Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

NY Grand Jury Meets As Trump Says He'll Be Arrested Tuesday; Blinken: "World Should Not Be Fooled" By China's Peace Proposals. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired March 20, 2023 - 14:00   ET

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

[14:00:00]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: Hello and welcome to the CNN NEWSROOM. We're grateful to have you this afternoon. I'm Boris Sanchez.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, everyone. I'm Jessica Dean.

Political lines are deepening, law enforcement is preparing for what would be a first in American history, the criminal indictment of a former president. And the key witness in the case against Donald Trump is expected to be challenged today before a grand jury in New York. A former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, telling CNN he's testifying at the request of Donald Trump's attorneys.

Take a look at some video of Costello arriving at the courthouse just moments ago. Robert Costello is saying he's going to offer evidence that contradicts Cohen. Cohen, who once labeled himself Trump's fixer said he paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 in the weeks before the 2016 election for her silence on an alleged affair with Donald Trump.

SANCHEZ: Now, that was a campaign finance violation as Cohen lied on forms to cover up that payment. In 2018, you may recall that Cohen cut a deal with federal prosecutors and he admitted that he acted in coordination with and at the direction of individual one. Individual one was later identified as Trump. The former president has denied the affair took place. But over the weekend, he revealed he thinks he's going to be arrested tomorrow, ending his online post with a call to "protest and take our nation back."

The Manhattan DA is not commenting on any arrests. But the NYPD has set up cameras and barricades in recent days around the courthouse. Our sources say that New York authorities are extremely concerned about security and crowds there.

Let's get you the very latest from that Manhattan courtroom with CNN's senior legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid. She has been following all the developments. Paula, do we know how Robert Costello is going to try to contradict Michael Cohen before the grand jury?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, we have some ideas. We know this is a witness that was requested by the former president's legal team. While the prosecutors are in charge of the grand jury, they didn't even have to grant this request. But they did because, of course, if they denied a request from the Trump team, it could potentially have become a thing not great for optics.

So, Costello is expected to potentially go before the grand jury if they want to hear from him and talk about what he heard from Cohen when he previously represented him, that he represented him several years ago. And according to a letter from the Trump team to the district attorney, Cohen had waived attorney-client privilege, which is part of why he's able to testify to this.

Specifically, he is expected to talk about how Cohen told him that he was not aware of any criminal activity by former President Trump. Now, that, of course, contradicts what Cohen has now said to this grand jury and has repeatedly now said publicly. So, the effort here is to undermine Cohen's credibility because he is really the witness at the center of this investigation into hush money payments that he facilitated to adult film star Stormy Daniels. This grand jury is looking at whether the former president may have falsified business records when he reimbursed Cohen.

Now, these are events that occurred approximately seven years ago. It is unclear at this point why this investigation, which has been going on for about five years, has suddenly heated up over the past few weeks. Now, over the weekend, as you noted, the former president suggested that he would be arrested Tuesday and called on his supporters to protest. Now, his own spokespeople came out and said, look, we have no indication from the DA's office that he will be arrested on Tuesday. And as we're seeing today, additional witnesses still going before the grand jury.

And I spoke with one of Trump's attorneys, Alina Habba, about what we should expect if he is indicted. And this is what she warned. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALINA HABBA, ATTORNEY FOR DONALD TRUMP: Let's see if they arrest him. But I'll tell you what. What if they choose to do so for a misdemeanor, which frankly, he didn't even do? It is going to cause mayhem, Paula.

I mean, it's just a very scary time in our country. If this is what we're doing in this country, you better secure the premises because it's dangerous, you know. People are going to get upset.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

REID: There are, of course, concerns about whether the former president is trying to speculate about the timing of a possible arrest to incite political violence. He was also fundraising on his Truth social page amid these posts over the weekend.

[14:05:03]

But notably today, most of his posts aren't calling for protests. So, it appears that some of his advisers who would like him to tamp down the rhetoric on protests may be getting through.

DEAN: All right, Paula Reid, thanks so much for that reporting. We appreciate it.

And joining us now is CNN's senior legal analyst Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor. His book, Untouchable: How Powerful People Get Away With It, came out just last month. Elie, it's great to have you here There's so much to get through with all of this. But zoom out for a second if you will and help people understand just how much this is just uncharted territory here. How unprecedented this is that a former president could be indicted and how do you think that will have any effect if it does on what we're going to see play out over the next days or weeks?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jessica, we've made it 230-plus years thus far as a constitutional democracy without ever indicting a president or a former president. That's how high the stakes are here. I think we're looking to see what happens, of course, in Manhattan.

