Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

January 6 Committee to Seek Testimony From Ivanka Trump; Georgia Prosecutor Requests Grand Jury For Trump Election Probe. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired January 20, 2022 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:37]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York.

We begin this hour with breaking news out of Atlanta. Just minutes ago, we learned the district attorney in Fulton County is requesting a special grand jury with subpoena power, and the target of this investigation is former President Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn Georgia's 2020 election.

CNN's Sara Murray is joining us now.

What have you learned, Sara?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, she has sent this letter requesting a special grand jury. She wants to be able to subpoena witnesses. She wants to be able to make it a little bit easier to collect evidence.

And this all goes back to the efforts that Donald Trump and also his allies made to try to overturn Georgia's election results in 2020. District attorney Fani Willis announced her investigation after that now infamous phone call Donald Trump had with Brad Raffensperger.

Here is a little bit just to remind our viewers of what went on during that phone call.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard, and they are removing machinery, and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds.

And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen.

So, look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

MURRAY: So, you hear him they're telling Brad Raffensperger he wants him to find the votes.

We know that district attorney is also looking at a number of actions taken by Donald Trump's allies to try to further this campaign to overturn the Georgia elections. So, in this letter that she sent to the court, she says that they have talked to folks who are reluctant to speak to her unless they're under subpoena.

In part of that letter, she says: "By way of example, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, an essential witness to the investigation, has indicated that he will not participate in an interview or otherwise offer evidence until he is presented with a subpoena by my office."

Now, we should note the secretary of state's office has already provided the district attorney with a bunch of information, including recordings of that Raffensperger call and a call with another official. But, essentially, what this letter tells you is that she's serious about pursuing a potential criminal indictment either against former President Donald Trump or allies who were helping him with this campaign in Georgia.

It's not a done deal that she will get a special grand jury. There are judges who have to sign off on this request, but it tells you how serious she is in this pursuit, Ana.

CABRERA: Sara Murray, thank you for laying it out.

And joining us now to discuss this huge development, Elie Honig, CNN senior legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Asha Rangappa, CNN legal and national security analyst. She is also a former FBI special agent.

Good to see you both.

Elie, if you are the prosecutor here, why make this move and why now?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Ana, two reasons.

First of all, it's time to play hardball. This district attorney has said, I need to speak with witnesses and several of them, she says in her letter, have not agreed to speak with me voluntarily. That's why you need a grand jury. Grand juries issue subpoenas.

Subpoena is a formal command that you must testify that's enforceable by the courts and ultimately potentially by law enforcement. So that's how you get people who may be reluctant to testify.

The second reason is focus. Normal grand juries, your everyday grand juries, first of all, they only sit for a limited amount of time. Could be a month. Could be a couple months. And they're hearing different cases all throughout the day. By asking for a special investigator grand jury, the DA here is looking for a grand jury that will be solely dedicated to this case and that can sit for a longer period, as long as she needs.

CABRERA: I want to play what this district attorney said in February of last year about what prosecutors assess when considering potential charges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FANI WILLIS (D), FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY: You look at facts to see, did they really have intent? Did they understand what they were doing? Detailed facts become important.

Like, asking for a specific number, and then going back to investigate and understand that that number is just one more than the number that is needed, it lets that you know someone had a clear mind. They understood what they were doing. And so on, when you're pursuing the investigation, facts like that may not seem so important become very important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: Asha, we're not there yet. But what charges could Trump face here? Should he be worried?

[13:05:03]

ASHA RANGAPPA, CNN LEGAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: He should definitely be worried.

I mean, there are a host of charges surrounding fraud, election fraud, pressuring officials to commit fraud. But the bigger picture here is that the walls are closing in on Trump on a number of fronts, including at the state level. In addition to the Fulton DA, he has a case in New York at the Manhattan district attorney's office that's looking into the Trump Organization.

The Department of Justice is likely looking into these attempts to obstruct the congressional electoral count proceedings. The New York A.G. has a civil suit that could turn criminal if it uncovers criminal activity.

And so all of these are basically tentacles of liability that are closing in on Trump. And this one is, in particular, Ana, relates to the January 6 Committee and potentially to a DOJ investigation, because all roads lead back to Trump attempting to call the outcome of the election into question, so that the final certification could be contested.

