Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Judge: Trump's Hush Money Sentencing Is Postponed Indefinitely; Trump Picks Pam Bondi For Attorney General After Gaetz Drops Out; Today: TX Board Of Education To Vote On Bible Lesson Curriculum. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired November 22, 2024 - 11:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:09]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Tuesday, sentencing for Donald Trump and his criminal hush money case is postponed. We're going to look at what this means for a case that Trump wants to see dismissed.

And Matt Gaetz out, Pam Bondi in. But will an unforced error by President-elect Trump haunt him in the future? We're going to talk about that. The inauguration is just 59 days away.

And then later, Hollywood is hoping that have a very, quote, glicked weekend. I just found out what that word meant. I -- I was late to the party on this. With these two blockbusters hitting theaters, can the new movies recapture the old magic of Barbenheimer at the box office?

Hello, everyone. I'm Pamela Brown in Washington. Happy Friday to you. You are in the CNN Newsroom.

And we begin with breaking news. A New York judge has granted Donald Trump's request to file a motion to dismiss his hush money case and his sentencing is now indefinitely postponed. So let's get right to Kara Scannell. What does this mean for Trump's case, Kara?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pam, this is widely expected because both Trump's team and the prosecutors had signaled to the judge that they were ready to litigate this further, right? Trump's lawyers had asked for permission to file a motion to dismiss the case because Trump is now President-elect and heading into the White House.

And prosecutors said that they wanted to go that course, too. They wanted to fight to uphold the conviction. And so they presented this to the judge earlier in the week in both sides saying that, you know, they acknowledge that Trump sentencing has to be postponed in this case because as prosecutors noted, they expect there to be many appeals here. So this was expected. The judge is now officially postponing Trump's sentencing. No future date has been set, so it is indefinitely.

And he set out a briefing schedule for them to get these legal arguments underway. So he's saying that Trump's team needs to file their motion to dismiss by December 9th. Prosecutors will have one week to file their response and then the judge will take this under consideration. This also means that he is not issuing his decision on presidential immunity at this moment, saying that is also on hold until after he gets all of these legal briefs. So this is the first step in what will be the next stage of this case as they continue to litigate whether this conviction stands. Pam?

BROWN: All right, Kara Scannell, thanks so much. And joining us now to discuss is former U.S. Attorney and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman. Harry, what do you think about this? Is this a surprise with all the questions about the case after Trump won the election, did Merchan have a choice here, frankly?

HARRY LITMAN, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Oh, he had a choice. But as Kara says, it's not a surprise in that both parties asked for it. But technically, whether to do his motion to dismiss and whether to sentence him are separate. And you could have just gone ahead with the sentencing and just kept them separate.

But this is a nod to what everyone has agreed are the exceptional circumstances of a felon, of a criminal convict who's about to take the White House. And obviously, Merchan is thinking, if I do grant this whole motion to dismiss, which is based on immunity and the supposed constitutional prohibition on doing anything criminal with a president who's in the White House, then everything goes away and I don't have to sentence.

One thing that's important to note, this is not a suggestion by Merchan that, oh, we'll put this off for four years. If he doesn't dismiss, then he will go forward with the sentencing, although not immediately, because as Kara points out, there will be these series of appeals, but it's not the same as putting it in the ether forever.

BROWN: All right, so then what's next here?

LITMAN: December 2nd, about a week, the Trump files his motion saying, I'm going to be President-elect. You can't do this. The Constitution can't impinge on my service in that way. December 9th, the DA responds, and then Merchan decides. If he decides I'm not dismissing, appeals will start there, he would be technically able to continue with sentencing. Or he might, bowing to practicality, wait until those appeals run their course. And they could take a while.

Then when they do, if he's affirmed, big if, because this could go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, then 2025 or something, we're back to sentencing when everyone hardly remembers what this whole case was about. But it's not the same as saying the whole thing is vaporized, as the two federal cases will be, unless, unless Merchan grants this motion to dismiss based on immunity grounds, which would be an extension of what the Supreme Court did last year.

BROWN: So if he does move forward with sentencing, do you think we could ever see President Trump actually serve time? Like, is that even a realistic possibility at this point?

[11:04:58]

LITMAN: So it's a legal possibility. And it's just that everything has had these imponderable twists and turns that makes me say, wow, it's hard to actually see that day of the prison door swinging open. But people who are convicted for what he's convicted of, do see time. And he -- there's more reason, given how he was in the trial, to give him time. But man, oh, man, between now and then, we're in a, not just an obstacle course, but one in which each obstacle is completely unknown to the legal system, which is obviously bending to the political reality.

