Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Now: Trump In Court For Critical Hearing On Trial Date; Today: Final Arguments In Fani Willis Disqualification Hearing; Defiant Russians Gather For Navalny's Funeral, Burial. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired March 01, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: We could soon find out when this actual trial will start. Meantime, in Georgia today, final arguments over whether to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the election subversion case.

And this, a major show of defiance against Vladimir Putin. Russian chanting Navalny at the funeral for the opposition, the Russian opposition leader.

Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. And you're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Right now, Donald Trump is inside a Florida courtroom for a crucial hearing. It could decide when the criminal case over his handling of classified documents goes to trial. The judge is set to determine whether it will move forward as planned in May or be delayed. Trump's lawyers now say they would accept the trial in August. That's three months before Election Day here in the United States.

CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid is outside the courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida for us. Paula, have you heard anything yet from inside the court?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Wolf, we just got our first update, a handwritten note from inside the courthouse. We're learning from our colleagues who are inside watching these proceedings that so far the special counsel and Trump's lawyers, they have been discussing this larger question of timing, such a consequential issue in this case because we know the special counsel is keen to try this case as soon as possible. Trump's lawyers want to delay it.

Now, so far, the judge, Aileen Cannon, she has not signaled if she will definitely reschedule this trial or delay it, but she has given us some clues. Now, prosecutors apparently told her that they believe the one thing both parties agree on is that this can go this summer. Technically, that is true. The special counsel said they'd like this to start on July 8th.

Trump lawyers said that if it has to go, it could start on August 12th. But they also argue that their client should not be sitting in a federal courtroom when they believe he should be out campaigning. They believe this would be a violation of his First Amendment right. But in an ominous sign for prosecutors, we're learning that Judge Cannon called some aspects of the government's proposed schedule, unrealistic, suggesting that she may delay this and may delay it further than the special counsel would like.

But Wolf, I want to talk about why I'm holding a handwritten note here. Right behind me in this federal courthouse, there is a proceeding of enormous national significance. Questions about the former president allegedly mishandling classified documents. And a judge, a federal judge is hearing arguments about when this trial will go.

But the press is allowed to be in there and observe the proceedings. But they're not allowed to transmit electronically as they are in most other courthouses. So we are relying on a team of reporters inside the courthouse right now, taking handwritten notes and then running down those stairs and across four lanes of traffic to bring us these updates. This is the first note we've gotten this morning. And hopefully we'll get some more notes soon.

BLITZER: Hopefully we will. All right, Paula, what does this mean, this case you're watching right now, what does it mean potentially for all the other legal cases facing Trump?

REID: Well, let's pull up our handy calendar graphic. You really need this to understand all of the different elements here. The only case that we know, criminal trial that we know former President Trump is expected to face this year begins on March 25th. That is the hush money case, hush money payments that he made to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. That case is being framed as an election interference case, and those charges were brought by the Manhattan district attorney.

Now, that trial is expected to last between four and six weeks, ending in mid May. Currently, the classified documents case is penciled in for May 20th, but we expect the judge will likely move that.

And then we know the other federal case, the January 6th federal election subversion case, that's off the calendar right now because in late April, about two months from now, the Supreme Court is going to hear arguments about whether Trump has any immunity that would shield him from that prosecution. So we don't know if that case will go at all or if it does, if it'll go before November.

And then there's also the question of the Georgia election subversion case. Fani Willis says she wants to bring that in August. But these efforts that we're also covering today to disqualify her may delay that. So that's just an open question. Right now, one trial definitely going to go in a few weeks and then we're waiting to see, waiting to see what the judge does with this case, the classified documents probe.

BLITZER: We should find out, I suspect, fairly soon. Paula Reid, thank you very much for that complete update.

Joining us now, CNN anchor and chief legal analyst Laura Coates and CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger. Laura, let me get to you from Trump and his lawyer's perspective. They want to delay, delay, delay everything and delay as much as possible. What are the chances they're going to be successful in this initial case that we're watching right now?

