Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Primary Day; New Information Revealed on Mar-a-Lago Classified Documents. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired August 23, 2022 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:02]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: And first on CNN: A bipartisan group of nine senators wants the State Department to designate an incarcerated American teacher in Russia as -- quote -- "wrongfully detained."

Marc Fogel was sentenced to 14 years in prison earlier this summer for -- quote -- "large-scale drug smuggling." He had 17 grams of cannabis.

And thanks for joining INSIDE POLITICS.

Bianna Golodryga picks up our coverage right now.

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York. Ana Cabrera is off.

Today, the clearest insight yet straight from a Trump ally of what the former president took with him to Mar-a-Lago. According to a letter from the National Archives posted online by that same ally, 100 classified documents comprising hundreds of pages were initially retrieved from Trump's home in January.

Now, the letter confirmed that among the documents was some of the government's most classified information that should only be viewed in a secure government facility.

CNN's Evan Perez and Katelyn Polantz lead us off.

So, Evan, what more can you tell us about this real bombshell of a letter? And why did this Trump ally release it?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we're kind of head -- it's kind of a head-scratcher, right, that this letter came from a Trump ally.

But it really does clarify a lot of things for us, including the timeline of how these discussions were going on behind the scenes earlier this year. But the fact that there were 700 pages contained here in these 15 boxes that were taken back from Mar-a-Lago earlier this year, again, 100, classified documents, some of them in this special access programs type of things, which, again, even if you have classified clearance, the top secret clearance in the United States government, you need additional clearance to be able to access this.

And it is something that we were trying to figure out, why would you post this letter? The angle that appears to be coming from the Trump side, Bianna, is that this shows that the Biden White House really was involved in the early discussions here in making sure that this was an investigation.

That's not really what this letter shows. If you read it carefully, you will see that the Biden White House was giving -- essentially deferring to the Archives to handle this situation.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, telling the Archives, basically, this is on you to handle.

PEREZ: Right.

GOLODRYGA: Katelyn,though, this news of the letter comes as the former president's legal strategy against the Mar-a-Lago search is starting to finally take shape after two weeks.

His legal team is now demanding that a so-called special master -- that is a third party -- can oversee this case. What more is this lawsuit asking for?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Well, Bianna, this really is an attempt by the Trump legal team to pump the brakes on the Justice Department investigation and everything that they had collected out of Mar-a-Lago in that search two weeks ago.

They really want to slow things down. And one way to do that is to go to court and ask for something like this. In this situation, they are asking for the appointment of a special master by the court. On top of that, they're asking for a pause. As investigators would be reviewing the evidence, they want that pause to take place while the special master comes in.

They also want more information out of the Justice Department. That's another request here. But this filing has a lot in it. A lot of it is political gripes from Donald Trump, the sorts of things that we hear a lot, that he's very, very happy to help the Justice Department investigation. It doesn't answer a lot of questions we have here about why classified documents, or at least marked as such, were kept at Mar-a-Lago.

But he is arguing about his own constitutional rights, the privileges he believes that he may have. Those are legal arguments being made. At the same time, though, this filing it came into court yesterday. It's the first time Trump's team has spoken in court since this search took place.

And there are some legal shortcomings here that a lot of people have pointed out, to the point where his attorneys have even had trouble filing their appearances in the case so far. And it's not even clear if a court will step in quickly, because the filing wasn't positioned to get a judge to react quickly.

So we're really seeing what this is going to be and how it will take shape in court. And there isn't much yet on that.

GOLODRYGA: Right.

So, Evan, help button this up for us. Now that we have this letter from this Trump-appointed liaison to the National Archives, right, now that we have that in hand, and we heard from his attorneys in this filing yesterday, throughout this filing, you hear one word, voluntary, that he was cooperative, that the DOJ overstepped, and they were too aggressive, and that they could have worked this out, basically.

Now that we have this letter, where we hear from the National Archives, saying that they have made this attempt months ago to reach out to Trump's lawyers, what does that suggest as far as Trump's argument?

[13:05:00]

PEREZ: It really shows us that there was a great deal of deference that was given to the former president, again, just because of the status of the fact that he is a former president.

And you see in the letter that there was a four-week delay between the time that the Archives realizes, oh, my goodness, there's really sensitive stuff in here, and they need to bring the FBI to do a damage assessment, and between the time that they realize this. And the time that they actually let the FBI come in, it's more than a month, all because the former president was claiming that he has executive privilege, which ends up being rejected, according to the letter.

It really gives us a sense, though, of where this is going, because, as Katelyn pointed out, this is one of the arguments he's making, which is something that, really, it's one of those things that is so exotic, that I'm not sure the former president even understands what he is trying to claim in federal court.

