Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Smith to Submit Final Trump Report Before Inauguration; Smith Drops Election Subversion and Classified Documents Cases; Israel Cabinet Meeting Delayed; IDF Bombs Beirut 20 Times; Trump Team Investigates Boris Epshteyn. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired November 26, 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]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST AND FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Well, you're right. The word technically is doing a lot of work there.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, yes.

HONIG: Yes, technically, the cases were dismissed without prejudice, meaning, technically, someone could come back in four years and try to reinstitute these charges. But that's correct in the same sense that the New York Jets technically could make it to the Super Bowl this year. They're not mathematically eliminated.

That's not going to happen for a lot of reasons. First of all, four years from now is an eternity. Whoever the next president is in 2029, next attorney general is going to have no appetite for bringing this case back. And you're right, Jim, there are moves Donald Trump's DOJ can make. They can go back to the court and say, OK, we want to switch this from without prejudice to with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be brought back. Who knows? Donald Trump may try to issue himself apart and something we've never seen before. So, I wouldn't hold out any expectation that this case ever gets charged in 2029.

ACOSTA: And, Elie, you and I have talked about this before, but I want to ask you one more time. How much of this comes down to Attorney General Merrick Garland whether he simply waited too long to select a special counsel to investigate Trump?

I mean, we are looking at -- we are now looking at the prospect of a president-elect who tried to overturn the election results in 2020. There are allegations of criminal behavior, and it's just all going to go away. And I think there are just a great number of Americans who are just astounded by that.

HONIG: All of it, I think, is attributable to Merrick Garland the timeline here. I mean, let's play this out. Merrick Garland becomes A.G. in March of 2021, a month and a half after the Biden administration comes into office, and he doesn't name Jack Smith as special counsel until November of 2022. He lets almost two full years go by between -- before he even names Jack Smith as special counsel. All told, it takes DOJ over two and a half years to charge these cases, until the summer of 2023. There's just no way that you're going to go from an indictment in the summer of 2023 to a trial before November of 2024 in a year and change.

And I said it to you, Jim, at the time when you were doing weekends and I was on with you, I was saying, it's already too late. He's already let too much time go by, if the goal was to try these cases before the 2024 election. And here we are. And look, I think I fully understand why people feel this way. These charges were very serious. As Jack Smith made a point of noting in his papers yesterday. This has nothing to do with the strength or the merits of the case, this is all because the clock ran out and because DOJ policy does not permit the prosecution of the sitting president.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Elie, I mean, we're not even talking about the classified documents case, which I mean, you also have a situation now where you have the outgoing president back in 2021 taking all of these classified documents with him down to Mar-a-Lago, moving them around, obstructing federal investigators who are trying to get them back to the hands of the federal government, and he also gets away with that. I mean, it is mind boggling.

HONIG: Yes, that one never even got off the ground. That one had been dismissed by the judge, Judge Cannon, federal judge down in Florida, who found that the entire special counsel regime was unconstitutional on its face. And interestingly, I would have loved to see how this played out, because Jack Smith was in the process of appealing that and it was before the 11th Circuit. I actually think the 11th Circuit probably would have reversed and reinstated that case.

But alas, Jack Smith understands that he can't follow through on either of these prosecutions and he moved yesterday to dismiss both of them. So, we will never have resolution or satisfaction on either of them.

ACOSTA: All right. Elie Honig, we could go on and on, but we will do it again. We'll do it again when these reports come out. Elie, thanks so much.

HONIG: Anytime, Jim.

ACOSTA: We appreciate it. Right now, the Israeli cabinet is meeting to vote on a ceasefire deal with Hezbollah just hours after the IDF pounded Southern Beirut. We'll take you live to Jerusalem next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:35:00]

ACOSTA: All right. This just in, an Israeli cabinet meeting to debate a proposed ceasefire deal with Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah has just been delayed all morning. We've been watching the Israeli military launch one of its most intense bombardment campaigns in Lebanon since the fighting escalated two months ago. Lebanese officials say at least 3,000 people have been killed in that time frame.

