Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Ukraine Ramps Up Security As Tomorrow Marks One Year Of War; NYT: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner Subpoenaed In Jan 6 Probe; Appeals Court Hears Dispute Over GOP Rep. Perry's Phone; Alex Murdaugh Testifies In His Murder Trial. Aired 2:30-3p ET
Aired February 23, 2023 - 14:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:30:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR; And Kyiv, of course, on high alert, as these days pass. And actually this country enters a second year of war.
Speed, for them, is of the essence, they say, while requesting even more and more timely weapons to defend themselves from their NATO friends -- Bianna?
VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Yes. And I'll take it. That's where I want to actually pick up with this question.
I remember in the early days, Christiane, we would speak with Ukrainian officials and elected officials there who would say, don't forget us. As this goes on into weeks and months, do not forget what is happening here. We obviously have not.
But how do they balance the gratitude of receiving what they have from the world but also the frustration of, this is what we need to win, from their perspective, and not getting that?
AMANPOUR: Well, look, first and foremost, it appears that this coalition is united and there's no sense that there could be any fracturing at any time in the future that we can see at the moment.
New sets of sanctions are going to be announced, we were told by Victoria Nuland, tomorrow.
There's a U.N. resolution happening to mark this anniversary and to, again, call on Russia to pull out of this territory.
But you're absolutely right about the level of speed they need for these weapons and the very different interpretations that Ukraine has versus its allies in the mantra that the allies say, we will be with Ukraine for as long as it takes.
Because President Zelenskyy said most recently that, you know, that's wonderful and they're grateful for it. But they want to see this war wrapped up within this year.
While Western partners, the NATO alliance are saying they see, perhaps, a much longer war unfolding and that they have to be in for the long haul.
There are problems with the production of ammunition on this side. And we hear also now from the frontline militia group, the Wagner Group, on their side as well. But that needs to be ramped up.
But what is clear is that, from President Biden on down, from members of the Congress, bipartisan, bicameral, there is huge support, including, of course, in Europe and in this alliance that is formed over the last year.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST: Well, this war has been underway, and many people believe it started last year. It started nine years ago in 2014.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: So, when you hear the Russians say that they will not end any time soon, it just gives you a sense of what the Ukrainians are going through.
Obviously, it's been exacerbated in this past year. But they do need that continued support from the West, especially the United States.
You've done incredible work there on the ground, Christiane Amanpour, as always, telling the stories, not just on the front lines but also the impact on civilians.
Thank you so much.
And "CNN THIS MORNING's" Kaitlan Collins just sat down with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. She asked him about the reports China may be considering sending lethal support for Russia. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. LLOYD AUSTIN, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We've not seen any -- China provide any material assistance to Russia at this point. We've -- we have -- China has not taken that off the table for sure.
I've engaged my counterpart early on and told him that this would be a very bad mistake if China were to do this. It would further complicate things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLACKWELL: Watch Kaitlan's entire interview with the defense secretary tomorrow on "CNN THIS MORNING."
But also watch "CNN TONIGHT." Fareed Zakaria will host top national security officials for a CNN town hall "RUSSIA'S INVASION OF UKRAINE: ONE YEAR LATER." That's at 9:00 p.m. Eastern.
GOLODRYGA: Minutes from now, Alex Murdaugh will return to the stand, testifying in his own defense after telling the jury directly that he did not shoot his wife or his son. We're live outside the courthouse.
[14:33:56]
BLACKWELL: Plus, the latest move by the special counsel looking into January 6th gets even closer to Donald Trump's inner circle. This time he wants to hear from Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:38:34]
GOLODRYGA: Special counsel subpoenas for Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. According to "The New York Times," Jack Smith will summon Donald Trump's daughter and her husband to a grand jury probing Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election.
BLACKWELL: CNN senior justice correspondent, Evan Perez, is here with more.
These are two people obviously who had official roles in the White House, could offer some important insight.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely, Victor. These two people obviously are very close to the former president.
Certainly, Ivanka was very involved in the discussions on January 6th. She was in the Oval Office, as there were efforts to try to get the crowd to leave the capitol.
And obviously, she was also involved in so many conversations, as she testified -- she gave some testimony to the January 6th committee.
She talked about, you know, the former president's efforts to overturn the election. She was witness to a lot of those conversations leading up to January 6th, of course.
So, those are the things that you can expect the special counsel and his investigators want to hear from Ivanka.
Of course, she also was involved in sitting for hours with a documentary film team. Again, some of those things are likely to come up in this testimony.
GOLODRYGA: And today, an appeals court is considering whether DOJ prosecutors can access Congressman Scott Perry's phone.
He claims he's protected by the Constitution. So, tell us where this is headed.
