Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Taps Four More Loyalists for Expected Top Posts; Decision on Trump's New York Hush Money Conviction Delayed; Trump Vows Largest Deportation Program in American History. Aired 10-10:30a ET

Aired November 12, 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]

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: New additions to the next Trump cabinet, the president-elect makes his picks for Secretary of State and Homeland Security. What these choices say about his second term agenda.

Plus, at any moment now, a judge will rule on whether to wipe away Trump's 34 felony count conviction in New York. We are standing by for that decision.

And later skyrocketing influence, how the richest man on earth is using his leverage to impact the second Trump presidency.

Good morning. You are live in the CNN Newsroom. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington.

We begin the hour with President-elect Donald Trump adding four more loyalists to his list of expected cabinet and administration position.

CNN's Alayna Treene joins us now. Alayna, we're expecting Florida Congressman and former Green Beret Mike Waltz to be national security adviser, Senator Marco Rubio to be tapped as secretary of state. Some surprises out there. Take us through these picks.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: That's right. We have seen a flurry of new announcements over the last 24 hours. Jim, it's very clear that Donald Trump is trying to move swiftly to fill out the top roles of his administration. Now, one thing that is very clear throughout all of these hires from what we saw last week with Susie Wiles being named chief of staff to Stephen Miller, now deputy chief of staff, and now these newest roles with Mike Waltz's national security adviser, Marco Rubio, secretary of state, and Kristi Noem as DHS Secretary. All of them have one thing in common, and that is their loyalty to Donald Trump.

And the one thing I consistently continue to hear in my conversations, with those involved in the transition process, and those who are talking to Donald Trump about this regularly, is that his number one priority is filling out these top roles with people who will be yes men, who will not hold him back and who are likeminded on his agenda.

Now, interesting, I want to start with Marco Rubio, because not long ago we remember those days of him mocking him as a Little Rubio or a Little Marco, I should say. That is very much changed though. They have patched up their relationship. Remember, Rubio was on the short list for Donald Trump's V.P. And they really have become close allies over the last several months and throughout his campaign.

Now, I think one thing that's very clear when you take into account Rubio and Waltz and their roles in this kind of national security space is that they are both going to be very tough on China.

And some other areas where Rubio and Donald Trump align as well are they're tough on Iran, they have very similar views on funding for Ukraine. And so this is really a role that Donald Trump wanted, someone who was going to carry out his top policy goals.

Now, one thing to note as well for the secretary of state pick is that, first of all, it's not clear that Donald Trump has offered Rubio this role as of now. However, we can say that, you know, yesterday morning, Donald Trump was kind of toying between Rubio and Rick Grenell, his former ambassador to Germany, as well as intelligence adviser in the first administration. We're told that, you know, starting off the day, he was actually leaning toward Grenell. But then after having many conversations with allies and other people who were meeting with him yesterday, he decided to go with Rubio.

Now, I do want to talk about Noem as well, because she's another person who was on a shortlist for V.P. that changed after there was that scandal over her book when she detailed killing her 14-month-old dog Cricket, but she is also someone who is going to be very loyal to Trump. Trump wanted someone at the top of DHS to be someone who would have his back and would not hold him back from carrying out his immigration agenda.

And keep in mind as well with Miller now as deputy chief of staff for policy, Tom Homan as the border czar, a lot of these decisions on immigration policy are actually going to be coming from the White House. So, the three of them will be working together on his immigration agenda. Jim?

ACOSTA: All right. Alayna Treene, thank you very much.

Those four new hires are set to join to Trump loyalists who are tasked with carrying out his mass deportation plan. Longtime Trump aide Stephen Miller will serve as White House deputy chief of staff for policy and former acting ICE director Tom Homan will be the so called border czar. Trump made mass deportations a cornerstone of his campaign, of course, and CNN's Priscilla Alvarez, she's joining us now. She's been following this.

Do we know what the price tag is for all of this and how this is going to play out?

