Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Unsealed Document Offers Specific About Crimes DOJ Investigating; Prosecutors Say, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) Testimony Crucial to 2020 Election Probe; Study Shows 44 Percent of Cancer Deaths Are From Preventable RiskFactors. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired August 19, 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]

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN ANCHOR: A very good Friday morning to you, I'm Jim Sciutto.

This morning there are new details about what exactly the Justice Department is investigating in the wake of the FBI search at Mar-a- Lago. A newly unsealed document shows the agency is looking into several crimes which include the, quote, willful retention of national defense information. That revelation does a couple of things. One, it intensifies the focus on former President Trump as the possible or a possible subject of the investigation.

Trump has claimed a standing order to declassify documents he took from the White House, but in a CNN exclusive, 18 former top Trump administration officials tell us they never heard of any such order issued while Trump was in office. And it also may be key that that law, willful retention of national defense information, it may not matter if the information was classified. We are going to dig into that more deeply.

As the spotlight brightens on Trump, the DOJ continues its fight for some secrecy. The department expressed serious concerns that releasing the affidavit behind the search warrant could impede its investigation, also might endanger witnesses.

Still, the judge appears to be moving toward the possibility of releasing at least a redacted, perhaps a highly redacted version. The judge plans to hear more from the DOJ before the judge makes that decision.

CNN Senior Crime and Justice Reporter Katelyn Polantz following the latest developments. So, Katelyn, what more might be released? I mean, there is a history of heavily redacting documents, but what's in question here that might come to the public eye?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Really, it comes down to one document and it's the document where the Justice Department said it all, really. And they said that in court even that there is one document with substantive information about this investigation in the court record right now. It is the affidavit backing up that search justifying the need to go in and seize these 33 items out of Mar-a-Lago last week, the one that the judge approved as he was looking at the search warrant and really did find there was probable cause.

So, in that, that affidavit yesterday we learned that it is detailed, it is relatively lengthy. Those were the words of someone from the Justice Department. And the other thing that's in that affidavit that they're going to be talking about is that it describes witnesses, what witnesses specifically have told Justice Department investigators about why they believe that there could be, you know, retained records at Mar-a-Lago, what might be in those records.

And so over the next week, what's going to happen is the Justice Department is going to propose redactions. They're going to plan what they want to have blacked out on that affidavit. They're going to present it to the judge. The judge is going to look at it very closely and decide exactly what words may be able to be released to the public, if anything.

SCIUTTO: Yes. I've read some redacted documents, as I know you have, and sometimes there's more redacted than what you see in the end, but we will see how this process plays out.

Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much.

All right, so, legal questions here, there are lots of them. Joining me now to discuss, Jennifer Rodgers, former federal prosecutor, and Glenn Gerstell, he is former general counsel of the National Security Agency, and he served during both the Obama and Trump administrations. Good to have you both on.

Jennifer, I want to begin with you. So, three potential charges that at least the DOJ says at this point it's looking under here, Espionage Act, obstruction, but also the willful retention of national defense information. We were talking about this last hour and it was Elie Honig's view that those documents would not need to be classified for them to qualify under that particular statute, willful retention of national defense information, which is under the Espionage Act. Do you agree with that?

JENNIFER RODGERS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I do. It's a separate statute with separate requirements than the statutes that prohibit retention of classified materials without proper clearance. You know, you have to look at these things, I think, as a floor, not a ceiling, when prosecutors are charging and also when you're listing statutes for something like this, a search warrant, you want to pick the section that fits your facts but is the least hard to prove.

So, that's what they've done here. It's harder to prove that he took classified information because then you obviously have to prove that it was classified, it wasn't declassified. You get into a whole rigmarole about maybe some of that information being disclosed in court, which is a bad thing.

[10:05:04] So, this is the easier way to go. Doesn't mean they won't charge other things, but this is the smoothest way to get the search warrant, and so that's what they did.

SCIUTTO: Glenn Gerstell, as general counsel for the NSA, I'm certain that you considered questions of when and how to declassify certain information when it was judged to suit the country's or the administration's interests here. You have Trump and allies saying he just said it's all declassified, it was a standing order. You have people who served in his administration saying, that's just not true. But given that you've taken part in this kind of thing before, what's required to do so?

GLENN GERSTELL, FORMER GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE: In order to declassify?

SCIUTTO: Yes.

