Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Interview With Michael Cohen; Trump CFO Pleads Guilty; Will Mar-a-Lago Affidavit Be Unsealed?. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired August 18, 2022 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:28]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Alisyn Camerota. Welcome to CNN NEWSROOM. Victor is off.

And we do begin with breaking news, because a federal judge has just unsealed some documents tied to the FBI search of Donald Trump's Mar- a-Lago home. Several media organizations, including CNN, petitioned the court to unseal the affidavit and other documents related to the search, pointing to the -- quote -- "historic importance of these events."

But the Justice Department opposes it and argues it would cause irreparable damage to the investigation and possibly chill witness cooperation.

CNN's Jessica Schneider is here with the breaking details.

So, Jessica, what has the judge agreed to release?

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, the judge has already made one crucial decision here. He says that he will unseal some relatively minor filings from the DOJ.

And this was something that the DOJ had said would be fine in their court filing. So the things that will be unsealed, it includes the department's motion to seal the warrant documents, also the court's order granting that motion to seal and the criminal cover sheets here from the warrant application, the search warrant affidavit.

So those are relatively procedural, general information documents that will be unsealed. Crucially, though, any information in those three documents that contain information about DOJ personnel, like names and contact information, that will all be redacted.

So, likely, what we're going to see later this afternoon won't contain anything substantive. It'll just reveal some general information, like the criminal statutes that were implicated, and really the DOJ has reasons for stealing all of these documents in the first place.

It still remains to be seen whether or not the affidavit itself will be unsealed, because we're only in the first hour of this hearing. There's probably a bit more to go. But we have heard some new revelations from the government, notably that they want this affidavit Alisyn to remain secret because they're saying a number of things, that it's a very lengthy document, it's very detailed, and it describes what several witnesses have told the government.

And that's pretty much the biggest concern here right now is, the level of detail from these witnesses described in the affidavit could be so specific that, if the information is revealed, those witnesses could essentially be revealed.

And the Justice Department lawyer arguing here, Jay Bratt, he's saying that -- he referenced how dangerous the situation has become, the threats against FBI agents. And he said that there would be ramifications if all of this information from the affidavit were unsealed, not just the witnesses, but also the DOJ personnel who have been working on this case for months.

So, a lot at stake here. We have heard from the Justice Department. Now the media lawyers are presenting their arguments. So, unknown how much longer this hearing will go, and if we could see a new decision today, that still remains to be seen.

CAMEROTA: It's really interesting to have all that context and to hear the argument of the Justice Department of why they don't want this information out there.

But you say the media lawyers are now making their case. So, could this change? I mean, do we think we will see more revealed today?

SCHNEIDER: Well, the judge is definitely peppering the Justice Department and the media lawyers a lot about why or why he shouldn't release the details in this affidavit.

So the judge is doing his due diligence to ask all the necessary questions. He's not showing his hand as to whether or not he might reveal or unseal this affidavit. One thing that the judge did ask that was interesting is, he said, what if I went back to my chambers and we went paragraph by paragraph, deciding what of those paragraphs could be released to the public?

And the Justice Department lawyer said, look, Judge, there's nothing really in this affidavit that can be revealed here. All of it is high- stakes. So that was an interesting revelation as well.

There was also another revelation about what is in the affidavit, Alisyn. And the Justice Department talked about the fact that it described in the affidavit how investigators might find evidence of obstruction at Mar-a-Lago when they executed their search warrant.

Obviously, they had to provide that information of possible obstruction, because obstruction was one of the statutes that they put into the search warrant there, so not saying that any of these documents were necessarily being destroyed, but maybe that they were being mishandled, concealed, hidden from the government, resulting in any obstruction. So that was one new detail from the affidavit itself. But we're

learning a bit in this hearing, nothing super specific, but just really getting again to the point that this Justice Department is wide-ranging. And there's a lot at stake here, especially for the witnesses and the DOJ employees, FBI agents who have been dealing with it.

[14:05:17]

CAMEROTA: OK, Jessica Schneider, thank you very much for all of that breaking news. Please come back to us as soon as there are any developments.

Here now, we have former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, we have Palm Beach County state attorney Dave Aronberg, and former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence Olivia Troye. Thank you all for being here with the breaking news.

Let me start with you, Dave, on the legal front. Here's what the judge says he will unseal, the DOJ's motion to seal the warrant to begin with, the order granting the sealing request, and the criminal cover sheet from the search warrant application.

Have you ever seen three more boring documents, Dave?