But this is where we are now. And it really fills in a lot of the timeline on how this has gone -- Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, unprecedented, for sure.

This letter went out in May from the National Archives, and we now know that the DOJ first visited Mar-a-Lago a month later, as you said, in June.

Evan Perez, Katelyn Polantz thank you for breaking it down for us.

So, let's discuss with Renato Mariotti. He's a former federal prosecutor who now hosts the "On Topic" podcast.

So, Renato, let's start with this letter now from the National Archives to Trump's legal team. As you heard, John Solomon, the man who released this letter, is an ally of former President Trump's. On the surface, this does appear to be incriminating. But is there a way to interpret how making this letter public is actually helpful to Trump?

RENATO MARIOTTI, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't see how it is. This letter demonstrates that Trump's team had ample notice that they

had documents that were not only top secret, but multiple levels above that, in terms of how secretive they were, that the government wanted them back, that they were working with them to try to get those documents back in the federal government's possession, and that there was no viable executive privilege argument.

So I really have trouble seeing why they thought the release of this was positive. It appears like a misstep to release it, in my opinion.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, yes. It appears that John Solomon even today, in an interview with Steve Bannon, is suggesting that this is more evidence that this is political, but, as Evan said, it appears to show more deference that the Department of Justice and the Biden administration gave to the former president.

But let's talk about this first filing from the former president's legal team. After two weeks, we're hearing for them, a 27-page filing. You describe it as unusual and something that looks more like a media play than actual legal strategy. Explain.

MARIOTTI: So I have to say, Bianna, this document is something that if a first-year lawyer and my law firm submitted it to me, I would not allow it to be filed or put my firm or my name on it. It is embarrassing.

It's full of segments of this that really don't have a legal argument at all, that appear to just be there for P.R. purposes. There are -- it does not even appear to have been filed in an appropriate way. I mean, this is stylized as a civil case. There's no complaint.

He makes Fourth Amendment arguments before he's a criminal defendant. He's asserting executive privilege against the executive branch. It's hard to understand how you're asserting executive privilege against the executive branch receiving documents that belong to it itself.

It's very bizarre. And I think it's achieved its purpose in generating some discussion by journalists and news organizations, but that's really the only purpose I could see here. And if this was filed by most anyone, I think it would be quickly disregarded. And I don't think it's going to achieve much of anything for Mr. Trump.

GOLODRYGA: Well, perhaps it has bought his side more time, that he has had two weeks to respond. And we just heard from them yesterday.

Let me ask you to weigh in on this request for a special master, because I have heard conflicting arguments here from legal experts, one thing, that this is not unusual, and that this is something that they could see this judge allowing.

But then the question becomes over what? What would the special master oversee if this -- all of these documents that Trump is claiming privilege over actually don't belong to him, but belong to the U.S. government? Can you help break that down for us?

MARIOTTI: Absolutely, Bianna. So, look, a special master is not an unreasonable request in a vacuum.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

MARIOTTI: All a special master is, is a third-party attorney who takes a look at documents to determine whether or not they're privileged.

In certain context, that makes a lot of sense. Like, Michael Cohen, right, it was an -- he was an attorney. It's an attorney's office, residence being searched. Of course, there may be privileged documents there.

Here, though, there's no attorney-client privileged documents. And so what Trump is asserting is executive privilege, which is bizarre. As I mentioned a moment ago, the branch of government that's trying to seize these documents is the executive branch.

[13:10:07]

And so the current executive branch is trying to get its own documents back. So, in this context, I really think, on the merits, there's no good argument for a special master here. Could Trump get one out of deference to him because he's the former president? I don't know. But I don't think there's a strong argument here.

And I have to say, it doesn't really achieve much from a defense perspective, because, as a practical matter, ultimately, all it's going to do is just take out certain, let's say, attorney-client privileged documents, and it's not going to change the ultimate reality of the evidence that was there.

(CROSSTALK)

GOLODRYGA: And again kicking the can down the road.

Let me talk about some specifics in this filing that I thought were rather interesting, because it reveals that, three days after that search, one of Trump's attorneys reached out to officials in the DOJ with a message from the former president to the attorney general.

And here's what he said: "President Trump wants the attorney general to know that he has been hearing from people all over the country about the raid. If there was one word to describe their mood, it is angry. The heat is building up. The pressure is building up. Whatever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know."

How unusual is that statement and the act itself of the former president reaching out to the attorney general? I have heard the word obstruction used. Is that a correct analysis?

MARIOTTI: I certainly very unusual.

I think I can understand why someone would say it looks like obstruction, in the sense that it certainly looks like there's a veiled threat there, that essentially he's riling up people. His team -- it was apparent that his team was the one that released, for example, the search warrant with the names of the agents on it.

