Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) Loses in Landslide to Trump-Backed Harriet Hageman; Giuliani in Atlanta to Appear Before Georgia Special Grand Jury; Former Vice President Pence Says He'd Consider Testifying Before January 6 Committee. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired August 17, 2022 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: And I'm Jim Sciutto.

Happening right now, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani is inside an Atlanta courthouse. He is facing questions today from a special grand jury there. This as CNN has learned that prosecutors in Georgia have informed Giuliani that he is a target of an investigation in examining attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.

We will have more on that in just a moment.

GOLODRYGA: And, of course, our other big story this morning, Wyoming Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney lost her House seat in a huge defeat. The three-term congresswoman and the GOP's most forceful critic of former President Trump down more than 37 percent this morning to Trump-endorsed candidate Harriet Hageman.

Cheney, who had been sidelined by her own party, is now hinting at a potential presidential run.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you thinking about running for president?

REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WY): That's a decision that I'm going to make in the coming months, Savannah. I'm not going to make any announcements here this morning but it is something that I am thinking about and I will make a decision in the coming months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: CNN Chief National Affairs Correspondent Jeff Zeleny is in Jackson, Wyoming, this morning. Jeff, it was quite a margin, even perhaps wider than some had expected losing to Trump-endorsed Harriet Hageman. What are voters telling you there this morning? JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, it is making clear it is one more data point, as we've seen throughout the summer, that former President Donald Trump is still very much in control of this Republican Party and Republican voters respond to his endorsements in a state like this.

There is no doubt that Liz Cheney trying to turn the page, she has four more months left in her congressional seat, so she'll, of course, be focusing on the January 6th, the committee and her work on that. But as she is inching ever closer to figuring out her next chapter, overnight, her campaign became a super PAC, and it's called the Great Task, of course, a reference to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address. She mentioned those three words last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHENEY: The great and original champion of our party, Abraham Lincoln, was defeated in elections for the Senate and the House before he won the most important election of all. Lincoln ultimately prevailed, he saved our union and he defined our obligation as Americans for all of history, speaking at Gettysburg of the great task remaining before us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, now, that is the name of the super PAC that Liz Cheney will be using going forward as the entity for her to raise and spend money as she continues mounting her challenge to push back against the election lies and the misinformation led by Donald Trump and other Republicans.

But the open question is what is the market for that in this Republican Party. She called on Democrats and independents and Republicans alike to join her and essentially save democracy, in her words. But there is very much a sense inside the Republican Party, there is simply not much of an appetite for this type of argument.

Now, the question is Democrats and independents were changing parties, you know, several thousand at least will get more of a sense of how many changed parties here in Wyoming to support her but that clearly was not enough to even make this a close race at all. So, a landslide defeat here. She's turning the page but the question is, to what and what exactly is her future?

But this morning in Wyoming, people certainly are, you know, remembering what is essentially going to be the end of the Cheney legacy here. Her father, of course, in Congress for so long, and, of course, she's been in congress for six years. But now in January, she will no longer be. Jim and Bianna?

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Her father campaigned with her to the very end there. And it's important to note, this wasn't a policy-driven election. She voted with President Trump 93 percent of the time. Jeff Zeleny, thank you.

Well, now, to put this in perspective, just how historic Liz Cheney's defeat in Wyoming is, CNN Senior Data Reporter Harry Enten joins us now.

This is not surprising and yet, it is historic, Harry.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: It's not surprising but it is historic. I think it was mentioned by Jeff that we weren't necessarily expecting this wide of a landslide margin. But take a look here. I went all the way back in the record books. This to me is historic. A 37.4 loss is the second worst in the last 60 years for any House incumbent.

[10:05:04]

We're talking all the way back to 1962. So, this was truly a blowout.

There is this idea, okay, Cheney is going to go national and she's going to try and take on Donald Trump. I just think we should put in perspective how strong Donald Trump is currently in the national primary polls. He's polling at, get this, 50 percent. Now, compare that to other none incumbents at this point before the presidential cycle. You can see only two have ever polled ahead of him, Hillary Clinton in 2014, Al Gore in 1998. The only two Republicans who were anywhere close were Bush in '86 and '90, they were lower than Trump is currently. And here is the whole thing. All those previous high polling incumbents all went on to win their party nomination. So, it's truly an uphill battle to stop Trump within the Republican Party.

SCIUTTO: Both Clinton and Gore did lose and it was H.W. and W. Bush that did win on that side. But, of course, a whole host of things go into that. Other primaries last night, you had Murkowski, Senate side in Alaska, but also House race special election in Alaska, which Sarah Palin came out ahead. What else have you seen?