GERSTELL: Well, a finding has to be made by someone that it's in the public interest to declassify something and, most importantly, the agencies that are involved in creating the classified information in the first place need to be consulted and asked if we release this to the public, what kind of damage will result to our national security, and their opinion needs to be taken into account. There's quite an elaborate procedure associated with declassifying something and it's a very specific item by item, word by word determination.

SCIUTTO: Understood. Jennifer, another line from those documents released yesterday that has attracted some attention was the DOJ's concern that evidence might be destroyed, which was part of the justification for them going in there, doing the search and getting those documents out. Is that something the DOJ would say lightly?

RODGERS: No, I don't think so. I mean, you're essentially accusing a former president and his aides of being willing to destroy documents. So, I don't think they did it lightly, but that is always a concern. You're now disclosing to the world that he is under investigation, that you've had to take the drastic step of going in to retrieve these documents. So, you know, I think it's warranted, but I think they certainly thought about it before saying that, for sure.

SCIUTTO: Understood. There are so many folks who are commenting publicly on this of late. I do want to ask you, Glenn Gerstell, about the broader danger and threat to those involved in the search, particularly the FBI agents. They have already been docksed (ph), as it's known, identified, so that others might be able to target them.

We had the former secretary of state under Trump, Mike Pompeo, comment on this and make the following distinction. Have a listen, and I want to get your thoughts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE POMPEO, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: One could easily, easily take on the FBI leadership without maligning in any way those folks out there trying to keep our streets safe and keep us safe from crime all across the country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: The trouble with that argument is that it is already agents involved that are being targeted. But do you think that that answers those broader questions about the dangers that many have cited, both Democrats and Republicans, about, you know, making the FBI a target here, making people who work for the FBI, serve for the FBI a target?

GERSTELL: That's completely inappropriate and outrageous to pick on law enforcement who are simply doing their duty. The Justice Department here had in opposing the full release sort of had a couple of goes in mind. They didn't want to jeopardize the investigation, they didn't want to endanger witnesses, and they didn't want to set a precedent for future releases of information while they're still in an investigation stage.

And I think they're going to wind up winning two out of three of those because I don't think that we're going to see the names of agents being released. That would be an outrageous endangerment of them. We've already seen, as you correctly pointed out, some identities released in social media of the agents who were involved. That's completely inappropriate for law enforcement to be subject to that kind of risk, and also for witnesses too. So, this is a very serious issue.

SCIUTTO: Jennifer Rodgers, Mike Turner, a Republican in the House, also serves on the Intelligence Committee, he questions why the DOJ had to search Mar-a-Lago instead of using the subpoena route, which they had already pursued for some number of months. Here is his argument and I want to get your response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): What I have said and called for is, you know, certainly, this must rise to the level of an imminent national security threat that they're trying to secure, that they would go into his house. Because they had many options, one of which is they could have gone to court and asked the court to enforce the subpoena that was prior issued, where they would have demanded that the president, former president, deliver his materials and have the court even working with them determine what's in the materials and what they retain and what he retains.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: Subpoenas, they could take a long time. They had pursued subpoenas, Trump has fought subpoenas in the past.

[10:10:01]

But given the sensitivity of searching a former president's home, Jennifer Rodgers, is that a fair argument?

RODGERS: No, it's not a fair argument because, listen, by saying that there has to be imminent harm to national security, he's putting a requirement that doesn't exist on the DOJ. They went the subpoena route, they went the negotiations route, this is months and months, and so they went in with a search warrant, the way that they would with any other private citizen. To say otherwise that they should treat him differently says that he's above the law. They did treat him differently in some ways in terms of how they executed, but that's as far as they should go. You can't make up new requirements for the former president when he's suspected of breaking the law.

SCIUTTO: And we have had senior -- former senior government officials prosecuted for doing exactly that, taking classified material home.

Jennifer Rodgers, Glenn Gerstell, good to have you both on.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested the GOP may not be able to flip the Senate this November. In an event in Kentucky yesterday, McConnell sounded less optimistic, at least about the Senate, noting the struggles, even the weaknesses of some Republican Senate candidates.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I think there's probably a greater likelihood the House flips than the Senate.

Candidate quality has a lot to do with the outcome. Right now, we have a 50/50 Senate and a 50/50 country. But I think when all is said and done this fall, we're likely to have an extremely close Senate, either our side up slightly or their side up slightly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCIUTTO: As they say in baseball, that's why they play the game.

