Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

DOJ's Next Move on Trump?; Interview With Former Acting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Ron Vitiello; Border Surge; Interview With Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA); Will Congress Release Trump Tax Returns?. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired December 20, 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]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: McEachin passed away last month just weeks after winning reelection.

And a quick programming note for you. Anderson and Andy are back for another global celebration. Be sure to join them for New Year's Eve live from Times Square starting at 8:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN.

Thanks for joining INSIDE POLITICS. I will be back here tomorrow.

Ana Cabrera picks up our coverage right now.

ANA CABRERA, CNN HOST: Hello. I'm Ana Cabrera in New York. Thanks for being with us.

Happening now on Capitol Hill: a critical meeting behind closed doors years in the making, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee set to soon reveal if they will publicly release six years of former President Trump's federal tax returns. These returns would expose information Trump has worked to keep secret for years, despite the fact that sharing this information is something major presidential candidates had done before him for decades.

Remember this?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D), FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: The only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license. And they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax.

So...

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: That makes me smart.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CABRERA: The records would give insight into his well, past charitable donations, how much he's paid in taxes. And this is key. They could reveal whether Trump had any entanglements that could have potentially impacted his decision-making as president.

I spoke with a Democrat on the committee moments before he stepped into this meeting. We will get to what he shared with me in just a moment.

But, first, let's go to CNN's Lauren Fox on the Hill for us.

Lauren, explain to us how this could all go down today.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in just a matter of hours, Ana, that meeting that you're referring to will get started on Capitol Hill. And the expectation is that, quickly after they begin meeting, they are going to go into an executive session.

That means a closed-door session. They're going to kick reporters and cameras out of the room. Then they will deliberate what decision they want to make about releasing any of the former president's tax information. It is going to be a critical meeting. They will come out of the executive session and finally vote on what decision they want to make.

There's a lot we could learn still, Ana, about the former president's tax returns. Despite the fact that there was so much reporting back in 2020 from "The New York Times" about what they found in his tax returns, there are still a lot of questions that Democrats have. And they are specifically looking at other years than what "The New York Times" had in their reporting -- Ana.

CABRERA: So, talk about what we do know, though, at this point about Trump's taxes.

FOX: Yes, I mean, there was this explosive investigation back in 2020 that "The New York Times" did that revealed a couple of key facts.

One of them,in the year that former President Donald Trump was elected, in 2016, he paid just $750 in federal income tax. That was one of the takeaways from that report. The other big takeaway was that there were many years in the decades of tax returns that they analyzed that the former president did not pay any federal income tax.

So those are two key pieces that we already know. But, like I said, the Ways and Means Committee has access to other information that "The New York Times" report did not include. So that, of course, is going to be really interesting if the committee decides to release any of that information -- Ana.

CABRERA: Lauren Fox, you're there for us. We will come back to you as you get more information.

I caught up with Democratic Congressman Brendan Boyle just moments before he went into this 1:00 meeting. Here's our convo.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Congressman Boyle, thank you for your time.

As you head into these meetings, have you been able to review all or at least some of the tax information?

REP. BRENDAN BOYLE (D-PA): Yes, well, thank you for having me.

Unfortunately, that law is pretty strict when it comes to this. So, as much as I would love to be able to answer that question, I legally can't, given the federal law that prevents me.

I will say, though, that I think, after today, we will have greater transparency in terms of what the mandatory audit process looks like for both presidents and vice presidents. That's really what's at stake, what kicked this off four years ago.

And I can tell you that I will be voting later this afternoon to ensure that the American people have as a great transparency as possible.

CABRERA: So, explain further why it's so important for your committee to get your hands on these records. What are you looking for specifically in these documents? And what are you hoping to learn?

BOYLE: So, every year, the IRS, by law, audits the returns of the president and vice president.

The former president, as we know has called into question the integrity of the IRS and that process. We need to know if it's working or if new legislation needs to be considered and voted on in order to make it work more effectively.

Also, this is a unique circumstance. Obviously, every president since Nixon has voluntarily released his tax returns. That obviously changed when it came to President Trump.

[13:05:07]

So, that's what we're attempting to learn today. There isn't one thing specifically. It's really about the entire process and to see if it's working or not.