And there was, I think, an alert on TRUTH Social. So there are some things to look at there. I don't think that this by itself is something that would be chargeable or result in obstruction charges, but I will say very unusual, something I would definitely not advise a client to do.

And it's really counterproductive, because I think -- I don't think it's going to be regarded as some sort of plus factor by the Justice Department or deter them if they think that there's a case they should be bringing.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, it was interesting that the president seemed to be offended that, when the attorney general did finally make his press conference the day later, a few hours later, actually, that he didn't mention this message from the president, when he was saying that he was in favor of releasing that warrant.

Renato Mariotti, thank you, as always. Great to see you.

MARIOTTI: Thank you, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Well, it's another big primary day, three states with key races, including a fight to see who will challenge Florida's GOP Governor Ron DeSantis in November.

Plus: Get out now. The State Department issuing a new warning to American citizens in Ukraine. Why they say Russia is preparing to unleash a new offensive there.

And a former Twitter executive accusing the company of failures that threaten national security. What it could mean for Elon Musk's fight to pull out of the buying -- buying the social network.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:47]

GOLODRYGA: A heated August primary season wraps up today with some pivotal races in three states.

In Florida, we will learn who Democrats want to take on Republican Governor Ron DeSantis in November. Now, that race will have major 2024 implications. And then here, in New York, voters will take a side in the Democratic family feud of sorts. Two longtime House incumbents with key leadership roles are now pitted against each other, thanks to the state's messy redistricting.

Let's break down the races with CNN's Jason Carroll, who is live in New York, and Leyla Santiago in Florida. Also with us, CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein.

Good to see all of you. So, Jason, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is chair of the Oversight

Committee, facing off against Congressman Jerry Nadler, chair of the Judiciary. They're two well-known New York names, but this race has gotten rather heated. Who is expected to come out on top today?

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Oh, well, it's a good question who is expected to come out and talk on top.

Certainly, there's been a lot of speculation about that. But since the polling is so sporadic, it's hard to determine specifically who's going to come out on top. Jerry Nadler seems to be the man that and the name that his opponents are going after, really seeing some of the gloves come off, though, during this particular race, because when you think about what's happened here, we have got someone like Maloney and Nadler, who served alongside each other for some 30 years in D.C.

Now that this district has been redrawn, these friends have -- now basically have to go out after each other. They have similar voting records. And so how does one distinguish oneself from the other person? And so you have seen Carolyn Maloney -- and, remember, Nadler him and Maloney both in their 70s -- you have seen Maloney basically accusing Nadler of not having the mental capacity for the job.

And then you think about the third person in this equation, who is Suraj Patel. He's the young upstart, progressive upstart, 38 years old, and basically saying that neither one of these two are the right person for the job, that you need new blood in D.C., so just an example of how the redistricting has caused Democrats really to have to go after each other.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, what's that expression about friends in politics? If you want one, get a dog.

Ron, but let's have you weigh in, because no matter who wins that New York race, this has gotten rather personal and ugly. Both of these candidates, we heard Jason say, are both in their 70s. Maloney has recently brought up Nadler's health and his mental acuity.

[13:20:10]

In fact, our Isaac Dovere has a piece on this where he's quoting Nadler in response to those accusations. And he said: "It's obviously not true that I'm half-dead. It's obviously not true that I'm senile. But I'm not going to comment on other campaigns. Let them flail away."

Ron, this doesn't actually come across as a national race that Democrats as a party would want to tout.

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No.

Yes. Well, it's not the kind of sharp ideological choice for the party that we have seen in other races, indeed, other races that are happening today in New York and elsewhere. But it is kind of revealing. It is an interesting microcosm of a larger challenge facing Democrats. I mean, Democrats are increasingly dependent on the votes of young

people, of millennials and Generation Z, who, in 2024, for the first time will represent the biggest chunk of eligible voters, surpassing the Baby Boom, which has been the largest cohort of voters since 1980.

And here you have two candidates who are each born before the Korean War who are squeezing out, in all likelihood, a much younger candidate. Patel is literally half their age.

And it's kind of a symbol in some ways of the challenge the Democratic Party has with its entire national leadership, from Joe Biden, to Chuck Schumer, to Nancy Pelosi, to all of their lieutenants, generally being the political figures who are in their 70s born, before the Korean war, in some cases, born before the end of World War II, leading a party whose strength is in its diverse young support, and really having a hard time making room for those representatives of that changing America in their leadership.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

Meantime, Jason, this isn't the only race happening in New York today. And, to be fair, these candidates are a bit younger, these other candidates.

