Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

DOJ Pushes Back on Sweeping Trump Claims of Presidential Immunity for January 6 Speech; Closing Arguments in Murdaugh Murder Trial; Man Accused of Trying to Bring Live Explosives onto Plane; Biden to Dems: Tout Victories and Prepare for Debt Ceiling Fight; U.S. Secretary of State Meets with Russian Foreign Minister. Aired 1- 1:30p ET

Aired March 02, 2023 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:10]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Hello, I'm Abby Phillip in Washington. Glad to have you. Here

And right now in South Carolina, there are major developments in Alex Murdaugh's double murder trial. The prosecution now responding after the defense presented its closing arguments yesterday. Defense attorney Jim Griffin made an emotional plea when wrapping up his presentation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM GRIFFIN, MURDAUGH DEFENSE ATTORNEY: There are two words that justice demands in this case and those two words are not guilty. The oath you have taken in this case if it follows the law (ph), to follow the Constitution and to hold the government to the burden of proof.

And it requires a verdict of not guilty. On behalf of Alex, of Buster, on behalf of Maggie and on behalf of my friend, Paul, I respectfully request that you do not compound a family tragedy with another. Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: But just before closing arguments began, the judge removed a juror for discussing the case outside of the trial. CNN's Dianne Gallagher is outside of the court in Walterboro, South Carolina.

Dianne, what more did the defense say today as they were presenting to the jury in these final hours of this trial?

DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Jim Griffin spoke for about two hours and 15 minutes in his closing argument. And he hit three major points. The first being the fact that Alex Murdaugh says he didn't do this. He's innocent until proven guilty.

The second part there is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt when we're talking about guilt. That's something we anticipated Griffin to talk about quite a bit today.

Because the defense has sort of been trying to create that reasonable doubt, point out circumstantial evidence that doesn't necessarily directly focus on Alex Murdaugh throughout the entire trial.

The third aspect of his argument is law enforcement. They had the entire time throughout this nearly six-week trial trying to characterize the investigation into the murders of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh as messy, sloppy, incomplete.

They said today that law enforcement failed miserably with their investigation and pointed out that, in part, they believe that's why Alex Murdaugh was indicted in the first place.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: What we know is three out of those four things that will present to the (INAUDIBLE) grand jury that you're going to be deliberating on for the indictments (INAUDIBLE) aren't true.

(INAUDIBLE), no GSR rain jacket that's ever been connected to Alex whatsoever and there's no loaded gun (ph). So we're left with the lie. We are left with the lie. He did lie. And he told you he lied. And he told you why he lied. He said he lied because -- I'll tell you, he lied because that's what addicts do. Addicts lie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Of course that lie that he's talking about is that bombshell testimony from Alex Murdaugh himself last week, when he took the stand, admitting that he was, in fact, there at the kennels moments before the state says that Paul and Maggie Murdaugh were killed there at that location, at the family's Moselle hunting property.

He said that he had started this lie initially because he felt paranoid due to his drug use and he just kept the lie up. The prosecution seizing on that in their own closing argument yesterday, pointing to all of the data and the video.

But of course as well acknowledging that they do have a widely circumstantial case. But they pointed out to those jurors that circumstantial evidence is still evidence. When you have a whole bunch of it, you are still able to come to a guilty verdict.

The defense and the prosecution feeling differently about the strength of the state's case here. The closing arguments going once again over what the definition of reasonable doubt is, when trying to get to this jury, nearly six weeks. And we're looking at potentially going within the next hour to the jury.

PHILLIP: Yes, the reasonable doubt remains a huge hurdle for the prosecution.

[13:05:00]

PHILLIP: But speaking of the jury, one juror was removed from this case at this very late stage. Tell us about what happened.

GALLAGHER: This is the data the jury is probably going to get, the case to start deliberating. And this morning before the closing arguments when the defense began, the judge noted they had something to talk about.

He called the juror in and dismissed one of those jurors, saying they had a hearing, had investigators speaking to people and determined, even though the juror told the judge she had not, that perhaps she had been talking to at least three people about the case, discussing the evidence in some way with outsiders from the case.

That's a big no-no. You're not supposed to do that. The judge said, every time they leave the room, when he dismissed the jury, he told her she had been a good juror who focused on the case and he could tell she was. They simply could not keep her on.

He asked if she had anything left in the jury room. She noted that she had a dozen eggs back there. This is how that went down. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE CLIFTON NEWMAN, SOUTH CAROLINA CIRCUIT COURT: You left some stuff in there?