And CNN's Nic Robertson is in Jerusalem for us. Nic, we were anticipating this meeting to get going any moment now, and now, there's a delay. What do we know about the delay?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yes, I think there's a couple of things to look at here, Jim. For sure, the prime minister has been trying to sort of get his ducks in a row. His Likud Party has been meeting with them, we understand, right in the minutes when he would have been in that cabinet session.

Let's break it down a little bit here. The vote's going to be a simple majority. There'll be 11 people in that cabinet session, so he needs six to carry the vote, and his office has been confident that he will. Well, we've just learned that subsequent to his meeting with the Likud Party, the prime minister believes he can count on all those members, the Likud Party members, who will be in that cabinet session.

There are six of them, ipso facto, he carries the vote. But they haven't got in the meeting and nobody's actually cast a vote. There will be others that will come along with the prime minister's desire to get this signed off on. So, it looks like it's going to happen.

Meanwhile, in Beirut, as you say multiple, multiple strikes happening in Beirut. The IDF there targeting Hezbollah command and control and also financial institutions, which by the way, Human Rights Watch, a humanitarian organization, says may actually constitute a war crime targeting financial institution. But I think what's catching everyone's attention in Beirut and Lebanon at the moment is the fact that the IDF has announced warnings to citizens in the absolute heart of Beirut, in areas that weren't even targeted back during the war in 2006. And that means that these strikes could be coming imminently in Beirut, in places that weren't targeted in many, many decades. That's raising eyebrows. It's going down to the wire, but it appears that the vote will carry, Jim.

[10:40:00]

ACOSTA: All right. Nic Robertson in Jerusalem, we'll be watching it. Thanks so much. Let's get more on this crucial meeting. Aaron David Miller joins us now. He's a former State Department Middle East negotiator. I guess, Aaron, first of all, what do you make of this delay, this cabinet meeting that was supposed to happen over the ceasefire deal with Hezbollah, and now it's been delayed? Could this be a hiccup or something more serious?

AARON DAVID MILLER, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT MIDDLE EAST NEGOTIATOR: It's a good question, Jim, and thanks for having me. You know, Henry Kissinger once quipped that Israel had no foreign policy, just domestic politics. So, it seems -- it strikes me that the prime minister wants to make sure, as Nic suggested, that at least he has a bloc of support among his own Likud members.

There may be an outstanding issue or two over the U.S. side letter of assurances or maybe over the monitoring committee. The Israelis had objected to French participation because of Macron's comments on the ICC arrest warrants for the prime minister. But I suspect, whether it's today or tomorrow, that there's enough urgency in the part of Israel and Hezbollah and enough push from the Biden administration that you probably will see the security cabinet at some point say yes in principle.

ACOSTA: And what are your thoughts on this very heavy bombardment that we've seen over the last 24 hours? I mean, it seems counterintuitive that you would see this type of military activity right up, you know, to the edge of a ceasefire deal being reached.

MILLER: You know, pressure has always been part of any negotiating process. The Israelis the day before yesterday also struck Beirut heavily and tried to kill Muhammad Haydar, who is perhaps the last remaining. Senior Hezbollah commander in terms of operations. So, it could be that. It also could be just the general sense that the IDF, which I think has the most interest, frankly, in concluding this agreement, wants to make sure that Hezbollah gets the message.

ACOSTA: And I mean, it's obviously very difficult to be optimistic about much of anything when it comes to what's been happening in this part of the world, but is the likelihood that a ceasefire will lead to a permanent end of the war? Could it have implications for what is still going on in Gaza? Your thoughts on all of that?

MILLER: You know, it's interesting. I don't believe in transformations, Jim, when it comes to Middle Eastern agreements or politics these days. I don't think this is a -- I think it's significant if, in fact, it's -- it is agreed to and it endures. But remember, it's a 60-day clock here, and in that 60-day period you're going to see the Lebanese Armed Forces deployed, beefed up presence from UNIFIL, Israel's withdrawal. There are a lot of vulnerabilities in that 60-day clock.

