Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Juror Dismissed in Hunter Biden Federal Gun Trial; Garland Testifies Amid GOP Attacks on Justice Department; Opening Statements Underway in Hunter Biden Federal Gun Trial. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired June 04, 2024 - 10:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:00:00]

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. You're live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Alisyn Camerota in today for Jim Acosta.

And we're following several breaking stories this hour. At any moment, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee will begin its grilling of Attorney General Merrick Garland. Garland is expected to push back against GOP attacks on the Justice Department, and GOP claims that the DOJ is weaponized against Donald Trump.

Also, opening statements are underway in the trial of the president's son, Hunter Biden, on three felony gun charges. But there are already some developments inside that courtroom we'll bring you.

And President Biden is about to announce an executive order on illegal immigration, cracking down on the flow of migrants across the southern border. The move is controversial. It's drawing fire from Republicans, no surprise, but even from Border Patrol agents. We'll find out why.

But, first, let's go to Paul Reid. She's outside the courthouse in Delaware where Hunter Biden's trial is starting. Paula, you've got some breaking news about the jury. What just happened?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That's right. Even before opening statements got underway this morning, we already lost a juror. Now, this juror, we know this is a woman. She said yesterday in court during the jury selection process that she is unemployed. And overnight, she emailed the court to say that she did not want to serve. She said she lives about an hour away and she didn't realize she had to be here every day and didn't want to go through that commute.

She also said that the only reason she showed up yesterday is because her dad took the day off to bring her here. So, Alisyn, it does not appear that there is a political or a safety reason for her saying she does not want to serve. But notable, we've already lost one juror before the trial really gets under way. Of course, there are four alternates. One of them will be selected to fill her seat before opening statements start any minute now.

CAMEROTA: Yes, you do have to be there every day. That really is what's expected. But thank you very much. We'll see what else today brings. Paula, thanks for the breaking news.

Okay. In just moments, Attorney General Merrick Garland will defend the Justice Department before Congress. These are some live pictures from inside the room. House Republicans want to hold him in contempt for refusing to turn over recordings of President Biden's interview with the special counsel, Robert Hur. Garland is expected to push back, though, including on the accusation that the DOJ is targeting Donald Trump for political purposes.

Joining me now, CNN's Lauren Fox on Capitol Hill and CNN's Katelyn Polantz in Washington.

Okay, so, Lauren, do we know what the attorney general plans to say?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. We are getting an early glimpse of what his opening statement is going to be in just a few minutes, Alisyn. He is expected to tell House Republicans and House Democrats on this committee that nothing he is doing is intended to go after President Trump, that the people who work at the Justice Department are making decisions based on the law.

He's expected to say that certain members of the committee and the Oversight Committee are seeking contempt as a means of obtaining, for no legitimate purpose, sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations. This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department's work. He also is saying that the folks who work at the Justice Department are simply doing their job.

Now, this comes as House Republicans are trying to assert efforts to try to cut funding to the Justice Department as they begin their annual appropriation season. They are trying to crack down on the Justice Department through legislation. And actually, just a few minutes ago, our colleagues who were outside the House Republican conference meeting, reporting that inside that meeting, Speaker Mike Johnson laid out a three-pronged strategy for House Republicans to try to go after the Justice Department after Donald Trump was convicted in New York last week. Alisyn?

CAMEROTA: Right. And, Katelyn, we also know that they want to hold Attorney General Garland in contempt. So, is this all a fait accompli, meaning will Republicans do that regardless of what he says today?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: They may. But, Alisyn, let's take a minute to remember exactly what the clash is over that is bubbling into this contempt discussion that House Republicans are having with Garland.

So, Garland is speaking more broadly about defending the Justice Department, but House Republicans are mad at him because they want the audiotape of Joe Biden sitting down with Special Counsel Robert Hur and giving an interview, a lengthy interview about how he had classified documents in his possession in an investigation that resulted in no charges, ultimately.