Just coming up next, I ask Georgia's Republican lieutenant governor about the quality of GOP candidates running in November. Geoff Duncan weighs in on that, also the overall future of his party, the direction.

Plus, research shows that a staggering 44 percent of cancer deaths could be prevented if significant lifestyle changes are made.

Later CNN speaks with Actor Alec Baldwin, who insists he did not pull the trigger on the gun that shot and killed the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins. Hear why he believes he is not responsible for her death.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:15:00]

SCIUTTO: This just into CNN, prosecutors have now responded to Senator Lindsey Graham's request to block a ruling requiring him to appear before a special grand jury in Georgia next week. In a new court filing, the Fulton County District Attorney's Office says Graham's testimony is, quote, crucial to its investigation. CNN Correspondent Nick Valencia joins me from outside the Fulton County Courthouse. Nick, tell us what the prosecutor's argument was this morning.

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jim. They say it's not only crucial but that if he doesn't show up to testify, it could delay their investigation for months. Listen to what they had to say as to why they feel he should appear as scheduled next Tuesday. This was filed just a moment ago. Not simply because senator graham possesses necessary and material information, but also because he is expected to provide information regarding additional sources of relevant information.

The district attorney's office here in Fulton County went on to say, delaying the senator's testimony would not simply postpone his appearance, it would also delay the revelation of an entire category of relevant witnesses or information. They added that it is in the public's interest for Republican Senator Graham to show up here.

It was on Wednesday that he is asking -- that he asked, rather, a federal judge to issue a stay on a decision to have him appear. Earlier this week he had his motion to quash his subpoena denied by a federal judge. So, he's trying to appeal, trying to get a federal judge to issue a stay until he could file a formal appeal. But you see the district attorney's office saying that he's a crucial part of their investigation. Graham, of course, is arguing that he is immune from having to testify because of U.S. Constitution's speech or debate clause and he says that he was operating in a legislative capacity, not a political one, when he placed two calls to the Georgia secretary of state's office in the wake of the 2020 election.

Secretary Raffensperger, though, he had a different interpretation of those calls. He believed that it was political in nature, in part at least. He says there was an implication from Graham that he would toss out legal ballots. Graham has denied those allegations and is trying to get his motion -- or subpoena, rather, to appear here in Fulton County quashed. Jim?

SCIUTTO: Keep in mind, both Raffensperger and Graham are Republicans. Nick Valencia, thanks so much.

Staying in the state of Georgia, Governor Brian Kemp is asking a judge to throw out a subpoena requiring him to appear before the grand jury. Earlier, I spoke with Georgia's Republican lieutenant governor, Geoff Duncan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Lieutenant Governor, thanks for joining us this morning.

LT. GOV. GEOFF DUNCAN (R-GA): Absolutely.

SCIUTTO: Now, folks at home might know you testified before the grand jury after limiting the scope of the questions to keep it away, in effect, from legislative business. And I wonder should Kemp testify under similar circumstances, in your view? DUNCAN: Well, there's executive privilege, there's legislative privilege and just trying to understand the parameters and guardrails around it. And I appreciate Judge McBurney clarifying that, as he did for my testimony, which I'm certainly not going to talk about here, but it was helpful in clarifying kind of the guardrails around that testimony and I did my public service, testified in front of the grand jury and ready to move on.

SCIUTTO: Big picture you very publicly criticized, and I'm not going to get into your private testimony, but publicly criticized attempts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results in Georgia. Do these attempts -- and I'm not going to ask you to make a judgment, but do you believe these attempts merit at least a criminal investigation of that activity?

DUNCAN: Well, I've been outspoken since the moment Donald Trump started complaining about Georgia's election and then the rest of his cronies that followed suit to try to spread lies.

[10:20:01]

And all of the nuances around the big lie was not helpful and it certainly took a national attention and took us away from two U.S. Senate races that we lost.

And so, look, if people did something wrong I'm going to let the law carry out the weight of the law, You know, certainly, I've been outspoken about Rudy Giuliani and his willingness to walk into our state capital and spread six hours worth of misinformation in front of our legislature. It wasn't helpful, it wasn't American and it certainly didn't take us in the right direction as a Republican Party.