(LAUGHTER)

DAVE ARONBERG, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, STATE ATTORNEY: Exactly, Alisyn.

And that's why the Department of Justice did not object . They were cool with it,because they know these documents aren't much fun. It's like a bubble gum wrapper without the cool comic strip. You really have got nothing there.

And you see why DOJ is pushing hard when it comes to protecting the affidavit, because you have got real confidential information that protects secret sources. And this is the kind of stuff that can put them at risk, put witnesses at risk, and could tip off the targets of the investigation, so they collaborate on their stories.

And that's why look who the lawyer is for DOJ. It's Jay Bratt. This is the chief of counterintelligence for the National Security Division for DOJ, one of the top dogs, so they're clearly taking this seriously.

CAMEROTA: Olivia, you, of course, are steeped in the issues of homeland security.

Do you think any part of this affidavit should be unsealed?

OLIVIA TROYE, FORMER U.S. HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICIAL: Candidly, no.

I think, look, we have seen the threats that are happening right now to FBI agents across the country. We have seen what this Trump circle does when it comes to basically doxxing people and putting their information out. Those threats are very real. And they cover the gamut, right, whether it's threats to your life, your family, threats to your identity, identity theft.

I mean, it runs all sorts of ways. And so I think it's important to protect this information. I'm concerned about the witnesses and the type of intimidation likely that they would face and the bullying, because this is how the circle behaves. We have seen it in the witnesses that have testified before the January 6 Committee and what's happened to them and the kind of environment that they have faced.

CAMEROTA: Peter, you know about this all too well. Do you think any part of the affidavit should be revealed?

PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE AGENT: No. And I'd be surprised if it was.

In any other case not involving a former president of the United States, I'd expect the judge to rule immediately at the conclusion of the presentations from both sides.

He may in this case, because of the significant nature of the case, want to go and draft an opinion and make sure all the T's are crossed and I's dotted. But, ordinarily, I would not expect to have it released. And I would expect to have an order or decision out of the judge during this hearing. But we will see what happens.

CAMEROTA: Peter, I want to stick with you for one second, because, as you probably know, Donald Trump has a lot of surveillance cameras around his property.

And so, when the FBI agents showed up at Mar-a-Lago to retrieve these 20-plus boxes of classified documents that the National Archives had been trying to get for more than a year, there is surveillance tape of that. And now the question is, how soon will some of -- some clip, maybe some edited clip, maybe some doctored clip -- we know that former President Trump has used doctored clips and put them out before.

How soon before some portion of the FBI agents showing up at Mar-a- Lago will be used in a fund-raising appeal or in a campaign ad? And then what would that do inside the FBI if some of that video shows up in there, Peter?

STRZOK: Well, I think agents go into searches with the assumption that they're being watched, that what they're doing may be made public.

So my main concern is one of physical security for the agents and other personnel involved in the search. If these are images where people can be identified, where they can have a name identified along with their image, that obviously, in the context of what we're looking at now, with threats to the judge, with threats to FBI personnel in offices, that really heightens the risk to those agents and other personnel who took part in that search. From an optics perspective, Trump and his camp are talking a big game about releasing it, but I have some question about whether an average American viewer watching FBI agents walk out with box after box after box of highly classified information, whether that, in fact, is an image that is going to serve Trump very well.

[14:10:00]

But he's proven very adept at fund-raising just off the initial fact of the search. So I would not put anything past him. I think we are going to see some sort of images out of it. I'm certain we are unlikely to see all of the footage, but we will see what comes to pass.

And the final thing, if the FBI and DOJ were not aware of all the different cameras around Mar-a-Lago, this will certainly give them insight if things like that are released. So, anybody's guess, but I would put nothing past Trump when it comes to raising money.

CAMEROTA: Olivia, it's not, obviously, the audience that might be intended for. It's not the average American. I mean, it's his base.

And "The Washington Post" is reporting that former President Trump has already fund-raised millions of dollars off just the fact of the FBI search, raising $1 million a day at one point last week. Your thoughts on that?

TROYE: Yes, it's disgusting.

Yes, they're basically utilizing these narratives to make the FBI and law enforcement the enemy of the people. And they're using it to fund- raise. And when you think about the fact that this is impacting lives and it's impacting security around the country, I think it's absolutely deplorable.

But the fact of the matter is, they don't care. And they like instilling fear in people. They like sending this out to communities and say, look, they're coming after me, they're coming after you.