CABRERA: My understanding is, this is about six years of taxes. That's a lot to sort through in the next few days. Have you already, as a committee, been through all of those documents? And, if not, how do you intend to do so before the GOP takes over?

BOYLE: So, I can't talk about what has and not happened specific to any individual's tax returns.

What I can say, though, is I am confident that we will be able to achieve everything that we want to achieve between now and January 3. God knows we need to, because, as the Republicans take over the House, they have shown absolutely no willingness to hold Donald Trump accountable, whether it's over January 6 or, frankly, anything else.

CABRERA: Do you intend to vote on whether the public should have access to these same records?

BOYLE: I firmly believe that it is in the public interest to have as much transparency as possible, so yes.

CABRERA: So, already, we have "The New York Times"' investigation the tax returns that showed years of not paying income taxes.

Just earlier this month, in fact, a jury convicted the Trump Organization multiple counts of criminal tax fraud. There's still the ongoing New York A.G. lawsuit alleging years of financial fraud. Is there more to uncover than what's already made public through these other investigations?

BOYLE: So, not based on anything that I may or may not have seen on any individual's tax returns, just based on what is already in the public domain, thanks to great reporting, it is pretty clear that Donald Trump and his organization have a major tax-avoidance issue, to put it mildly.

So I think there's clearly a lot of smoke here. And I will just leave it at that.

CABRERA: Congressman Brady, the top Republican on this committee, is accusing you, Democrats, of unleashing a -- quote -- "political weapon" that jeopardizes the privacy of every American.

And he went on to say this: "Going forward, partisans in Congress have nearly unlimited power to target political enemies by obtaining and making public their private tax returns to embarrass and destroy them."

What's your response to that argument?

BOYLE: My response is, just look at what the U.S. Supreme Court found on November 22, where they found unanimously in our favor that we did have a legitimate legislative purpose.

I would also point out this is not unprecedented. In 1973, Congress did force the release of President Nixon's tax returns. When he gave that famous line declaring, "I am not a crook," it actually wasn't about Watergate. It was in regard to his taxes and some illegal deductions it was found that he had claimed.

Finally, I would point out to Mr. Brady he has, I believe, a poor memory, because the last time this committee voted to make tax returns public, it was in 2014, under Republican control.

CABRERA: Do you worry about opening a new can of worms, though? Is there any risk in lawmakers making Trump's tax info public?

BOYLE: Certainly, if suddenly, capriciously, every individual's tax returns were made public, obviously, that would be a situation none of us won. But I don't think that will happen.

Let's not forget, Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime not to voluntarily release his tax returns. If the Republicans are threatening to release Joe Biden's tax returns, no problem. They're already public. They're already up on the Internet. You can see that with former Presidents -- both Presidents Bush, President Clinton, President Reagan, and President Carter, et cetera.

So this is really an issue specific to one former president, for one reason or another, who decided not to release his tax returns.

CABRERA: So should it be a law that, if you're a nominee, you have to release your tax returns?

BOYLE: Yes, Donald Trump, as a candidate and then as president, violated a lot of things that we had just assumed were norms and that would never be violated. This is one of many.

In my view, I would like to see legislation to make what was custom up until Donald Trump actually be mandatory, and that is that every presidential nominee and certainly every president makes public their tax returns.

CABRERA: And, very quickly, after you have this meeting today, when can we expect a decision whether these documents or records will be made public?

BOYLE: Well, I think today, in our Ways and Means Committee meeting, we will be reaching that decision one way or the other. I do believe we're going to err on the side of full transparency.

But that decision will happen today. As far as the logistics and the timing of what might come after that, I really can't say.

CABRERA: All right, Congressman Brendan Boyle, thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it.

BOYLE: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CABRERA: Now to the growing crisis at the border, and the clock is ticking.

[13:10:00]

The Biden administration has less than four hours now to respond to an emergency appeal by Republican-led states to extend Title 42. That's the Trump era policy that's been used to quickly expel migrants at the Southern border because of pandemic health concerns.

Now, it's due to expire tomorrow, but Chief Justice John Roberts put that on hold. Texas now has deployed the National Guard to the border ahead of what is expected to be a growing surge of migrants if Title 42 is lifted.

