Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Sinema Of Arizona Leaves Democratic Party, Now An Independent; Judge Considers Contempt Request In Trump Classified Docs Case; Jan. 6 Committee Considers Criminal Referrals For Trump, At Least 4 Others. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired December 09, 2022 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello everyone, I'm Bianna Golodryga. Welcome to CNN NEWSROOM.

We are following three big stories for you at this hour. Senator Kyrsten Sinema is no longer a Democrat. She registered as an independent just days after her now former party clinched a clear but narrow majority in the Senate. We may see a former president of the United States held in contempt. Sources say that's what Donald Trump and his team are potentially facing for not complying with a subpoena in the case of classified documents stored on his property. And Brittney Griner is back home. The WNBA star took her first steps on U.S. soil the day after she was released from a Russian prison.

But we begin this hour with the Senate shocker. Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema is no longer a Democrat, announcing her exit from the party. This only three days ago, Democrats earning the 51st seat from Raphael Warnock's reelection in a Georgia runoff. Sinema told our Jake Tapper why she registered as an independent.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KYRSTEN SINEMA, (I-AZ): I know some people might be a little bit surprised by this but actually, I think it makes a lot of sense. You know, a growing number of Arizonans and people like me just don't feel like we fit neatly into one party's box or the other. And so, like many across the state in the nation, I've decided to leave that partisan process. I intend to maintain my position on my committees and keep doing the work that I've been doing for Arizona. So, I don't think that things will change in terms of how I operate or the work that I do in the United States Senate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GOLODRYGA: Let's go to CNN congressional correspondent Jessica Dean on Capitol Hill. So, Jessica, what is the reaction been in Congress to this news?

JESSICA DEAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, this has been big news, Bianna. In a week, we've had a lot of big news, especially for Senate Democrats here on Capitol Hill. We heard from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. He was told that -- he was told in advance by Sinema about this decision. He called her a good and effective senator. And then said that she will be keeping her committee assignments. And that's really key when you really boil this down for what does it mean for this new slim Democratic majority.

Well, if this point is going to stay 51-49 in the balance of power, we're putting now three independents with Democrats. Now, the other two, Bernie Sanders and Angus King caucus with Democrats. Sinema has not said if she's going to be doing that or not explicitly, but because she's keeping her Democratic committee assignments, that means the Democrats get to hold a lot of this power and the benefits that they get from having a majority. It means that they're going to be able to wield that greater subpoena power. They're going to be able to move nominees through these committees quicker and more expedient -- with more expediency. They're going to be able to do a lot of those things we're very excited about because they're going to be able to maintain those majorities on the committee. So, that is what's pretty key.

But we also are hearing from some liberal Democrat -- Liberal Democrats, including Ruben Gallego, who's kind of danced around potentially challenging her in 2024 when she's up who have criticized this move. But earlier today on "CNN THIS MORNING," Senator Amy Klobuchar kind of laid out how she thinks this is going to affect movement in the Senate. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR, (D-MN): I don't think it's going to greatly change the way the Senate is working right now. And in any way take away from the victory that Democrats have. If she were to say, no, I'm going over Republican, I am not voting with them anymore, that's a whole different thing. That is nowhere near what she said. And she has tended not to go to the caucus meeting something she said, so I'm not like telling something out of school, except for rare moments where she's advocating for something she cares about. And that's not going to change either.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: And that's certainly true, Bianna. On Tuesdays, they always have their policy lunches and then, you know, we'll talk through the caucus about different issues, and it's rare that she attends those unless she has legislation she wants to talk about with Democrats. So, again, to Klobuchar's point, that probably won't be changing all that much either, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. And as you noted, Senate Majority Leader Schumer was given a heads-up as was the White House. So, they weren't blindsided by this news.

DEAN: Right.

GOLODRYGA: Jessica Dean, thank you.

