Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Met with Jan 6 Committee Monday, Says He Pleaded the Fifth "Almost 100 Times"; Trump Lawyer John Eastman Ordered to Turn Over Emails Sought by Jan 6 Committee; Avenatti to Represent Himself Against Stormy Daniels Fraud Charge; Second NYPD Officer Has Died after Harlem Shooting. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired January 25, 2022 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:31:09]

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: There are some fast-moving developments in the House probe into January 6th to tell you about now.

On Monday, the committee met virtually with notorious right-wing conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones. Soon after that discussion, Jones told his podcast audience he pleaded the Fifth almost 100 times.

Also a judge has now ordered Lawyer John Eastman, a key architect of Trump's 2020 election scheme, to turn over emails to the committee.

Eastman authored the infamous coup instructions that were sent to Vice President Pence after the election. And he was in the Willard Hotel War Room on January 6th.

CNN's Jessica Schneider is tracking all of this for us.

Let's start with Alex Jones.

We're hearing some strange claims coming from him regarding his talks with the committee. Walk us through those and why House investigators are interested in him.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: And what's interesting about this, Ana, is the committee subpoenaed him back in November. He then sued. But now he is saying that he did, in fact, end up talking to the committee on Monday.

So the committee's particularly interested in Jones because he could have key knowledge about how the rally before the capitol attack was planned and how the funding operation worked.

That's one of the key components the committee is looking into.

So the committee previously said that Alex Jones, he helped organize the rally at the Ellipse near the White House.

And then even facilitated a donation from the heiress to the Publix Supermarkets fortune, Julie Jenkins. That donation amounted to 80 percent of the total funding that they received for the rally.

So Alex Jones now saying that he did meet virtually with the committee. And he called the questions from the people at the committee dogged.

He said the committee already had access to his text messages and the committee showed him copies of his emails.

Jones did say that he was told by his lawyer to plead the Fifth. He did so almost 100 times during this interview.

So, Ana, it's clear the committee already had a lot of information on Jones from his phone. They showed him emails, texts.

But maybe some of the information that Jones did give them might have filled in the gaps as they continue their wide-ranging investigation here.

CABRERA: And, Jessica, as for John Eastman and that ruling, the committee has been seeking his emails for months. The university even got caught in the middle of this fight.

Where do things stand?

SCHNEIDER: Right now, or maybe some time this afternoon, Eastman's lawyers should be getting access to those nearly 19,000 emails that John Eastman wrote from this university account, Chapman University.

The legal team, Eastman's legal team, will then sort through all these emails, identify which emails they think should stay confidential because they'll claim that they're legal advice between Eastman and then President Trump.

And then a third party, likely the judge in this case, will take those emails and determine which of them can officially stay secret.

But either way here, House investigators, they will be getting an array of emails. Could be fairly soon. And it could detail how Eastman allegedly plotted with Trump and others to stop the certification of the election.

And even how Eastman reportedly told a group of 300 state legislators that they needed to stop the electors from putting Joe Biden in the White House.

So, Ana, once the committee, maybe soon, gets a lot of these emails, it will be another big step for the committee to decide -- determine exactly how this plot unfolded. This one, in particular, from John Eastman.

CABRERA: Jessica Schneider, thanks.

For more, let's bring in CNN legal analyst, Carrie Cordero.

Carrie, let's stick with the Eastman case first. Eastman's lawyer telling the judge that Eastman was working pursuant

to representation of the president during some controversial moments before the capitol attack, including his work in that Willard Hotel War Room on January 6th.

Is this the most direct line yet showing Trump's potential involvement or is he still insulated from the key players?

[13:35:01]

CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it's important that Professor Eastman was actually representing the former president as an attorney. And because if we look at the memo that Eastman wrote, it is marked "privileged and confidential."

That's the memo that lays out the strategy for subverting the election and undermining the proper way that the electoral count act would work.

So it does show that if, in fact, that memo was drafted by Eastman for the president, it showed a more direct involvement of advice that the president was seeking to actually subvert the election outcome.

CABRERA: So does that put Trump in more legal jeopardy?

CORDERO: Well, this is in the context of the January 6th committee investigation. So the committee is not necessarily looking for criminal prosecution.

What they are trying to do is establish the historical fact. Who was involved? How did this plot develop?

That's different from the charges of individuals who engaged in violence and have been charged with seditious conspiracy.

But I think it is an important part of developing the factual narrative for how January 6th, the events leading up to it, and how it unfolded.