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me give you one big number. That's $315 billion, according to the American Immigration Council, if this was a onetime operation. Now, this is likely not going to be a onetime operation, and I'll get into that in a minute. But if you try to break down the numbers here, take into account that to arrest, detain and remove and process an undocumented immigrant, that's nearly $11,000.

[10:05:05]

If you multiply that, you can see how these numbers start to get so big.

Now, as you heard there from Alayna, the power center is going to be the White House, but here's what's different from the first time around. Tom Homan, he gets it. He knows operationally how this would unfold because he has been a veteran immigration official. He was there during the Obama administration. He was there for some of the Trump administration, and now, clearly, he's coming back.

But when you look at all the pieces that have to fall into place here, it is not only deporting people. If you arrest them, you have to detain them. There is only so many beds. So, then how do you build up detention space? That is something that Tom Homan is likely thinking about.

In addition to that, it's who are you sending these people back to? So, these origin countries that we often talk about, we don't have agreements with all of them to send people back. So, that becomes another part of it. That's probably going to be part of what Marco Rubio has to do as a secretary of state.

So, when you start to see all of this together, you can see how it gets so complicated, but these aren't novel ideas. It's all about scale. And can you fund the scale? And if you can do all of that, in addition to the diplomacy, then you can get to a place where, yes, they could deport a number of undocumented immigrants.

But here's where it also gets complicated. Who are you going after? Tom Homan has said he wants to go after criminals, public safety, and national security threats. Now, we don't have a statutory definition for that, so it's what you might expect for those with criminal records. But 4.4 million undocumented is the number of U.S. citizens under the age of 18 with one undocumented parent. So, that is where it gets complicated. Because you could have people who have parents who are undocumented, but they are U.S. citizens, and that is the concern among advocates when it comes to separating of a family.

So, this is a big endeavor. It's not completely impossible. It just matters how much money and resources are put behind it.

ACOSTA: All right. Priscilla Alvarez, thank you very much.

We do have some breaking news to tell you about right now. A decision has been delayed in the sentencing on whether or not Trump's hush money conviction is going to be thrown out.

Let me get straight out to CNN's Paula Reed. Paula, what can you tell us?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, we'll be waiting another week, at least, for this answer from Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw Trump's criminal trial earlier this year, where he was of course convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The judge had given himself until today to decide.

The Supreme Court's decision earlier this year, granting Trump immunity for actions he took in office, whether that applied to this conviction, because there were pieces of evidence that could be construed as official acts, including conversations that he had with some of his staffers that were introduced as evidence.

So, the judge said, look, I'm giving myself until today to decide whether the Supreme Court's decision means that this conviction should be tossed. But while we were waiting for that decision, we learned that, in fact, they are giving it another week before the judge decides on this issue.

Now, sources tell me that prosecutors and defense attorneys have been discussing this over the past few days and they mutually agreed to wait delay this deadline so that Trump's lawyers will have additional time to make new arguments based on the fact that their client is now the president-elect. Sources tell me that they will argue that as president-elect, Trump is entitled to constitutional protection from state actors, that would include state judges, a sentencing in this case.

They have tried successfully twice now to get this sentencing delayed, but here they want it completely canceled based on his status as president-elect and prosecutors agreed to give them time to make those arguments.

Now, prosecutors will also have a response to that. So, based on these documents that we have obtained, the conversations went back and forth for several days and they agreed and the judge granted this request.

So, it will be at least another week until we get a decision from Judge Juan Merchan about whether he may toss this conviction based on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling or potentially just nicks the sentencing altogether because Trump is now the president-elect.

So, again, all eyes are on Judge Juan Merchan a week from now to determine if President-elect Trump will be sentenced on this conviction.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Paula, there's a lot writing on all of this, correct, because I mean, what could ultimately do is essentially not have a sentencing at all, not have a conviction at all. He may end up not being a convicted felon based on what Judge Merchan does.