And I agree with Peter. Like, it'll be interesting to see if they would take those images of the boxes leaving it, but I have no doubt that they would find a way and spin it and say, this was framed, it was placed. I mean, you wait for the conspiracy narrative to surface of it.

But I, quite frankly, think it's disgusting to see this kind of behavior, both from Trump, his inner circle and the Republican Party that's also enabling this, because we have seen the national party fund-raising off of this as well.

CAMEROTA: Dave, are there any laws against putting federal agents' identities or faces out there, exposing them to the death threats that we're now seeing?

ARONBERG: Well, just releasing the video would not be against the law. And if there are faces of the FBI agents, that wouldn't be against

law. Now, it's different if they're purposely exposing them to threats. But he has the ability not just to release the video, but also to release an edited video. And you know he's going to make it as sinister as possible. He will set it to music, perhaps, for maximum effect, make it like a Stephen King-style horror movie, because this is about politics.

This is about energizing the base. This is about making Trump into a martyr. And if the video doesn't show him to be a martyr, they will make it, so -- because the video could backfire, as has been said. The video could just show that these FBI agents, as been reported, were walked around the property by Secret Service agents.

They were in plainclothes. It was not a predawn raid. It was at 10:00 a.m. There were no guns a blazing. They were just picking up documents. It seems pretty mundane, pretty standard. But, for Trump, I think it's the promise that this is going to be released. Maybe it'll never come out, but he wants to tantalize his supporters into believing he's got the goods, and, that way, he can continue to raise money off of it.

CAMEROTA: OK, Peter Strzok, Dave Aronberg, Olivia Troye, thank you all very much. And we will stand by for more developments as they come out of that court.

Meanwhile, the longtime CFO of Trump's family business pleaded guilty to tax fraud, but refuses to implicate Donald Trump in the conspiracy. As you can imagine, Donald Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen has some strong thoughts on this. He's coming up.

And the White House is putting their monkeypox vaccine effort into overdrive. So we're going to separate the fact from fiction on how you can get it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:17:59]

CAMEROTA: The former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg, pleaded guilty today to a tax fraud scheme.

Weisselberg was facing 15 years in prison, but will only serve roughly five months. But Weisselberg 's attorneys say Weisselberg will not implicate Donald Trump.

CNN's Kara Scannell joins us live now.

So, Kara, why is he getting such a short sentence?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Alisyn, as part of this deal that he worked out with the Manhattan district attorney's office, Allen Weisselberg agreed to plead guilty to the entire indictment. That was 15 felony counts, that he was involved in a tax fraud scheme with the Trump Organization. He's also agreed to testify against the Trump Organization at their

trial in October. Remember, Weisselberg took over control of the company when Donald Trump became president, along with his sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. He is a 40-year veteran of the Trump Organization, someone who is fiercely loyal and close to this family.

But, as the Manhattan district attorney said, his testimony after trial will be invaluable. Now, New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also -- whose office aided in this investigation, also issued a statement today.

She said: "For years, Mr. Weisselberg broke the law to line his own pockets and fund a lavish lifestyle. Today, that misconduct ends."

So if Weisselberg lives up to his end of the bargain, he will face five months in prison, his lawyers saying that could amount to 100 days in jail. The judge today, though, warning Weisselberg that it was important that he meet all of these conditions, including paying $2 million in back taxes, interest, and penalties, or else the judge said he could have sentenced him as much as 15 years in a state prison.

But, importantly, he's not cooperating with the Manhattan district attorney in their long-running investigation into the Trump Organization's finances. That investigation has been relatively dormant, although it is still ongoing, but Weisselberg will not aid them in that case.

He will be one of their star witnesses at the trial in October -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: OK, Kara Scannell, thank you very much for all of that.

With me now is Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's former attorney and fixer. He too served jail time for tax fraud and campaign finance fraud related to Donald Trump's business affairs. Also with us is CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig.

[14:20:10]

Michael, you know Allen Weisselberg well. How do you feel about what he did today, pleading guilty and going -- he's going to go to prison?

MICHAEL COHEN, FORMER ATTORNEY/FIXER FOR DONALD TRUMP: Well, he had no other choice but to plead guilty.

As I -- as Kara's just stated, he was looking at 15 years based upon crimes that I had provided them documentation on that proved without a doubt that he would have been found guilty.

CAMEROTA: So you were instrumental in providing them evidence that they used against Allen Weisselberg?