And one thing that makes this even more I think, unusual and unexpected is this would be an indictment coming from a county-level elected district attorney. And I think that's going to inevitably inject an element of politics into this. We've already seen the former president and his supporters saying this is a Democratic-elected DA.

Now, I know Alvin Bragg personally. I used to work with him. I do not think he is a political actor. I do not think he is dishonest. But there's no avoiding that factor when you have an elected local-level DA bringing the first -- potentially the first-ever charge against the former president.

SANCHEZ: And it's notable that you say the first because there are obviously other cases looming over the former president. But staying at a 30,000-foot view, Elie, outline us -- outline for us the most likely legal reasoning for an indictment here. Because this isn't so much about the payment itself, but the way that the plate -- payment was documented, right?

HONIG: This is so important, Boris, for people to understand. It is not a crime to pay hush money. It is not a crime, in this case, even if Donald Trump knew about the hush money payments. Prosecutors have to prove in this case that Donald Trump knew that those payments were falsely booked within the Trump Organization. So, that's one theory here.

If these were actually hush money payments, but they were falsely booked as legal fees, that would be a misdemeanor under New York law. A fairly minor crime. No one's going to go to prison for that. But you have to prove Donald Trump knew about the way they were accounted for.

And then the crime becomes a bit more serious if you can prove that those records were falsified in promotion of some other crime. Here, it would be a campaign finance violation. You have to show that the payments were meant to silence Stormy Daniels in order to protect Donald Trump's political fortunes as opposed to prevent him from personal embarrassment. But it's so important to keep focused on what exactly prosecutors have to show here. DEAN: All right. And, Elie, so if they end up only charging him with those misdemeanors, we've already heard this from a lot of House Republicans. Other Republicans are saying, oh, this is just a misdemeanor. Why are they prosecuting this case? Do you think it's worth still going forward if that ends up being the case?

HONIG: Well, so to be clear, it would be a felony, a Class E, the lowest level of a felony if they can prove that it was done in connection with the campaign finance crime. But again, it's quite likely even if he's convicted of that, he would not go to prison. But yes, I think this is going to fuel the fire of critics. I think this conduct is far less serious than for example, January 6, and probably less serious than what we're seeing out of the classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

And so, it's sort of unusual that the least serious of the conduct seems to be the one that's likely to be charged first. And in a way, I think that all -- that all fuel opposition.

SANCHEZ: Elie, please stand by as we get more developments from court. I would love to get more of your perspective as they come forward. Elie Honig, thank you so much.

HONIG: Sure.

SANCHEZ: Let's expand the conversation now to talk about the political implications of all of this. Gloria Borger is a CNN senior political analyst. Scott Jennings is a CNN senior political commentator, and one served as a special assistant to President George W. Bush. And Tim Neftali is a CNN presidential historian and a former director of The Nixon Presidential Library. Thanks to all of you for joining us.

Gloria, let's start with you. I find the response from Republicans on this interesting specifically how Speaker Kevin McCarthy. He was asked about this. He criticized the DA, Alvin Bragg. But then he said something interesting. He contradicted what we saw from Donald Trump on social media over the weekend, who called for protests. McCarthy's saying Trump doesn't want protests?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: I think Donald Trump wrote protests take our nation back. I think that's a direct quote if I'm not mistaken.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

BIRGER: And I think he called for protests more than once. I think what McCarthy said is if you talk to Donald Trump, that's not what he'll tell you. So, I bet that the House Speaker in a conversation with a former president asked him did you call for protests? He probably said that's a terrible idea. Don't do that.

And so, McCarthy was I think, trying to relay the message to him from the president. But you can't take back the president's words.

[14:10:12] DEAN: And, Scott, I want to ask you about what House Republicans are doing today. They're now calling on the Manhattan district attorney to testify. They want to investigate if federal funds were used in this local investigation. What do you make of this development and how they're going about this, and Kevin McCarthy, the House Speaker allowing this to go forward?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I mean, obviously, they want to show Donald Trump that they have his back. And I'm sure they're hearing from people in their districts about how outraged they are. I mean, most Republicans, even people who don't plan to vote for Donald Trump ever again think this is a highly politicized item. It's a case of campaign finance part that the feds looked at and passed on, once before. And so, I'm sure there are Republicans calling their congressional offices all over the country demanding some kind of action.