And, on this front, we know that the Department of Justice, for example, was also trying to pressure Georgia officials to open cases on electoral -- based on false claims of voter fraud in that in that state. So all of these are connected and are bad news for Trump.

CABRERA: You're right. They all are connected in different ways. And we see parallel processes taking place. In all of them, we are seeing the need to compel people to testify in order to make sure that the case is airtight, right?

And, in this particular case, the Fulton County district attorney is saying one reason to move to have a special grand jury is to subpoena the likes of people like Brad Raffensperger, who she says won't do an interview or provide certain information without a subpoena.

So, Asha, how crucial would his testimony be in this case?

RANGAPPA: His testimony is very crucial in terms of outlining exactly how the -- we have the phone call, but also how he interpreted that call. Were there any other efforts being made outside of that phone call to pressure him to find these votes?

And -- I'm sorry -- I just -- I think it's very important for him -- to get the testimony, also to have it under oath. And for him specifically, Ana, he's doing this to political cover as well, because he wants to be seen as doing this under compulsion, as opposed to voluntarily, because he has to try to stay in the good graces of the Republican Party.

CABRERA: Right. He's up for reelection.

Elie, walk us through the process here. How does it work with a special grand jury?

HONIG: So the first step is what we just saw the DA do just now. She has to send a letter to the chief judge requesting permission to have this special grand jury.

The judges as a group will then vote on whether to grant that request. If this happens, we will have a special grand jury seated. That special jury -- grand jury will have a couple of really important powers. One is, they can issue subpoenas, so they can get testimony, compel testimony out of Brad Raffensperger -- that's the person she singles out in the letter -- and others.

They also can inspect records, so they can serve a subpoena saying, hey, I want to see you whatever documents you have relating to this. But it's important to note the DA says in her letter, I am not asking for this special grand jury to have the power to indict. Usually, grand juries have the power to indict.

But the DA here says, I'm not asking for that here. However, this grand jury may have the power to recommend criminal charges back to me, presumably, meaning the district attorney.

CABRERA: Asha, do you think the Supreme Court ruling last night on the Trump White House records has any impact on this investigation?

RANGAPPA: I think it does, because all of these records are going to go to the overall effort, as I mentioned before, Ana, the overall effort to try to call the election results into doubt.

And so it will provide a good reference point, a documentary trail, a communications trail of what was going on behind the scenes in terms of the intent in pursuing all these different avenues to pressure individuals, to pressure state legislatures in order to achieve Trump's agenda of trying to stay in power.

CABRERA: Asha Rangappa, Elie Honig, stay with us, because we have much more breaking news to discuss, including the January 6 Committee now requesting the cooperation of former President Trump's daughter and former senior White House adviser Ivanka Trump.

Stay right there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:14:07]

CABRERA: Back now with more breaking news.

The head of the House select committee investigating the January 6 attack tells CNN they're now planning to ask Ivanka Trump to talk within, this as they seek to learn more about her interactions with her father surrounding one of the darkest days in America's democracy.

CNN's Paula Reid joins us now with more on this.

What are you learning, Paula?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Ana, this is a big move by the committee, really moving on the former president's innermost circle.

Now, it's notable, this is a voluntary request for her cooperation. This is not a subpoena. And, look, the committee has previously said that then gathering evidence about what she was up to on January 6. They have said they have firsthand testimony that she asked her father at least twice to do something to stop the violence.

But in this eight-page letter that they sent her today, Ana, astonishing new details about just how deep these are lawmakers are in the Trump White House and how much they learned about what was going on that day.

[13:15:05]

For example, they say that they want to talk to Ivanka about a meeting that she observed in the Oval Office on January 6. It was a phone call between Trump and his vice president, Mike Pence, where Trump allegedly pressured Pence to try to go along with his plan to undermine the certification of electoral votes.

They want to talk to Ivanka about what she heard on at least one end of that phone call. They also want to know why the president didn't just go to the Briefing Room. There's always a live camera, plenty of reporters in the Briefing Room just steps away from his office. Why didn't he go there and call for an end to the violence?

They're also seeking to talk to her about whether Trump did or did not order to deploy the National Guard. And they detail how staff members were trying to sort of deflect questions about what was going on with the National Guard at that time.

