Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Palisades Fire Explodes; Pasadena Jewish Temple Destroyed; Trump Sentencing Hearing Underway. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired January 10, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

STEPHANIE ELAM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: January is unheard of. This is when we should be getting a lot of rain, and that lack of rain has also led to the fact that we've had a lot of brush grow up because the last two winters actually were wet. So, then you had the brush grow up, it dries out, and then it's kindling -- that with the right conditions and those fierce Santa Ana winds just made it right to run through these neighborhoods. It's devastating.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. Stephanie, and you know, it must be difficult to breathe where you are. So, you have that medical mask on and you're in this yellow fire jacket there, fire retardant jacket. But everything behind you looks gray and ashen. It looks apocalyptic.

ELAM: It's very much like that. You know, When I look at my own personal experience, I've covered a lot of wildfires. So, you've seen stuff like this, right, but not in a densely populated area. It reminds me of some of the things that you see with hurricanes. But what's different is just the location and just how much is taken out here. That's what makes this so much more impactful for people here.

These are people whose homes were their life savings. These are a lot of people who have a lot of put all of it together. This was our retirement and how it's gone, and to figure out how you pick up and begin again. And in some of these places, like Palisades, how to look at the infrastructure, it's completely burned through and ruined as well.

So, it's not going to be just a matter of building up a home, it's figuring out how to rebuild the entire town center, those neighborhoods, all of that, and figuring out whether or not people want to stay for that.

ACOSTA: Yes, it is going to take so, so long to rebuild. And, Stephanie, thank you so much for your coverage. We appreciate it. Thanks to everybody out there for us. Stephanie Elam live for us this morning. We appreciate it.

In the meantime, among the buildings lost to the Southern California wildfires, the Pasadena Jewish Temple. The synagogue and its campus have been a pillar of the Jewish community there for more than 100 years now lost to the Eaton Fire.

On Tuesday night, the temple's Torahs were saved, but many congregants lost their homes. Some are now staying with synagogue leaders. Two of them, they join us now. I want to bring in Rabbi Jill Gold Wright and Cantor Ruth Berman Harris of the Pasadena Jewish Temple. Ladies, thank you so much. Our hearts go out to you. I'm so sorry for everything that is happening right now.

Rabbi, let me start with you. How are you doing? How are the members of your congregation doing?

RABBI JILL GOLD WRIGHT, PASADENA JEWISH TEMPLE: Good morning. Thanks so much for having us. Our congregants are varied. Some of them have lost their homes. Some of them have been evacuated or staying with relatives or friends out of town. But we've all lost our spiritual home, our synagogue, and I think we are in a combination of deep grief and mourning and are also thriving in our resolve to rebuild our shul and rebuild our school.

I'm the director of education. And so, we have a lot of families who are impacted. But we are doing something very Jewish, which is both grieving and being optimistic for the future.

ACOSTA: Well, you know, our hearts go out to you. Just to hear that, that you can even contemplate being positive at this point is something of a miracle.

Cantor Berman, let me go to you. We read that your husband you, you both rescued the Torahs. You sent us some pictures that we're looking at now of what you've been able to salvage. That is remarkable in and of itself. Can you tell us about that?

CANTOR RUTH BERMAN HARRIS, PASADENA JEWISH TEMPLE: Sure. Thank you. It was about 7:00 p.m. when I got the phone call that the fires were approaching and the winds were ramping up, and I found myself in one of those moments where you don't really feel, but you know what's the right thing to do and you just do it. And so, I said to my congregant, OK, I'm coming. I'm coming.

It was not as easy to get to the synagogue. The streets were already closed, but I managed to get there with my husband. And I think by the time I got there, there was a lot of smoke. We still had electricity, but our congregant and one of our staff members were able to take all the Torah scrolls out of the two sanctuaries that we've had and place them in the lobby. So, we -- they would be ready for us.

We started filing up the Torahs in the back of my car, and I remember that there were a couple of other ritual objects that were crucial to bring. So, I grabbed them. And the electricity cut off. There was a lot of smoke. It was just, we had to leave.

So, I made sure that -- I checked with my husband. I couldn't see him. There was so much smoke. I checked with him, do you have all of them? And he said I think so. And we just left.

ACOSTA: Yes. And, Rabbi, I understand you're holding Shabbat tonight. How are you even possibly going to do that?