REID: Yes, there are a lot of options here, Jim. The one that Trump team would like to see, of course, is the conviction tossed out, because then there's no question about a sentencing. But that was always considered a long shot bid, because prosecutors have argued that the evidence that could be construed as official acts, so, for example, conversations with Hope Hicks, because while most of the conduct in the hush money case occurred before Trump entered the White House, some of it did take place while he was president. But prosecutors have said, look, the amount of evidence that could be construed as official acts, it is minimal, that the evidence here in this case was overwhelming and this conviction should stand.

[10:10:00]

Trump's lawyers always understood that it was a long shot to try to have the Supreme Court immunity decision used to toss this conviction. But now they have new arguments that they think are even stronger. They will argue that as president-elect, he cannot be sentenced. So, they're not looking to delay the sentencing. They are looking to have it canceled.

So, now, Judge Juan Merchan, he will have to evaluate all of these different arguments and decide how he wants to proceed. But I will note, Jim, you know, we've been covering President-elect Trump's legal issues over the past several years. He faced four criminal cases, and so far, his lawyers have been successful in keeping their client out of jail. And they may be successful in preventing him from even being sentenced after this conviction.

ACOSTA: Yes, that is a fascinating thing to note. No question about it, Paula.

And let me bring in Kara Scannell. She's also been watching this case very closely. What are youy thoughts on this, Kara? I mean, I guess we're going to have to wait one more week. That's ultimately what we're talking about right now. But, I mean, this is a big decision for Judge Merchan, and I suppose that's perhaps why he wants some more time.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it is a big decision. It's also going to be very critical to see what position the district attorney's office takes.

As Trump's team has alluded to, they're going to make arguments that the state judge should not have anything to do with a president-elect. And the deadline here is really something to watch because we've now pushed this out one more week, but that gets us one more week to inauguration day. So, the calendar is shrinking as far as what kinds of decisions can be made here.

Now, the state is, you know, possible that they will agree that the former president cannot be sentenced in this case until he's out of office. It's possible they may take another position that the judge should still move forward with this ruling on immunity and that the president-elect can continue to appeal that while he's in office because an appeal is largely work that's left to the attorneys. It doesn't take too much of the president's attention.

But this is certainly a big decision for this judge there. You can see they're being very methodical and how they're doing this. He's giving them just one week to come back and reassess and tell him what they want them to do. The judge is behaving in the way that he is not being an activist here. He's letting the parties tell them what that they think he should do in this case, what they want to agree to in this case. Certainly, a big decision here and, you know, a big question again for the D.A.'s office of are they willing to be satisfied with a conviction looming in the air?

So, taking that as a win as it stands right now and not having the judge rule on whether this case stands as it is, or if he does set aside the conviction in light of the Supreme Court's decision, you know, or will they try to move forward? Given the tight timetable here, though, it seems very unlikely that the president-elect will be sentenced before he gets into the White House, but the judge here asking both sides for guidance on how they want to move forward with this in light of the election results and the timetable that we have here after Trump's team has successfully pushed off this sentencing twice and now this being the third time, Jim.

ACOSTA: Right. I mean, the strategy all along for Donald Trump was delay, delay, delay, announced that he's running for president earlier than just about anybody ever has, because he wants to you know, put that out there that he's running for president and create this atmosphere where every one of these cases is an act of, as you call it, a political persecution.

And, Paula Reid, I do want to ask you this question, and that is, why does the Supreme Court's immunity decision have anything to do with this, if this is a state case?

REID: Sure. Well, his lawyers have argued that some of the evidence that was introduced during this trial would constitute an official act, specifically conversations that he had with some of his staffers, specifically Hope Hicks. So, they argue that that evidence should not have come in a trial and the whole conviction should be tossed.

But prosecutors say, look, that was a very tiny part of the case. The case did not rest on the testimony of Hope Hicks or other junior staffers. So, this conviction should hold. And sources, you know, familiar with the Trump legal strategy tell me they always knew this was a long shot, but it is a fair argument to make, Jim. Just it's a Supreme Court case, it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to state cases, especially when we're talking about the executive branch.