BROWN: Really quick, what do you mean by what we saw in the trial with him that, you know, he should have more time.

LITMAN: He was -- he -- he violated repeated gag orders. He was not at all contrite. Those are the sorts of things that a sentencing judge would consider in deciding whether to give some time in jail here.

BROWN: All right, Harry Litman, thank you so much.

And turning now to the Trump transition, quote, a brilliant attorney who is not problematic. That is just some of the early praise from Republican senators and Trump allies for Pam Bondi, President-elect Trump's new pick for attorney general. Trump breaking the news shortly after his former pick, Matt Gaetz, made news of his own by withdrawing his name from consideration for the job. Gaetz said his nomination had become a distraction.

Our Kristen Holmes joins us now. So this was really a quick pivot for Trump after it became clear Gaetz just didn't have the votes. Tell us more on how this unfolded behind the scenes, Kristen.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Pamela. And one thing to keep in mind here, it's not that surprising that Donald Trump essentially dropped everything. We know there's still some big names out there that he hasn't put into place in terms of secretaries, treasury, for example. But we know that Donald Trump believes that attorney general is one of, if not the most important job in his Cabinet. He wants to completely redo the Department of Justice.

So when it became clear that Matt Gaetz wasn't viable, it's no surprise that he spent the next several hours choosing someone who he believed would be confirmable. So just to give a little bit of the timeline, what we are told is that last, yesterday morning, Donald Trump called Matt Gaetz and told him that he didn't have the votes.

Now, these sources insist that Donald Trump let Matt Gaetz come to his own decision on whether or not he was going to withdraw his name, that he didn't put the screws to him, but that Gaetz obviously quickly came to the conclusion that he would withdraw his name.\

Now, just within hours of that, Pam Bondi's name started circulating. Donald Trump met with her one-on-one, the same kind of interviews he's been doing with all of these potential candidates at Mar-a-Lago and then later offered her the job. Formally, within six hours of Matt Gaetz withdrawing his name, Pam Bondi was named the next nominee for Attorney General.

And I can tell you from speaking to Republicans, and I know you've been speaking to them as well, they are relieved with Pam Bondi. They believe she is someone who is confirmable. I heard from one person she's a solid pick. Another person saying she has much higher chances than Matt Gaetz.

There was a lot of really concern among transition team, among Trump allies as to how much political capital he was going to use to try to push Matt Gaetz through. Clearly, Donald Trump came to some conclusion on his own by picking up the phone and calling Gaetz to tell him he didn't have the votes.

And we are -- we do understand that there had been some conversations where people had essentially told him, Donald Trump, that this could hurt other nominations down the road because of the fact that he would have to expend so much to get Matt Gaetz through that door.

So it is not surprising that this is the way that it played out, but also a lot of relief from Republicans that now this is someone that they believe is confirmable.

BROWN: Certainly. I want to ask you quickly about Pete Hegseth, the choice for defense secretary. As we know, he is accused of sexual assault, allegations he denied. No charges were brought by police. But any sense if team Trump is already considering backups for Hegseth or others just to ensure nominees can be confirmed?

HOLMES: Well, there certainly have been conversations as to whether or not he can be confirmed. And the one thing to look at here is how Trump handled Matt Gaetz. He has a lot less invested in Pete Hegseth. Matt Gaetz was somebody that he handpicked that he believed would lead the most important department or division of his administration.

Pete Hegseth was picked almost on a whim. He was certainly on the shortlist. But he had been somebody that Donald Trump watched clips of. He liked the way his messaging was, so less investment in Pete Hegseth. And the question is, how big of a problem does Pete Hegseth have become to which Donald Trump essentially moves away?

Because, again, it's all about political capital at this time. And Donald Trump has people around him who are saying, we have a couple of controversial picks that are very important. We need to make sure that they get through. You have to decide how much capital you want to use on each of these people. So the question is, again, how big of a problem does Hegseth become for Donald Trump and the administration before we see him start to back away, if we do see that at all.

[11:10:00]

BROWN: All right. Kristen Holmes, always bringing us the very latest from down there by Mar-a-Lago, we appreciate it.

And let's bring in CNN senior political analyst, Mark Preston. All right, Mark. So now Pam Bondi --

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Pam Bondi.

BROWN: -- for -- for attorney general. It happened very quickly. I think as Kristen laid out, there's a lot of relieved Republican senators and frankly, Trump allies that, OK, they really believe Pam Bondi can get through.