[14:39:58]
PEREZ: Well, you know, he -- his lawyers today in the appeals court hearing, they took a very broad view of what he is entitled to, constitutional protections under the Speech or Debate Clause.
They say that everything he was doing in those days and weeks leading up to January 6th had to do with his legislative activities. Both on, you know, what he was going to end up doing with regard to
some of the election results on January 6th but also additional legislation that he was -- he said he was involved in.
The Justice Department takes the opposite view. They say that, you know, obviously the Speech or Debate Clause can't mean that the government, that the prosecutors can't look at anything in his phone.
This is now a fight that we are expecting the appeals court is going to have to rule on. We may end up having to go all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Obviously, this is something that the special counsel, Jack Smith, they want to get access to the things that are on Scott Perry's phone because it might be key evidence as part of this investigation.
And also might involve other members of Congress, of course, who were involved in those efforts by the former president to overturn the election -- Bianna?
GOLODRYGA: One thing it will do is definitely prolong this investigation, as well.
BLACKWELL: Yes.
GOLODRYGA: Evan Perez, thank you.
With us now is former U.S. attorney Harry Litman.
Harry, great to see you.
Were you surprised by these subpoenas from Jack Smith for Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner?
HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: I wouldn't say that. Because it's a piece of Pence and Meadows, which he's done in the last week. They're really aggressive.
Often. when this is -- especially Ivanka Trump, a daughter of a target, would be treated with kid gloves. I don't know if Jack Smith has kid gloves in his closet. And he is just insisting, you come in and talk to the grand jury.
She did give some testimony to the January 6th committee, but it was tentative, a lot of I don't recalls.
And as Evan was just mentioned, she's got a lot of information. And she was, in fact, as you remember, the person everyone was coming to, please make him stop on January 6th itself, not to mention the weeks before.
So, she's got some good evidence to provide. He's saying, you've got to provide it. No special treatment.
And this probably is the sort of thing that makes steam come out of the ears of the former president, who has previously called it kind of the crossing of a red line.
But, you know, Jack Smith says, too bad. Everybody's testimony is -- you know, has to come before the grand jury.
BLACKWELL: Which is interesting because the former president did not try to invoke executive privilege when it came to the January 6th committee, specifically for his daughter and son-in-law.
They went and testified. We talked about that.
Does he have any credible argument here? We know he's going to try to invoke it related to former Vice President Pence.
LITMAN: I mean, the short answer -- oh. Well, Vice President Pence, he will make an executive privilege argument.
But those arguments, he's made them before, as have others, and by now the D.C. courts have made quick work of it. And I think it will as well.
Remember, Pence has taken another tack. He's going to take a pretty farfetched argument under the Speech or Debate Clause as the president of the Senate.
I don't think that flies. But that's going to take longer to work through the courts because it's a newer question.
In terms of Trump as to either Pence or Ivanka and Jared, if he tries to claim executive privilege, I think that's a quick trip up and down the D.C. courts, and they'll shortly be raising their right hands.
GOLODRYGA: How do you think this issue -- and appears to be a battle now -- over the cell phone of Scott Perry will land?
LITMAN: Perry ought to lose this. It's established law that only legislative acts -- and remember, he's the guy who's calling up Trump to make the merit with Jeff Clark and help this sort of push in the DOJ.
All of this seems very far afield, not to mention possibly criminal.
The problem is that, at least in the oral argument today, two of the judges -- actually, the two Trump appointees -- Steve Perry very interested in the contours of it.
Does every informal conversation with a third party not count under the Speech or Debate Clause --
(CROSSTALK)
BLACKWELL: I have to interrupt.
(CROSSTALK)
BLACKWELL: We've got to go back to South Carolina, as the direct examination continues of Alex Murdaugh. ALEX MURDAUGH, FORMER ATTORNEY ACCUSED OF KILLING HIS WIFE AND SON: I
do.
CREIGHTON WATERS, LEAD PROSECUTOR: And what was the meeting about?
MURDAUGH: Jeanne came up to me and asked me -- previously, Anna Griswold had come to me and asked me about the fee check in the Farris case.
And Jeanne was coming to me saying that she was following up on that. If she didn't, she wouldn't be doing her job.
And asked me some questions.
WATERS: Let me ask you --
MURDAUGH: Which I understood.
[14:45:01]
WATERS: -- briefly, the Farris fee, what originally happened to it? The PMPED portion of the Farris fee?
MURDAUGH: You mean originally?
WATERS: Yes, sir. Did it come to you directly?
MURDAUGH: Yes.
WATERS: Should it have come to you directly?
MURDAUGH: No.
WATERS: Did -- when Ms. Seckinger asked you about the -- where the fee was, what did you tell her?