Interestingly, they also detail evidence that they have gathered about efforts to keep the president away from -- quote -- "crazy people." Apparently, this was an effort, according to the evidence they have gathered, spearheaded by FOX News host Sean Hannity. He was trying to enlist help from then Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who agreed to try to keep him away from the -- quote -- "crazy people."

It looked like they were hatching a plan to try to just get him to Inauguration Day -- quote -- "land the plane," as Hannity said.

Ana, a stunning amount of new details in this letter. It really paints the picture of a chaotic White House and staff members desperately trying to keep the president away from people who did not either, in their eyes, have his best interests at heart or who were pushing the big lie.

Much of this evidence could be used to support the committee's theory that the former president abdicated his responsibility to the country, but also, Ana, the details in this letter, it really speaks to the significance and the importance of witness interviews and talking to people who were in the room while this was all happening.

And they say Ivanka was present for many of these key moments. And they want to talk to her about what she knows. Now, we have reached out to Ivanka Trump, and we have not gotten any response about how she intends to deal with this request.

CABRERA: Paula Reid, wow. Thank you.

Elie Honig and Asha Rangappa are back with us.

Elie, first, your reaction to this Ivanka news?

HONIG: Well, Ana, this tells me the committee is looking right at the inner circle of the Trump White House right on the key date, January 6, and really in the days leading up to it.

But the thing is, also, the committee's making very clear in this letter, we're already there. We're not just sort of grasping at straws here. The committee makes a point in this letter to demonstrate to Ivanka Trump and to all of us, I think, they have a lot of evidence about what was going on in these key conversations.

They have spoken with other witnesses who've told them what was going on. They have seen documents that confirm what was going on. And I think the key role that Ivanka Trump played here, according to the committee's view, is, people in and around the White House viewed her as one of the only people, perhaps the only person, who was capable of talking sense into Donald Trump that day, as this was going down. The committee essentially says, various other people came to you,

Ivanka Trump, and asked you, begged you to have your father do something to call off these rioters.

CABRERA: Asha, that's exactly what went through my head is what Elie just said. And that is, as we hear what they're writing in this letter, it reveals, right, what they already have, in a lot of ways.

I just wonder if they actually expect Ivanka to come and talk to them or if this was just their avenue of making public some of the information that they have learned.

RANGAPPA: It can be both.

And, Ana, this letter, as you note, signals that they have a lot of information and also cabins these people that they are asking now to come talk to them by letting them know they don't have a lot of wiggle room to try to lie or fudge.

For example, with that phone call in the Oval Office where Trump is talking to Vice President Pence, trying to pressure him, not only was Ivanka there, but there was a third person there whom they have already interviewed. And they already have firsthand knowledge information about that -- Trump's end of the phone call.

So, if Ivanka Trump tries to talk to them, she can't just make up something or gloss over things. They have that side of the conversation. She's going to have to confirm it and flesh it out.

I also think that she had unfettered access to the president more than any other person. So, she has a lot of firsthand knowledge and observational testimony that she can give. But I'm not sure that they necessarily need it, especially now that they are going to get this tranche of documents from the National Archives that are going to further flesh out the kinds of communications that were happening as this picture was unfolding.

CABRERA: This Ivanka news does come just as the Supreme Court officially shot down former President Trump's effort to keep some 700- plus White House documents under wraps, meaning possible January 6 skeletons he wanted kept in closets, they will soon be in investigators' hands.

[13:20:05]

Elie, how significant was that decision? And what does that mean for the investigation now?

HONIG: So, it was a big deal on two levels, Ana.

As you say, the investigators now have these documents. They have legal right to them. They presumably have them as of now. I think committee members have said they have already started going through them. These are contemporaneous documents. These show you what people were writing, doing and saying as this attack happened. That's the most valuable kind of evidence, because it happens, it's

created before anyone has a chance to try to get their talking points or get their story straight.

More broadly, legally speaking, these decisions, the federal court opinions from the court of appeals and yesterday from the Supreme Court, really essentially shoot down this idea that Donald Trump has a legitimate claim of executive privilege here.

The Supreme Court yesterday actually said the fact that he's a former president is not what's driving us here. What's driving us here is the fact that he has no argument on the merits and on the substance. So any other witnesses, whether it's Ivanka Trump or anyone else, who tries to say, well, executive privilege, that's now been dealt a real blow by yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.