And I think one of the irony of ironies is that 60 days, if in fact the agreement was reached today or tomorrow, that puts you after January 20. So, it may well be that if things don't go well, that this agreement should it be concluded, you know, could easily crater on the, you know, president-elect's watch as well. So, important to keep your eye on, but remember, transactional arrangement, Jim, not transformation.

Hezbollah's not going away. They're still north of Litani. And again, nobody ever lost money betting against Arab-Israeli negotiations or a peace agreement.

ACOSTA: All right. Yes, no question about it. All right. Aaron David Miller, as always, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.

Coming up, inside -- an inside investigation exclusive. Why Donald Trump's own attorneys are taking a closer look at a senior adviser. We have some exclusive recording coming up in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

ACOSTA: Multiple sources tell CNN that Donald Trump's lawyers have been investigating one of his senior advisers. Boris Epshteyn is under scrutiny for allegedly trying to sell influence with the incoming administration. A half dozen sources confirm that internal investigation. And CNN's Sara Murray helped break this exclusive story for us. She joins me here now. Sara, tell us more about what you've uncovered.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we learned that attorneys for Donald Trump were so concerned about the allegations that they'd been hearing about Epshteyn that they decided to look into it, you know, look into these allegations that he was trying to make money off of his influence with Trump and with Trump's circle.

And so, they looked into claims, for instance, that Epshteyn was trying to charge people who wanted to be in the incoming administration. And one of the claims they looked into was Epshteyn allegedly trying to get Scott Bessent, who was Donald Trump's pick for treasury secretary, before he was picked, to pay Epshteyn to essentially, you know, promote his name with Donald Trump, promote his name around Mar-a-Lago. Bessent refused to pay. This led to a confrontation between the two men, Bessent and Epshteyn, last week at Mar-a-Lago. Things got a little bit heated.

But look, the attorneys are looking into several similar allegations and their conclusion was that Epshteyn should be removed from Donald Trump's orbit, that he should not be paid by Trump or his entities because his behavior is problematic.

Of course, we asked Boris Epshteyn about these allegations, and he said these fake claims are false and defamatory and will not distract us from making America great again. So, he's denying it.

ACOSTA: And what -- for his future, because we've seen him -- and we're just showing the montage there. I mean, he was down there at the courthouse in New York with Trump. I mean, he made it a concerted effort to stay in Trump's inner circle over the last four years.

MURRAY: Yes. And when we remember him being around in the first Trump White House.

ACOSTA: Right, exactly.

[10:50:00]

MURRAY: Look, this is someone who has been an adviser and sometimes a legal adviser for Donald Trump. He's been sitting in on these transition meetings. But as you also know, Boris, of course, is very versed in the infighting around Donald Trump and sort of the knife wielding in the circles around Trump. And so, that has made him, you know, in many ways, both a valuable loyal figure to the president- elect, but also a very divisive figure.

But I want you to listen to what Eric Trump, who has been one of Boris Epshteyn's allies, what he had to say about these allegations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC TRUMP, DONALD TRUMP'S SON: I've known Boris for years, and I've never known him to be anything but a good human being. So, that said, I will tell you my father has been incredibly clear, you do not do that under any circumstance. I certainly hope the reporting is false, and I can also tell you if it's true, you know, the person will probably no longer be around.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MURRAY: So, he says the person will no longer be around. Right now, the transition says we're all moving together ahead as a team. So, we'll see how this ultimately plays out for Boris Epshteyn.

ACOSTA: All right. Yes, the infighting has already begun. They haven't even gone into office yet. All right.

MURRAY: Classic.

ACOSTA: Sara -- yes, exactly. Sara Murray, thank you very much. Let's continue this conversation with Chris Whipple. He wrote "The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency." Chris, great to see you again, as always. Your reaction to this investigation, Sara Murray was just talking about, this allegation of influence peddling, which Boris denies. Sara and I have covered Boris a long time. I mean, one of the things that is sort of a constant inside Trump world is this infighting and they're all going at each other at all times.