But last week, we broke the story that the Trump team was going to try a completely new avenue in the Manhattan criminal case to try to get this sentencing not just delayed but canceled, that they would make these new constitutional arguments, and that's exactly what we're seeing happening here. They had conversations with prosecutors over the weekend, and they mutually agreed to give the Trump team and the prosecutors a little bit of additional time to address this new issue of the fact that the conviction applies to someone who is now the president-elect and there may be legal considerations that mean he cannot be sentenced.

ACOSTA: All right. Paula Reid, Kara Scannell, thank you both very much.

More news on the other side of the break, more on Donald Trump's cabinet picks for his new administration, all of that when we come right back. Be right back. [10:15:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ACOSTA: President-elect Trump is eyeing mass deportations in his new administration. He is expected to tap South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem to lead the Department of Homeland Security to help with that initiative. That's in addition to a former ICE director, Tom Homan, who will be the border czar, and Stephen Miller, who will be the deputy chief of staff for policy over the White House.

Chad Wolf was the acting Homeland Security secretary in Donald Trump's first term. Chad, good to see you again. I guess I should ask you, first of all, are you going to be going back to the new administration.

CHAD WOLF, FORMER TRUMP ACTING HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I've not had any conversations with them. I think the picks that they've selected with the governor, with Tom Homan, and obviously with Stephen are great picks.

[10:20:01]

These are folks that know this issue, particularly Tom Homan knows it operationally, so I think they're in good hands.

ACOSTA: And Governor Noem would serve alongside Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, as you mentioned. Let's listen to some of the recent comments on this expectation that there will be mass deportations in the new Trump administration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: When will the deportations begin?

STEPHEN MILLER, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE SENIOR ADVISER: As President Trump said, they begin on inauguration day, as soon as he takes the oath of office.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is there a way to carry out mass deportation without separating families?

TOM HOMAN, FORMER ACTING ICE DIRECTOR: Of course there is. Families can be deported together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Chad, how is this going to work?

WOLF: Yes. Well, look, I think it's important to remember that DHS and ICE specifically removes or deport individuals every single day of the week, or at least they should. We know under this administration has been at a historic low. So, I think, first and foremost, you give them new enforcement priorities and you allow them to do their job. And over time, you'll see that you'll have more and more removals. I think it's important to say, you know, a deportation operation is not a snapshot in time. It's not one week or one month. But it's actually removals over the course of many months and many years. And over time, you're going to see more and more individuals removed, but you're also going to see that sends a signal to those that want to enter the country illegally as well. And you'll start to see lower numbers along that border as well.

ACOSTA: But, Chad, do you think we're going to see deportation camps in this country? And should the new administration be worried about some kind of backlash when images of this operation are beamed out all over the world?

WOLF: Well, today you have soft sided facilities. I assume that's what you mean by camps. You have soft sided facilities today that the Biden and Harris administration has built to process illegal aliens into the United States. They're outside El Paso. They're in South Texas. So, you could probably utilize and repurpose some of those to detain these individuals. As I think another guest mentioned, when you detain someone, you've got to put them in order to remove them.

So, there is going to be some logistical challenges to doing this, but over time you can scale up and you can utilize existing facilities around the country to do this too.

ACOSTA: But do you think that what took place during the previous Trump administration, the family separation policy, which resulted in a lot of children being ripped away from their parents, do you think that that should serve as any kind of caution to the new administration that, in carrying out mass deportations, you may break up a lot of families? Are you concerned about that?

WOLF: Well, look, I've heard the president say, I've heard Tom Homan and others indicate that you're going to go after the worst of the worst. So, those are criminal aliens. Those are national security threats. Those are individuals with the final order of removal. All of these individuals can be removed and they should be removed. And even if you look at those populations alone, that's a historic number of deportations or removals.