ENTEN: Yes. This is something that seems to be confusing to a lot of folks. There was a primary for the House election for November for Alaska but there is also a special that will fill the rest of Don Young's term. And look here right now. What we see is a very tight race. There is only 67 percent of the vote in and you'll see we haven't called a winner here in Alaska. We have the Democrats at 38 percent, we have Palin at 32, we have another Republican, Nick Begich, at 29 percent. But why haven't we called it? Part of that is that 67 percent that's only in.

But here is the thing. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting. And we're not going to know the results for that for a long period of time because they will not start reallocating until all the absentee ballots are then received and the final day that those ballots can be received is 15 days from now. So, we won't know the winner of the Alaska House special election for at least two weeks plus a day. And the fact of the matter is that once we even know that winner, it may not be who is in first place right now, still a lot to be determined. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Harry Enten, thanks so much, as always.

Joining me now to speak specifically about that Wyoming race is Dave Freudenthal, he's the former governor of Wyoming, a Democrat notably, also former U.S. attorney for the District of Wyoming. Governor, sir, thanks so much for joining us this morning.

FMR. GOV. DAVE FREUDENTHAL (D-WY): Good morning.

SCIUTTO: You had made the point that there has been a long-term shift in Wyoming among Republicans away from what you might call establishment Republicans towards tea party group, further right, more conservative. And I wonder in last night's result what combination of factors do you see there beyond the obvious effect of Liz Cheney's criticism of Donald Trump?

FREUDENTHAL: I think years ago, the Republican Party embraced the tea party, the establishment Republican Party. And I think it's that old adage, if you let a wolf into the tent, sooner or later, it's going to eat you. And what happened is as they continued to move right, and if you look at the state legislative races, a number of the moderates and others were defeated in the Republican primary and a number of the others barely survived. So, what you had is not just a shift towards Trump but a shift towards the right that began some time ago.

SCIUTTO: A lot of folks, understandably, are looking at this as a bellwether for Trump's hold on the party, really, across the country as we look forward to 2022 and 2024. In your view, is last night's primary, is Wyoming a bellwether for the country?

FREUDENTHAL: I think last night's primary was fully anticipated outcome. You could see that in the Cheney campaign, the strategy of having Democrats convert. There weren't enough Democrats changed the outcome if they all converted. But I think it is 70 percent is what Trump's number was in this state and so you would expect him to have greater influence here than you might elsewhere.

In terms of his hold on the party, it's real. This election was over when Trump decided which of the candidates vying to be Cheney's opponent once he selected Harriet Hageman and the others primarily, except one, dropped out, that race was over.

SCIUTTO: You have said that you hear from some Wyoming Republicans who privately expressed concerns about the party's devotion to Trump. Are you saying that his hold on the party in Wyoming is less than it appears or is that just a small minority that you hear from?

FREUDENTHAL: No, I'm saying that, yes, people will voice that privately but they lack the courage to do it publicly.

[10:10:04]

So, I believe the hold remains firm largely because the ones who are concerned, you know, they whisper quietly and then publicly espouse deep support for the president.

SCIUTTO: Yes. That's -- you might call that a plague around the country, what people will say quietly versus what they will say publicly.

FREUDENTHAL: It's incredibly hypocritical, but agree or disagree with Liz Cheney, you have to admire her courage. But before you lay it all at Trump's door, part of the problem for Liz was that when she went -- when she entered politics in Wyoming, she missed that by taking on initially a very popular senator. And then the other thing is she doesn't have the sort of retail politics map, which is what's very much needed in Wyoming. She's policy wonk and a brilliant one but not necessarily a main street politician.

SCIUTTO: That's a great point, because so many of these races, very rarely one issue, right, the tribes, the things.

There was a time more broadly that Liz Cheney was spoken about as the potential first female speaker of the House. She was number three in the House Republican leadership before she was expelled for her participation in the January 6th committee. She does still, it seems, have national aspirations going forward. Do you believe there is a path for her politically going forward within the Republican Party or perhaps out?

FREUDENTHAL: I don't think there is a path in the Republican Party as it is currently dominated as to how that sorts out over the next few years, it's difficult to tell. The Trump hold is real but, you know, infatuations can turn fairly quickly. So, I wouldn't say that there's not a path but I think it's an extremely difficult path, the more likely role is the role of spoiler.

SCIUTTO: Yes. Well, Governor Dave Freudenthal, former governor of Wyoming, we really do appreciate you taking the time to join us this morning.

FREUDENTHAL: You bet. Before you leave, I think you need to point out that the turnout in this Republican primary, the wonderful people of Wyoming came and voted, a third more people voted this election. And I think a lot of that has to do with just anger, anger with the federal government, anger with COVID. And so all of that wave picked up Liz and some other people in that process. It's an angry electorate right now.

