epstein, the other part of that, died of apparent suicide two years ago.

How could his death impact the trial, if at all?

AZARI: Ana, I think that is a huge part of the defense here, right? They're saying you're selectively prosecuting her because he's dead. You know, blame it on the dead guy, blame it on the empty chair, that idea.

And also, by the way, there are other co-conspirators who cooperated, who are not only not defendants in this case, but they're not even witnesses in this case.

We're not going hear from them, although the information they provide is supposed to come in against Maxwell.

So this is really interesting because the defense is going to say, look, you singled her out because she was a close confidant, a girlfriend, but it's really about Epstein, not her.

CABRERA: And we heard from Kara how quickly this trial is supposed to get under way today with opening statements followed by even some witness testimony.

And yet, this trial is expected to last about six weeks, we're told. Why so long?

AZARI: You know, Ana, in typically a trial of this sort, it would last a couple of weeks. But we've got COVID issues, right? We've got a new variant. We've got safety protocols that have to be followed that will inevitably lengthen that time.

And also, it's a high-profile case so you have a lot of procedural layers that are added that just add to the time.

If I were to read the tea leaves, I would say it's going to go beyond Christmas. But at the earliest, we'd wrap up right before the holidays.

CABRERA: We saw some of the jury pool coming back today with some issues around the holidays and travel plans and what not. And the judge essentially said you're going have to reschedule those travel plans.

Thank you, Sara, as always. Nice to see you.

AZARI: Thank you.

CABRERA: Sara Azari, appreciate it.

[13:34:56]

All right. Back to our top story, and international reaction from the Omicron COVID variant. Israel is shutting its border yet again to travelers. Yet, it's moving forward with the Miss Universe Pageant despite one contestant testing positive.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:03]

CABRERA: Welcome back. A Miss Universe contestant Israel is in isolation after testing positive for COVID-19. No word yet on whether she has the Omicron variant. The emergence of Omicron is triggering reactions all around the world.

And we have CNN reporters tracking developments from across the globe, starting in Israel.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HADAS GOLD, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: I'm Hadas Gold in Jerusalem. Israel is now reporting two confirmed cases of the Omicron variant. And has officially shut its borders to foreign nationals for two weeks, not even a month after finally opening up to vaccinated tourists.

The closure is to give experts time to study the new variant, especially how it interacts with the vaccines.

Other restrictions include making all Israelis returning from abroad, no matter where they're coming from, to quarantine and produce two negative PCR tests before being released.

And Israelis returning from what the government considers red countries, which is now most of Africa, will be sent directly to designated quarantine hotels regardless of their vaccination status.

But despite the restrictions, plans are moving forward for the Miss Universe Pageant, which is set to take place in less than two weeks in the southern city of Eilat.

LARRY MADOWO, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Larry Madowo in Paris where French authorities say there are eight possible Omicron variant cases, none confirmed so far, but it's only a matter of time.

And the French health minister is saying there could already be people circulating in the community that are infected.

That is a similar view from Ireland where authorities also believe the same.

Today, we've seen reports of new cases, 13 in Portugal, up in Austria and six in Scotland. This speaks to this variant of coronavirus spreading across Europe.

The European Union has had to apply what is called emergency breaks. That's why the travel restriction is going up, to try to understand how serious this new variant is and what kind of tools are available in the arsenal to deal with it.

PAULA HANCOCKS, CNN INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I'm Paula Hancocks in Seoul. Just a matter of days ago, we were talking about countries in Asia starting to live with COVID.

They were starting to ease their border restrictions and opening up. That has come to a screeching halt due to the new variant.

Now Japan has been the strongest in its response so far. We heard from the prime minister today talking about all new arrivals being banned of foreign nationals coming into the country from Tuesday, he says, quote, "in order to avoid the worst situation."

Now he does specify this is a temporary measure just to give them time to figure out what they are dealing with, something that we're hearing repeatedly from officials in this region.

Now one country that hasn't had to make any changes, of course, is China as it still has one of the strictest border restrictions in the whole world. At this point, they are not giving up on their zero-COVID policy.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Paula Hancocks, Hadas Gold and Larry Madowo, thank you all for your reporting.

Now to the legal fight against Trump ally, Steve Bannon. And what prosecutors are warning could happen to potential witnesses if Bannon is allowed to go public with certain documents. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:48:10]

CABRERA: Fireworks in the Steve Bannon criminal contempt case. The indicted Trump ally wants to release document, potentially hundreds of pages, he gets from the Justice Department as he prepares for trial.

Prosecutors say this is part of Bannon's plan to try the case through the media.

And they don't want him to go public with certain information collected as evidence.

They tell the judge it would, quote, "expose witnesses to public commentary on their potential testimony before trial and allow a witness to review summaries of other witness statements recounting the same event or events."

Let's discuss with CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig. Also with us, CNN legal analyst and former Justice Department official, Carrie Cordero.

Good to see you both.

Elie, the prosecution argues this would essentially amount to witness tampering. Is the DOJ on solid footing here?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I'm not so sure, Ana. I think the prosecutors are overplaying their hand here.