COHEN: Yes, I provided it to them. I provided it to the Southern District of New York. I provide it to the attorney general. I talked about it, including at the House Oversight Committee hearing. CAMEROTA: So, in that case, do you think that -- knowing what you

know, do you think that five months is too little time for whatever his crimes are?

COHEN: A hundred percent.

I mean, look, it's not my call. It's obviously the judge's call. The Southern District, the way they act and the way that the district attorneys in New York act, the judge, they get involved in the determination, whereas, in my case, it was not. So I don't really -- I don't want to comment about five -- do I think it's too short?

His numbers were higher than mine. I cooperated. I provided over 500 hours of testimony to nine different congressional committees.

CAMEROTA: Yes.

COHEN: And I got 36 months.

CAMEROTA: And what about this, Michael? He's not going to implicate his boss, Donald Trump.

COHEN: So I disagree with that. And I will tell you why.

They're going to ask him questions. And they already know the questions that they want to ask. And the questions that they're going to ask, if he answers them truthfully, which, if he doesn't, he's really a fool, because he is looking at spending the rest of his life behind bars, will ultimately implicate other people, not just Donald, but other people at the Trump Org and in their business circles as well.

CAMEROTA: OK, Elie, your thoughts?

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is a bizarre, cockamamie, if I can use the...

CAMEROTA: The legal term.

HONIG: ... the legal term for it, arrangement with Allen Weisselberg.

This is partial cooperation. If there's a trial of the Trump Organization, which is scheduled for this fall, then Michael -- excuse me -- then Allen Weisselberg is going to testify against the organization. But his testimony will not be used against any of the people.

And just so people understand, a criminal trial of an organization is just paper. The only penalties can be financial. Nobody goes to prison off that. And the way I was always raised as a prosecutor, and I think it's good prosecutorial practice, is, you don't give people the option of halfway cooperation.

We always used to say, Michael, I'm sure this was said to you at times, you're either fully in or we're not interested. And the problem with creating this sort of partway cooperation is,

what's the next guy going to want? The next guy is going to come along and say, OK, prosecutors, I'd like to testify against A, B and C, but not D, E and F.

That is not acceptable from a prosecutor's point of view.

CAMEROTA: And, furthermore, isn't the Trump Organization, Donald Trump, aren't they synonymous, Michael?

COHEN: It is. It is. They're one and the same. It's his eponymous company.

He is the president and CEO of the company. He owns 99.5 percent of all of the shares. The other 0.5, I think, is owned by a trust. It is his company. And there will be no way for Allen Weisselberg to answer questions honestly and truthfully without implicating Donald, the children and others.

CAMEROTA: So it's just a face-saving measure, in other words, this arrangement, Elie? Not possible?

HONIG: Yes, I think both ways.

I think the district attorney gets to say, well, look, we convicted Allen Weisselberg. There's some value in that. He will go to prison.

CAMEROTA: Is this a win for the district attorney that it's five months, and they...

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: It depends on how you set the goals.

Look, clearly, their goal when they started this was to indict Donald J. Trump. I think that's obvious. It seems quite clear to me that their goal, in starting by indicting Allen Weisselberg, was to try to flip him with the fear of, look, we have you on these financial crimes .We covered that together and talked about that is clearly the play.

That clearly was the play. And now it has not worked, because all Allen Weisselberg's testimony -- Michael's right. When he actually testifies, I don't know how you can tell the story of what happened at the Trump Org without mentioning the individuals.

But the deal here is, they're not going to use him against any of those people. So it's -- I don't see it as a win either way.

CAMEROTA: And, Michael -- Michael, very quickly, they didn't flip Allen Weisselberg.

What is it about Donald Trump that inspires such loyalty that somebody is going to go to prison?

COHEN: Yes, stupidity is the only way I can describe it. I talk about that all the time. It's why I even ended up working for him. It was just stupidity. It

was the lack of better judgment.

But Allen -- as Elie just said, Allen will ultimately be providing testimony that is against Donald. No matter how you want to parse it in words, it doesn't matter. He will be providing testimony. And this case is not over yet. So, as I like to say, get the popcorn, get your beer, sit back and get...

CAMEROTA: And stay tuned.

COHEN: Stay tuned is right.

CAMEROTA: Got it.

Michael, thank you very much for being here to help us with this breaking news.

We have other breaking news. Elie, please stand by.

We have breaking news in the affidavit hearing. Jessica Schneider is back with us.

What's the latest, Jessica?