DEAN: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: Well, the White House is now trying to shrug off this Sinema's switch. CNN chief White House correspondent Phil Mattingly joins me now for more. So, Phil, give us the details to the president's response on losing a Democrat in the Senate just days after cinching a clean majority. We hear that as I noted that she gave the White House a heads-up. What is the response been?

[14:05:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's been a whipsaw of a week if you think back over the course of the last 72 hours for Democrats. And two things can both be true to some degree here. From a symbolism perspective, a Democrat leaving the party with a very narrow majority, even a one-seat expanded one is not a good look. It is not something -- to some degree, it's an indictment of where the party may be headed.

However, when you talk to White House officials, they make clear that one, they appreciated the heads-up, it's very much in line with how they've operated with Senator Sinema, even on issues where they end up not agreeing legislatively over the course of the last two years. But two, just give a great rundown as to why the most important issues for the White House on the technical side of how the Senate operates, they really don't believe there's going to be a major shift. So, what does this actually mean for the White House? What does it mean for President Biden's legislative agenda in a divided Congress? When we talked to White House officials, they say at this point, not that much. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: She has worked with us on key priorities of this administration. When you think about his economic policy, I just laid out all of the different historic pieces of legislation that we have been able to get done. And she has played a key role in that when you think about the CHIPS and Science Act and when you think about the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. That's 93 percent. And so, we think that partnership will continue. We do not see their change in our democratic majority as it relates to the Senate. So, we're very confident.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: So, maybe a different political affiliation to some degree, but in terms of a major shift and how the White House works with the senator, they're saying not at this point, not that they see. We'll see how that plays out going forward. But for now, that's where the White House thinks things are in or at least wants them to be, Bianna.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. For now, they're giving her the benefit of the doubt with this news. Phil Mattingly, thank you.

So, let's discuss this further. Abby Phillip is CNN's senior political correspondent and anchor of "INSIDE POLITICS SUNDAY." Republican strategist, Doug Heye served as communications director for the Republican National Committee. And Natasha Alford is a CNN political analyst and senior correspondent at TheGrio. Welcome, all of you.

So, Abby, you -- we know that Senator Sinema was known to be a bit mercurial as a Democrat. What happens now in your -- in your view, as she's turning to the independent party?

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think that this really does kind of all come down to what does she want her political future to be. It's not a surprise that she wants to shut down a talk of a primary on her left. And I -- you know, as I'm thinking about this, I started going back to the exit polls from a month ago in the midterms.

And when you look at those exit polls, you see about 40 percent of the Arizona electorate describes themselves as independent or moderate. Those are the people that Kyrsten Sinema is trying to appeal to. But then you look even further and look at where Republicans end up. About 9 percent of Republicans ended up voting for the Democrat in both the Senate race and in the governor's race. That means that there's about 10 percent of the Republican party that's up for grabs.

If you add up those two numbers, you're getting pretty close to the possibility that she could compete as an independent. I think that Sinema sees the maverick seat that used to be occupied by -- you know, by John McCain as being open. And the question is, can she really execute that move before she faces voters again?

GOLODRYGA: So, Doug, let me ask you. A Republican to weigh in on what perhaps is her deficit among Democrats in the state, she's not polling well among Democrats in Arizona.

DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: She says she's doing this for the collective good that the -- that the country in her view should be moving towards the middle in the center because politics she said is too partisan and broken. But do you take her at her word or do you view this as a political move on her part, given that you have Ruben Gallego, many people, as you know, are encouraging him to primary her there?

HEYE: Yes. They both can be true and not be mutually exclusive. And, you know, it's fascinating that this decision was made this week. Obviously, you know, what we saw the Senate and the House move on the gay marriage legislation that she had a whole lot to do with. It wouldn't frankly, have happened without her. President Biden's going to sign that into law. And sort of make that -- to make this decision after that, I think also sends a message back home. And what we can see very easily, we know she wouldn't win a Democratic primary despite that accomplishment.

