Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Georgia Judge Drops Some Allegations Made Against Trump; Legislation That Might Outlaw TikTok In The U.S. Passed By The House; Interview With Science, Space, And Technology Committee And Armed Services Committee Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ). Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired March 13, 2024 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

NICK VALENCIA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: But ultimately, the judge in this case ruling that the D.A.'s Office failed to include sufficient details that would allow these defendants to intelligently prepare for a future trial. So, he's throwing them out.

All of these counts have to do, as I mentioned, with the violation of an oath of office. We're still reading through this order. But as I mentioned, Jim, this does not -- the ultimate decision as to whether or not Fani will be removed from this case, but in the short term, it is a victory for the defense attorneys and defendants in this case. Jim.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN HOST: Yes. So, Nick, just to follow up on that. For right now, Fani Willis is still on the case, but a piece of this Georgia election subversion case, it looks like it has been dismissed. The rest of the charges are still there, so Trump and his alleged co- conspirators there in Fulton County, not out of hot water by any stretch.

VALENCIA: No, they're not. In fact, the judge went out of his way to say this does not mean that the indictment is dismissed. He wrote that in his order just a short time ago, which was, you know, handed out. Some of these counts will just go through them.

You know, one of the counts, as I mentioned, has to do with the solicitation of an oath of office for the secretary of state. Another one has to do with Trump and Meadows soliciting the Georgia Secretary of State to violate his oath of office on January 2nd 2021 by requesting or importing him to unlawfully influence or certify election results.

All of them, as I mentioned, Jim, have to do with the violation of the oath of office. But the judge ruling here in this case that the D.A.'s office just really did not provide enough details about what that oath is that they were allegedly violating. So, he's deciding to throw these charges out. Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. A fascinating development. Nick Valencia, thanks for staying on top of it. As always, we appreciate it.

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig joins us now. Elie, what do you make of this?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Jim, this is an undeniable setback for the district attorney. Not the entire indictment, but six of the 40 counts have now been dismissed.

And here's why, it's important to understand. Georgia state law has this sort of unusual law that says it's a crime to solicit, to ask a public official to violate his official oath of office. And as Nick just laid out, there are six counts in this indictment that say Donald Trump and other defendants asked various members of the Georgia Senate and the Georgia Legislature and the Georgia Secretary of State, other public officials to violate their oaths to the constitution by essentially swinging the election.

But what the judge says here is, you prosecutors, you have to say what part of the constitution. The judge says, there are hundreds of provisions in the U.S. constitution and in the Georgia State Constitution. And the purpose of an indictment is to give defendants notice so they know what they're defending against. And you can't just say, well, you tried to violate the constitution.

The judge says, what you have to say is what specific provisions of the constitution. What specific sections of the constitution? That's not in the indictment. Therefore, the judge says those charges are legally unfounded and now they're dismissed.

ACOSTA: And so, Elie, I mean, for the folks at home, I mean, Nick Valencia brought up the part of this where Trump pressured the Georgia Secretary of State to, sort of, throw out that election victory for Joe Biden in the state of Georgia. Does that get lifted out of the case? Is that still a part of this case? What does that mean?

HONIG: It is still part of the case.

ACOSTA: OK.

HONIG: That particular act, that phone call between Donald Trump and Brad Raffensperger, where Trump asks him to just find 11,780 votes. We've all heard it many times. That is still part of the case. That phone call is still part of the case.

There are other charges in the case that squarely relate to that phone call. For example, the first count in the indictment, which is the very broad racketeering count, we'll still include that conduct. There are other fraud counts that would still include that conduct.

So, I don't think this ruling changes the type of evidence that the D.A. is going to be able to introduce, but it does knock out some of the charges. And look, it's embarrassing for prosecutors. It's a screw up by prosecutors when you bring a charge and then a judge throws it out before it even goes to trial.

ACOSTA: Well, and that leads me to this question, Elie -- I mean, because there was so much was made of Fani Willis and her handling of this case and the hearings that we saw play out on live television, it was such a spectacle. Does this bolster, in the judge's mind, the idea that perhaps the -- Fani Willis should not be handling this case or is that a step too far?

HONIG: It should not bolster the conflict-of-interest argument. I think these are and should be seen as two entirely separate questions. The question in the decision that we just got is, is the indictment properly constructed? Were these charges properly put before the grand jury and are they sustainable? And the judge said, with respect to six of the charges in this case, again, not all of them, but just six. No, they were not properly brought.

There is an entirely separate question pending where we're waiting for a ruling any day now, where the judge has to decide whether the D.A. has a financial or other conflict-of-interest relating to her relationship with the outside person brought in to be the lead prosecutor here, Nathan Wade. Those should be completely different questions and completely different considerations by the judge.