MURDAUGH: I can't remember exactly what I told her. The conversation got interrupted very quickly.
But I told Jeanne that the funds were in Chris Wilson's account and nothing to worry about. I wasn't -- I didn't know where the mix-up came from.
WATERS: What was your level of concern about Ms. Seckinger's inquiry to you on June 7th?
MURDAUGH: There was some level of concern because she's asking me about money that I took that I wasn't supposed to have.
So, certainly, I had some level of concern. But it wasn't -- it wasn't a very big concern.
As you heard testimony earlier, at some point, Annette Griswold had sent Chris Wilson an email, something to the effect of Alex thinks he has more expenses or something like that, seeking financial documents from Chris Wilson. When Chris Wilson -- I wasn't copied on that. But when Chris Wilson
got that, Chris Wilson called me up, and he's like, you know, what is this all about?
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: (INAUDIBLE QUESTON)
MURDAUGH: Pardon?
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I said objection. Rules 801 and 802, Your Honor.
CLIFTON NEWMAN, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE: Response?
WATERS: Your Honor, I'm not asking for what Chris Wilson said. I'll move on. I accept the objection.
Were you concerned about Chris Wilson opening his trust account records to your law firm?
MURDAUGH: no. I was not concerned about that at all.
WATERS: And why were you not concerned?
MURDAUGH: I knew that one of the people that Chris Wilson -- as you heard, Chris Wilson and I were very close. We talked every day. I did work with him all the time.
And, I mean, he was one of the people closest to me in the whole world. I knew everything about him.
And I knew he was going through -- one of his partners -- and he and his partner had split up. A partner and an associate had moved to a firm in Charleston.
The partner was going through a divorce. And the wife of the partner was trying to get Chris Wilson's trust documents in that case to find out money her husband got.
Didn't have anything to do with Chris and I or anything. It totally had to do with -- but I knew that Chris Wilson was not going to send any financial documents to my law firm, at least at that time and at least not any time soon.
So, while I'm sure it registered with me that I've got to deal with this, at that particular time, it wasn't anything that was a big deal.
WATERS: Was there an immediate urgency to the situation on June 7th?
MURDAUGH: No.
WATERS: And I believe Ms. Seckinger testified about your conversation with her. You learned your dad was going back in the hospital.
MURDAUGH: That's correct. There was a text -- I can't remember if that text came from my brother, Randy, or my brother, John, but they were the ones that were taking my dad back to the hospital that day. And whichever one was with him -- I believe it was John was with him
at the hospital. But I know Randy was with him at some treatment. It's in those documents.
Bottom line is we got a text saying -- we knew my dad was really sick. He had cancer, and he couldn't breathe.
And there was a big issue about whether his inability to breathe was coming from an obstruction caused by the cancer, which was the worse- case scenario. And that's what it ended up being ultimately, and that's what he died from.
But this particular text was saying, OK, we're putting him back in the hospital. The doctor thinks it's pneumonia.
Which was, you know, pneumonia is never a good thing. But when compared to cancer, at that time, pneumonia, that was a good thing to learn that.
WATERS: On the 7th, the information you had, do you believe at that time that the prognosis was pretty positive for your father?
[14:50:04]
MURDAUGH: Well, it was better than any alternative. I'm not going to say it was good, but it was better than -- it was better than the alternative and what we previously thought it was.
It didn't stay good very long, but it definitely was better.
WATERS: Do you know whether or not you told Ms. Seckinger that your dad's condition was terminal on the 7th? Do you remember whether you said that or not?
MURDAUGH: No. I wouldn't have said that at that time.
When I -- Jeanne -- you know, as soon as the thing comes through my dad's going into the hospital, Jeanne and I -- as you heard, she stopped the meeting. We stopped it. It lasted a couple minutes.
Now, my dad is going into the hospital and the very next day we've learned that he's terminal. And I'm -- I'm just sure that a year -- the amount of time that's gone by Jeanne assumed she was terminal -- he was terminal.
UNIDENTIFIED DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Speculation, Your Honor.
NEWMAN: Objection is overruled.
WATERS: Mr. Murdaugh, the -- on June 7th did you believe that your financial house of cards was about to crumble?
MURDAUGH: On June the 7th?
WATERS: Yes, sir.
MURDAUGH: Absolutely not.
WATERS: Had you had -- I think there's documented evidence, the state introduced it. Had you reached out to Russell at Palmetto State Bank about extending a line of credit on the Moselle property?
MURDAUGH: I had reached out to him. I can't remember the date of that text. It was fairly recently I had reached out to Russell.
WATERS: On June 7th, did you have equity in the Moselle property that -- or you and Maggie had equity in that Moselle property?