[10:35:00] WRIGHT: We are -- excuse me. We are holding Shabbat tonight at the very gracious invitation of a local Catholic girl's school, the Mayfield Senior School in Pasadena. They are hosting us and we will be there tonight for services. We will be there tomorrow for services. We will bring one of the Torah scrolls that Cantor Ruth rescued. And we will read from it tomorrow as we do every Shabbat, read from the Torah.

And then on Sunday, we will have a morning minion. One of our students who's becoming Bar Mitzvah will be there. The rest of our students will be there to support him in his service. And then, our teachers and our staff and our students will be there to connect, find each other, and be together. That's what we do.

We are a resilient people. We have a long history of resilience. We have a long history of pivoting. We have a long history of carrying our Torah wherever we need it to be. And this evening will be no different from what it's been all along and what it will always be.

ACOSTA: Well, glad to hear about that ecumenical show of support. We're all going to be looking to our faith here in the coming days to get through all of this. Rabbi Jill, Cantor, Ruth, thank you so much for your time this morning. All -- we just really hope for the best. And if there's anything we can do, please reach out, let us know. We'll be happy to respond as quickly as we can. Thank you so much.

And if you want to help the wildfire victims in the L.A. area, please do, go to cnn.com/impact or text WILDFIRES to 707070 to donate.

Take a look at those images right there. It just breaks your heart. Please keep these folks in mind in the coming days. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:40:00]

ACOSTA: All right. Back to our other top story, the sentencing of Donald Trump in New York. We want to go right now to some pre-recorded audio that is being fed in of the sentencing hearing. You're going to hear from Donald Trump and Judge Juan Merchan. Let's go to that audio now.

You're listening to the sound of silence, ladies and gentlemen, the audio is going to get started in just a moment here. We were just hearing from the feed coming out of New York that this was about to get going. Elie Honig is with me right now. I just want to bring in Elie.

And, Elie, if I cut you off because we're going into the audio, please forgive me, but what we're going to be listening to is basically what just took place, what, about 20 or 30 minutes ago when this -- when we were playing the highlights of this on the air, we're reading the highlights of what was taking place on the air. We're now going to hear what actually took place. ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right. This was a sentencing of Donald Trump over Zoom. We are hearing some of the sounds of it come through, but we'll stop when the real part starts.

ACOSTA: Yes.

HONIG: But yes, the way this sentencing works is really -- aside from the fact that it's the president-elect sitting in the defense chair, it seems like it was a fairly straightforward sentencing. The prosecutor speaks first, then the defense lawyer, then the defendant, Donald Trump, and we know he did address the court in pretty heated fashion. And then ultimately, Judge Merchan finishes. It took 35 minutes, which is pretty average for a sentencing.

ACOSTA: Yes.

HONIG: So, if you take away the fact that this is the guy who's been elected president, pretty routine sentencing.

ACOSTA: Yes, and it sounds like from what we were hearing just before we came back from the commercial break, you're going to hear about five, six, seven minutes of Donald Trump, five, six, seven minutes of Judge Merchan. It sounds as though, at a couple of points, Trump got a little heated in some of his remarks. He obviously still objects to what's taking place today. He is now officially a convicted felon.

But it sounds as though Judge Merchan sort of kept his cool and laid out some of his decision making, the mindset behind some of the decision making that went into today.

HONIG: Yes. The big point that Judge Merchan seems to have stressed is, I'm giving you this sentence of unconditional discharge of no prison or probation or fines because of your status as the president- elect. I hear some of this coming through now.

ACOSTA: Yes.

HONIG: We'll yield. Well --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump, your before the court for sentencing.

HONIG: OK. So, this is the clerk calling the case.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Calling your conviction by trial to 34 counts of falsifying --

ACOSTA: Yes, let's go to the audio now. Let's listen to this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- business records in the first degree. Before being sentenced, the court will allow you, your attorney, and the assistant district attorney an opportunity to adjust the court with any matters relevant to sentencing. For the people.

JOSHUA STEINGLASS, PROSECUTOR: Thank you. Judge, where's the preferred place for me to stand? JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN, NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: Wherever you feel comfortable.

STEINGLASS: The defendant in this case, as you know, stands convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, all class E felonies. Each carries a range of authorized sentencing options for as much as one and a third to four years in state prison to a variety of non-incarceratory sentences.

In this court's January 3rd decision on the defendant's Clayton motion, Your Honor indicated an inclination to impose an unconditional discharge. Under all the circumstances of this case, it's unique posture and the defendant status as president-elect, the people recommend a sentence of an unconditional discharge.