[10:05:07] Garland is telling Congress, we're not giving you that audio tape. And, in fact, Alisyn, CNN is even suing for access to that audiotape. And the Justice Department is separately in court telling a judge, yes, we're not giving over this audiotape. We've given a transcript of Biden. We have too many fears of chilling witnesses hurting future investigations.

So, that is what the contempt fight is over, and right now, Merrick Garland says, no. Remember, though, even if the audio tape does get produced publicly at some point, perhaps under a judge's order, maybe potentially, there is this history of Republicans picking these types of battles with cabinet officials, including in the Biden administration, but also dating back to Eric Holder as the attorney general, who was held in contempt for the first time in a long time starting that sort of process where an attorney general is focused on by the opposing party in Congress just as a way to make a political point.

CAMEROTA: Thank you for the refresher on that background. That is really valuable.

Lauren, here's another confounding issue today. Last night, three Republicans on the House Judiciary sent the attorney general a letter demanding information about the prosecution of January 6th criminals. Okay. It says, quote, we're concerned about the Department of Justice's aggressive prosecutions of American citizens who were present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021.

Now, Lauren, the convicts from January 6th tried to kill police officers. They ended up injuring 140 police officers. How do Republicans explain why they support violence against law enforcement?

FOX: Well, Alisyn, you can expect that that topic is likely to come up today. It's important to remember that this is a general oversight hearing of the Department of Justice. So, people, like Thomas Massie, who sent that letter last night, they are expected to ask Garland about that very issue and we'll get a lot more insight.

But this has been something that House Republicans have been fighting against for several years now. This is not a new issue, just simply something that Republicans are certainly going to be talking about with Garland in there in just a few minutes.

CAMEROTA: Well, we look forward to hearing what the attorney general says about that.

Meanwhile, the letter that I just read, Katelyn, also spread. Some baseless conspiracy theories, including that, quote, investigations have pointed to the FBI's possible involvement in facilitating the events of January 6th. There's no evidence of that, of course. In fact, the FBI informants were trying to stop the violence there. That's why they were there. But as the alleged source for these Republicans, the letter cited a New York Post article about the FBI informants who were sent to Stop the Steal rally to surveil what the violent Trump supporters were up to.

So, again, how exactly are Republicans threading this?

POLANTZ: You know, this is one of those things, Alisyn, where Republicans keep pushing this idea, and it just is not being borne out in the facts. The FBI director has said that was not what happened on January 6th. There have been hundreds of successful prosecutions, people pleading guilty who took part in those attacks and essentially saying that they were wrong for what they did.

And another point on what Lauren was talking about regarding the people being held. Those people are a very small number of the hundreds of convicted -- people who have been convicted in January 6th cases, and they are largely -- the people who are in jail, they are largely violent offenders that receive extremely long sentences, longer than they're being held pre-trial. So, what is being said about January six on Capitol Hill often is just not the case in court.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Lauren Fox, Katelyn Polantz, thank you both very much for all this reporting.

We're going to continue to monitor this hearing that as you can see is beginning. We'll be watching it throughout the hour. We'll bring you the attorney general's opening statements when he begins speaking.

Okay, also happening right now, opening statements in the trial of Hunter Biden. We just learned that one juror has been dismissed. We'll bring you all the latest from there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:10:00]

CAMEROTA: Opening statements have begun in Hunter Biden's federal gun trial in Delaware. First Lady Jill Biden is back in court this morning to support Hunter. President Biden issued a statement of support for his son, saying, quote, as the president, I don't and won't comment on pending federal cases. But as a dad, I have boundless love for my son, confidence in him and respect for his strength.

Paula Reid is live for us outside of the courthouse. So, Paula, you just told us the judge announced has already been dismissed. What's happening now?

REID: That's exactly right. Before opening statements got underway, a juror was dismissed after she emailed the court last night and said she didn't realize that she had to be here every day. She lives an hour away and didn't want to endure that commute.