What do you have in there?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A dozen eggs.

NEWMAN: Say again?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A dozen eggs.

NEWMAN: A dozen eggs?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

NEWMAN: You want to leave the eggs or take the eggs?

You're going to take the eggs.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Again, not exactly I think what the judge or anybody was expecting to hear. But it seems that the explanation was these jurors have been together for a long time. One of the jurors brought some eggs in, potentially from their farm or something like that, to share with their fellow jurors. They all had them still.

I don't think anybody expected to hear, yes, I got a dozen eggs back there.

(CROSSTALK) GALLAGHER: We only have one alternate left.

PHILLIP: I have so many questions about those eggs but you make a really good point. This is the last possible moment to be replacing a juror. They only have one left after that.

Thank you so much for all of that reporting.

Now we have criminal defense attorney Sara Azari with us.

Let's start on the serious stuff here. The core of the defense presentation to the jury at this point is that there is no hard evidence -- or not much hard evidence -- tying Alex Murdaugh to this case.

The defense said in their arguments law enforcement failed miserably to pull DNA from Maggie or Paul. They only took DNA from Alex.

What do you make of that argument altogether?

SARA AZARI, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Look, I remember that the prosecution in a double homicide trial, three hours of argument, made not one mention about the crime scene. They completely ignored the facts that were bad for them.

In contrast, Jim Griffin got up today and he embraced the funk. He went right to the lie, you know, he's a liar. He's lied but he's also an addict. He was under a lot of scrutiny and has a lot of skeletons in his closet. That is why he lied. He just didn't want to be in the spotlight.

So that is what a good lawyer does. We don't ignore the bad facts. We embrace them, we explain them. I think he did a great job weaving in the very important instructions for the defense.

The presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, the definition of reasonable doubt. And more importantly, circumstantial evidence instruction that says essentially to a jury, if there's more than one inference on a specific fact, you have to find it on the side innocence, not guilt. These are really important instructions for this jury.

And listen, it's ironic that, in a double murder trial, that it's the defense coming forward with the science and the lack thereof as opposed to the prosecution presenting the science and being beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think the argument today was very effective. I think he hit all the points. There's a lot of criticism about it being maybe not as dynamic but neither side was. At least we didn't have Professor Waters slouched over on the jury box, mansplaining to the jury. I found that to be so offensive yesterday.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: I do want to play actually a portion of the chief prosecutor, Creighton Waters, his closing arguments to the jury. He is describing here the moments in which Maggie and Paul were murdered. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CREIGHTON WATERS, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: Maggie sees what happens and she comes running over there, running to her baby. Probably the last thing on her mind, thinking that it's him who had done this. She's running to her baby.

While he's gotten picked up the Blackout and opens fire at close range, again, with no defensive wounds. Everyone he told they knew he was who he was. He's fooled them all.

[13:10:00]

WATERS: And he fooled Maggie and Paul, too. And they paid for it with their lives.

Don't let him fool you, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So in the absence of what you describe as the science, there's no murder weapon, will that work or even resonate with the jury?

AZARI: I think at this point, the jurors have pretty much made up their mind. I think it goes to it's consciousness of guilt that he lied about, not being at the kennels before the murders. But Griffin blew up the timeline. It's all about this phone. We're all dead because we're not using our phone now. That's effective.

Is that lie really then material?

Does it even matter or is it consciousness of guilt if, at the same time he's denying being at the kennels, he's also pressing for data that is exculpatory, that shows he was not with Maggie at the time.

And on this nonsense about "my baby," we don't know what Maggie and Paul were doing. These are not facts and evidence. This is borderline prosecutorial misconduct. He's misleading the jury.

Sure, I think a jury can make an inference that a mother would want to protect her son but it's not a fact in evidence. And it's very misleading. I was surprised there was no objections. But I haven't seen any objections either way throughout the closings.

PHILLIP: I was struck by his use of the word "probably" when describing that scene, that he sort of said, inferred, played out in that kennel. Sara Azari, as always, thank you very much.

You can catch her true crime show, "Death by Fame." It's on Investigation Discovery on Mondays at 9:00 pm Eastern time.

There's been an arrest in Michigan that illustrates the threat facing public officials and Jewish people in America. This time, it's a man who was taken into custody for allegedly threatening to kill Jewish members of Michigan's government.

The state attorney general Dana Nessel says the FBI informed her that she was one of the targets. Unfortunately, this isn't new territory for the state of Michigan. Several men were recently sentenced for plotting to kidnap governor Gretchen Whitmer. Polo Sandoval is tracking this.