CNN's Ed Lavandera is in El Paso, Texas, for us.

Ed, just how tense is the situation there right now?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's kind of a lull before figuring out what exactly is going to happen with Title 42. The surge that we have spent so much time talking about in the last week has really started to go away. So, now all of the focus really is on the anticipation of what the possible surge if Title 42 is lifted tomorrow, so everyone here awaiting the courts.

But city and county officials say -- federal Border Patrol agencies are saying that they are moving ahead as if Title 42 is going to be lifted tomorrow, doing all of the preparation that needs to be done ahead of that. County and local officials are saying that they're focused on building shelter space, which includes possible warehouses and unused school buildings to house the influx of migrants that could be coming here through the El Paso area, as well as building up obviously the food and medical systems that would be needed to support all of that.

So, that's really their main concern. But, Ana, today, we're also seeing where the politics of border security is really taking over. This morning in the early morning hours before sunrise, Texas National Guard soldiers in the area where migrants have been crossing in the last week put up nearly a mile-long fence covered in razor wire.

This is really much to the consternation of local officials, who are extremely frustrated that this is, by the admission of the Texas Military Department, not done in coordination with Border Patrol agents, as well as local officials. One county judge, the county judge here in El Paso says that this is not their responsibility.

And it wasn't really the expectation that city and county officials here had when they declared a state of emergency and some 400 National Guard members were brought in. This is not the kind of support that they were expecting. They thought they were going to get more help with the housing and food and transportation kind of concerns that many officials here in El Paso have.

So, clearly, the politics of border security really kind of the news of the day here in El Paso today.

CABRERA: OK, Ed Lavandera at the Southern border, thank you for the latest.

Let's bring in Ron Vitiello. He served as acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, in the Trump administration. He's also the former chief of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Ron, thanks for being with us.

Given all the hats you have worn, you know the realities there on the ground. What's your assessment of what's happening right now?

RON VITIELLO, FORMER ACTING U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTOR: Well, the Border Patrol, my former colleagues in DHS, they're up against it, right?

We're seeing the largest surge on the Southwest border that's ever occurred in the history of that border. Between 6,000 and 8,000 people are coming across the border every 24 hours. And now, with the ending of Title 42, you're going to see upwards of -- they're talking with numbers above 14,000 in 24 hours.

The system is already overwhelmed. All of the facilities, the workstations, the workflow, the Border Patrol has been up against it for the last two years. We have never seen anything like this. And Title 42, it was always going to sunset. It was always based on conditions as it relates to COVID.

But what it's doing now, it's sort of a stopgap that they can expel people quickly. They can handle that process in less than a half-hour. Once they have to enroll everybody into immigration docket, that's going to take up to three hours, and so add to the increasing overburdened Border Patrol now.

You're going to have more traffic. They're going to have more to do with essentially the same amount of resources. They have been up against it for the last two years.

CABRERA: Let me ask you about what we understand the plan is, as we know it, by the Biden administration.

They say they're surging resources there to the border. And this includes increasing the manpower, specifically, hundreds of additional Border Patrol processing coordinators. They have added 10 soft-sided facilities to increase holding capacity. They say they're legally cracking down on repeat offenders, those engaging in smuggling efforts, those trying to evade apprehension.

Is this a good start?

VITIELLO: Well, they have to do more, right? This surge, if you want to talk about where the root causes are, right, they removed policies that were keeping the surge at bay. The last surge was ended with the Migrant Protection Protocols.

This administration tore those tools down their first day in office, and we have had this -- the results of this surge are quite evident, right, that we had a process in place. When this president took over, they had 40-year lows and activity of illegal migration across the Southwest border.

(CROSSTALK)

[13:15:06]

CABRERA: But that was because of COVID. That was because of COVID. I mean, let's be honest.

Let's be honest. Let's be honest. There was a major surge during the Trump administration, which resulted in the family separations while you worked under Trump. And that didn't deter people from coming. So, if family separations doesn't work as a deterrent, because of what's happening back home in the home countries of a lot of these people, these migrants, then what would?

What would be an option for this administration to deter these migrants?

VITIELLO: Well, they inherited a program called the Migrant Protection Protocols, which led to 40-year lows and activity on the Southwest border.