CABRERA: As Jessica reported, the judge instructed Eastman's lawyers to go through some 19,000 emails and flag which ones may have that attorney/client privilege.

Then a third party, perhaps a judge or team of reviewers, will decide whether those emails will stay secret.

How long could that process take? Obviously, the committee is up against the clock here, and that's a lot of emails.

CORDERO: Right. So it's interesting. The former employer of Mr. Eastman, Chapman University, got stuck in the middle of this where the committee then came to the university and said to produce these emails that Mr. Eastman was, obviously, using his Chapman account.

That's a high volume of emails to review. But these things, if teams are dedicated to do it, they can get through it. His lawyers will look at it, and then it will be whether or not

there's an independent body, Ana, to review them. So it can take a little more time.

But obviously, the judge thinks, in this particular case, that timeliness is important to the committee's work.

CABRERA: Are we talking days, weeks, months?

CORDERO: It's hard to predict. It just depends on how quickly this unfolds. How quickly the judge orders these reviews to be done. And then what teams are applied to be able to review them.

CABRERA: Let's turn to the Alex Jones news.

It sounds like he was pretty unhelpful, pleading the Fifth about 100 times. But we did learn about these text messages and emails.

What stands out to you?

CORDERO: I think in his public comments it sounds like he was saying that definitely this means the committee had access to his phone.

That's not necessarily the case. The committee, the January 6th committee of Congress has had hundreds of people cooperate and provide information to them.

So it could be. We don't know. And it will be interesting how the reporting fleshes this out.

But it could be that other witnesses provided communications that they had with Alex Jones and so the committee then had the basis for that information to be able to ask him questions.

CABRERA: It gives us a little peek behind the scenes in terms of their investigatory process.

Thank you so much, Carrie Cordero. It's good to have you here.

CORDERO: Thank you.

[13:38:31]

CABRERA: Just moments ago, a judge approved Michael Avenatti's request to represent himself in his criminal trial. He's charged with taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from an adult film actress, Stormy Daniels. CNN is live outside the courtroom, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:43:36]

CABRERA: Well, this just in. We're following a major new development in the fraud trial of Stormy Daniels' former attorney, Michael Avenatti. Avenatti is now taking over from his court-appointed attorneys and

will represent himself. He's accused of stealing almost $300,000 from Daniels, the adult film star.

CNN's Kara Scannell is covering this story.

Kara, how did this come about?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: Ana, Michael Avenatti had hinted at this before the lunch break. But immediately after the lunch break, he asked to address the judge.

He told him that there had been a breakdown in the relationship between me and my counsel that goes to the heart of my ability to mount a defense.

He asked the judge if he could represent himself in this case going forward.

And he noted that he had previously represented himself this past summer in another criminal trial that Avenatti was facing in California. That case ended in a mistrial.

Avenatti telling the judge he was prepared to represent himself, saying that some significant questions related to the cross- examination of the witness that currently is on the stand. That's his office manager.

So the judge, after asking Avenatti if he really understood the risk he'd be taking by doing this, knowing he faced significant prison time if convicted of the one count of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.

He ran Avenatti through the different scenarios, saying he'd have to be prepared to handle the rules of evidence and to question and cross- examine these witnesses. Avenatti said he was prepared to do it. So the judge granted that request.

[13:45:05]

He brought back in the jury and instructed them that Avenatti was using his constitutional rights to defend himself. Saying that the jury should not draw any conclusions from that, either way.

And the prosecutors had finished their direct examination of Avenatti's office manager.

She was testifying about the dire financial straits Avenatti's law firm was in, saying they had been evicted from their offices. They couldn't make payroll. That their health insurance was canceled.

And she also said how a bank had closed their accounts because they had extended too much money and didn't pay it back.

So really getting into the financial issues at stake for Avenatti. Cross-examination by Avenatti of this office manager just began. And

if Stormy Daniels takes the stand, Avenatti will be the one cross- examining her -- Ana?

CABRERA: OK. Kara Scannell.

Lots of interesting details and developments to discuss now with CNN legal analyst and criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson.

Joey, you're an accomplished attorney. Would you ever represent yourself?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I would not.

Good to be with you, Ana. Good afternoon.

I would hope there would not be a purpose to. However, should that purpose arise, I think it's a mistake. I mean, there's an old saying, Ana, that says, a lawyer who represents themselves has a fool for a client.