So, this is the fastest way for them to get in the game and allow them to tell their constituents, yes, we're doing everything we can here. And I'm not surprised at all that they're going to go forward with it. And, again, I do think it was a key question, why did the Feds pass on this campaign finance thing, and Alvin Bragg, you know, a few years later shows up and picks up that ball? I think it's a fair question. Is it politics? Fair question, in my opinion.

SANCHEZ: Well, Tim, to you. Help us understand the historical weight of this. And ultimately, given the fact that you know, this would be a very low-level felony, are you surprised that this was the first of many potential indictments that Donald Trump could face?

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: In the 1970s, Robert Bork looked at the question of presidential immunity, and concluded that presidents only have immunity from the criminal justice system while they're in office. Before their president, after their president, there is no such immunity.

It's important to keep in mind that president -- former presidents are just like the rest of us when it comes to the criminal justice system. I think the fact that a grand jury has looked into this is a sign that our criminal justice system is in good shape. It's very surprising, but not surprising -- it's a little troubling to me that people are already questioning the reasonableness of an indictment that we haven't seen yet.

I think it's very important for everybody to wait to see the indictment. Indictment may be a very strong case. In any case, Mr. Trump will be innocent and is innocent until proven guilty. I think it's a very healthy thing for the country that a former president can be indicted if a grand jury reasonably comes to that conclusion.

Richard Nixon wasn't indicted because President Ford pardoned him. Bill Clinton wasn't indicted for perjury because he came to an agreement on January 19, 2001, with Robert Ray, the special prosecutor. Ulysses S. Grant wasn't indicted for a Ponzi scheme involving his company because it turned out he was as much a victim as any of the investors of Grant and Ward. But all those presidents understood they faced the possibility of indictment, and so too, must Donald Trump today.

DEAN: Gloria, let's go back to you. And let's talk about the political ramifications of this. There's kind of a growing conventional wisdom among political circles that this just emboldened Trump. It boosts him. That it's only going to propel his run for president further as at work. What do you think is the potential political fallout here as we go into the next several weeks and months ahead?

BORGER: Well, I think -- I think, in the early days, certainly, it could propel him because as we've been talking about, and as Elie Honig was talking about, you know. This is a case that not many expected to be brought that it was originally a paperwork case. And now perhaps it's a criminal felony. And people can say, why are you doing this? It's seven years old, and it's political persecution.

And so put that aside, though. You have to look at what's coming down the road. What's coming down the road is the grand jury in Georgia, looking at potential election fraud, attempts to fix the 2020 election. You have the classified documents case at Mar-a-Lago. And those are potentially much more serious charges.

So, if you pile one on top of another on top of another, that's a different -- that's a very different situation. And the politicians now who are saying, oh, you know, this is small potatoes, why are they doing it, it's just political are going to have to answer questions in the future. Well, is this more serious than that was?

Is this serious? Is the doc -- are the documents serious? Is the Georgia election fraud case serious if those come to pass? And so, they're going to have to be doing what were you say in school, you know, compare and contrast.

[14:15:00]

And that's not a good situation for Donald Trump or for any Republican to be in, who is out there saying, you know, this shouldn't happen because they're going to have to say, OK, this other thing. Yes, we really need to pay attention to it.

SANCHEZ: And, Scott --

BORGER: Or not.

DEAN: We'll see what they say.

SANCHEZ: Yes. The other thing coming down the road among the things that Gloria outlined, Scott, is a presidential election. And I'm curious to get your reaction to the way that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a potential 2024 rival of former President Trump's responded to this. He was asked about the case and he said he doesn't -- "he doesn't know what goes into paying hush money to a porn star to secure silence, kind of a way to highlight the absurdity of this entire case." But then he went on to criticize the district attorney Alvin Bragg. What did you make of DeSantis's handling of this?

JENNINGS: I thought he handled it just fine. A lot of Trump people over the weekend had been demanding that Ron DeSantis come to Donald Trump's defense all weekend, which is kind of crazy when you think about it. Donald Trump's spent the last couple of months calling Ron DeSantis everything but a good milk cow. And now they want DeSantis to turn around and politically defend Donald Trump. That's not his job. They're running against each other.

