Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Judge Sets Up Possible Release of Redacted Affidavit Justifying Mar-a-Lago Search; White House Announces Key New Steps in Fight Against Monkeypox; Case Reported in Man Whose "Primary Risk Factor" Was Close, Nonsexual Contact at Crowded Outdoor Event. Aired 2:30-3p ET

Aired August 18, 2022 - 14:30   ET

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

[14:30:00]

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: 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've already said, nothing. So they might have to appease the judge and say something that can be released.

And then on top of that, the judge is saying, OK, after you give me that submission, we can then meet confidentiality to further discuss this and to decide what, if anything here, can be publicly released.

But the judge is really erring on the side of getting something out there to the public -- Alisyn?

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: So, what public good would that do if it was that redacted, Elie?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That is a very good question that I echo.

I think Jessica is right. I think the judge wants to say, OK, we gave you more, public than in the normal case. Normally, these affidavits are locked away. And they don't come out.

They do come out eventually if somebody gets charged. Then they pull out the data. It goes over to the defendant. That person can put it out there. But until then, it's really unheard of for any part of this.

So, I think Jessica is right. I think the judge is trying to push DOJ a little bit towards the middle, saying, give me something that I can put out there so we can tell the American public, we've given you more transparency than normal.

CAMEROTA: Peter, I thought it was really interesting when we were talking earlier and you were saying that when FBI agents go into a search situation, as they did at Mar-a-Lago, they know that they'll be -- they assume that they might be videotaped. That's just going in, they're savvy enough to know that's an

assumption.

And so, why is the affidavit so much more possibly damaging than the surveillance tape that might be put out?

PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Well, because I think the affidavit provides a road map to what the investigation's doing.

You heard Jay Bratt. I worked with him for 15 years. He's a very seasoned prosecutor. He's spent a lot of time in court arguing cases involving classified information.

He mentioned there are a number of things that were in there. One was a significant amount of federal grand jury information, which, by its nature, cannot be disclosed.

He mentioned that the identities of several individuals. You know, more than one, more than two, potentially, had provided information that was in that affidavit.

And more importantly, he made the point that this isn't just an investigation about the retention of classified information, national defense information. He made the point that this is also an investigation into possible obstruction.

And why that matters is, by its nature, if you're obstructing, you are trying to subvert the process of the FBI and DOJ doing an investigation.

So, if you get your hands on this road map, if you get your hands on the statements of witnesses, you can try and figure out who they are and try and upend the course of that investigation.

And of course, that is one of the things that DOJ is investigating.

So they're trying to say, look, Judge, not only is this something we don't want out there, but we also suspect that the other side is actively trying to impede us doing this.

CAMEROTA: That's really helpful, Peter. Thank you for all that.

Let's bring in now CNN's Katelyn Polantz, who was in the courtroom for the hearing.

Just tell us the mood, tell us the scene when the judge was saying, yes, they might -- he might be able to release some of this.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Right. The judge did appear to be leaning at least toward some level of transparency. If not releasing substantial details that are included in this affidavit, at least releasing potentially a redacted version.

There's going to be a process that goes on now where the Justice Department can argue for redactions. And one of the things we were listening for in the court was what Jay Bratt, the head of that Counterintelligence Unit at the Justice Department, would say about this investigation, even more so than what the Justice Department has said already.

And he did describe what is in this affidavit without giving any details. He said, there's robust grand jury activity going on.

He said there are several witnesses whose statements may be described in this affidavit that had such specific knowledge that just revealing what they knew could reveal who they are.

He also said there's a real fear here of chilling witnesses, those past witnesses, and also potential future witnesses.

Because this isn't a hypothetical possible obstruction. That there's obstruction under investigation here, as part of this, as part of the reasoning to go into Mar-a-Lago and seizing these documents.

And the final thing, that was a really standout moment from this judge, it sort of flew under the radar because it came as a media lawyer, Tuck Tobin, was arguing on behalf of several news organizations, arguing for transparency.

Tobin said that there was alleged probable cause here. And Judge Reinhart jumped in and said, not alleged probable cause. There is probable cause.

He approved this warrant. And there was a reason for the Justice Department to go in and seize those boxes.

So, we are going to be watching over the next week what happens. A lot of it will be under seal, behind the scenes, happening between the Justice Department and the court.

But there is a process to move forward to potentially get at least some version of this document, sought after in this unprecedented case, seen by the public and the media in the future.

[14:35:02]

Back to you.

CAMEROTA: So, Katelyn, the next step is that, one week from today, whatever the judge has decided to release, will be presented to the public?

POLANTZ: Not exactly. In one week, that's when the Justice Department is going to have to go through and make their proposed redactions and also provide some more legal arguments about why the things they want to keep redacted should be redacted.