There's a reason for that. You need to really -- when you're analyzing a case, not look at it from a personal point of view but look at the long view. And sometimes you can't do that when you're in the trenches really trying to fend for yourself.

But I think that he is of the view that he can do it better, that he's a lawyer himself, that no one could represent himself better than he could. And, therefore, he's taking the chance.

And I think the breakdown relates to being told what to do. Listen, every lawyer, Ana, does things differently. None of us have a monopoly on wisdom.

I might want to approach a problem with respect to getting to the truth one way and another lawyer may do it another way. Both could be equally effective.

But when you have a lawyer bearing down your back, who is a lawyer themselves, telling you what you should do and how to do it, I think there would be an easy breakdown in communications.

I don't have any personal knowledge as to what that breakdown was. But I have to believe there's some sense of, hey, if it relates to cross- examination, you should do this, that or the other thing.

His lawyer saying, let me do this. I'm representing you. That didn't work.

CABRERA: So Kara was talking about he's starting to cross-examine another witness. Let me get this straight. He is going to be able to cross-examine the woman he's accused of stealing from?

JACKSON: So, no, apparently, the woman who was testifying was the office manager.

Just to back up, so that's all clear, Ana. He's accused of fraud. He's also accused of identity theft.

CABRERA: Yes.

JACKSON: And that relates to what he's alleged to have done with Stormy Daniels.

And so --

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: But Stormy Daniels is also expected to testify.

JACKSON: Yes -- oh, yes, when it comes to that. So just a couple of things.

With respect of what he's accused of, he's accused of defrauding Stormy Daniels, diverting payments made for her, apparently, going to a literary agent.

And sending that literary agent, allegedly, at this point, a fraudulent document for monthly installments, two coming to him in the amount of about $300,000 that really belonged to her.

When she asked about them, him lying and saying, hey, what are you talking about? I haven't gotten them yet.

So when she testifies, to be clear, he will, indeed, to your question, be the one who cross-examines her.

And there's a lot of fodder that he's going to use, based upon her beliefs in paranormal activity, perhaps, her other activities that she's engaged in. They all go to credibility.

And just backing up real quickly. The woman on the stand now being his office manager is talking about dire straits, why he would have a motivation, based on not making payroll and other things that were happening in his office, to steal the money.

But I think when it comes to attack Stormy Daniels, we have to be clear, this case, you can attack credibility.

But this is largely a different case. Was the literary agent sent a fraudulent document? Can the government produce that? Was it Stormy Daniels' signature or a forgery? Were you the one who did the forgery?

You can creditability someone today, all day, but if that document exists and it's not her signature, you have some explaining to do.

CABRERA: This will be one to watch. And I'll be curious to see if Michael Avenatti puts himself on the stand as well in this.

Joey Jackson, thank you, sir.

JACKSON: Always. Good to see you, Ana.

[13:49:26] CABRERA: The Beijing Olympics are less than two weeks away and covid cases there are rising, even inside the Olympics bubble. How China is trying to stop the surge, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: We have this breaking news now. A second NYPD officer injured in a shooting in Harlem last week has died.

I want to get straight to Shimon Prokupecz.

Shimon, this is super sad news. What more can you tell us?

SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN CRIME & JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Oh, yes. Certainly, another tragic day here for the NYPD.

This is the 27-year-old officer who was the second officer that was shot in that ambush attack inside that Harlem apartment.

Wilbert Mora is his name. The NYPD announcing his death in a tweet.

Let me read that tweet to you.

The police commissioner saying:

"It is with great sadness I announce the passing of Police Officer Wilbert Mora. Mora is three times a hero for choosing a life of service, for sacrificing his life to protect others, for giving life even in death through organ donation. Our heads are bowed and our hearts are heavy."

Sadly, you know, for this officer, we knew that he was seriously injured. The mayor and the police commissioner were talking about how he was fighting for his life.

[13:55:02]

And the past several days, we'd been hearing that the family was making tough decisions after a bullet was lodged in his brain and deciding on whether to donate his organs.

And here you see the family going ahead and doing that, giving life perhaps to someone else and maybe several others who are now going to be able to hopefully live healthier lives because of the organ donations.

But certainly, a tough day for the NYPD as the second officer from that shooting has now died.

CABRERA: Killed because of responding to a domestic dispute.

Shimon Prokupecz, thank you so much.

That does it for us today. Thank you so much for being here. We'll be back tomorrow same time, same place. Until then, join me on Twitter, @AnaCabrera. Alisyn and Victor take over from here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:00:00]