Now, we have some information about her from yesterday. She said during jury selection that she is unemployed. She was vaguely aware of the case and that it had something to do with drug use. But it doesn't appear that there is any political reason that she is stepping down from this responsibility, also doesn't appear that she has any concerns for her safety. Her concerns seem to be this commute. She said she only showed up yesterday because her father took the day off from work to bring her here. Now, she has been replaced by an alternate juror and opening statements are underway inside.

Now, prosecutors are up first and the theme of their case is, quote, no one is above the law. Now, they claimed in their opening statement that Hunter Biden was addicted to crack and lied on a federal form about his addiction when buying a gun.

[10:15:04]

Of course, that speaks to the heart of this case. They went on to tell the jury that no one is allowed to lie on a federal form like that, not even Hunter Biden.

Now, what's interesting about this, Alisyn, these opening statements, is these sound very similar to the opening statements that we heard about seven or eight weeks ago in the Trump trial up in New York, very similar arguments by the prosecution that this case, which has faced some questions, just like the one in New York, did, is being brought because, again, quote, no one is above the law. And then also very similar arguments on the defense side at Trump attorneys, Hunter Biden's attorneys, both arguing they're facing a criminal case as part of an effort to, quote, interfere in the 2024 election, and they're only being charged because of who they are.

So, opening statements underway, these are expected to conclude later today, and the first witness we'll hear from will be an FBI agent who worked on this case.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Paula, thank you very much for reporting from the courthouse, and we will check back.

Joining me now, Defense and Trial Attorney Misty Marris, also Lawyer and Jury Consultant Linda Moreno, and CNN Legal Analyst and former U. S. Attorney Michael Moore. Great to have all of you here.

Okay. So, Linda, what stands out to you about this jury so far?

LINDA MORENO, LAWYER AND JURY CONSULTANT: Well, you've got a pretty diverse jury. About half of them are gun owners or have relatives in their families who own guns. About half of them or more have had a drug addiction touch their families. So, this is important. This is a cross-section of America. And these are the kinds of jurors that are going to figure quite largely in the decision-making.

Don't forget, the court's questions to the jurors were in three categories, politics, guns and drugs. And those jurors who had very strong, opinionated ideas about any one of those three would not be able to sit in fairness in this jury.

CAMEROTA: Interesting, okay. So, Michael, obviously the Biden family is well known in Delaware. According to The Washington Post, quote, there was a female prospective juror who said, who they said laughed out loud when she realized what case it was, asked her opinion of Hunter Biden, she said, quote, not a good one. So, she was dismissed. But the point is what impact do you think that high-profile cases and defendants like this have on juries? MICHAEL MOORE, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Well, I'm glad to be with all of you. You know, it's no surprise to see the first lady there, and that is because she is there not only to support Hunter, but at the same time, she's there to make sure that the jurors know and everyone else knows, frankly, that they are a connected and high-profile family and the state have done a lot to them.

Delaware, this is not a big place. You know, it's not the same as trying a case in the middle of New York or in Texas or other places like that. I mean, we're talking about a relatively small place. It'd be like trying the mayor's son of a small town somewhere and getting a jury, you know, chosen. So, they do know folks and people know them.

That's cuts both ways. You can have it good. You can have it bad. They may have a good reputation where they help some folks and a bad reputation because they tick some other people off. But the Biden name there, certainly his connections to the state, long connections and things he's done for the state have been good.

But all that said, this case is not a strong case. I think it would have never been brought but for the fact that it's about, I mean, this is not a case that a federal prosecutor would relish to bring him in and they're having to rely on a book that he wrote to say that he was using drugs some time --

CAMEROTA: But also, Michael, witnesses. I mean, there's also his own memoir says that he was using drugs.