So, I think pointing out the partisanship of the prosecutor calling into question the Soros back prosecutor, which has been a thing for DeSantis. He dealt with one of those situations in Florida himself, although that was wise. But then reminding people this is still a situation where somebody paid off a porn star over a possible, you know, sexual tryst.

And what has DeSantis has been saying on the trail? In my administration, we have no drama, we have no leaks, we don't have any of the chaos, we just get things done. If you're trying to highlight the difference between, you know, chaos Trump and no-nonsense DeSantis, what he said today was exactly the way you do it.

DEAN: I want to say thank you to all of you, but stand by with us for one second. I want to go back to Elie Honig, who's standing by. And we just heard Elie, from our -- from our panel there and they kind of outlined the horizon in terms of the prosecution's look -- the potential cases moving forward and the federal prosecution, the Georgia cases. What if any, you know, the impact would this case in New York have on those?

HONIG: So, technically, legally, none. These are three separate prosecutorial entities. We have the DA here in Manhattan, we have the DA down in Fulton County, then we have the United States Department of Justice. Sometimes prosecutors do get together and coordinate or what we call deconflict. But there's no evidence that they've done that here.

Politically, your sort of bigger picture. I think on the one hand if you're Merrick Garland, and you've been feeling the heat because people have been saying what's taking him so long? I think the fact that there's any indictment may relieve some of that political pressure on Merrick Garland.

But I think on the other hand, if I'm either Merrick Garland or Fani Willis, I don't love the fact that the first case out of the gate is probably the weakest one. And certainly, on the least serious of all the conduct. They think it sets a bad tone overall. And I think it could ultimately undermine when these other cases come along, they could seem like piling on and it could look even more political.

SANCHEZ: And Elie, quickly. Congressman Jim Jordan, along with some other House Republicans have now called for Alvin Bragg to testify before Congress. They could potentially subpoena him. But do you think the Department of Justice might pursue contempt of Congress charges against the sitting District Attorney?

HONIG: Well, so if Congress subpoenas Alvin Bragg, he is subject to subpoena like anyone else, he may fight it on a legal basis. I don't see any good-faith reason here to subpoena and question Alvin Bragg. I don't see any basis on which to think that he's acting out of bad faith or corrupt motives or anything of the like.

If Alvin Bragg chooses to testify, he certainly can do that. If he declines, then we'll see if Congress tries to hold him in contempt, and that will ultimately be up to DOJ. I do not see a scenario where the Justice Department prosecutes the DA of Manhattan for contempt for failing to show up. So, we've got an interesting sort of cross-section here between the law and politics.

DEAN: Yes, we sure do. Elie Honig, Gloria Borger, Scott Jennings, Tim Naftali, thanks so much for your insight for the kind of putting it all together for us. We appreciate it.

SANCHEZ: So, the other big news this afternoon. China's president meeting with Vladimir Putin for the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine and just days after the Russian leader became a wanted man for alleged war crimes. Up next. The White House's reaction to this important summit.

DEAN: And right now, the Dow is up on news that Switzerland's biggest bank is buying its ailing rival Credit Suisse. Is it enough to calm financial nerves?

[14:23:21]

DEAN: Secretary of State Tony Blinken is warning the world not to be fooled by China's peace proposals as Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin began three days of high-stakes meetings in Moscow.

SANCHEZ: It is Xi's first visit to Russia since Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the first since she secured his unprecedented third term as the leader of China. Now, Beijing maintains it is neutral in this conflict insisting that this visit is a trip for peace. But the United States is skeptical. And Biden officials are watching very closely for signs that China may wind up providing lethal aid for Russia's war.

Let's take it to the White House now on CNN's Jeremy diamond who joins us live. Jeremy, the White House is very clear about its skepticism over China's motives here.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, they certainly are, Boris. And they want the rest of the world to be skeptical as well, in particular, over China trying to frame themselves as some kind of peacemaker in this conflict between Ukraine and Russia. U.S. officials making it very clear that China is there providing diplomatic cover for Russia, and really seeking to bolster one of its important allies in the world.