PRESTON: Right.

BROWN: But bottom line here, I mean, whoever is the attorney general under Trump, it's really going to be Trump. I mean, he's made it clear he wants to drive the show.

PRESTON: That's for every one of these cabinet picks --

BROWN: Yes.

PRESTON: -- that we've been talking about. You know, we've spent the last couple of weeks, as we have for every previous administration, where we talked through the qualifications for some of these folks that would be going into these positions. The reality is where we are right now is that you don't necessarily need to be qualified.

I'm not saying that Pam -- like Pam Bondi is qualified, right? There are certainly people that are qualified in, you know, Marco Rubio as well as somebody else. However, you are still putting people into positions that are just going to parrot what you want. So I know there's all this outrage from MAGA World saying Matt Gaetz didn't get through. It doesn't matter. As I said yesterday, it could have been Matt Gaetz, Matt Barnes, Matt Thompson, it could have been any kind of Matt as long as the person -- person does what Donald Trump wants him to do with the DOJ.

BROWN: Did he squander any political capital with Matt Gaetz?

PRESTON: No, no, no. And -- and I got to tell you, like I have -- I have certainly seen this, what it has people in social media, certainly those on the left are saying big loss, big loss, not a big loss at all. I mean, come on, if you understand politics, it is not a big loss. What it does show, though, is that the United States Senate will push back a little bit when they absolutely have to.

Matt Gaetz was one of those people where you absolutely have to. Those allegations are brutal. They are awful. I don't know how he could have ever led the Justice Department given what he is facing right now. But the fact of the matter is Donald Trump is going to get what Donald Trump is going to get.

BROWN: It seems as though from what we're hearing from Republican senators so far and her qualifications and everything that Pam Bondi will likely get through, right?

PRESTON: Yes.

BROWN: What does that mean, though, for the other more controversial picks for like Tulsi Gabbard --

PRESTON: Right.

BROWN: -- or Pete Hegseth? Because before it was like, well, they're probably -- Gaetz probably wouldn't get confirmed. So then that kind of increased the chances for some of the others potential.

PRESTON: Hundred percent.

BROWN: So then how does that fit into this calculation?

PRESTON: Well, let's just put it into very simple terms, right. We talk about the shiny object over here, and Donald Trump is very good about having people look over here while he does things over here and gets things done. And America follows this over here, which is just flashing, you know, out in the Netherland. Does Tulsi Gabbard get through? I don't know. She certainly is better off than had Matt Gaetz not gone through that. But there are some real serious questions about whether or not she is really up to and will impose what Donald Trump needs to do when it comes to foreign policy.

Yes, she's very supportive of him, but some of her positions, like with Bashar al-Assad and -- and with Russia kind of, you know, they do cross the Rubicon in -- in many ways. And then if you look at some of these other ones who -- who are problematic, Pete Hegseth, again, he may fall into the Matt Gaetz category because these allegations are brutal and they keep on coming out drip by drip.

BROWN: Trickled. Yes, tricked.

PRESTON: So at what point does Pete Hegseth say, I've got to step out for the good of Donald Trump? I don't know.

BROWN: I want to talk about FBI director and just how extraordinary this whole situation is. I know we're all kind of used to the shock from Donald Trump, right? We saw it in his first term. You know, he fired James Comey. He replaced him with Chris Wray.

PRESTON: Yes.

BROWN: Now he's looking to fire Chris Wray, he put in that position.

PRESTON: Yes.

BROWN: And put in a loyalist to lead the FBI. And, you know, there is a reason why historically there has been independence between the FBI and the White House, particularly after Hoover and Watergate and everything surrounding that, right? And it's just really extraordinary that this is happening right now behind the scenes and that he's looking once again to fire his FBI director. The FBI director he put in there.

PRESTON: You know, I -- I take a lot of criticism for just kind of pushing through all of the chaos that is happening and looking beyond in what the reality is. Yes. You know, certainly -- certainly he has put himself into some controversial positions, but Donald Trump doesn't care. Like, I just don't -- like, people need to understand that he doesn't care. And he is going to put somebody there. And he doesn't care about norms and he doesn't care about -- about history. He cares about where we are now and -- and -- and the birth and the development of his political party, which is the Make America Great Again political party.

And for folks who don't believe that or think that, look, we can go back to the way it was with these two political parties like it was 15 years ago. You are -- you are delusional. You are living in the past, and you will be forgotten. You've got to live where we are today, and you've got to look to where we're going. And I think a lot of folks are still looking at where were.