It wasn't just because of COVID. Title 42 helped in reducing the traffic. But the last surge was ended because of that program. The asylum accords with the Northern Triangle, the Migrant Protection Protocols gave us 40-year lows in activity.

When you tore those tools down and got rid of them, you now have the largest surge ever.

CABRERA: This has been a multi-administration problem, going back to the Bush years. The U.S. has pursued largely a border policy focused on enforcement, what to do once people cross the border, right, but not providing the larger solution, systemic reform.

That's really on Congress. But if Congress is unwilling to act on comprehensive immigration reform, what do you see as the options?

VITIELLO: Well, the administration had options when they took over. They just refused to use what was working.

CABRERA: But those are temporary.

VITIELLO: There's only two ways to end a surge. A surge is ended in only two ways. You detain people until they have their hearing, or you let them wait in Mexico for those hearings.

That stopped the last surge. That would end this surge, if they implemented it fully. They just refuse to do that because they prefer this chaos.

CABRERA: Well, I'm not so sure that is accurate. I don't think that is true, what you have suggested. Nobody prefers this chaos.

There are elements that the Trump administration enacted that have since been confirmed illegal by courts and have had to be unwound.

VITIELLO: The Migrant Protection Protocols were not -- the Migrant Protection Protocols were not illegal. That's in U.S. code. That's U.S. law.

An agreement with Mexico on the diplomatic side ended the last surge. They could end this surge by fully implementing it again. They refuse to do it. So what is the reason that they refuse to do it? Apparently, they believe in an open border and not a controlled border, because that's what we got.

CABRERA: Again, I don't think that's fair.

I will say, our understanding, based on CNN reporting, is that it's something they are considering trying to continue to do, that it was something, a tool that was useful and had some effect. But if you can't stop the push factors that are coming from those countries, where it's so dangerous, it's so financially difficult for people to survive in those countries, you're not going to stop them from coming.

And so that's part of the issue here, right?

(CROSSTALK)

VITIELLO: We're not going to stop it if we don't enforce the border.

There's no question in my mind. If there's a consequence for people coming into the country illegally, then there -- we're going to get less of that. That's what's always happened in my 30-plus year career. That's what we did. You impose a consequence, and lots of people stay home. That's not what's happening here.

Many of them are not even being encountered by law enforcement. Reference the got-away numbers. And many of the people who are arrested are released into the country, which is their endgame. But many of them will never go to immigration court. They will never follow on their asylum claims, because that's the historical...

(CROSSTALK)

CABRERA: Based on what?

No, no, historically, the vast majority of people who are taken into the system do follow up in their court hearings, based on data from research that we have discussed previously under past surges.

But when you talk about these people coming across and not having any encounters with law enforcement, that's simply untrue. We know there's already been more than two million encounters in the past fiscal year under this current administration. Yes, those numbers are very high. But, clearly, they're making those stops.

They're encountering those people who are crossing. And many -- perhaps many of these people have legal asylum claims to make. And so that's why there is a process in the U.S. for adjudicating those specific cases.

But, as you know, that can take years. So, if you don't make an assessment on who to release, like families, children, what do you expect to do with those people otherwise, as they're awaiting their cases to be adjudicated? Where would they live?

VITIELLO: Again, if they want, they can stop this surge.

There's two ways to do it, increased detention resources or the Migrant Protection Protocols. Those both worked in the previous Obama/Biden administration. And they both worked in the Trump administration. They refuse to do it. And so you -- we're left to wonder why.

Obviously, they don't really care about enforcing the border at this point.

[13:20:00]

CABRERA: Ron Vitiello, thanks for your perspective. Appreciate the conversation.

VITIELLO: Thank you.

CABRERA: Up next: The House Select Committee wraps up its sweeping investigation with criminal referrals to the Justice Department against Trump.

The big question, what does the DOJ do next?

And forget dreaming about a white Christmas. Is a nightmare storm about to spoil your holiday travel plans?

Plus, the demand for children's medications so high right now, some drugstores are limiting how much you can buy. So what do you do if your child is sick?

Stay with us. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CABRERA: The ball is now in the DOJ's court.