[11:04:59]

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Well, many to choose from, and they all can't go at once in a federal setting, particularly. Why? Because a defendant actually has to be present in a federal courtroom. So there going to have to be differential to the different schedules. But the delay tactic is real in the sense in Mar- a-Lago, if you get that date on the calendar, knowing that you have the April Supreme Court oral argument, and then eventually a June deadline for the justices to actually cite a case, if one already has a placeholder, they're able to leapfrog it. And so using one to play against the other and saying, well, I would love to do your trial, but I've already got this one knowing full well that might not ultimately go on time.

BLITZER: Yes. So there's a lot of questions still to be answered. Gloria, Trump's legal team was adamant that this trial could not be held before the presidential election, saying as the leading candidate in the race, it wouldn't be fair. But then they proposed a date in August. What's the strategy that's going on over here?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, funny how things can change. There is a change in strategy. And I think if you read between the lines, they give a date of August 12th because they'd rather be doing a Mar-a-Lago document case than the case that the Supreme Court is considering in district court in D.C. And so if they had a choice, they would take the Florida case over the D.C. case. And if the Florida case is already being moved, you can't be in two places at once.

So I think their strategy is, well, you know, we can always say August 12th. We don't really want to do it before the election. But we'll put that down there so that we can put off another trial. So that may be what's going on.

BLITZER: Laura, let me follow up, because in court filings, as you know, a specific court filing, the Special Counsel Jack Smith, has said he believes Trump and his two go defendants should go on trial July 8th. Will this date have any impact on Trump's other legal challenges right now?

COATES: Likely, if that is the date that goes, you're likely to have the March 25th Alvin Bragg case be able to be concluded before that July date. The Fulton County case are asking for a later timeline for that. The big question many people have is to what impact the Supreme Court would have in their actual argument about immunity.

Remember, what Gloria said is so important here, Wolf, because the why you'd prefer a Mar-a-Lago versus, say, the January 6th case, one has conduct to do with what happened after you left the office of the presidency one while and you're trying to go back into the Oval Office. It's also regarded as a more favorable jury for Trump's team, they believe in Florida as opposed to Washington, D.C., the quintessential site of the crime of January 6th.

And so looking at the why they want those dates are very important. But the immunity case for the Supreme Court of the United States has to do with conduct of a former president for acts committed while in office. The classified documents should not be right on the nose to have a delay added to this case. But stranger things have happened.

BLITZER: You're absolutely right. You know, Gloria, the July 8th date is what exactly one week before the start of the Republican National Convention? Is the special counsel making a mistake in asking for a date so close to the convention? Does it feed into Trump's baseless claims of election interference?

BORGER: Well, if you were Trump's attorneys, you would certainly be saying that. And if you were Donald Trump, you'd be saying that. But over at the Department of Justice, I think they're sending a message that we don't -- we're not talking about politics here, we're talking about the law. And this would be a good time to do. And, you know, who knows, Wolf, maybe they would pause the trial or whatever, but I think he's sending a clear signal that he wants this case done before the election, no matter what.

BLITZER: Gloria, let me follow up, because even if this case were to be tried during the election, is there any reason to think that would actually hurt Trump politically?

BORGER: Well, look, it wouldn't hurt him with his base of supporters. We know that. Every time he's indicted, his poll numbers go up. But it might hurt him with the general electorate, depending on how the case is decided. If he is found guilty, there are polls that show that people would reconsider a vote for Donald Trump if he is found guilty. So it could affect the outcome of the election one way or another, depending on what happens at the trial.

BLITZER: Yes, we will see. Gloria, thank you. Laura, thanks to you as well. But, Laura, stay with us. I got more questions for you coming up.

From Florida, I want to head right now to Georgia for another criminal case involving the former president. In just a few hours, final arguments begin as Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis fights to avoid disqualification in this case. Trump and his co-defendants are trying to get Willis removed from the election subversion case in Georgia. CNN's Zach code is live outside the courthouse in Atlanta for us. Zach, so what can we expect to hear today?