The U.S. in particular is honing in and is what we've heard from numerous U.S. officials from the National Security Council Spokesman John Kirby all the way to the Secretary of State Tony Blinken. They are honing in on this notion of a potential ceasefire that China could propose in this situation, saying that any ceasefire right now would merely serve to ratify Russia's territorial gains and to give Russia a chance to regroup. The secretary of state also pointing out that this comes days after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin on war crimes charges. Listen.

[14:25:05]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANTONY BLINKEN, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: That President Xi is traveling to Russia days after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for President Putin suggests that China feels no responsibility to hold the Kremlin accountable for the atrocities committed in Ukraine. And instead of even condemning them, it would rather provide diplomatic cover for Russia to continue to commit those very crimes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DIAMOND: Now, the secretary of state did also make clear that there are some items in China's 12-point peace plan that the U.S. would support, in particular, some concerns over nuclear safety, some humanitarian aspects of that proposal. But on the whole, U.S. officials making very clear that the world should be skeptical of these proposals. And we do know as these meetings continue between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, the U.S. officials are watching these meetings very, very closely for any possible developments.

DEAN: All right. Jeremy Diamond at the White House for us, thanks so much for the latest on that.

We want to bring in Evelyn Farkas. She's the Executive Director of the McCain Institute and served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia in the Obama administration. Evelyn, it's great to have you with us. Thanks so much for being here. I want to start first with a question about where you think things are headed.

You said earlier this month that you were skeptical that Russia would be able to create an alliance with China on Ukraine. And now, we have these three days of meetings. They're together face to face. Have your thoughts changed?

EVELYN FARKAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MCCAIN INSTITUTE: Yes. Hi, Jessica. Thanks for having me back. I was skeptical that China will decide to actually send weapons to Russia to help Russia in its war against Ukraine. And I guess I would say I'm a little -- I'm still skeptical, but I'm a little more worried. Because clearly, Xi, coming to Moscow on the heels of this ICC decision, which of course -- his trip was already planned.

But nevertheless, he's coming. He didn't say anything about the human rights catastrophe that has been visited upon Ukraine by Russia, you know. He could have found some language to at least chastise President Putin publicly, but he hasn't done that yet. So, it is more worrying that China might actually increase its support to Russia, which is what we don't want at this juncture. SANCHEZ: And, Evelyn, other than avoiding the use of nuclear weapons and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, is there any part of this 12-Point Chinese peace plan that you think the West should get behind?

FARKAS: I think it's dead on arrival, Boris. Because as you know, everyone's pointed out, it allows the Russians to keep their troops occupying Ukraine, which is an -- a no-go you know, unacceptable to the Ukrainian government. President Zelenskyy had -- has said so again today. So, I think as a -- as a peace agreement, sure, there are components of it that we can all agree to, but the entirety of it is just not going to go anywhere at this point in time.

DEAN: And, Evelyn, we know that Xi wants China to have more of this global influence and compete with the Western alliance -- with the U.S. We just saw China mediating this deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia to reopen diplomatic ties. He's obviously in Russia for the next three days. What do you make of these moves?

FARKAS: Well, I think they're very interesting, Jessica. I mean, President Xi has really changed just Chinese foreign policy and the relations between U.S. and China dramatically since he came into power in 2012. Prior to that, the Chinese government had always kind of put the economy and economic development first, and always cast it as something they were doing for the Chinese people and not as a means of competition with the United States and others.

Now, under Xi, it's completely different. Xi has essentially said that we are aligning ourselves with Russia with the non-democratic states. We don't believe in the American-style democracy because sometimes he'll use that word. And we want to push back against America. We want to set up -- we want to -- they're not trying to tear down the international order the way that President Putin is, that Putin wants to go back to no UN, no rules, just the big countries make the rules, and I can grab whatever territory I want if I'm stronger as a country.

Xi likes the UN and likes the kind of international order, but he wants to change the rules so that the emphasis is on sovereignty and borders, and you can do whatever you want inside your borders. Meaning you can abuse your people, you can conduct a genocide, you can put people in labor camps, as he's done in the Xinjiang Province in his own country in China. So, I think we're looking at a clash of kind of geostrategic, you know, great powers China, against the U.S. with Russia, kind of on China's side.

Also, though, we're looking at really the difference between systems of government. And this is why I have to say the war in Ukraine is so important to the American people because if Vladimir Putin wins in Ukraine, he will continue to pressure. Right now, there are demonstrations being held in Georgia -- or were recently.