MOORE: Well, right. But to say, what, that he -- there's been one appellate court, a circuit that's already basically said this is an unconstitutional type statute. And so now we're bringing this case to say, basically, well, at some point, he may have been an addict. He said in a book he was an addict. I mean, that's like having your insurance policy canceled because you wrote a book about diets, and they said, well, you must have been fat and didn't tell us at the time. That's ridiculous.

I mean, we're, this case is being brought on the basis of something that is -- we got a lot of other stuff to do it. But for the hoopla and hubbub that's been raised, this case would not have been brought. I mean, was he an addict? Did he subjectively think that? Did he objectively know it? Did other people say, well, maybe he was, or maybe we saw something at the time he filled the form? There's all this kind of thing that he's going to give an appeals court if there's a conviction there.

And, look, I've been an equal opportunity critic of both the Trump case and this case, so I'm not weighing it down. But this is not the kind of case that federal prosecutors make their make their bread and butter on.

CAMEROTA: Misty, do you agree, because obviously we don't want illegal drug users to have guns? And so do you agree that it would not never have been brought against someone else?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE AND TRIAL ATTORNEY: I'm not sure it would never have been brought against somebody else, but Michael is hitting on one of the primary factors the defense is going to raise, and we're likely to hear about it in opening statements.

[10:20:04]

So, prosecutors are going to say, this is an easy case. There's a form that you fill out. He lied on the form. He was a drug user. He was a drug addict at the time. Look at the form. The box is checked.

Here's what the defense is going to argue. One of the arguments relates to the exact language on that form and whether or not addict was actually defined. And they're going to focus on whether or not Hunter Biden saw himself as an addict at that time. He had just finished an 11-day rehabilitation program. He had been living with a sober partner for a certain period of time. They're going to look into his mind and say, was he an addict? So, that's one of the primary defenses that's going to be raised and we're likely to hear about it in opening statements.

The other arguments that the defense is going to raise, was that form tampered with? There's a form from 2018 that's on file. That is the form that was created at the time he bought the gun. But there was an annotation on a copy of that form that was written in 2021. So, the defense is going to tackle the veracity of that document. Was it accurate at the time?

And then the last one is this gun, the actual gun that Hunter Biden had in his possession for two weeks. They're going to talk about chain of custody. It was not tested. There was cocaine residue that was found, but it was not tested for five years.

So, those are the defense themes. There's going to be these three themes that defense is going to raise in order to get to that idea of a reasonable doubt.

CAMEROTA: Okay. Thank you all for the preview. We will be watching closely today.

Okay. Meanwhile, Attorney General Merrick Garland is testifying today in front of the House Judiciary Committee. Let's listen in.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): I know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you summarize your testimony. You've done this several times before, Mr. Attorney General. You can start with your opening statement. And I want to make a -- point out here at the outset that anytime you need a break, we're going to be here. We're going to have to go to the floor and vote. Anytime you need a break, just have your team get a hold of our team and we'll be happy to do that.

You're recognized for your opening statement.

MERRICK GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler and distinguished members of this committee.

Since I last appeared before you, the more than 115,000 employees of the Department of Justice have continued their work to fulfill our mission on behalf of the American people, to keep our country safe, to protect civil rights, and to uphold the rule of law.

Just ten days ago, we secured the extradition of one of the lead sicarios or assassins of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most dangerous drug trafficking organizations in the world. Just last month, we secured a 27-year prison sentence for a man who attempted to kill NYPD officers in a terrorist attack in Times Square in 2022. In just the first three months of this year, we charged seven members of a hacking group backed by the Chinese government, we disrupted a botnet controlled by Russian intelligence services and we seized over $108 million and 500, 000 barrels of fuel that would otherwise have enabled the government of Iran to further support Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

We have continued our work to drive down violent crime, work that we know is paying off. Last year's historic decline in homicides, the largest one year decline in 50 years, is continuing. In the first quarter of this year, we have already seen an 18 percent drop in murders. We know we have much more to do.