[11:10:01]

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yes, Wolf. We can expect defense attorneys for Donald Trump and his co-defendants have to argue why under Georgia law, Fani Willis, the Fulton County DA should be disqualified from this case. We've seen three hearings where they presented evidence saying it supports their core argument, which is that Fani Willis benefited financially from her romantic relationship with her top prosecutor, Nathan Wade.

That argument has shifted a bit to now focusing on whether or not Fani Willis and Nathan Wade potentially lied when they were on the stand and they've testified during one of these previous hearings. Now, it remains unclear if the judge in this case, Scott McAfee, believes that defense attorneys have met the burden to actually disqualify Fani Willis. We'll hear from lawyers representing Fani Willis who will clearly push back on that notion today.

But we're looking for clues into what Scott McAfee thinks. He's really the only person whose opinion matters here. And he gave a window into how he expects today to play out. Take a listen to what he said on Tuesday looking ahead to today's hearing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE SCOTT MCAFEE, FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT: At this point, I need to start hearing the arguments within the law and what we've heard so far. And if I think I'm able to reach a ruling based on that, I will. However, if I think that the proper is going to make a material determinative point, we can reopen the evidence at that point. But just the bottom line is on Friday, the intention is that we're still sticking with argument.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COHEN: So McAfee making clear that he does want to see if there's enough information out there for him to make a decision on this disqualification issue. But he's also left the door open to potentially allow more evidence to come in if he thinks it's warranted.

BLITZER: Zach Cohen reporting for us with an update, thank you very much. I want to bring back Laura Coates along with CNN legal analyst, the former U.S. Attorney Michael Moore. Laura, Judge Scott McAfee will decide whether or not to take in new evidence and testimony in this case. What kind of impact could this have on the timeline here when Fani Willis is waiting to find out if she could continue to work with her team?

COATES: Well, what's so important about this is that the crux of the argument has to be that whatever benefit she derived actually hurt the defendant's chance at a fair trial. This judge is really trying to be streamlined in that. We've heard a lot of information. TMI is really the name of the game, what we're seeing right now. But what you have to actually get information of is whether it would ultimately hurt the chances of a defendant to have a fair trial. This judge wants to stick there. He wants to go there.

Today's argument is going to be about the legal burden, not about the factual salacious details, the legal burdens here, and whether they have met their case, not the prosecution, but those bringing the motion to disqualify her.

BLITZER: Michael Moore, does the judge agree to hear new testimony on the same day when final arguments are set to begin? Does that give any indication about how he is leaning in this case?

MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I'm glad to be with you both. It doesn't give a lot of indication. I think the judge has held things pretty close to the vest here. And so I'm not surprised that he's not sending a flash and sign to tell us exactly how he's thinking.

But I also think that there is some importance thing that we can draw from that, and that is that the judge may say, look, I've got enough to think there's an appearance of a problem here, and that can be enough. He's already told us that. He told us in an earlier court hearing that, you know, the appearance alone could serve as a basis to remove Ms. Willis.

But he also may be saying, look, I don't know if you've connected the dots to the defense. I don't know if you've connected the dots on the financial payments and the remuneration. Is there something here where you could actually show a connection between the monies that were paid in the DA. You know, that to me, it could boil down to something as simple as saying, look, you know, you in fact did take vacations. And you if he believes, if the judge believes that the relationship began first, then it gives the appearance at least that they received Mr. Wade and his law firm received monies which allowed them to do these outside activities and this idea that there has to be some tit for tat, or that he paid for lunch one day and she paid for lunch another.

I don't know that's going to be enough, you know, to carry the day. The one piece of evidence the state wants is to have this bartender to come in and say, well, yes, she does pay in cash. I don't even think that's -- when you're having to use the testimony of a bartender somewhere to say, did you pay cash to try to sort of rehabilitate your argument? I'm not sure that's a good day for the state.

BLITZER: Laura, the former President Trump's claim of having presidential immunity, that whole issue is now being taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court. It's a significant case that the Supreme Court is considering right now. A lower appellate court ruled he did not have presidential immunity. We'll see what the Supreme Court eventually decides. But what kind of impact could a Supreme Court decision have on this case that we're talking about?