CARROLL: Right. You're talking about the 10th District, of course, another district that has been redrawn and which takes up parts of SoHo and parts of Brooklyn as well.

The man to beat in that race, I think a lot of folks would say, Bianna, is Dan Goldman. Remember, he's the former federal prosecutor who prosecuted Trump under the first impeachment trial. He's an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune. He has spent millions on his campaign.

And you have got, again, more of the progressive side, wing of the party, two candidates, Mondaire Jones and Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou, who basically say, this guy's not progressive enough for this district. He's spending all of his own money, sure, but he's basically -- what they're saying is, what he's trying to do is trying to buy his way into the 10th District. They're basically calling him a conservative Democrat, basically saying that he's not progressive enough, again, for that district.

So very interesting to see what's happening in the 10th District and, again, another district that has been redrawn, again, forcing a lot of Democrats to scramble, and find their ideological sort of footing there.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

Yes, redrawn rather just recently, just in the spring. So that's New York labor.

Leyla, let's go to you in Florida, where former Republican governor Charlie Crist is vying for that office again, but this time as a Democrat. He's up against Florida's only statewide elected Democrat. And that's Nikki Fried. Where does this race stand? LEYLA SANTIAGO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I will tell you about the

conversation I just had with three registered Democrats that just finished voting here at this polling site here in Saint Petersburg.

All three of them told me that they were voting for Charlie Crist because of name recognition. They know him. Not too surprising, given that he grew up here. But if you're the Crist campaign, that is gold. That is what they have spent months trying to convince voters, that they are the candidate to go up against Governor Ron DeSantis DeSantis come November, where he is a rising star in the Republican Party.

He is widely known or seen to be a potential GOP contender for the presidential bid in 2024. But Crist is up against who you mentioned, the only statewide elected Democrat, Nikki Fried. She is the Florida agriculture commissioner. And both of those campaigns are pointing to the culture wars here in Florida to make the case and energize these Democrats to get out to vote.

So what are they all talking about? Abortion, the LGBTQ community, education, things that they believe could get voters out today and possibly make their decision, by the end of the day anyway, as to who will go up against Governor Ron DeSantis in November.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

And, Ron, I mean, what a difference four years has made for Ron DeSantis, narrowly winning that governorship just four years ago. Is it these cultural issues that really got him not only state recognition, obviously, but even national?

[13:25:03]

BROWNSTEIN: Yes, and -- yes to a large extent.

And that's also why this is such an interesting choice for Democrats between Crist and Fried. I mean, you do have the generational difference that we talked about in New York. Crist is 20 years old.

But, really, this is a microcosm of the choice Democrats face, and very similar to the one they faced in the 2020 presidential election, on how to respond to a Trump era Republican Party that is consistently elevating culture war candidates like Ron DeSantis, who are running very polarizing, in his case, administrations and campaign who has kind of pushed to the absolute vanguard of conservative positions on teaching of race and gender in classrooms, the don't say gang bill, abortion bans, all across the board.

And the choice really the Democrats face in responding to that, there's one camp that says, OK, if the Republicans are going to polarize and polarize on cultural issues, we have to find Democrats who can turn out our base in similar numbers with very aggressive kind of offsetting campaigns. Nikki Fried, I think, embodies that.

And then the other camp says, well, if Republicans are going to polarize, that's going to leave a lot of voters in the middle uncomfortable, and we have got to reassure them with more centrist and less kind of forceful, in that way, candidates. Crist, I think, embodies that.

It's in some way reminiscent of the choice between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders on how you respond to Trump in the 2020 race. We know how Democratic voters nationally came out on that.

GOLODRYGA: Yes.

BROWNSTEIN: Picking the Biden alternative, kind of more reassurance than countermobilization.

And Crist is the favorite in Florida. But, overall, Democrats have become less optimistic about their chances in Florida than they were certainly six, eight, 10 years ago. It has moved from a state that was on kind of the knife's edge to one that now leans a little toward the Republicans.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, well, judging how quickly Florida has voted in past elections, we may get a result there before we do here in New York today. Of course, we will bring you all those results .

Jason Carroll, Leyla Santiago, and Ron Brownstein, thank you.

Well, a 19-year-old from San Antonio has been arrested for allegedly threatening attendees of a conservative youth conference last month. Court records show the suspect allegedly made an Instagram post threatening retribution and saying: "All of you will pay for my suffering."

The complaint says he bought a ticket to fly from Austin to Tampa, where the conservative group Turning Point USA was hosting the conference, but that he canceled the trip. Both the FBI and Tampa police called the threat credible.

Well, the U.S. has an urgent message for any Americans in Ukraine: Leave now. Officials warning of new attacks from Russia ahead of Ukraine's Independence Day tomorrow.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)