[14:25:00]

SCHNEIDER: Well, Alisyn, the judge here, Bruce Reinhart, he's opening the door to the possibility that portions of this affidavit could be publicly released. However, that would not happen at least for another week.

So, the judge throughout this hearing -- our Katelyn Polantz is in the courtroom providing us live updates. And he continually had skepticism that the Justice Department needed to keep this entire affidavit under seal, the judge saying: "I'm not prepared to find that the affidavit should be fully sealed," adding that there could potentially be portions that could be unsealed.

So now the judge wants to work with the Justice Department to hear what portions they may be able to publicly put out that would not endanger their investigation.

So, what the judge is doing, he's putting in motion a schedule here. He's asking for the Justice Department to come back to him by Thursday to propose redactions and explain why each piece of information needs to be kept from the public and if there's anything that can be released to the public.

And then the judge might have after that, after he gets that document from the Justice Department, additional confidential discussions with the Justice Department here. The big question is, what, if anything, will the Justice Department find that they're OK releasing?

Because, up to this point, they have said to the judge, both in court and in their filings, that there is nothing that they feel comfortable releasing. In fact, I will go back to their filing. They said that the affidavit cannot responsibly be unsealed in a redacted form. They're saying that to ensure the integrity of the investigation, they need to keep all of this under wraps.

But the judge in this case is pushing the Justice Department, saying, look, I'm not sure I totally believe that. Let's go back to the drawing board here. Give me a filing that tells me what could potentially be released here. Then let's have some confidential discussions. And then I will decide

So, Alisyn, this is further kicking the can down the road. But it's opening up this door to the possibility that some of this information might be released sometime late next week or possibly a little bit after. So some questions remaining after this hearing, but the judge saying, look, this is of such public importance, we need to get something out there. Justice Department, work with me.

So now the Justice Department has to come up with something and submit it to the judge by next Thursday -- Alisyn.

CAMEROTA: All right, next Thursday. OK, I was wondering about that.

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

CAMEROTA: Jessica, thank you very much. Please stand by. We will have more questions for you.

I want to bring back in CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig and former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok.

OK, Elie, your thoughts on what the judge has just said? The judge is skeptical that the entire affidavit needs to be sealed.

HONIG: I'm skeptical of that, because DOJ said in its initial brief, the possibility of redactions is not going to work here, Judge, they said in their brief, because if we have to redact out the valuable investigative information, we're going to give you a bunch of gibberish.

Virtually everything of meaning is going to...

CAMEROTA: Like every paragraph would be blacked out.

HONIG: Yes, all we're going to see is the, and, but.

But everything of substance will be blacked out. And I have done these affidavits. I know Peter Strzok has done these affidavits, that you -- everything in there, virtually everything in there, other than the absolute meaningless formalities, is important to your investigation. Otherwise, you wouldn't put it in there in the first place.

It sounds to me like the judge is trying to sort of land in the middle here, be able to say there was some type of disclosure. So DOJ is going to have to get out there redaction pens, but I think they're going to be using those Pence liberally.

CAMEROTA: Peter, your thoughts hearing that some of it might be released?

STRZOK: You know, I absolutely agree with Elie.

I think, in large measure, what we will see at the end of the day are maybe the citations of a couple of statutes, the elements of those crimes, but anything that goes to the investigation, anything that provides the detail and the data, the facts that are supporting that affidavit, I fully expect will be blacked out.

So, whatever, it ends up being, 20 to 30 pages, I would expect 29 pages' worth are going to be completely filled with black lines. So, again, the government has a week to do this. They certainly -- if the judge does something they feel is unreasonable, they have the right to appeal.

I would be very surprised if they don't reach some sort of agreement. But, to what Elie said before, I don't think that what comes out of this process next Thursday or whatever the judge rules is going to give us really any information of significant value that advances our understanding of what went into this affidavit.

CAMEROTA: So, Jessica, just help us understand the process again.

I mean, what Elie is saying is, get out the redaction pen. In other words, the DOJ would go back to the judge and say, not this paragraph, not this paragraph, not this paragraph. I mean, is -- are we talking about that level of detail that is going to happen next?

SCHNEIDER: Yes.

In fact, early in the hearing, the judge said, why can't we just go paragraph by paragraph and decide what can be released? And the Justice Department lawyer basically said, that's not really practical. There's nothing here that can be released.

But the judge is forcing DOJ's hand. So, yes, by next Thursday, they're going to have to submit a filing telling the judge in more detail what can and can't be released. They have already said nothing.

[14:30:00]