Things like, they're saying, even, not just things about the investigation, but things like investigative steps that they've taken, identity or any sort of identifying information about people who worked on the affidavit. The Justice Department can propose those redactions, make their

arguments, and then if the judge has additional questions, the Justice Department can come back in and have a confidential discussion about it.

But ultimately, at the end of the day, it may take a couple of weeks, potentially even months. The judge will be the person who decides here what is released and what we are able to see about this investigation.

CAMEROTA: OK, Katelyn, stand by, if you would.

I want to turn to Elie for a second with everything that you have just reported.

Chilling witness testimony. The judge is never going to release that. That's in the affidavit. That would never be -- that would never come out.

HONIG: Of course. And the concern here is frightening, chilling, either the current witnesses in this case, the people based on whom the affidavit was submitted, and future witnesses, whether in this case or other cases.

Because a lot of times, witnesses give information to law enforcement under cover of anonymity. We will write it up in the papers as, witness one, informant one, person one, individual one, to use a famous example, though he wasn't providing information.

And the understanding is, we will protect your identity. So if it becomes the norm that these identities are revealed, or the paperwork is reveal so anyone can look and go, OK, I know who that is, that's going to deter people from cooperating in the future.

CAMEROTA: That's totally implausible that the judge would release that. I mean, Judge Bruce Reinhard seems to be taking this very methodically, step by step, right?

HONIG: I think witness -- any witness information will be the top priority for DOJ to protect. Yes, I agree. And the least likely thing this judge will agree to release.

CAMEROTA: Katelyn, one question. Was Donald Trump's side represented there? What did his attorney say?

POLANTZ: Well, there was an attorney here who represents Donald Trump, Christina Bob. She was outside of the courtroom. She sat in the courtroom during the proceeding, did not speak, and was not asked to speak by the judge during this.

But there was a point where some of the things that Trump's team has said before did come up during these arguments.

So the lawyer for the media did suggest that there are things that should be able to be unsealed in this affidavit because they are things that Trump's team has revealed often in interviews in right- wing media. They have said there was a subpoena for these surveillance tapes. They

have said a couple of other things about what they believed was happening that lead up to this. That when there was that meeting in June between Trump's lawyers and the Justice Department that Trump said, hello.

If that is contained in the affidavit, the media lawyer's argument was that that should be able to be released.

But this wasn't a situation where the judge asked for the Trump team to weigh in. They didn't respond in writing this morning. And they certainly didn't take a position in court today.

So, we'll have to see if that is an argument that the judge does factor in heavily as he's looking at exactly what should be released later or not.

CAMEROTA: OK, Katelyn, standby if you would.

CNN's chief political analyst, Gloria Borger, is also now with us.

Gloria, this is not exactly the outcome that we were expecting today.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: No.

CAMEROTA: That it's been pushed down for at least another week and that the judge is receptive to releasing some part of this affidavit.

BORGER: Right, it is. And if you take a step back and look at all of this, I think the big question, to me, as I hear Katelyn's reporting and what the judge is going to do.

It's a question of, how much of the narrative is released about how the Justice Department, the FBI, got to the point where they felt they had no choice but to go and search a former president's residence.

And of course, we have been talking about the fact that you have to keep witnesses secret, and that you don't want identifying information about the FBI agents, and you don't want identifying information about the details of classified documents.

But I think this was such an extraordinary step for the Justice Department to take, that there has to be an explanation. But the question is, how much of that explanation will we really learn or should we really learn?

You know, they can say that testimony was chilling, et cetera, et cetera, but what will we actually know when this is over with redactions?

And you know, that -- you know, that is something that remains to be seen, because the story of this has to be -- if it's going to be told, has to be told in a very, very careful, careful way.

[14:40:05]

CAMEROTA: Yes. And to be clear, it was the witness testimony -- it would chill witness testimony.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: Yes, I want to make sure that I'm not using it as an adjective because --

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: -- that's a different thing.

BORGER: Me, too.

CAMEROTA: OK, so, Peter, in addition to the witness testimony, which we all find it hard to believe the judge would release, you were talking about how there's significant grand jury info in there. By definition, that has to stay secret.

And then I thought it was interesting that Katelyn said there's robust grand jury activity in there. What could that look like? What does that mean?

STRZOK: Well, so, typically, something that is grand jury information is something that either a grand jury subpoena has commanded that be produced and, in this case, there's been some reporting that video from Mar-a-Lago, they were -- they issued a subpoena to retrieve that.

There's also some reporting that they may have issued a subpoena to recover documents.

There's also grand jury information where, if the grand jury summoned somebody or people in to give testimony, the things that they said before the grand jury would also be subjected to grand jury secrecy rules.

Now, that's something that the court can order to be released. But it's something the government can't -- is sworn to secrecy and can't provide.