In any case, prosecutors turn over the evidence to the defendant. They have you to do that. We call it discovery.

And for the most part, defendants are free to do whatever they want with this discovery, to pass it around, put it on the Internet. Unless the prosecutor goes to the court and gets what we call a protective order, which limits what the defense can do.

But that's a fairly rare case. I almost never did that in my case.

You have to be able to show if this evidence gets out there, it's going to significantly tamper with your witnesses or taint your jury pool.

And I'll not sure prosecutors have made that showing here. They have alleged it, but I don't see any specifics to really support that in this case.

CABRERA: But I do recall we saw a gag order back in the Roger Stone case. So how is this different?

HONIG: So there's a different type of gag orders. One could limit the discovery. Another could limit what the person said outside of the courthouse.

Steve Bannon has made inflammatory comments about the prosecution. That happens almost all of the time. Defendants are generally allowed to do that.

Roger Stone took it to such an extent. Remember, he even put up an image of cross-hairs on an image of the judge up on social media.

[13:50:04]

So if it gets to that point, that is when you expect to see a gag order. I don't think Steve Bannon is there yet.

CABRERA: And while the January 6th committee moved quickly to hold Bannon in contempt, we haven't seen it with others, like former Trumpp chief of staff, Mark Meadows.

Here is what we're hearing from the committee on this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL): I expect that there's going to be movement, particularly on Mark Meadows, that we'll know about shortly, in the next day or two days or so. And I think that people will be very pleased with that.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): I think we will probably make a decision this week on our course of conduct with that particular witness and maybe others.

REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CA): And the committee has made clear, just as we do with Steve Bannon, that we're willing to use whatever means necessary. And so, I think that is something that we'll have better clarity on here in the next week.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Carrie, how do you think the Select Committee should handle the Meadow's problem? Should be he held in contempt? CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think the committee has a good

basis to do that. And the members are certainly previewing that they are prepared to make that criminal referral.

But I do think there's a wide array of individuals that fall in- between a Steve Bannon, who is not a government official, who was not in any official capacity at all, and Mark Meadows, who was the chief of staff.

From my perspective, Mark Meadow does not have valid claims of executive privilege and reasons for not testifying and complying with the committee's request.

But I do think that the Justice Department will have a little bit of a harder time moving through that case and deciding to prosecute a former chief of staff.

There's other individuals that I would suggest that the committee could move more incrementally and go after the individuals and make the referrals of the individuals who were not government officials.

And then create a stronger record of criminal referral based on this investigation.

CABRERA: I guess, Elie, given what we have learned about Meadow's role, sending a coup memo to a Pence aid, reportedly coordinating with Stop the Steal planners, how can the committee just accept that they won't hear from him?

HONIG: This is a great question. I think Mark Meadows is the most central witness here, other than Donald Trump himself. He was chief of staff at the time.

But the problem I'm sensing some distinct shakiness from the committee.

Let's remember, they subpoenaed Mark Meadows over nine weeks ago. And two weeks ago, Adam Schiff declared, we're going to move quickly to hold him in contempt. They did not do such thing. They just wrote him a sternly worded letter and so here we are.

So is the committee going to back its subpoenas?

And Carrie makes a good point. Ultimately, the Justice Department has to decide whether to prosecute.

And Mark Meadows could be a difficult decision. I think the committee doesn't want to get left out on a limb where they've recommended contempt charges and DOJ perhaps is hesitant.

CABRERA: So we should hear within days what they're planning to do as we just played in the sound bites.

But, Carrie, we're also waiting to learn whether the National Archives have to turn over records to the January 6th committee. And tomorrow is when the appeals court will hear Trump's case. How do you expect this one to play out?

CORDERO: From my perspective, these claims of executive privilege by the former president is not valid. And that is because the president, the current president, President Biden has already made the decision.

There's one president. There's one individual who holds that authority.

So President Biden has already directed that these materials be released.

This is an opportunity for the appeals court to actually uphold the credible executive privilege, which is the authority of the current president to make those decisions.

CABRERA: So, Carrie, if that happens, what would be the next step? Are the documents going to be released immediately?

CORDERO: Well, the former president could try to take the matter beyond the appellate level and up to the Supreme Court. But there would then be a decision whether it would need to go up to level.

Hopefully, the appellate court will issue a definitive opinion that upholds the current president's authority to make these decisions.

And the documents will finally be released consistent with what President Biden has directed the archives to do.

CABRERA: Separately, there's still the ongoing criminal problem in New York into the Trump administration. And this has been going on for years.

Take a listen former Trump fixer, Michael Cohen, just yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY TO DONALD TRUMP: Every statement that I make, I've backed up with documentary evidence. I truly believe that they could indict Donald Trump tomorrow if they really wanted and be successful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: And, Elie, Cohen said he gave investigators thousands of documents and spoke to them for over 400 hours and he said they could indict tomorrow if they wanted.

What do you think?