[10:45:00]

In finding the defendant guilty in this case, the jury necessarily found unanimously that the defendant falsified 34 separate entries in his business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote his own election by unlawful means.

Having presided over the trial, Your Honor is very familiar with the conduct, its seriousness, and the overwhelming evidence to support the jury's verdict. I'm certainly not going to rehash that now.

In last week's decision on January 3rd, this court referred to the bereavement (ph) of the defendant's conduct, his criminal conduct in this case, as constituting, quote, "premeditated and continuous deception." The verdict was delivered by a jury that was carefully chosen using extensive questionnaire based on suggestions from both parties and after thorough questioning of the prospective jurors by both sides.

The verdict in this case was unanimous and decisive, and it must be respected. As this court has observed, quote, "The sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it is a bedrock principle in our nation's jurisprudence."

The defendant's conduct before, during, and after this trial also merits consideration. Instead of preserving, protecting, and defending our constitutionally established system of criminal justice, the defendant, the once and future president of the United States, has engaged in a coordinated campaign to undermine its legitimacy. Far from expressing any kind of remorse for his criminal conduct, the defendant has purposefully bred disdain for our judicial institutions and the rule of law. And he's done this to serve his own ends and to encourage others to reject the jury verdict that he finds so distasteful.

He has characterized these proceedings as corrupt, rigged, witch hunt, or a sham too many times to tabulate. The defendant's rhetoric has only ratcheted up since this court's rulings on his motions to dismiss. He has been unrelenting in these unsubstantiated attacks upon this court and his family, individual prosecutors and their families, the witnesses, the grand jury, the trial jury, and the justice system as a whole.

The defendant has not only been held in contempt by other jurors and other matters, but this court alone found the defendant in contempt for 10 distinct violations of the order restricting extra judicial speech. In his legal filings, the defendant has used dangerous rhetoric and leveling accusations of intentionally unlawful and unconstitutional conduct on the part of this court and the prosecution. As this court has noted, the defendant's conduct, quote, "constitutes a direct attack on the rule of law itself."

Moreover, the defendant has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors who have sought to hold him accountable in this and other matters and the courts who have endeavored to fairly and faithfully adjudicate these matters. Such threats are designed to have a chilling effect, to intimidate those who have the responsibility to enforce our laws in the hopes that they will ignore the defendant's transgressions because they fear that he is simply too powerful to be subjected to the same rule of law as the rest of us.

In his 2024 end of year report, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts warned of the dangers of such conduct, quote, "Public officials too regrettably have engaged in recent attempts to intimidate judges, for example, suggesting political bias in the judge's adverse rulings without credible basis for such allegations," end quote.

Chief Justice Robert continued, quote, "Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. Public officials certainly have a right to criticize the work of the judicium, but they should be mindful that intemperance in their statements when it comes to judges may prompt dangerous reactions by others."

Chief Justice Roberts also spoke of the dangers of disinformation, which are, quote, "magnified" by social media, which provides a ready channel to instantly spread rumor and false information.

[10:50:00]

Put simply, this defendant has caused enduring damage to public perception of the criminal justice system and has placed officers of the court in harm's way.

In the probation report, which we just received this morning, the author have an interview with the defendant, noted that the defendant sees himself as above the law and won't accept responsibility for his actions, and that's certainly consistent with everything else that we've seen.

Now, in a typical case, both the offense conduct and these other exacerbating factors would impact the appropriate sentence. But in this case, we must be respectful of the Office of the Presidency and mindful of the fact that the defendant will be inaugurated as president in 10 days.

Any undischarged portion of the sentence has the potential to interfere with the defendant's performance of the duties of his office. As a practical matter, the most sensible sentence prior to his inauguration is an unconditional discharge.

The court has expressed an inclination to do exactly that because in the court's words, quote, "The most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendant to pursue his appellate options is to proceed to sentence."

As you know, in New York, a conditional discharge is authorized by penal law, quote, "If the court have in regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history, character, and condition of the defendant is of the opinion that neither the public interest nor the ends of justice would be served by a sentence of imprisonment and that probation supervision is not appropriate."

An unconditional discharge is authorized with the additional discharge is authorized and, quote, "if the court is of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant's release." Because these crimes are felonies, the court must set forth in the record the reasons for its action.