SCIUTTO: Do you believe the D.A. -- and you're aware of this criticism in the state of Georgia -- has conducted political activities that compromised her investigation overall?

DUNCAN: Well, as I mentioned earlier, and you did also, I am part of that investigation, I've testified in front of the grand jury, and so I'm not going to comment on that specific question.

SCIUTTO: Okay. Big picture in Georgia, as you know, that there are Georgia state officials, secretary of state, the governor, who refused to take part in the attempts by Trump and his allies to overturn the results there and they've been rewarded, right, in the election so far this year. But in other states, you look at in Arizona, you have election deniers who are winning. Are you concerned that in other swing states that the results could be compromised by having people in positions of power who deny the results of the last election?

DUNCAN: Well, the first part I'm concerned about is the quality of the candidates that are being lifted up in some of these states and some of these very, very important races, U.S. Senate races, congressional races and other statewide races. I mean, just because you want to agree with Donald Trump and say that the election was rigged is really no reason to have the authority to have a statewide elected position. One, I think it puts us in a weakened position as Republicans going against Democrats in generals, but also it puts us in a position where if that's the only qualified trait of somebody is that they supported Donald Trump's big lie, then I don't think that puts us in a great position as we move forward in other elections, especially 2024.

If all we've got is a room full of Marjorie Taylor Greenes at the U.S. Capitol to represent the Republican cause, you know, I'm just one of those Republicans that doesn't think it's enough to just count on Joe Biden continuing to mess up. I think we ought to put a plan forward that makes sense and helps navigate this country and cast a vision for the greatest country in the world.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this. You and I have discussed a number of times on this broadcast the direction of the Republican Party. After these most recent primaries, in which a number of Trump-endorsed candidates did win, not all of them but a number did win, do you believe his hold on the Republican Party is stronger or weaker than it was before the primaries?

DUNCAN: You know, I think the best analogy I've been able to come up with is this is like a tug of war. GOP 2.0, which is something I'm championing every minute of every day is on one side of the rope and Donald Trump's party is on the other side of the rope. And we continue to go back and forth, back and forth.

I think we've already read the last chapter, Donald Trump is not going to forever be the most important player in the Republican Party and, certainly, we felt gains before the primary process and, certainly, now he's feeling some campaigns but the weight of reality is going to be right and GOP 2.0 is going to be the best pathway forward for the Republican Party.

And I think, you know, Donald Trump has transitioned from running the country to running a circus, and he's not solving anybody's problems when he gets on T.V. and creates all these news stories and supports candidates that really have no merit.

SCIUTTO: Let me ask you this on another topic before we go, the ongoing investigation into the former president's handling of classified documents. Just big picture, is this a partisan issue, in your view, or should all lawmakers, regardless of party, be held accountable if they don't protect the nation's secrets?

DUNCAN: It should not be a partisan issue, it should be an investigation. If the law was broken, it should be fully investigated, you know? And, quite honestly, this feels a lot like an H.R. problem, right? Somebody got fired, his name was Donald Trump, and he ended up taking files with him back to his home that he shouldn't have taken.

Now, the weight and the details of all that, I think, we've got an FBI, Department of Justice that will focus in on those details, and hopefully this stays out of a partisan food fight and we just simply, you know, put on the scales the actual facts.

SCIUTTO: Lieutenant Governor Geoff Duncan, thanks so much for joining us this morning.

DUNCAN: Thank you. Have a great weekend.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SCIUTTO: Coming up next, polio was all about eradicated in this country. Now, we're seeing new cases of the virus among children, including community spread. My next guest says there are likely thousands more. It's disturbing. Why now?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:25:00]

SCIUTTO: A new study suggests that 44 percent, nearly half of all cancer deaths can be attributed to preventable risk factors. Cancers are the second leading cause of death among Americans, killing more than 600,000 people in 2020, this according to the CDC.

CNN Health Reporter Jacqueline Howard is covering. So, Jacqueline, what are these preventable factors? What's the advice to all of us?

JACQUELINE HOWARD, CNN HEALTH REPORTER: Right. And, you know, what's interesting here, Jim. When we talk about cancer, a lot of people think about their genetic risk. But we are talking about here preventable risk factors that we all have the ability to modify.

So, let's take a close look at this. The study looked at data from the year 2019 and found that 44.4 percent of cancer deaths globally were attributable to preventable risk factors that year.