Now, you know, there's, in my mind, an issue of the timeliness of this. I don't think anybody at DOJ is saying, at some point in the future, it might not be appropriate to release it.

But right now -- and Jay Bratt made the point, this is early in the investigation.

So even if you say the example of these CCTV footage, which the Trump camp has talked about, say that comprises two pages of this affidavit. Say it comprises 18 pages of this affidavit.

Just knowing a limited amount about something gives you an idea of what the other things are not.

So, even when you look at it and you say, well, these small things might be able to be released, even that gives you an idea of what else might be in that document that isn't what is unredacted.

BORGER: But that could cause more speculation, couldn't it? And that's -- you know, that's a question.

Because, very often, when we look at redacted documents, we then try and draw conclusions about point "A" to point "B" to point "C" when a lot of it is blacked out. And so, that can be an issue, too.

CAMEROTA: When I see a redacted document, I go like this.

(LAUGHTER)

CAMEROTA: And I hold it up and I try to see if I can see what the names are.

Also, Elie, I thought it was interesting that Katelyn just reported that one of the things that the Trump team would like released is the fact that when the DOJ -- some attorneys from the DOJ went to Mar-a- Lago to try to negotiate the return of these classified documents to the National Archives and form President Trump stopped by to say, hello.

Of course, that's a move, like, look how friendly we all are. Guys, welcome, you know?

HONIG: Right.

CAMEROTA: So of course, they want that part released.

HONIG: Yes, well, both -- well, I don't know. I can't say both sides. I think the Trump side clearly wants some of this released but I doubt they would be happy if this whole thing was released.

Because let's remember what this is. This is a detailed document where the DOJ laid out and a federal judge found probable cause of various federal crimes.

There may be atmospherics that Donald Trump and his people would want to use and put out there and argue that they were victimized.

And one thing that's interesting, we're wrestling with the question of, how on earth do you unseal just parts of this without jeopardizing the investigation?

And Katelyn just gave us a bit of reporting that I think may shed some light on that. She said there was some suggestion that perhaps the things that Donald Trump's people have already talked about, it's the cat's already out of the bag, to use another legal phrase here.

(CROSSTALK)

CAMEROTA: I'm following along.

HONIG: But DOJ used a similar argument a couple weeks ago when they went to the court and said, we want you to unseal, Judge, documents we've already seen, the search warrant itself, the receipt.

They said, Donald Trump has already put this out there. He's already talking about this publicly, Judge. And given that, we are fine with this being released.

Of course, the flip side of that is, if you're only unsealing things Donald Trump is talking about, you're unsealing a very selective portion.

CAMEROTA: I mean, Katelyn, they did put out -- they already unsealed a few things and they're just -- I mean, they're just totally pro forma.

I'm looking for the things they agreed to unseal today. It was like the cover letter. I mean, I'm sorry, it was the cover sheet.

So, what were the documents that the judge said OK to today?

POLANTZ: Right. So, it was the cover letter. It was the sealing request from the Justice Department. It was the judge's response to that sealing request. So, really, procedural documents that would exist in this case.

But one thing to add here that happened in court was that the judge, as he was discussing transparency around this case, did clarify that there was nothing else under seal of substance.

That he was releasing these additional procedural documents today. And the things of substance that remains sealed in this case is the affidavit.

And so what that tells us is really that the Justice Department put their eggs in this basket. That affidavit is pretty important. It is -- it outlines what they have done, what they're doing.

[14:44:59]

There wasn't any other communication between the judge and the Justice Department that happened after the affidavit, any back and forth, as back and forth can sometimes happen in situations like these.

And then, you know, I should end with Jay Bratt saying to the judge, these words, as he described the affidavit. He said, it was detailed and it was relatively lengthy.

So, we know what this is. And that document is now going to be the most interesting document that no one outside of the Justice Department and the court can see, at least not for now.

CAMEROTA: All right, Katelyn Polantz, Elie Honig, Peter Strzok, Gloria Borger, thank you all for helping us understand everything that we've just witness with the affidavit and what is going to come next. Really appreciate it.

OK, now to this. The White House has a new plan to vaccinate more people against monkeypox as one new case is raising questions and confusion about how the virus is transmitted. So, we're going check fact versus fiction next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:50:39]

CAMEROTA: The White House announcing new strategies to combat the monkeypox outbreak. More than 13,000 cases have cropped up across the country, and the Biden administration is trying to keep up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

XAVIER BECERRA, HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: It's important that we all take monkeypox seriously. And it's critical that we do all we can to keep this dangerous virus from spreading.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: CNN's Jeremy Diamond has more for us now.

So, Jeremy, there's a push to ramp up the availability of testing and vaccines and anti-viral treatments in the areas where there's a high rate of infection. Like where? Where is that?