SCIUTTO: That's a good point. It might lead a broader turnout than expected in the midterms. Governor, we appreciate your thoughts.

FREUDENTHAL: You bet. Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: That anger is notable.

Well, right now, Rudy Giuliani is appearing before a grand jury in Atlanta as they investigate what role he had in trying to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results. What he said just moments before walking into that courthouse.

And what former vice president Mike Pence is say thing morning about his willingness to work with the January 6th committee.

SCIUTTO: All right. Space news, my favorite, after almost a ten-hour journey to cross just four miles, a mega moon rocket is at its final destination before launch. A look at the Artemis mission, as it's known, first step towards bringing man back to the Moon, men and women perhaps, set for liftoff later this month. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: Right now, Rudy Giuliani, the president's former personal lawyer, the former mayor of New York, of course, is in Atlanta where he's before a Fulton County special grand jury answering questions or being asked questions. Today's appearance comes after the former Trump lawyer was informed he's a target in the probe into attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia.

GOLODRYGA: He was answering questions from our very own CNN Correspondent Nick Valencia before he entered that courtroom. He joins from outside the Fulton County Courthouse. Nick, what did he say to you?

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, good morning, Jim and Bianna. Rudy Giuliani appeared to be defiant, he seemed to be in a confident mood as headed into to testify before this special purpose grand jury, and we believe that testimony is happening as we speak. As you mentioned, I was able to ask him a few questions before he made his way into the courthouse, including whether or not he lied to Georgia lawmakers when he spoke before them three times in the wake of the 2020 election.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VALENCIA: Mr. Giuliani, when you met with Georgia lawmakers, did you lie to them?

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER TRUMP PERSONAL ATTORNEY: We will not talk about this until it's over. It's a grand jury and grand juries, as I recall, are secret.

VALENCIA: Do you believe President Trump is the ultimate target of this investigation?

GIULIANI: I'm not going to comment on the grand jury investigation.

VALENCIA: What do you think the ultimate goal is here? What do you expect to talk about here today?

GIULIANI: Well, they'll ask the questions and we'll see.

VALENCIA: Will you be cooperative? I mean, your attorney in New York says he can't promise how responsive you'll be.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VALENCIA: The fact Giuliani is here is a significant development. If you remember, he was expected to testify last week before his attorneys filed an emergency motion asking for a continuance, citing health concerns, saying that he was prohibited to fly by air. Ultimately, a Fulton County judge said that he had plenty of time to get here by alternative means. He did show up here today. And the big question though is whether or not he's going to be corporative. He did give some indication in the first interview he had after being named a target, a criminal target of this investigation, saying that any conversation that he had with the former president should be protected under attorney/client privilege. Though, because he's a criminal target in this investigation, things might not be that cut and dry.

[10:20:00]

Jim, Bianna?

GOLODRYGA: Nick Valencia, thank you.

SCIUTTO: In the last hour, while making remarks that the Politics and Eggs Breakfast, as it's known, in the state of New Hampshire, notable, former Vice President Mike Pence says he would consider testifying in front of the January 6th committee if he were asked to do so. Listen to his comments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE PENCE, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: If there was an invitation to participate, I would consider it.

Any invitation to be directed to me, I would have to reflect on the unique role that I was serving in as vice president. It would be unprecedented in history for a vice president to be summoned to testify on Capitol Hill. But as I said, I don't want to prejudge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: The January 6th committee declined to comment when CNN asked about Pence's remarks in the last hour.

Well, joining us now to discuss are Shan Wu, Defense Attorney and former federal prosecutor, and Shawn Turner, former Director of Communications for U.S. National Intelligence.

Shan, let me start with those comments there from the former vice president that he would at least consider speaking before the January 6th committee. How do you interpret that? Was that a not so subtle nudge that perhaps a subpoena would get him to participate?

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I thought it was a little bit non-comment, actually. I mean, I'm glad he would consider it. I think there is a legal question he might try to raise the defense that there is some sort of privilege that bars him from speaking to it or to challenge the authority of Congress, try to subpoena him, a former member of the executive branch. I think he loses on all those fronts but I don't think he is really committing one way or the other at this point. And, legally, I don't think he'd have too much choice about it.

SCIUTTO: Sean Turner also with us. And, Shawn, tomorrow, a judge is going to consider whether to release the affidavit behind the search warrant to search Trump's Mar-a-Lago home for those classified documents, which is the latest demand you've heard from some after a judge already released the search warrant itself.

I wonder, given that that affidavit has more details about the nature of the documents, many of them classified that were held there, would the intelligence community have objections to that being made public?