ACOSTA: And Elie, I mean, the other question I had in my mind, and maybe Nick Valencia could help us on this question as well.

[10:35:00]

This does not bode well for this case starting in a timely fashion. I mean, this potentially could be another delay in the case, theoretically.

HONIG: Well, I guess you could look at it the other way and say, well now we only have to deal with 34 counts instead of 40. But in this case --

ACOSTA: Well, OK. It's true.

HONIG: Yes. I mean, look, just looking at it pragmatically.

ACOSTA: Yes.

HONIG: But this case is not going to get tried to verdict before the November 2024 election. There's just no way. Even the D.A. is currently asking for an August 2024 trial start date. It takes the D.A. months to even pick a jury. We -- there's another racketeering case in Georgia, high-profile but not this high-profile. It took them, I think, eight or nine months to pick a jury. So, there's just no realistic way that this case gets tried all the way to a verdict before November and the election.

ACOSTA: Yes. And I guess one thing that we need to look out for is the District Attorney Fani Willis and her reaction to all of this. I mean, everybody remembers all too well the way she responded to that hearing about whether or not she should stay on the case. And she famously said, I'm not the one on trial here. The former president and all those co-defendants are on trial here.

I mean, this is getting to be -- I mean, this is going to be a very tough fought out case when it finally gets, you know, to court and in front of a jury.

HONIG: Yes, there have been several screw ups, frankly, by the D.A. throughout the history of this case. Going back to the investigative phase, the D.A. got herself disqualified from a small piece of the case because she created a political conflict-of-interest. The judge who was overseeing the grand jury removed Fani Willis from the case.

We've seen Fani Willis make public statements in the church and elsewhere that have now been called into question that I think violate the ethics of prosecutorial rules. And now we've seen six cases -- six of the charges thrown out of the case.

And unlike the conflict-of-interest issue, this does go to the charges against the defendant. This does go to the indictment itself. And there is still a case, the lead charge, the racketeering case is still in place, but this is a setback.

ACOSTA: All right. But as Nick Valencia was saying at the top of the segment, the whole case is not thrown out. Obviously much of the case, the bulk of the case moves forward. Elie Honig, thanks as always for breaking it down for us. We appreciate it.

Stay with us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:41:47]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

ACOSTA: In this breaking news just in, the House just passed the bill that could effectively ban TikTok here in the United States.

Let's go straight to CNN's Manu Raju. Manu, I guess this was expected. How did it play out?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, overwhelming passage. In fact, a majority of both caucuses in the House voted to pass this bill that would ban TikTok if it were to actually become law, which is an open question. But this final vote, 352 votes in the affirmative, 65 voting against it, one voting present. This is the breakdown.

There were 155 Democrats who supported it, 197 Republican who voted against it. 50 Democrats voted no. A lot of those progressive members in particular, some of the younger members as well. And 15, just 15 Republicans voted no. 65 in total.

Now, this bill would call on the Chinese-based ByteDance, a parent company, to divest from TikTok. If not this app, a very popular app, of course, would be banned for -- in the United States. This is still an open question, though, ultimately, how this will play out in in the United States Senate.

There are lots of different ideas about how to do that. There are concerns from the people who support this effort to ban TikTok about the national security implications of this Chinese owned company. Having the private data of so many millions of Americans. The question is, how do they deal with it in the Senate? Some of them are concerned. The top supporters in the Senate have raised constitutional concerns about naming a specific company taking punitive action, essentially, on a specific company in the legislation. So, they want some changes. There are various ideas that are going back and forth. The Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer, has indicated that he is in no rush to put this on the floor of the United States Senate. They want to work through the committee process.

But this all comes, of course, at a time of the hotly contested election and real concerns among some of the opponents of this bill that if Joe Biden -- particularly the Democratic opponents, that if Joe Biden were to sign this into law, that this could create a backlash among young voters. In particular, people who rely on this platform. Influencers who use this for their business purposes as well. That this could actually hurt him in some key states that will see how the president ultimately deals with it. Although he did indicate previously that he would sign this into law if it were to come to his desk.

So, there is still some consternation within the ranks. There is some Republicans who voted against this. Aligning himself with Donald Trump, who reversed his position and is opposing this bill as well. So, Jim, though, we shouldn't take -- we should also just note, it is very rare to see this significant bipartisan majority come together on such a controversial issue in the middle of an election year. It just shows you the national security concerns really dominating here in the U.S. House. Jim.

ACOSTA: Absolutely. It's a potent issue that breaks in different ways for Republicans and Democrats. Let's talk about that next.

Joining us now, Democratic Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill. She's a former Navy helicopter pilot who serves on the House Armed Services Committee. Congresswoman, I know you were very much in support of this bill. You know, help us parse this out for the viewers. What happens next? Do you think it's going to pass the Senate? I mean, that is sort of a big question mark at this point.