I think when you look at children, President Trump in 2018 and 2019, signed an executive order saying keeping families together is his priority, and I assume it will be in the second term as well. So, I think there's some innovative solutions that you can implement here. But I think the important part is that you're not going to exempt any individual or class of individuals, which we have seen over the last three to four years, which has caused this crisis. When you exempt families or you exempt children from removal or repatriation, that just encourages more and more to come. So, you have to prioritize. But you shouldn't exempt any class of individuals from the law.

ACOSTA: All right. So, based on what you're saying, so children should not be exempt. And so you're going to have children swept up in this. How is that going to look when the cameras are rolling?

WOLF: Again, there's a certain segment of children today that are repatriated and removed today under the Biden administration, under the first Trump administration. I think it's really important to understand what the dynamics are here along that border.

ACOSTA: Right. But there's no mass deportation policy during the Biden administration. They do remove and deport people, sure. But when Donald Trump talks about having a mass deportation of millions of undocumented people in this country, naturally, obviously, you're going to have families broken up, separated, and so on. And what happens if this backfires?

WOLF: Again, I think the American people -- I think we're in an environment today where the American people understand the threats that are going on from public safety threats and others. You have to remember, criminal aliens that have been convicted 70 percent less deportations today than during the Trump administration. So, the numbers are significantly down.

[10:25:00]

So, as you ramp up you're able to remove a lot of bad actors from U.S. communities before you start going down lower priorities, right?

And so, again, it's important to remember you got to prioritize, but, again, I would say if asked that no one is exempt from the law but there, there's got to be priorities. There were during the first Trump administration, 90 percent of individuals removed under the first Trump administration for national security, public safety and final orders of removal. And so I think they'll go back to those priorities and --

ACOSTA: And, Chad, my time is limited. I do want to say -- when you say no one is exempt, that obviously means children. And The Washington Post reported earlier this year that about 1,400 children are still separated from their parents after the family separation policy that was pursued by the first Trump administration. I mean, shouldn't these crackdowns avoid hurting children?

WOLF: Well, absolutely. And I would say that the Trump administration is probably going to have to initiate a pretty large program to find the over 330,000 children that the Biden and Harris administration has lost in the immigration system. We have a child smuggling and trafficking crisis because of the policies of this administration over 500,000 children.

And you've got to take steps to reduce that and discourage children to come across the border to put their lives in the hands of cartel members. You can't just simply sit back and say, we're going to do business as usual and have these children trafficked across the border. There's got to be a different way.

ACOSTA: Should DREAMERs be deported?

WOLF: Well, right now they're unable to be. Obviously, there's still litigation going on with DACA, and that's about a population of about 650,000 to 700, 000 individuals. They weren't a priority for removal during the first Trump administration. ACOSTA: These are folks -- these are teenagers and sometimes young adults who were brought across the border illegally.

WOLF: Unless they fall out of status.

ACOSTA: In many cases, they are in college.

WOLF: Unless they fall out of status.

ACOSTA: Do you deport them?

WOLF: Unless they fall out of status, right? They commit a crime. They do something that revokes their DACA status. My guess is, again, they will not be a priority for removal.

ACOSTA: All right. But I didn't get an answer as to whether they should be deported. You don't have a position on that, I guess. We'll wait to see what the new administration.

WOLF: Jim, they're unable to be deported. The courts have --

ACOSTA: No, I know that. But, obviously, a new administration comes in, he could change the policy on DREAMERs. And there has been some talk on the right about deporting the DREAMERs.

WOLF: Again, I don't speak for the president. We're going to let the transition and the campaign staff outline that. But, again, what I can tell you is during the first Trump administration, they were not a priority for removal unless they fell out of status.

ACOSTA: Chad Wolf, thanks for your time.

WOLF: Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. After the break, an ACLU attorney who led the fight against Donald Trump's contentious family separation policy in his first administration will join me next to respond. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:30:00]