COATES: Oh, in all of these matters, the eyes are towards the Supreme Court about this particular issue. But remember, he's only one of the defendants. This is a RICO case, a criminal enterprise. He is one of the initial 18. Many of the rest will actually, in fact, none of the rest will have an argument about presidential immunity. Remember that Mark Meadows, his former chief of staff, also wanted to have his case removed to a federal case at a federal courthouse because he said it was based on official acts.

[11:15:07]

Don't forget that very important part of the Supreme Court argument that they're going to have to hear about, not only whether a president has absolute immunity, but what are the parameters of an official act? Could it be things involved in trying to get a false slate of electors or things about trying to talk to people about whether you believe election is fraudulent? That's going to be the most important part for this Georgia case. But ultimately, this is such a moment in time.

The fact that Mark -- I mean and our colleague that Michael is talking about this, the fact that we're talking about bartender tabs and someone going Dutch as opposed to the underlying facts of this case does not bode well for a jury pool looking to have credibility and the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution. That's why the optics abyss are so problematic for any prosecutor going into a courthouse saying, focus on the facts. Forget everything you've heard and all these details.

BLITZER: Michael, even if Fani Willis is not disqualified, has the damage already been done?

MOORE: You know, I think there has been damage to the case. I mean and I do think this has been sort of a self-inflicted wound that we're seeing here. The goal of a prosecutor is to protect the integrity of the investigation, the integrity of the case, and ultimately the integrity of a conviction if one is obtained. And so we've sort of seen it already unraveling because this information has now been laid out there.

As Laura said, the jury pool is already listening to this kind of information. And so that's what you do not want. So I don't want to say that it's been a win for the defense to have filed the motion in the first place. It has certainly cast a doubt and a bad light on the district attorney and Mr. Wade in this circumstance.

And again, I don't know if the allegations are true or not, but as I look at it as an observer like everybody else. I think it puts them in a bad light. It's a self-inflicted wound that could have been bandaged up a long time ago had she just removed Mr. Wade from the case whenever their relationship developed. And had she, you know, she may have then decided, you know something I think I'm going to just step back from this one case. You know, this is not Fani Willis versus Donald Trump. This is the state of Georgia people of Fulton County versus Donald Trump.

So she could have said for the reasons of protecting the integrity of the investigation so that there's never any question because I feel so strongly about the evidence of this case, I'm going to step back from this one and let another prosecutor come in. That could have been done. I understand the taking a hard line approach and not wanting to back down.

But I do think that some of what we're seeing is self-inflicted and really some unforced errors that the states now having to make up ground for as they move forward.

BLITZER: Michael Moore and Laura Coates, guys, thank you very, very much.

Still ahead this hour, a day of both mourning and courageous protest in Moscow. Hundreds gathering to pay their last respects to Putin critic, Alexei Navalny, despite the very real risk of being arrested by the Russian police. And growing outrage and a growing demand for answers. A day after these horrifying scenes from Gaza. Civilians killed while waiting in a food line.

[11:18:12]

Plus, from the border city of Brownsville, Texas, President Biden signaled he may be open to working with Donald Trump on an immigration bill, while Trump went on to promise mass deportations. I'll speak to a congressman who was with the President in Brownsville. Stay with us. You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: In Moscow, Alexei Navalny inspires courage and defiance even in death.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CROWD: Navalny, Navalny, Navalny, Navalny.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Thousands of mourners ignore the threat of arrest to gather outside the funeral of Vladimir Putin's most vocal and daring critic. This image of Navalny in its casket covered in flowers was posted by his team on social media. It was two weeks ago today that the world was told that Navalny had died in a Russian prison camp. His death continues to fuel anger. Here is the crowd leaving his funeral and marching the one and a half miles to his burial.

Mourners there were heard chanting, and I'm quoting now, Russia without Putin, Russia without Putin. CNN's chief international correspondent Clarissa Ward is joining us right now. Clarissa, how remarkable is this dramatic show of solidarity and strength?