HONIG: I disrespectfully disagree with Michael Cohen. I think if they could indict, why wouldn't they?

I'm not swayed by the sheer volume here. The number of documents, the amount of hours isn't really what it is about. It's how precise and how reliable that information from Michael Cohen provides to investigators.

[13:55:08]

It is one thing for Michael Cohen to say Donald Trump was crooked and he knew everything that happened.

It's another thing and what prosecutors are going to need is proof that, OK, this transaction right here, Donald Trump was involved. It was a fraud and he knew it, and here is how we could prove it.

If he hasn't done that, they're not going to indict.

CABRERA: Elie and Carrie, please stand by.

We have some breaking news on the January 6th committee and that investigation.

Ryan Nobles is with.

Ryan, what can you tell us?

RYAN NOBLES, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Ana, and this falls in line with the conversation you're having right now.

The committee just announcing that they plan to meet on Wednesday night to formally vote on a criminal Contempt of Congress referral of Jeffrey Clark.

That is the former DOJ official, who was a close ally of the Trump White House. He was working to pedal falsehoods about the election results within the Department of Justice.

And pressuring some of the higher ups at the Department of Justice to try and use the ability and power of the Department of Justice to investigate claims of fraud that really had no basis in reality.

Now Clark was subpoenaed by the committee several weeks ago. Unlike some of these other subpoena targets that the committee has dealt with, Clark did appear. He did come for his deposition.

But as soon as he walked into the room, he and his attorneys attempted to claim executive privilege.

They also attempted to claim some form of attorney/client privilege that they said would prevent Clark from testifying or answering any questions to the committee. And he abruptly left that meeting.

The committee did not accept those claims that he and his attorney made. And made it clear that they were willing to take whatever steps necessary to get them to comply.

It seems as though they feel that Clark is unwilling to do so. And that is why they're taking this step.

So what this means in terms of a timeline, Ana, the committee will meet on Wednesday night. They will read the resolution that will set in motion this criminal contempt referral.

They'll vote it out of the committee. And it should probably pass unanimously.

From there, it goes to a full vote in the House of Representatives. We don't have an exact date on that.

But the last time the committee did this with Steve Bannon, it happened the following day. So it could happen as soon as Thursday.

The referral then sent to the Department of Justice, which will decide whether or not they will indict and prosecute Clark.

And unlike Bannon, where we were really in uncharted territory, the last time something like this happened was back during the Reagan administration.

Now that we've gone through the process with Bannon, we can kind of forecast how this will all play out.

And it is very likely that if the Department of Justice was willing to take the step of indicting Steve Bannon, they will likely take the same path with Jeffrey Clark.

Obviously, there are some differences between the two. So that is not a guarantee.

But this is important breaking news happening right now, Ana. The 1/6 Select Committee set to refer for criminal Contempt of Congress former DOJ official, Jeffrey Clark.

CABRERA: Ryan Nobles, on Capitol Hill, thank you for that breaking news.

Let me bring back our Elie Honig and Carrie Cordero.

First, Carrie, I'll come to you.

What's your reaction to this news? Is it the right move by the Select Committee?

CORDERO: It is interesting. Now we know that Mark Meadows is not the next person they're referring to criminal prosecution. It is Jeffrey Clark, a former senior Justice Department official.

And that is significant. Somebody who was in the most senior levels of the Justice Department being referred back to the department where a U.S. attorney is going to need to make a decision whether or not to prosecute him.

But he was very centrally involved in terms of former President Trump's efforts to use the mechanisms and the authority of the Justice Department to subvert the result of the 2020 elections.

So if the full House votes on this referral, which it needs to do to send it to the Justice Department, it is very significant development. CABRERA: And it sounds like that is expected to happen as soon as

Wednesday.

Elie, your thoughts?

HONIG: Ana, this is a necessary and smart move by the committee. It is necessary because Jeffrey Clark was an essential player here. He essentially was running a coup inside DOJ that was designed to help Donald Trump's larger coup to steal the election.

And he straight-up defied the committee. You have to hold him in contempt.

I think it is interesting, through it's smart, because on the scale of executive privilege, on one side, you have Steve Bannon, who did not work in the executive branch at the time.

On the other extreme, as Carrie said earlier, you have Mark Meadows, who was the chief of staff, probably the most likely person to be covered by executive privilege.

Jeffrey Clark is somewhere in the middle. He worked for DOJ, which is part of the executive branch but quite a bit removed in the White House.

So Merrick Garland will have a decision to make here. It is one thing to charge Steven Bannon. It's another thing to charge a person who actually was in the executive branch.

So there's going to be an interesting distinction there, perhaps.

CABRERA: Quickly, Elie, do you think Merrick Garland will move forward very quickly?

HONIG: I think he has to. I think he already has set the sort of playbook by the way he went about the Bannon case. So I would look for a decision within a couple of weeks at most.

[14:00:05]

CABRERA: OK, Elie Honig and Carrie Cordero, thank you both so much. I appreciate it.

Thank you all for being with me. I'll see you back here tomorrow.