[10:45:00]

REP. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-NJ): Well, you know, I was working very hard to make sure we had a big vote today, whipping the votes very hard. We had the Intelligence Community come in yesterday to brief the entire House of Representatives, to make sure people understood the threat posed and had the details of that because we've been moving quite quickly with the understanding that this is something that TikTok is going to move against rapidly. We've already seen that.

Many of us have received thousands of calls in our office because TikTok is directing people to call the congressional offices before they can get to their feed. We know the CEO of ByteDance is over on the Senate side, the parent company of TikTok, working hard to kill this bill in the Senate.

But when you see an overwhelming vote like this, a huge bipartisan vote like this, which is rare in these partisan times. ACOSTA: Oh, yes.

SHERRILL: I think that's something the Senate has got to take notice of, and I'm hoping very much they will act quickly as well.

ACOSTA: And Congresswoman, I mean, based on what you were just saying a few moments ago, that members of Congress received a briefing on this. I'm curious -- I mean, can you answer the question as to whether China is using TikTok to spy on Americans? Is that what's going on?

SHERRILL: So, here's what we know, that ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, under a 2017 security law, has to report to the Chinese Communist Party, has to turn over information when asked. We know that reporters, journalists, like journalists from "BuzzFeed" or "Financial Times" have had their apps geolocated with whistleblowers so the Chinese Communist Party could determine who was reporting to the journalists. We know that a woman in New Jersey, in my own home state of New Jersey, was banned from TikTok when she was trying to post on the Uyghur genocide.

So, we know that TikTok has been manipulating information. We know that they have access to American's private data. And we know that if they -- if asked by the Chinese Communist Party to turn that over, they are by law required to do so.

ACOSTA: And what do you say to -- I mean, some of the folks in your own party who are nervous about taking this very effective tool away from Democrats with the president right in the middle of a heated re- election campaign. A lot of Gen Z users, a lot of teenagers are on TikTok. That sort of pulls that platform out of the arsenal, doesn't it, if you effectively ban it here in the U.S.?

SHERRILL: Well, I think what we're so concerned about, we're not trying to ban TikTok. So, for all of those users, we want the Chinese Communist Party to divest off TikTok. People can continue to use that platform. In fact, CFIUS is an organization that controls some of the investment into the United States from foreign adversaries. They said that Grindr had to have a for sale when the Chinese bought that platform because of all the sensitive personal data of Americans. It is still up and functioning after that sale.

So, this is a platform that we anticipate will still be able to be in wide use by Americans, but more safely. With their data protected. With -- more in line with the values that we have here, of freedom of speech, freedom of association. And I think that will resonate.

I also think, though, that you raise a good point. We have already seen the former president, who, when he was in office, wanted to ban TikTok. Now, realizing that, you know, TikTok has engaged in manipulating elections, the parent company ByteDance. We heard that information from Taiwan with their election.

And we've seen the former president now, no, you know, no stranger to trying to get foreign adversaries to support him against our democratic values. We've seen the former president now changing his opinion and messaging to TikTok that he would be in favor of supporting them. I think hoping that they will come in and skew our own elections here. And that's what we're guarding against.

ACOSTA: And -- but what about a lot of young people -- I mean, really folks across the spectrum use TikTok for their businesses. I suppose they're going to be a little worried about the effect of all of this. I mean, you're saying that TikTok will live on. Not everybody feels that that's going to be the outcome in all of this.

SHERRILL: You know, I think that we will see, as China divests of this, actually people on TikTok able to -- have a better experience when they know that they won't be shadow banned if they do something contrary to the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. Maybe they switch -- a business switches supply chains out of China, and maybe they become shadow banned on the platform.

There are all kinds of ways in which Americans' lives can be manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party if we don't start to take action in some of these very sensitive areas to protect U.S. interests and the interests of the American people.

[10:50:00]

ACOSTA: All right. Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill, I don't think we've had the last discussion on all of this. So, we'll see how this plays out. Mikie Sherrill, thank you very much for your time this morning. We appreciate it.

SHERRILL: Thanks so much.

ACOSTA: All right. And we continue to follow the breaking news out of Georgia. It's a busy hour this morning. The judge in Fulton County just dismissing some of the charges in the Georgia election subversion case. You heard that right.

CNN's Nick Valencia is following this. Nick, recap if you can what the judge has just ruled.

VALENCIA: Well, we want to be clear that this is not the order on whether to disqualify Fani Willis from this case. We are still standing by for that. But in the meantime, the presiding judge in this case, Scott McAfee, deciding that he's going to throw out six of the 41 counts in this indictment. We should also be clear, though, the most important count in this indictment, the racketeering count is still standing in this case.