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. We're seeing an acceleration overall from the Biden administration in terms of its response to this monkeypox outbreak.

Now, in terms of those 50,000 courses of this anti-virus treatment, it's going to be in areas that the Biden administration says are most severe in terms of the outbreak, both in terms of number of cases.

But also looking at areas that have higher populations of people who are at risk of contracting and of having a bad outcome with monkeypox.

Now, beyond these 50,000 courses we're also looking at an acceleration of efforts in terms of vaccines.

And 1.8 million doses are going to become available come Monday for state and local jurisdictions that have already burned through at least 90 percent of their current stock of vaccines. That's 1.8 million doses.

Part of the reason why it's so many is, of course, because last week the FDA authorized the use of five doses per vial when it used to be just one per dial by changing the method of injection.

And now beyond that, they're also talking about not only increasing the supply but also access.

These agencies are going to establish a pilot program with several key states, several key state health departments that are already planning to administer vaccine doses at LGBTQ events in their states.

We're already seeing some of these programs rolling out in Georgia as well as South Carolina -- or North Carolina -- forgive me -- and Louisiana.

So that was really an emphasis here, not just about the number of doses but also making sure that they are bringing those doses to the individuals who need them. Broadly, though, we know, down the line, there are going to be

questions about the ability of this manufacturer that's producing this vaccine to keep up with demand.

And the administration making very clear they are talking to that manufacturer and working on ways to increase their manufacturing capacity going forward -- Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: Jeremy, thank you very much for the update.

Joining us now is CNN medical analyst, Dr. Leana Wen.

One of the steps, as you just heard Jeremy say, the White House is taking is setting up these large vaccine events at big gatherings, as he said, at LGBTQ events.

I read about a big Pride event or a parade. Because, at the moment, that's the population where it is predominantly spreading.

So do you think that that will help knock down this outbreak?

DR. LEANA WEN, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: Oh, absolutely. One of the core tenets in public health is to go where people are, meet people where they are. And it's really important to bring vaccines to individuals.

And if we know that at the moment the population most at risk -- 99 percent of cases are in this population of men who have sex with men -- so it makes really a lot of sense to bring vaccines directly to these events, especially as a way to reach people who are particularly vulnerable.

CAMEROTA: And then there's also this new confirmed case that's causing confusion because it was reported in a man whose primary risk factor was non-sexual contact at a crowded outdoor event.

So just help us understand the reality here of how it can really be transmitted. Can someone get monkeypox from, say, a crowded bar or just even sitting next to somebody like a sleeveless person on the subway?

Is it easily transmitted literally like that, skin to skin?

WEN: I do think it's important for us to state the likelihood of transmission through different methods. We know that 94 percent, 95 percent of monkeypox transmission thus far in the U.S. are associated with sexual activity.

Also you could get monkeypox through kissing, cuddling, really direct contact.

Now, if you are in a very crowded bar or a dance club, everybody is wearing short sleeves, and otherwise maybe not being clothed, and you're rubbing skin with a lot of people, it's possible you could get monkeypox that way.

[14:55:00] But just sitting next to someone at a bar or sitting next to someone on the subway, very unlikely you're going to get monkeypox there.

CAMEROTA: OK. How about this? Can I get monkeypox from trying on clothing or sleeping on sheets used by someone who's infected, people are wondering.

WEN: It's possible. We know that monkeypox is shed through -- or it could be shed onto bedding, onto towels used by somebody who is actively infected.

And their lesions, their virus inside there could be then deposited onto bedding and other surfaces.

So it's possible. And I definitely would not share the bedding or clothing of someone who is known to be infected with monkeypox.

That said, I wouldn't be worried about bedding at a hotel that's just been changed. I also would not worry about trying on clothes at the mall.

CAMEROTA: OK. How about the gym? Equipment? Gym equipment that hasn't necessarily been wiped down?

WEN: Again, I think it's extremely unlikely because that would have to involve the person having active lesions that are then touching the gym equipment and then you are using the equipment right after.

So I think it's unlikely. But to be safe, you can always wipe down the gym equipment before you use it.

CAMEROTA: OK. Dr. Leana Wen, we appreciate you answering all these questions that are buzzing around because people are confused at the moment about just how easy or hard it is to transmit this virus.

So thank you very much for helping us with that.

All right. Meanwhile, we continue to follow the breaking news. A judge has set in motion the possible public release of a heavily redacted version of the Mar-a-Lago affidavit. Stay with us for details.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

CAMEROTA: It's the top of the hour on CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Alisyn Camerota.

[14:59:54]

And we do begin with multiple breaking developments coming from a federal court hearing that just ended. It's about that FBI search on former President Trump's Florida home.

A judge has just set in motion a possible release of some portion of the affidavit. It would likely be heavily redacted.