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Wolf, I think it's pretty remarkable when you think of just how high the stakes are. The last protests that we've seen in Russia and in Moscow in particular have been brutally cracked down upon. And the stakes were very high today. The Kremlin had said they had warned people about, quote, unauthorized memorials during the time of the actual funeral in the church, there were cell phone jamming equipment in effect.

So basically the live signal that Navalny's team had tried to put out from the church was not able to function. Our own correspondent Matthew Chance on the ground in Moscow was not able to do live shots. And there were just huge rows of riot police as far as the eye could see. And yet, notwithstanding, thousands and thousands of Russians patiently, quietly filed the miles to go to the church, to the cemetery carrying red carnation per Russian tradition at Russian funerals, to pay their respects to a man who they considered to be very great.

[11:25:18] And you have to ask yourself, Wolf, how many more wanted to go and wanted to be brave enough to do the same, but did not out of an abundance of caution, because it is so difficult and so dangerous in this moment in Russia to speak out against Vladimir Putin. And as you mentioned, the slogans that we heard, a few people saying, Russia without Putin, many people chanting his names and his name. Other people were saying, we are not afraid because you were not afraid. And that's a play on a slogan that Navalny himself used. He would say, (Speaking in Foreign Language), I'm not afraid and you shouldn't be afraid.

And I think that's sort of the brightest or most optimistic takeaway you can have from this scene is the courage of people who are determined in whatever quiet way they can to honor his legacy and to help it continue, Wolf.

BLITZER: You've spent a lot of time, Clarissa, covering the Alexei Navalny story in Russia. The pictures we see these huge lines of Russians simply waiting to pay their final respects to Alexei Navalny. Have we ever seen anything like this at all in Russia?

WARD: We've seen images like this in the past. There were huge protests in 2011. There were large protests as well when Alexei Navalny returned to Russia after being poisoned with Novichok, thousands took to the streets. But we saw a massive crackdown there, hundreds of people arrested. And I should note that according to one rights group in Russia, at least 40 people have been detained today.

So we have seen these scenes, but we haven't seen anything like this recently and in this context. And another thing that I think is important to emphasize, Wolf, is who was not at this funeral? All of these people came, but Dasha Navalnaya, who was the daughter of Alexei Navalny, Zahar Navalny, the son, Yulia Navalnaya, the wife of Alexei Navalny, none of them were at this funeral. And that is because they have been also very outspoken.

Yulia Navalnaya in a video saying that Putin is to blame for her husband's death, saying, and vowing to take on that mantle. And so you can understand that for security reasons, it simply wasn't feasible for them to actually go to the funeral. And the question now becomes, what happens to Russia's opposition? How does Yulia Navalia take that mantle and move it forward, given the constraints upon her, given the fact that it is unlikely she will be able to return to Russia anytime soon, Wolf.

BLITZER: And we're showing our viewers these pictures right now from Moscow. Huge crowds of people simply waiting outside the cemetery amid a major police presence outside there as well. Could they potentially face harassment down the road?

WARD: I think that's a very real fear, of course, is that there are a lot of police and presumably a lot of security apparatus who are out on the streets today, who could be taking notes, who could be making visits in the days and weeks to come to people who attended today's funeral. We simply don't know. But what is kind of extraordinary is that you didn't feel that threat diminished the sort of presence and character of Alexei Navalny, which you really felt throughout the funeral today, even as his casket was being lowered into the ground. And he had chosen that Frank Sinatra's "My Way," the famous song would be played as he was buried. That really speaks to the kind of leader that Alexei was.

And it really also speaks to the huge chasm between someone like Alexei Navalny, who was approachable, who was funny, who was down to earth, who loved his family, who was infatuated with his wife. And someone like Vladimir Putin, who is fearful, who is foreboding, who is formal, who isolated and utterly unrelatable for many Russians, Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes. As we say, may he rest in peace and may his memory be a blessing. Clarissa Ward, thank you very much for that update.

[11:29:26]

Other news we're following. During a dueling border visit, President Biden made an offer to Donald Trump. Why don't we just get together and get it done? He was talking about a new immigration bill. When we come back, I'll ask a congressman from a border district what he thinks needs to be done about this crisis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)