[13:25:00]

In a pivotal moment in U.S. history, lawmakers formally accused a former president of federal crimes, referring Donald Trump for four charges. But it's not the criminal referrals the Justice Department likely cares about. It's the evidence.

And special counsel Jack Smith's team should start getting it from the House Select Committee tomorrow, this as we learned Smith will arrive in Washington next month. He has been heading those Trump-related probes from Europe while recovering from an injury there.

Let's discuss with CNN's Sara Murray and CNN legal analyst and former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen.

Good to see you both.

Sara, special counsel Jack Smith arrives back in the U.S. Then what? What do we know about his plan?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: He's going to return back to the U.S. in January, we are being told.

And then he's still planning on setting up an outside office to get his prosecutorial teams under one roof outside of DOJ main Justice. But, look, I think what we're going to see is a lot of what he's been doing, frankly, from abroad, which is overseeing these investigations.

We know that they haven't stopped. We know the Mar-a-Lago investigation has continued. Lawyers have been in these secret court battles that have been playing out. We know that, when it comes to January 6, witnesses have still been going before the grand jury, subpoenas have still been going out. So these investigations have continued, and then they will continue,

just with Jack Smith in the U.S. And, eventually, of course, they will hit a point where they all have to decide, is there enough evidence here where we want to bring indictments, against who, and do we think those indictments would actually lead to criminal charges that could survive in front of a jury?

CABRERA: And the DOJ, of course, doesn't need these referrals, Norm, to pursue charges against Trump. It's mostly symbolic.

But what does it do? Does it apply more pressure on prosecutors to indict?

NORMAN EISEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Ana, they don't need the referrals, but I think the referrals are helpful.

As you noted, there's a mountain of evidence here. The committee has really been a trailblazer. They were ahead of DOJ. And that evidence is compelling. But the legal analysis is important as well. These are the toughest of the criminal cases facing Trump, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, the Georgia DA's criminal case for the alleged election denial. Those are easier cases.

So, DOJ can use a little bit of a lift from the committee, and the committee is giving them one.

CABRERA: So, we understand there are about 1,000-plus interviews conducted by the committee. As they release all those transcripts, what will you be watching for, Sara.

MURRAY: Well, look, I think the Justice Department really wants all of these transcripts for a number of reasons. The referrals, as Norm said, they're not legally binding.

But this actual underlying evidence, the words that people said to the committee, that's what the Justice Department really wants. I'm going to be looking, as we get the transcripts, for anything more we can glean from some of these very high-profile witnesses. Cassidy Hutchinson, who was, of course, a top aide to Mark Meadows, Tony Ornato, who was a White House aide, those both come to mind, but also more information about what the committee sort of alluded to as potential obstruction, maybe potential witness tampering when it came to their investigation.

If there is evidence of that, if DOJ does see evidence of that, either in the committee's report or in the transcripts that follow, that is the kind of thing the Justice Department will prosecute. And we saw that when it came to Roger Stone lying to Congress a couple years ago. The committee set out at that time why they felt Roger Stone had lied, the evidence for that, and the Justice Department did prosecute in that case.

CABRERA: Of course, these transcripts will be accessible to the public. They could also provide some important evidence, if you are Trump's defense team, I would imagine, Norm.

As an experienced defense lawyer yourself, if you were Trump's attorney right now, what would you be looking for in these materials?

EISEN: I'm looking for any information that exculpates Trump, that shows that he -- proof that he can use that he didn't commit this crime, these alleged crimes.

I'm looking for inconsistencies within individual witness statements, but also between witnesses to start to put together a mosaic of defense, because Trump right now is most likely to be charged first in the Georgia DHS case as soon as January. I would be going over all of this material to start building my defense in the Georgia case first, and then also think about the possible coming federal charges.

CABRERA: And so specific to the charges that this committee is recommending, they believe Trump should be indicted for four federal crimes.

Let me just tick through them real quick. It's aiding an insurrection, obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and conspiracy to make false statements.

Norm, which of these would be easiest to prove and which is the hardest?

EISEN: The 1512(c) charge, obstruction of Congress, that's relatively discrete.

You can focus on really what Trump did on the day of January 6. He clearly knew he was throwing a spanner in the works at Congress.

[13:30:00]