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I had an opportunity to read through the Twitter page prosecutors say is linked to the defendant in this case. When you read some of the messages, they can be described as anti-Semitic but bizarre, unhinged and really alarming, including this particular post we want to show you, that dates back to February 17th.

That's what FBI agents first noticed when Carpenter allegedly went on Twitter and wrote that he would, quote, "carry out the punishment of death to anyone that is Jewish in the Michigan government."

The very next day, the FBI's National Threat Operations Center relayed that to FBI agents, working with Michigan state place, that were able to speak to Carpenter's mother, who told investigators she believed her son was in Texas and that had access to multiple firearms.

They put, through the use of his phone, they were able to track him down and arrest Him. We're still working out the details on an actual timeline but everything does suggest he was taken to custody extremely quickly, preventing a tragedy here.

The more we learn, the more questions that raises. He was previously arrested for assault charges in Michigan. There was a protection order filed against him. And perhaps what escalated this to actual threat is when authorities found out there were three handguns that were registered in his name. And that's escalated the situation.

We know he had a scheduled court date. But just to close out the earlier point, this is not unfamiliar to Michigan state officials, that saw the threat of political violence, with the foiled kidnapping plot in 2020 against the governor.

Then we heard from the ATL say this morning they are monitoring this increased threat. You have through COVID and antigovernment conspiracies coming together with anti-Semitic ideas and, for certain individuals, the concern is that they will actually go through with these potential threats.

PHILLIP: It's very concerning indeed. Polo Sandoval, thank you very much for that reporting.

Now to the skies. We are learning more about another series of frightening incidents involving U.S. air travel.

[13:15:00]

PHILLIP: In minutes, a suspect will be in court after allegedly trying to bring live explosives onto a flight in Pennsylvania. In Jacksonville, Florida, a Spirit Airlines flight was diverted after smoke filled the cabin.

First responders removed 10 people from the plane.

And last night, seven people were taken to the hospital after severe turbulence on a flight from Texas to Germany. As you can see here, that bumpy ride left the cabin trashed. The plane had to be diverted to northern Virginia.

We are covering all of this. Let's start with the Pennsylvania suspect. Danny Freeman is at the airport where the explosives were found.

What are we learning in this case?

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What I want to say is, first off, we're going to learn more, as you said, in just about 15 minutes, when the suspect is expected to make his first court appearance in federal court.

But let me tell you what we do know about this suspect so far. We know his name is Marc Muffley. He's 40 years old from Lansford, Pennsylvania. And the FBI says that he, on Monday morning, tried to check a bag with explosives right here at this airport.

But that suitcase did not go far. The reason is because TSA screeners caught something unusual in their bag and the TSA and an FBI bomb technician found these items. They found powder consistent with commercial grade fireworks, a can of butane, a lighter, a pipe with white residue on it, a wireless drill and two outlets taped together.

Now the bag also had a luggage tag on it that had his name. So the airport called out his name on the PA system on Monday and then security camera footage showed that gentleman walking out of the airport as soon as he heard his name.

Police knew the name because of the luggage tag. The FBI arrested him that night without incident. This is not his first encounter with the law. He's been charged in Pennsylvania before. But they have been for much lesser offenses than the federal charges that he's facing.

Like possessions of controlled substance, harassment, minor theft. But the federal charges that he now faces include possessing an explosive in an airport and attempting to place an explosive on a plane.

We should know more at 1:30 at the federal courthouse.

PHILLIP: Danny Freeman, thank you very much for that.

I do believe right now President Biden is over on Capitol Hill, where he's about to meet with Democrats. He's just entered Capitol Hill. You see him there with Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader.

He's over on Capitol Hill as his party is facing a high stakes showdown with Republicans over raising the debt ceiling. Phil Mattingly is at the White House.

This is a moment where President Biden is trying to rally the troops here on Capitol Hill ahead of what will be a really tense and very important next few months on Capitol Hill.

What's his message going to be to them?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: This is genuinely the case when it comes to the debt ceiling increase. Every moment when you talk to Democrats matters.

They acknowledge that keeping together, staying unified in the face now of divided government for the first time in President Biden's two plus years in office is critical.

The view in side the White House is that it was critical through his first two years when they controlled both chambers. Now they only control one chamber. It's worth noting the president is going to release his budget on March 9th.

That's a new starting point for negotiations or at least discussions about an issue where the White House has been steadfast. They are not bluffing when they say there will be no talks or cuts accepted or negotiations at all when it comes to raising the debt ceiling.