But if she does get challenged by a Democrat, it does one of two things. It either says to Democrats that they need to get in line politically behind Sinema against a Republican and that Republican as we've seen from Arizona Republicans wouldn't be a John McCain or even a Barry Goldwater Republican, another Maverick. It might be a Cari Lake or somebody like that, who a lot of Republicans that 9 percent that Abby just laid out rejected and even more could do so in the future.

GOLODRYGA: Natasha, I couldn't help but notice that we heard a White House that was rallying around Senator Sinema here and supporting her and noting 93 percent of the time she voted alongside this administration. It's quite a difference from what we saw earlier this year and last when she was a thorn at their side, to be honest, many times. Behind closed doors, do you think the Democrats in the White House in particular are more nervous about this move than they are letting off publicly?

[14:10:11]

NATASHA ALFORD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I have to imagine that they did the calculus, right, even after Raphael Warnock won. And they thought, you know, Kyrsten Sinema always was a bit of a wildcard. So, even though there were these headlines and celebrations of Democrats, really owning this balance of power, you still really didn't know where Kyrsten Sinema would come out in future votes. And so, I think they're playing the hand that they were dealt, trying to sort of stay calm in the midst of this news. Because at the end of the day, their hands are tied, what can they really do?

But I'm really fascinated by Kyrsten Sinema's insistence that this is about Arizonans. If you saw her announcement, you know, she said Arizonans again and again. But you know, as we discussed, many of the polls indicate a lot of Arizonans particularly Democrats are not happy with her, right? And so, it just makes you wonder why this week, and what's the strategy behind this move?

GOLODRYGA: So, Abby, in your opinion, is this a state-specific issue, meaning Arizona? And the reason I'm asking is because as we heard from Natasha, she was a bit of a thorn and tricky for the White House and for Democrats to wrap their hands around to make sure that she was on board with them on many legislative bills. The same could be said about Joe Manchin. So, where does this leave him or would you say the West Virginia is in a completely different category?

PHILLIP: Well, I -- look, the next midterm presidential year 2024, right is going to be a year in which a lot of Democrats in those kinds of you know, purple-ish, red-ish states are going to be up for reelection, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, John Tester, others. So, it's going to be a tough year for those folks who have to run in states that kind of have red DNA, but they themselves might have D next to their names. And so, these challenges that Sinema is facing -- is not -- they're not necessarily unique to her.

And I think it's really just about the kind of sliver of votes that they take that are controversial. You know, 97 percent of the time she's voted with her party, it's the 3 percent that really starts to matter. And I think you're going to start to see all of those types of kind of what's left of maybe the -- what you would have called in a previous era, the Blue Dogs, really trying to exert their independence in different ways. This is her way of doing it. There are some unique elements to Arizona that make this politically a much more feasible proposition for her. But I think you're going to see this across the board for a lot of these Democrats that are running in tough states politically.

GOLODRYGA: Doug, does this impact Senate Republicans at all?

HEYE: Not at this point. And, you know, it highlights the problem that Republicans have had in this past election. It depends on who they -- who they nominate. If they nominate somebody who can win, which has been a problem in Arizona and other states, they'll be OK. If they don't nominate somebody who can win, that sets up a potential split. And that's part of what Sinema is reacting to. And it's not just specific to her. You know, part of this reaction, and Natasha references earlier, is received -- and you did as well that she's received a lot of criticism from the Arizona Democratic Party, which is true.

Being from North Carolina, my old boss, Richard Burr, and Thom Tillis, the other senator have been criticized and condemned by the state party more and more -- the Republican Party of North Carolina. More and more, we're seeing state parties try and tell their senators what to do and act as party bosses. And we're starting to see Sinema as a great example of that. Then be smart enough to say, I don't need to follow your rules. I'm going to go a different way. And if she's ultimately successful, then Democrats in Arizona and perhaps nationally, are going to have a lot to think about.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, she could be an outlier here. But, of course, all eyes will be on what happens in 2024 if she does announce that she's running again, was this a smart tactical move on her part? And we shall see. Abby Phillip, Doug Heye, and Natasha Alford, thank you.