But in the short term, the counts having to deal with the solicitation of the violation of an oath in office. So, these defendants that were alleged to have tried to get public officials to violate their oath by creating this fake elector scheme or, as we saw the former president tried to get the secretary of state to overturn the election results here, those charges are no longer applicable in this case.

Scott McAfee, the judge ruling that the district attorney's office did not provide enough details as to what part of the oath these defendants tried to get these public officials to violate, and he called that, ultimately, a fatal error. So, some of these counts, six of the counts of the 41, all of them, of course, having to do with this violation of oath of office, some of them having to do with the former president and his attempt at trying to get the secretary of state to decertify the election results, and try to get him to say that he was the rightful winner here in 2020 when he lost the 2020 election results. So, this is, in the short term, a major victory or a victory, I should say, for the defendants in this case.

The case though, we're still expecting on whether or not the judge is going to remove Fani Willis. And that decision could come at any point. Jim.

ACOSTA: All right. Nick, thank you very much.

With me is CNN's Paula Reid, CNN Legal Analyst Michael Moore. Paula, what does this mean for the timing of this case? I was talking about this with Elie a little while ago during this program, and I guess he was saying it could speed up the case. But I mean, I would have to think it is a complication for the district attorney and that's never a good thing.

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: No, and she already has a lot of complications that she's contending with. Look, even though some charges against Trump and his co-defendants were dismissed, the case remains mostly intact, but it's also in limbo because these efforts to disqualify Fani Willis have left it unclear as to whether she will be the one overseeing this case and when it will go.

Because initially she had said that she wanted to start this case in August, and it's going to last about four to six months. But again, that's not likely, even if she is not disqualified. Now, we're waiting for that disqualification decision by the judge, it's expected to come by Friday. If he does decide to remove her and her office from this case, I mean, Jim, that means more delays because while the case would survive, it would have to go to another office.

So, at this point, there is so much chaos surrounding this case. So many questions.

ACOSTA: Yes.

REID: I think Elie's right, technically, that for any other case where you weren't dealing with disqualification and the possible election, possibly one of the defendants being reelected to the White House, it could speed things up. But right now, it is unclear if she will be still leading this case. And if so, when it will go forward?

ACOSTA: Yes, Michael, I mean, Fani Willis has a lot of fierce defenders but -- I mean, there's just no mistaking that this case has gotten messy.

MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, I mean, that's right. I'm glad to be with both of you. And it is -- this case has turned into somewhat of a tale of many speed bumps as they've tried to move forward. You know, there was one interesting note when the judge threw these counts out where he said, basically, you know, the state could ask for an immediate appeal of this if they want to, and I would likely grant that.

That tells me that he's thinking that, you know, he's not on a fast track to try this case anyway. Whether or not the state does that, that will be a decision they make and they may wait and do that depending on how he rules, ultimately, on the disqualification issue.

But that's the order today. That is the granting of the special demur or the challenge to the specificity of the indictment, was a win for the defense. And that they have basically come in and said, look, the indictment in these detailed counts and these compound counts that the state has charged against our clients, they haven't been specific enough to place us on notice that is sufficient on the constitution to move forward. And the judge said, you know, you're right. They have not talked about in those counts enough information to do that.

So, this part was a win. It's not fatal to the case as a whole. But you know, these defendants are known for chipping away, if you will, at the rock until suddenly there's nothing left but a pound of dust. And so, we'll see how much further they can take.

ACOSTA: And I guess that is what's going to happen, Michael, right? If you have this many defendants, you have all of those defense teams who are going to come up with all of these different ways to try to unravel the case.

[10:55:00]

MOORE: Well, that's right. I mean, and the law says that a defendant, whether you have one or 19, I mean, they're entitled to an indictment that's perfect in form and substance. That's a little bit of a stretch because the law does give some backup to the prosecution if they need it.

But it basically is a way to challenge these hypertechnical indictments and these broad indictments, these broad statements to say, look, you may have said a lot, but you haven't told us specifically why you think we have committed this solicitation to get somebody to violate through. You've got to spell that out.

And so, when you put all those defendants together, you end up with these kinds of challenges. And so, it's not surprising to see an indictment of this size, face these challenges. It is, as I say, it's another speed bump that the prosecution has run into as they've tried to move the case forward.

ACOSTA: All right. Michael Moore, thank you very much.

And just a note to our viewers. If you're just tuning in, the breaking news, the judge down in Fulton County has dismissed some of the counts against Trump in that Georgia election subversion case. We're going to have more on this at the top of the hour. The House of Representatives also effectively voting to ban TikTok in the United States. A lot of breaking news this morning. Thanks for joining us this morning. I'm Jim Acosta. Our next hour of "Newsroom" with Wolf Blitzer starts after a short break. Have a great day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)