They are willing to have talks longer-term when it comes to deficit and debt issues. Also we heard this last night when he was speaking to House Democrats at their retreat, the idea that, based on what they accomplished in the first two years in office, Democrats need to talk about that.

They need to let constituents know that these programs, many of which have not been implemented or are just in the process of getting going, they need to be laid out to people in districts and states. That will be critical not just to the programs themselves but to potential political success going forward.

You see the president was walking through the corridor with Chuck Schumer.

[13:20:00]

MATTINGLY: The two are very close, the president spent 36 years up there as a U.S. senator, talks often about his time there, often speaks to lawmakers, sometimes much to the chagrin of his advisers, given the fact their conversations will happen late at night or for a longer period of time.

It underscores both as respect for the institution and somewhat nostalgia for the institution but also recognition of the importance of the role the institution plays. That's as much a part of why he's up there and having this discussion with the members of the Democratic caucus today as anything else.

PHILLIP: Very few people know Capitol Hill as well as President Biden. So he knows that those relationships are critically important. Phil Mattingly, thank you very much.

Coming face to face with America's thorn in its side, secretary of state Antony Blinken meets with his Russian counterpart for the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine. Those details, ahead.

Plus this just in: the Justice Department pushing back on former president Trump's sweeping claims of presidential immunity for his speech on January 6th.

And a royal eviction: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle asked to leave the home the late Queen Elizabeth gave to them. Wait until you hear who could take their place.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:25:00]

(MUSIC PLAYING)

PHILLIP: New today, secretary of state Antony Blinken met briefly with his Russian counterpart, foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. It came on the sidelines of the G20 summit and it's the first face to face meeting since Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine a year ago.

It comes at a time of the highest tensions between the two countries in decades. Blinken says he underscored U.S. support for Ukraine. And he also brought up Russia's recent suspension of the New START nuclear arms treaty.

And he called for the release of Paul Whelan, the American wrongfully detained in Russia. Let's talk with Col. Cedric Leighton and David Sanger.

David, a State Department official told us not to expect Russia to change course after this meeting. That's not particularly surprising. But this also says that Blinken was the one who approached Lavrov on the sidelines.

Why does the U.S. want to have this kind of engagement with Russia at this moment?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, there's been very little conversation at high levels between Russia and the United States in the year plus a few days since the invasion happened.

There was only one phone call on the question of prisoner releases. The last time they had met in person, Blinken confronted him with the evidence that an invasion was about to happen. And Lavrov continued his denial that Russia was going to invade.

In fact we believe that Lavrov probably wasn't told about the invasion until just hours before it happened. So there's a really interesting question about whether he's the right person to be talking to. But since you can't have President Biden talking to Putin these days,

this is the only real channel left. And most importantly, trying to get Paul Whelan out but also communicating directly with the Russians about the long-term danger of their suspension of involvement in the New START treaty.

Because that treaty expires in three years. And there's almost no chance that there's going to be a negotiation to extend it, at which point there will be no limits on either country's nuclear forces.

PHILLIP: Yes.

Col. Leighton, what is the strategic value for Russia in suspending their participation in this treaty?

Are they now free to engage in expanding their arsenal?

Any putting the genie back in the bottle if that happens?

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: That's the big problem. And I'm very concerned that the genie might not be able to be put back in the bottle at this point.

So what the Russians want to do is they could potentially be able to use this lack of limits. They have a little less than 6,000 warheads right now in their nuclear arsenal. They could potentially expand that number and they could also develop newer weapons.

We talked before about the hypersonic weapons capability. We also know that they were planning some of their nuclear capabilities. It would not surprise me if they would want to try to modernize their nuclear forces during this period. So that is something that we would definitely have to watch out for.

PHILLIP: David, you brought up the fate of Paul Whelan.

At this moment of really low communication, high tensions between Russia, are you sensing that there's any possibility that they could be closer to freeing him?

SANGER: The problem right now is that the United States doesn't have somebody to trade. That's a key element. There's no evidence he was working as a spy for the U.S. He does have past military service.

But the problem right now is we're not holding a Russian spy. And the Russians are treating Whelan as if he was a spy.

There was brief discussion as a three-way deal in which a Russian spy being held by Germany would be released. But Germany is not a party to this conversation. I think that's the key issue underway for the Whelan piece of this.

And I think the other part of it that's got everybody concerned, and Secretary Blinken talked about this two weeks ago at the Munich Security Conference.

[13:30:00]