HEYE: Thank you.

GOLODRYGA: Well, a federal judge is being asked to hold Donald Trump in contempt of court for not complying with a subpoena to return all classified documents. We'll have more details up next. And at least four former Trump associates may be the target of criminal referrals by the House committee investigating the Capitol insurrection. We'll explain. That's all straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:18:47]

GOLODRYGA: A critical showdown in federal court right now. The Justice Department arguing that Donald Trump's team should be held in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena to turn over all classified documents in the former president's possession. Trump's legal team said it conducted searches in four locations just before Thanksgiving and found two more documents with classified markings at a storage unit in Florida. CNN's Sara Murray joins me now for more. So, Sara, how could this process play out in court today?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, you know, this is going to be happening all behind closed doors, all under seal. So, these are secret court proceedings. But the judge has a couple of options. Look, federal prosecutors want the judge to hold Trump and his post-presidency office in contempt, which would mean a fine. So, she could opt to go that route. She could decide it today in this hearing happening behind closed doors. She could decide she wants to ruminate on it, and she could rule on it later on paper, which would also be sealed, or she has other options.

You know, she could tell the Trump team look, prosecutors want you to designate someone, this Custodian of Records to sign an attestation saying that you have returned everything. I'm now going to order you to do that. Or she could come up with some other compromise or suggest that they need to come up with some other compromise to move this forward. So, she does have options available to her.

[14:20:02]

I think what it's clear, though, about this court proceeding is that the process between the Justice Department and between Trump's lawyers has gotten increasingly contentious. You know, DOJ is still moving forward asking for Trump to be held in contempt, even though we know that Trump's lawyers hired a firm to search Bedminster, to search Trump Tower, to search a Florida office, and you know, to search a storage unit. So, it is clear that the Justice Department still is not satisfied. They want more.

GOLODRYGA: Yes, it appears there's no goodwill. I don't know if there ever was between these two parties.

MURRAY: Yes.

GOLODRYGA: It just seems to be getting worse. We also know the January 6 committee is considering criminal referrals for Donald Trump as well as for others. Who are the other four?

MURRAY: That's right. So, they are looking at a handful of Donald Trump's former allies, aides, and advisors, so, Mark Meadows, who is the former Trump White House Chief of Staff, Rudy Giuliani, and John Eastman, who are both attorneys, as well as Jeffrey Clark, who is an official at the Department of Justice. And look, these are names under consideration. It doesn't mean they're going to be on the final list. But it also doesn't mean this list is exhaustive.

The committee could decide whether there are other Trump allies that they want to put on the list of criminal referrals. You know, we know they are weighing a referral for Donald Trump himself as well. They're expected to meet privately on Sunday and sort of go over some of these options and what the -- you know background is going to be for these criminal referrals. Although they say that they're not going to be making any public announcements until December 21.

GOLODRYGA: All right, Sara Murray, thank you so much.

MURRAY: Thanks.

GOLODRYGA: With me now is Elie Honig, CNN's senior legal analyst and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. Good to see you, Elie. So, let's start with this January 6 committee meeting this weekend to further consider criminal referrals. As we heard there, in addition to the former President Trump, there are those four other names, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, what are these four names specifically tell you?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Bianna, one of the things that they all have in common is they were really Donald Trump's inner circle. They were the key advisors, the key drivers behind the attempt to steal this election through fraud and through pressure. And so, it's not surprising in some respects that these are the four people who the committee has decided reportedly to focus on beyond Donald Trump.

What is interesting to me is that it's only four. Because if you look at the committee's hearings, their findings as a whole, plainly, they have shown us evidence that dozens of people were involved in at least some manner of wrongdoing. And so, I think there may be a tactical consideration going on here. Let's focus our fire on the most important people, the people we most hold responsible, and we most want to draw attention to. That's a tactical decision that investigators and prosecutors make all the time. And I find that it's generally a smart one. You want people focused on the primary wrongdoers.