We have also remained steadfast in our commitment to the Justice Department's founding purpose to protect civil rights. We have aggressively investigated and prosecuted hate crimes that victimize individuals and terrorize entire communities, and we have brought justice to the perpetrators of those crimes, like the defendant in Florida who attacked two black women because of the color of their skin, the defendant in Michigan who defaced synagogues with swastikas, the defendant in Missouri who set fire to a community Islamic center, and the defendant in Tennessee who committed a series of arsons targeting Catholic, Methodist and Baptist churches.

We have worked to protect the reproductive freedoms that are protected by federal law. In Idaho, we sued to ensure that women in the state would have access to the emergency care guaranteed to them under federal law. We have continued to protect the right to vote and to have that vote counted. We successfully challenged a redistricting plan in Galveston County, Texas. The district court recognized that the plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by depriving the county's black and Latino voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect a candidate of their choice.

[10:25:04]

We have continued to prosecute fraud, and we have challenged illegal monopolies that drive up prices for consumers. This year, we sued to break up Live Nation Ticketmaster for its monopoly of the live concert industry. And we sued Apple for monopolizing smart phone markets. We have also continued to fulfill our responsibility that underlies all of our work to uphold the rule of law.

That is why we have worked to combat a worrying spike of threats of violence against those who serve the public. Those threats have included targeting of members of Congress, police officers, judges, jurors, election workers and the Justice Department's own employees. Let me be clear, if anyone threatens public servants with violence, we will hold them accountable. And we will continue to protect our democratic institutions like this one and to bring to justice all those criminally responsible for the January 16th attack on our democracy.

As Attorney General, I will continue to forcefully defend the independence of the Justice Department from improper influence or interference of any kind. And I will continue to fiercely protect the integrity of our criminal investigations. Nothing will deter me from fulfilling my obligation to uphold the rule of law. Fulfilling that obligation includes ensuring that the Justice Department respects Congress' important role in our democracy. That is why we have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the committee gets responses to its legitimate request for information.

That is why I have provided the committee with Special Counsel Hur's report, why the special counsel testified for more than five hours and why we have gone beyond precedent to provide the committee with the transcripts of the special counsel's interview with the president. But we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created. Releasing the audio would shield cooperation with the department in future investigations, and it could influence witnesses' answers if they thought the audio of their law enforcement interviews would be broadcast to Congress and the public.

In response, certain members of this committee and the Oversight Committee are seeking contempt as a means of obtaining for no legitimate purpose sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations. This effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the Justice Department's work. It comes alongside threats to defund particular department investigations, most recently the special counsel's prosecution of the former president. It comes alongside false claims that a jury verdict in a state trial brought by a local district attorney was somehow controlled by the Justice Department. That conspiracy theory is an attack on the judicial process itself.

It comes as individual career agents and prosecutors have been singled out just for doing their jobs. It comes as baseless and extremely dangerous falsehoods are being spread about the FBI's law enforcement operations. And it comes at a time when we are seeing heinous threats of violence being directed at the Justice Department's career civil servants.

These repeated attacks on the Justice Department are unprecedented and they are unfounded. These attacks have not and they will not influence our decision-making. I view contempt as a serious matter, but I will not jeopardize the ability of our prosecutors and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations. I will not be intimidated and the Justice Department will not be intimidated. We will continue to do our jobs free from political influence, and we will not back down from defending democracy.

I look forward to your questions. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. We will now proceed to the five-minute rule with questions. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.

REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY): Mr. Chairman --

JORDAN: Gentleman from the ranking members --

NADLER: I have some unanimous consent requests.

JORDAN: That have to happen right now?

NADLER: No, but --

JORDAN: Well, go ahead.

NADLER: Mr. Chair, there was an allegation made in a letter yesterday suggesting that the FBI was somehow involved on January 6th.

[10:30:03]

This is ludicrous, and you know it's ludicrous because witnesses are --

JORDAN: Is there a unanimous consent request?