CABRERA: Let's put that graphic back up, because I want to emphasize what these documents include, activity and call logs, schedules, speech notes, three pages of handwritten notes from then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows around January 6, memos about suppose election fraud and efforts to overturn Trump's loss.

Asha, if you're one of the investigators on this committee, what is the first thing you want to see or learn from these documents?

RANGAPPA: Ana, I want to know two things.

First, I want to know, how conscious was Trump and the people around him that what they were putting out there were false claims? Are they reaching out? Are they conspiring with Department of Justice and the state legislatures knowing that what they are putting out there are false claims?

And this is -- this perpetuation of the big lie is a big focus of the committee. The second thing I want to know is, in these documents, and particularly in the versions of the speeches that are leading up to Trump's speech of the Ellipse, how much of that was toned down?

There's a lot being made of the fact that he told the marchers to March peacefully. What version was that? Was he did -- he really have stronger language that his aides and staff were trying to revise? Because this goes to, Ana, did they anticipate that there could be potentially riotous or violent activity that day that they were trying to stave off?

And did Trump know that as well?

CABRERA: And, Elie, you point out that some of these documents could shed light on Trump's state of mind. Was he upset? Was he pleased?

Outside the committee work, what could learning this mean for potential charges?

HONIG: Well, so intent is a key word. And we actually heard in the last segment the district attorney down in Georgia, Fani Willis, said intent, right? All of this, when you're talking about criminal charges, you have to

prove intent. You have to prove that there was an intent to steal an election, that the president did not legitimately believe he won. You have to prove that he had what we call criminal or corrupt intent. And so all of these documents could go to that.

And, to me, the best evidence you have of intent is what people were doing and saying at the moment, before they have had a chance to think about it. The law actually recognizes that, that there's a special power in what we call contemporaneous documents, notes, texts, e- mails, because they tend to show a person's true state of mind better than things that may happen down the line.

CABRERA: Asha, you have said it's important for the DOJ to prosecute Trump for obstruction, even if it's an uphill battle, to prevent a future President Trump acting similarly.

First, do you think there's enough evidence already for the Justice Department to take that step? And, second, what's the biggest risk of going there if prosecutors are not confident they can win?

RANGAPPA: Yes, so, Ana, this goes back, way back, several crimes ago, to the Mueller investigation and what Mueller accumulated with regard to obstruction of justice.

And I think, at the time, there were 400 former federal prosecutors who said that there was enough evidence, at least on several of the 10 counts that were outlined in the Mueller report, to prosecute Trump. And the reason that I think that this is super important is that obstruction of justice is sort of the building block of criminality for someone who occupies the Oval Office.

If they can stop investigations, if they can thwart law enforcement looking into their misconduct, then, basically, they have a green light to do anything. And so I think that it's very important to move forward on that, or, at the very least, I do think that, as the statute of limitations expires this year, starting in May, that the attorney general at least inform the American public why he's not choosing to bring a case on those specific charges.

[13:25:01]

CABRERA: Elie, what's next? Is it time for the public hearings to start?

HONIG: Yes, I think that's where we're headed, Ana.

The committee has said that they intend to put on public hearings the first half of this year. And I think the committee will have a lot to choose from here, because they have really done an exceptional job at gathering facts and finding facts and building an evidentiary foundation.

So, they're going to have to choose very carefully. Who are we going to put in front of the cameras? Who are we going to put in front of the American people to make this story come to life? Because it's one thing for us to see the press releases that come out of the committee, these letters. They tell us a lot. They give us a lot of evidence.

But I think if they really want to drive home for people what this means, you have to think about your live witnesses. The example I will give is, the first and only public hearing we have had thus far from the committee was when we heard from those four police officers who defended the Capitol that day, Michael Fanone, Daniel Hodges, and the others.

And I think that hearing really helped this -- drive this home in the American public's mind of just what happened there. Now we're going to be focused on behind the scenes.

CABRERA: Elie Honig and Asha Rangappa, really appreciate both of you. Thank you for spending time with us.

HONIG: Thanks, Ana.

CABRERA: With tensions threatening to boil over in Eastern Europe, President Biden trying to clarify a statement he made yesterday, suggesting that a minor incursion by Russia would elicit less of a response from the U.S. than a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

What he's saying now -- next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)