GOLODRYGA: That's interesting. So, as we always know, the DOJ isn't obligated to act on any of these referrals. But do you think that if there are fewer of them, perhaps that would stand out more than a laundry list of names?

HONIG: I do, Bianna. And that's important that people understand a criminal referral from Congress over to DOJ is a big deal. It's an important political statement. But it doesn't require prosecutors to do anything. That said, you can bet that prosecutors will be reading every page of this report when it comes out and every page of the criminal referral when they get it. And really the question is, how compelling a case can Congress makeover to DOJ? And I think the more specifically focused that that referral is, the more specifically focused that the facts and the argument are, I think that's going to resonate more strongly with prosecutors and potentially have more of an influence on them.

GOLODRYGA: So, let's now turn to this hearing that's taking place today in Washington, DC, and the question of whether or not the DOJ will hold the foreign president in contempt. What do you think that the odds will be that that could happen? And what are the implications if that, in fact, does turn out to be the case?

HONIG: So, DOJ clearly is at wit's end here with Donald Trump and his legal team. This is extraordinarily rare, by the way. I served more subpoenas than I could ever begin to count when I was a prosecutor. I never once had to go to a judge and ask the judge to hold the other party in contempt. But DOJ, as Sara laid out, seems to be of the view that Donald Trump's lawyers simply are not to be trusted, that they've not complied with subpoenas, and that they're playing games moving forward.

So, now the judge has to have a hearing and the judge has quite a bit of discretion as to how to do this. But DOJ has to convince the judge that Donald Trump's lawyers have ignored these subpoenas and have done so intentionally or sort of inexcusably, and it wasn't just an innocent mistake. And then the judge presumably will want to hear from Trump's team as well. But ultimately, DOJ is going to the judge and saying we need you to get involved here. We need you to potentially sanction Trump's team, could be financial, could be a reprimand. But it is quite a rare step and it shows that there has been a real breakdown in communication and trust between the parties here.

GOLODRYGA: And this is coming out all under the purview of the new special counsel Jack Smith. What does that tell you as far as the speed with which he was caught up to this case? He was just assigned to this a few weeks ago.

HONIG: Yes, Bianna. On the day that Merrick Garland announced this special counsel, Merrick Garland's statement and Jack Smith's written statement both stressed this will not slow things down. We are aware of the need for speed here.

[14:25:00]

And they've lived up to them. I mean it's quite clear this investigation has not skipped a beat. We've seen subpoenas going out. We've seen Jack Smith endorsing some of the briefs that the DOJ has put in. And now we're seeing DOJ moving aggressively on this as well.

So, it seems clear to me that Jack Smith is doing what new prosecutors do all the time when they join investigations in progress, which is you catch up on the fly, you let the cops and the prosecutors on the case continue to do their work. If anything, it seems that this case is even sped up to some extent since Jack Smith came on board.

GOLODRYGA: Do you expect that he will press for more search warrants given the revelation that there were two more classified documents that were found in a storage facility of the president in Florida?

HONIG: I guarantee you they are wrestling with exactly that question now. It's clear DOJ does not want to execute search warrants. You shouldn't do them lightly. Obviously, search warrants, in this case, would be controversial.

And I think this is a reason they're trying everything else, including going to the judge and asking for contempt, including asking, as Sara laid out, to have some custodian, some central responsible person who can account for these documents. So, it's a drastic step. It probably would be within DOJ's legal purview to do that. But I think just politically and in terms of the optics, I think they see it as a last resort.

GOLODRYGA: Yes. Remember what happened last time after that search warrant was issued?

HONIG: Right.

GOLODRYGA: And you had this turned into a political mud fest, right, where you had a lot of Republicans saying that this was a witch hunt and raid of the home. What have you, clearly, I don't want to repeat that. Elie Honig, thank you. Have a great weekend.

HONIG: Thanks, Bianna. All right.

GOLODRYGA: WNBA star Brittney Griner is back on American soil after nine months in Russian custody. We have new details about the prisoner exchange that led to her release.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)