BROWN: All right. Mark Preston, always bringing us the real take here, thank you so much.

[11:14:59]

Right now, Texas officials are deciding whether to add Christian lessons from the Bible to curriculums for students as young as kindergarten. Up next, we're talking with a Jewish parent in Texas who has called the move shocking, offensive and just plain wrong. You're in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: The Texas board of Education is meeting right now and could vote at any moment on whether to back a public school curriculum that includes lessons from the Bible. A preliminary vote earlier this week approved this, paving the way for today's vote. Critics have opposed the move and there have been critics from both parties. They say it's unconstitutional. But there are also plenty of backers of this in Texas. I talked about it this week with a Democratic Texas House member who is currently in seminary school. And it's about Christian this is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[11:20:26]

REP. JAMES TALARICO (D-TX): It's necessary for them to understand history, understand literature, understand culture. The problem is that this new curriculum elevates Christianity above the other faith traditions around the world. And in fact, it preaches instead of teaches.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Still, this might not stop Texas from paving the way for biblical stories to be taught in the classroom, starting in kindergarten. Joining us now to talk about this is a parent of two Texas Public Schools graduates, Sharyn Vane. She spoke out against the curriculum at a public hearing in September. Sharyn, thank you for your time. So tell us more about why you were speaking out against this new curriculum?

SHARYN VANE, JEWISH PARENT, AUTHOR: Well, I felt it was important for the board to hear from voices of parents, regular people like me, who don't want this kind of curriculum in our public schools and particularly not for our youngest learners.

As a Jewish parent, of course, we taught our kids our faith at home. And I think no matter your faith, the parents are the ones who need to be teaching those lessons. We don't want to see that in our public school classrooms. And that's why I thought it was important to go to the board meeting and share my thoughts.

BROWN: The Supreme Court has held that the Bible can be taught in classrooms in an academic context. Proponents of this new curriculum, including Texas Governor Abbott, they say that's exactly what they're doing here to ensure students have a full grasp on how the Bible shaped American culture and history. Why don't you accept that?

VANE: Well, I do accept that in terms of kids do need to know some. They need to learn about the Bible. And both of my kids learned about the Bible in age appropriate ways as well as curriculum appropriate ways. They learned about literary illusions. They learned about how it informed later laws. Those are all okay. This curriculum is not that.

This curriculum has explicit biblical instruction for even kindergarteners. They're teaching them the creation story as part of what's supposed to be an art lesson. And the quiz is not on art. It's not on creativity. It's on day by day in what order did God create the universe so that steps over the line into prohibited instruction.

BROWN: Would you be satisfied if other religious texts were represented as much as Christianity in this curriculum? Or should subjects of faith remain completely out of the public school system in your view?

VANE: I think it's how it's presented. It would be great if all of the many religions represented in Texas and, of course, across the country were reflected in some way, shape or form, again, in appropriate ways. What we're seeing here in this curriculum is not only overt religious instruction, but the references and depictions of Christianity far outweigh any other religion. And that's where you get into trouble with the establishment clause.

BROWN: If your kids were still in school, how would you handle this? Because your kids have graduated, right, from the -- the public school system?

VANE: They have graduated. I think the next step for everyone right now, assuming this passes, will be to take the fight to the local level. This curriculum is being incentivized. It's optional, but districts will get up to an additional $60 a student to accept it at a time when 70% of school districts are underfunded. So we would take it to the school board level and say, this isn't what we want. This doesn't reflect our values for our community.

BROWN: Right. And -- and just to -- to clarify, it's $40 a student if they do adopt this curriculum. So there is that added incentive there for these schools to adopt the curriculum. Really important conversation, Sharyn Vane, thank you so much for coming on to share your perspective. I know that this has sparked a lot of debate down in Texas and a lot of parents did speak out at that September hearing to share your -- your point of view as well. So thank you.

VANE: Thank you.

[11:24:51]

BROWN: President-elect Trump has big plans for the economy when he gets back to the Oval Office. Up next, we're talking with small business owners from across the country about what scares them and what excites them ahead of his second term. You're in the CNN Newsroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: Well, Donald Trump likes to describe tariffs as the greatest thing ever invented. But some economists don't agree with him. And they warn that this could lead to a spike in prices and a return to the inflation that helped pave the way for Trump's return to the White House.

[11:30:01]

Now, small businesses, those owners of them are watching all of this and wondering what it could mean for them and their bottom line and their business. What --