MURDAUGH: Sure. I mean, Moselle was fully in Maggie's name.
WATERS: OK.
MURDAUGH: So -- but, yes, there was equity in Moselle. In looking at the documents that had been used, there was $1,800,000 owed. There was an appraisal for $3.3 million without the timber value.
And so, on 1,700 acres, I don't know what the timber value was. But if you set $100,000 an acre, that would be another million-something dollars in value over and above the appraisal.
I doubt it was that high. I'm just using that as an example. But if it was $500, it would be another $800,000.
There was several million dollars in equity in that Moselle property.
WATERS: Did you have equity in the Edisto beach house?
MURDAUGH: Yes.
WATERS: Around June 7th, how much equity did you have in the Edisto beach house?
MURDAUGH: If I remember the records correctly, it was about $250,000 owed on that house and whatever the value was at the time.
I think -- I think there's a contract for just under $1 million. So $700 and something thousand dollars.
WATERS: Did Maggie's death make it more difficult to obtain financing immediately after the murder, around June 7th, 8th?
MURDAUGH: Maggie's -- yes.
WATERS: How so?
MURDAUGH: Because the entire Moselle property was 100 percent in Maggie's name. The Edisto property was 50 percent in Maggie's name. I was only a half owner.
So with Maggie, all I had to do was get her to sign the documents, which she always did. I mean, she didn't question finances. So, I mean, she'd signed the papers.
When Maggie wasn't here, there was estate issues. I couldn't sign the papers like I would normally get a loan. So, I couldn't.
WATERS: OK. On -- was there a hearing scheduled in the boating lawsuit where you were a defendant set for that week?
[14:55:08]
MURDAUGH: Yes.
WATERS: Do you remember what day it was scheduled for?
MURDAUGH: Well, I mean, I heard the testimony and I knew -- I'm sure I knew at the time it was June the 10th, Thursday, June 10th.
WATERS: What was your level of concern about that hearing coming up on June the 10th?
MURDAUGH: About that hearing?
WATERS: Yes, sir.
MURDAUGH: My level of concern about that hearing was about the venue motion that was coming up, which --
WATERS: What do you mean by venue?
MURDAUGH: The venue motion is -- venue is where a civil lawsuit is pending and so there's laws and rules that govern where you can bring a case.
There's laws and rules that govern how certain parties, a defendant or plaintiff, can go about trying to move it from one place to another.
So in this case, the plaintiffs, the Beach family, filed suit in Hampton County. Parkers was trying to move venue to Buford County. I wanted the case to stay in Hampton County.
Really that was my only thought about -- I wasn't doing the legal work on those. I was a party in that case.
I wasn't -- Danny Henderson was primarily representing me personally. John Tiller and Amy Bauer were representing me personally. And Donald Cook (ph) was representing me personally.
Those were the guys doing the legal work. I wasn't actually doing that work.
But what I was concerned about was the venue motion. I had already done what I had to do for the financial motion.
Danny Henderson was on me about getting him a financial statement because --
WATERS: Let's stop.
There was a motion to compel and seek a lot of financial records from you, is that correct? MURDAUGH: Absolutely.
WATERS: And were you concerned that your house, financial house, was going to be opened up for the world as a result of that hearing?
MURDAUGH: No. I've been a plaintiff's lawyer, like Mr. Tinsley that sat here. We do the same exact thing.
In my law firm -- the guys in my law firm are some of the best lawyers I've ever known and definitely some of the best lawyers in the state, handling some of the biggest cases that have ever gone on in this state.
In my 27 years of practicing, plaintiffs always are trying to look and get financial documents of corporate defendants, of -- those type things.
In my 27 years, I've never been able to get a judge to order anything more than a net worth statement prior to getting into a phase at trial.
Early on in the case, I am not aware of -- I personally have never -- despite trying repeatedly -- have never been able to get a judge to order the kind of information that Mark Tinsley was seeking.
WATERS: Were you working on a document for that upcoming hearing?
MURDAUGH: Yes.
WATERS: What was that?
MURDAUGH: A financial statement. A financial statement lists your assets and liabilities.
WATERS: Had you reached out to Jeanne Seckinger later the day on the 7th to get your current balance of your retirement account?
MURDAUGH: I don't remember doing that, but that would be something I would did, because I know I had to have that for that financial statement.
The document I prepared was what Mark Ball talked about that he found later in my office.
It was typed -- it was handwritten, ready to be typed up by -- because of the charges against Paul, I was so -- I kept everything very close in the civil case.
It was Danny and his office that was doing it.
[14:59:54]
And I had that document prepared, handwritten in the neatest handwriting I could make because a secretary other than mine or a parallel other than mine was going to be the person who was going to put that financial information into the final document.