SHAWN TURNER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, U.S. NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Well, Jim, you know, it really does all come down to how much of that information is released. I've been saying from the start that it's really critically important that we understand or that the intelligence community understands the content, the substance of these classified documents.

When we understand the substance of these documents, we understand what the intent of those who were in possession of these documents might have been. And so while I think that it's a good idea for the intelligence community to have this information, because it will give them a sense of the scope and scale of the security breach, I do have concerns and I think the intelligence community would have concerns about the public having access to that information before the intelligence community does.

I think for the president, this is battled around because on the low end, the intent here may have been about the president and his vulnerabilities. But on the high end, we have to be concerned that these documents may be -- may have been designed to be used as leverage with some of our adversaries. So, we don't know but this information is very sensitive and we need to be cautious.

GOLODRYGA: So, Shan, assuming that this judge, as many legal experts said, will likely follow the DOJ's lead and not unseal this affidavit, is this the end of this discussion in terms of whether or not we'll see the affidavit in the short-term?

WU: No, it's only the end at this stage of things, which is quite early. I mean, I'm sure Shawn knows, usually, this fight over how much to show in a potential classified prosecution comes much later. And it's a delicate situation for the reasons that had been discussed, which is that the government doesn't necessarily want to have classified information out in the public record.

There would have to be a lot of redactions and, really critically, a lot of times, lawyers, the defense lawyers who have worked on that, they themselves will need to get some type of classified clearance even to work with the documents and oftentimes have to work in a secure facility with their lawyers, all of which really points out the ludicrousness of Trump having them in an unsecured status in his residence.

SCIUTTO: Shawn, we have seen senior government officials prosecuted, convicted, penalized for carrying classified documents home or keeping them under circumstances, say, on their laptop, like General Petraeus, that they should not have. From a purely legal perspective -- and, again, based on what you know now because there are a lot of details about how sensitive this information was that we don't know, from a purely legal perception, what is the risk that President Trump faces criminal liability here? WU: From a purely legal standpoint, Jim, it's enormous risk. I mean, this should be low hanging fruit for the Justice Department. It should be a no brainer to prosecute based on what I'm seeing at the moment.

[10:25:03]

It does not involve any complex constitutional questions. It's not a question of executive privilege. Everything that Trump has said publicly -- and he has a habit of basically telling you what he thinks his defense is going to be, the declassification issues, the idea the documents were his, anything like that it, just doesn't hold any water at all. So, I'm not really seeing at this point any innocuous reasons for having those documents. It does seem like a fairly straightforward prosecution.

GOLODRYGA: Shan, I'm sorry. Shawm can I ask you a simple question that I think many have been asking on either side wherever they sit, whether they're supporting the former president and his right to hold these documents or those that are supporting the DOJ's move to have them removed. If they were so sensitive, why were they there for so long? Why did it take so long for the DOJ?

We note the unprecedented nature of all of this. But that having been said, if they were a potential threat to the U.S. security, why were they there for as long as they were?

TURNER: Yes. Well, you know, it's a great question. And I think the first thing we have to point out is this is uncharted territory. We've never had a situation like this before. And we know that those documents were requested to be returned. We know that there have been iterations where some documents were returned and the Department of Justice had information that there were additional documents.

There is -- as Shan pointed out, there is no good reason for those documents to be there, and I think the delay in getting those documents was primarily because we're talking about a former president of the United States. And it's certainly is the case that as a former president, we're sort of looking at new area here with regard to what is allowed and what is not.

But at the end of the day, when we understand there are top secret documents that may have national security information, national security implications, the real concern here was, you know, how quickly can we get those documents back and whether or not we would be violating some unwritten rule by going in and taking the documents from a former president. So, it doesn't make sense they were there so long but I think it's primarily just because this is uncharted territory.

SCIUTTO: Shan, before we go, significance that the president's lawyers have been questioned about this and the DOJ investigation.

WU: I think it goes to the point of the delay. Of course, they needed to be questioned. But I think they took too long in doing this, frankly, to echo something that Shawn said. And the reporting that DOJ asked about putting the documents under literally a padlock is just silly. I mean, if you're worried enough about them that they need to be kept under better security, then they shouldn't be there at all.

And so they were being very careful to make the record, cross their Ts, dot there is, talking to these lawyers, that is a good thing, but the pace was very, very glacial.

GOLODRYGA: Shan Wu, Shawn Turner, good job on not stepping on each other. Your names are very similar. We appreciate your time this morning. Thank you.

TURNER: Good to see you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, up next, the devastating drought out west is leading to unprecedented measures to save water. But will it be enough? We'll have more on that report up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]