The American public has the right to a presidency unencumbered by pending court proceedings or ongoing sentence related obligations. But imposing this sentence ensures that finality. Sentencing the defendant permits this court to enter judgment to cement the defendant's status as a convicted felon while he pursues whatever appeals he intends to pursue. And it gives full effect and respect to the jury's verdict while preserving the defendant's ability to govern.

People therefore recommend that this court impose a sentence of an unconditional discharge. Thank you.

MERCHAN: Thank you. Counsel.

TODD BLANCHE, TRUMP ATTORNEY: Thank you, Your Honor. I very, very much disagree with much of what the government just said about this case, about the legitimacy of what happened in this courtroom during the trial and about President Trump's conduct, fighting this case from before it was indicted, to while it was indicted, to the jury's verdict, and even to this day.

What the government just said presupposes something that we disagree with very much, which was that this was an appropriate case to be brought. It was not. This case, without a doubt, knowing everything we know about the timing of the investigation, the fact that multiple prosecutors looked at the fact of this case, including prosecutors within the District Attorney's Office in New York County, and made a decision not to bring charges.

As the court knows, shortly after President Trump announced his intention to run for re-election, this case was started for what amounted to a third time, which brings us ultimately to where we are today. A lot of what the government just said presupposes that this case is legally appropriate and that the charges that were brought by the people were consistent with the laws of New York.

Again, we very much disagree with that, and as everybody has been noted, because it's true, we certainly intend on appealing that.

[10:55:00]

And it's not by the way, just counsel and President Trump that feels that way. There's many, many, many legal experts that share the same views that I just said, which is that legally this case should not have been brought, both based on the facts that were established at trial and also on the legal basis for which they were brought. But it's also not just the legal experts, not just counsel, and not just President Trump, but the majority of the American people also agree that this case should not have been brought.

I mean, the interesting thing about the fact that there was a trial for the first time in our history, a criminal trial during an election season, is that the American voters got a chance to see and decide for themselves whether this is the kind of case that should have been brought, and they decided, and that's why in 10 days, President Trump was going to assume the office of the president of the United States.

And certainly, we're here for the court to sentence President Trump to an unconditional discharge, and for that, it's a very sad day, it's a sad day for President Trump and his family and friends, but it's also, in counsel's view, a sad day for this country because this was a case without a doubt that was brought by a district attorney who promised that he would go after President Trump if elected and felt like he had to go through with that promise. And so, that's sad. And I hope and I know that President Trump shares this view that this will never happen again in this country.

And so, we certainly understand where we are today. We very much intend on pursuing an appeal of this verdict and what happened during this investigation. And we certainly believe that the only appropriate sentence, if wants to be imposed at all, which we very much believe it shouldn't be and that the case should be dismissed, is a sentence of an unconditional discharge. Thank you.

MERCHAN: Thank you. Would your client like to be heard?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. This has been a very terrible experience. I think it's been a tremendous setback for New York and the New York court system. This is a case that Alvin Bragg did not want to bring. He thought it was from what I read and from what I hear that inappropriately was handled before he got there.

A gentleman from a law firm came in and acted as a district attorney and that gentleman, from what I heard, was criminal or almost criminal in what he did. It was very inappropriate. It was a somebody involved with my political opponent.

Part of the records that we're talking about, they're saying, I just noticed where he said I was falsifying business records. Well, the falsification of business records, as they say, it was calling a legal expense in the books where everybody could see them, a legal expense. In other words, that legal fees or legal expense were put down as legal expense by accountants. They weren't put down by me. They were put down by accountants. I didn't call them construction fees. I didn't call them construction, concrete work, I didn't call them electrical work, I didn't call them any. They called a legal fee or a legal expense, a legal expense. And for this, I got indicted. It's incredible actually.

Now, if you look, my attorney alluded to it, the top legal scholars and legal pundits in this country, the ones that are quoted all the time on television that are making their views felt and highly respected people have said -- everyone, virtually everyone that I know of, haven't seen any to the contrary, not one. And none of -- these people are not exactly friends of mine, to put it mildly. But they all said this is a case that should have never been brought. It's an injustice of justice.

Very respected Jonathan Turley, Andy McCarthy, Judge David Rivkin, a wonderful man who just passed away, by the way. Gregg Jarrett, Elie Honig from CNN of all places. CNN said that, Paul Ingrassia, Alan Dershowitz, they all said, this is not a case that should be brought. It's -- now, think about it. Legal expenses are down as legal expenses and I get indicted for business records. Everybody should be so accurate.

[11:00:00]