CHRIS WHIPPLE, AUTHOR, "THE GATEKEEPERS": Yes, exactly. So, we've seen this movie before, right? Welcome to the revolving door. One of the problems here, Jim, is that there really is no transition here in any meaningful sense of the word. I mean, there's -- Trump is flying around on Trump Force One with Don Jr. and Epshteyn and Elon Musk and essentially spit balling all of these appointments.

I think there's this sort of mythology out there that Trump having served one term before and having done all this planning through Project '25 and everything else that he's going to be able to somehow hit the ground running. I don't see any evidence that's the case. And as you know, they haven't even signed a memorandum of understanding to start this transition. Briefings aren't happening. Ethical pledges have not been signed. What could go wrong?

ACOSTA: Yes. Well, I mean, this isn't the first time we've heard of people inside the Trump orbit trying to cash in on their proximity to Donald Trump. I mean, this is sort of like that line from Casablanca that, you know, shocked that there's gambling going on in the casino.

WHIPPLE: Yes. Look, I think that it's quite, it's going -- it doesn't bode well, obviously, for Trump getting started in any kind of effective way. And I think that Susie Wiles, the incoming chief of staff, God bless her and good luck. I mean, she's somebody who obviously is a Trump whisperer, who has a very close relationship with him. I think everybody feels that she speaks for him. But there's a big difference between campaigning and governing.

And when the president goes rogue on the campaign trail, he may say outrageous things and lose some votes. When he goes rogue in the Oval Office, and it'll be Susie Wiles's job to try to prevent that lives are lost. I mean, we've seen this during the pandemic when Trump tried to pretend it wasn't happening and he didn't have a chief of staff who would tell him otherwise.

ACOSTA: Yes. And there are always these outside voices talking to Donald Trump. And as you and I both know, we've talked about this, Chris, sometimes it's the last person in the room with Trump who has the end -- you know, the end result on what a policy might be or a change of course that Trump might take.

And this is interesting, yesterday, his son, Donald Trump Jr., confirmed to the Daily Wire that his father will likely reinvent the White House briefing room, a place that I got to know pretty well. And that, you know, Donald Trump Jr. is saying that the White House might try to replace a lot of the mainstream media seats that you would typically see in the front row of the briefing room with podcasters and streamers and people like Joe Rogan and so on. How might that impact things? And could you have a situation essentially where, you know, you just have a briefing room full of, you know, propagandists and lackeys and, you know, Trump worshippers?

WHIPPLE: Well, has anybody asked Joe Rogan what he thinks of this idea? I'm not sure he's going to be crazy about spending any time there. He's based in Austin, I believe, right? So, good luck with that.

[10:55:00]

I mean, I just think this is, you know, another example of how campaigns come in -- people from presidential campaigns come into the White House full of hubris, thinking that they know all the answers and their attitude toward the outgoing crew is, well, if you guys are so smart, how come we'd beat you?

And Don Jr. I think -- this is just an example of that kind of mindset. You know, that let's just turn the place upside down. And we know we know all the answers. We know where that leads. It often doesn't end well. And I don't think there's much evidence, frankly, that the president or Don Jr. really learned anything about governing during the first four years. There's -- you know, he's never understood, Trump never has understood the difference between campaigning and governing and campaigning. You're trying to destroy governing. You're trying to make deals and get things done.

ACOSTA: Yes. Well, I'm one of the other -- I mean, one of the other lessons that I drew from covering the first Trump presidency is that the president of the United States is supposed to serve the American people, not yourself, not himself. And that I think was one of the things that did him in the first time around. Chris Whipple, thanks very much for your time. We appreciate it.

WHIPPLE: Good to be with you.

ACOSTA: The president-elect preparing to make some big decisions on day one. Next, I'll talk to his former national security adviser, John Bolton, about what to expect. That's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]