Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Trump Sentenced With No Penalty; Blazes Ravage L.A. County, 10 Killed 10,000 Structures Destroyed. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired January 10, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:00:00]

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT-ELECT: -- case that should be brought. It's -- now think about legal expenses are down as legal expenses. And -- and I get indicted for business records. Everybody should be so accurate. It's been a political witch hunt. It was done to damage my reputation so that I'd lose the election. And obviously that didn't work.

And the people of our country got to see this firsthand because they watched the case in your courtroom. They got to see this firsthand. And then they voted. And I won in. Got the largest number of votes by far of any Republican candidate in history and won, as you know, all seven swing states. Won conclusively all seven swing states and won the popularity, the popular vote by millions and millions of votes. And they've been watching your trial, so they understood it.

I wasn't allowed to use the lawyer-client privilege or the reliance on counsel. I had a lawyer that made this deal and he admitted that. And he was also a totally discredited person. We weren't allowed to use the information from the Southern District that totally discredited him. It wasn't allowed to be put in. And that was terrible, unbelievable. And this is a man who's got no standing. He's been disbarred on other matters unrelated.

And he was allowed to talk as though he were George Washington, but he's not George Washington. He shouldn't have been allowed. The Southern District did a book of approximately 28 pages where they -- I've never seen anything like it. They excoriated him. You wouldn't let it be put into evidence, so he was able to testify as a witness. And I think it's a disgrace to the system.

I was under a gag order. I'm the first president in history that was under a gag order where I couldn't talk about aspects of the case that are very important. I guess I'm still under. So probably I won't do it. Now, I assume I'm still under a gag order, but the fact is that I'm totally innocent. I did nothing wrong. They talked about business records and the business records were extremely accurately counted. I had nothing to do with them any of that.

That was done by an accountant or a bookkeeper who I think gave very credible testimony and was corroborated by everybody that was asked. And with all that's happening in our country today, with a city that's burning to the ground, one of our largest, most important cities, burning to the ground, with -- with wars that are uncontrollably going on, with all of the problems of inflation and attacks on countries and all of the horrible things that are going on, I got indicted over calling a legal expense a legal expense.

It was called a legal expense. I just want to say I think it's an embarrassment to New York. And New York has a lot of problems, but this is a great embarrassment. I believe that this and other cases that was -- were brought, as you know, the DOJ is -- DOJ is very much involved in this case. It's because that's the political opponent they're talking about. The DOJ is very involved.

You have a gentleman sitting right there from the DOJ who was from the DOJ's office. He was also involved with the New York State Attorney General's case. And he went from there to here. He went around and did what he had to do. He got them to move on me. But in the meantime, I won the election and a massive landslide. And the people of this country understand what's going on. This has been a weaponization of government. They call it warfare. Never happened to any extent like this, but never happened in our country before.

And I'd just like to explain that I was treated very, very unfairly. And I thank you very much.

JUDGE JUAN MERCHAN, ACTING JUSTICE, NEW YORK SUPREME COURT: Thank you, Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump, you appear before this court today to conclude this criminal proceeding by the imposition of sentence. Although I have taken the unusual step of informing you in advance of my inclinations before imposing sentence, I believe it is important for you, as well as those observing these proceedings, to understand my reasoning for the sentence I am about to impose.

The imposition of sentence is one of the most difficult and significant decisions that any criminal court judge is called upon to make. Our legislature sets the parameters for an authorized sentence, but it is a judge that must decide what constitutes a just conclusion to a verdict of guilty. A court is vested with broad discretion in determining what sources or evidence may consider to arrive at an appropriate sentence.

In doing so, the court must consider the facts of the case, along with any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In my time on the bench, I've been called upon to grapple with this weighty responsibility for countless defendants who have been found guilty after trial for an assortment offenses ranging from non-violent class, felonies to the most heinous of crimes, including homicides, sex trafficking and child sexual abuse.

[11:05:26]

The task is always difficult and deserving of careful consideration, whether the sentence be an unconditional discharge or incarceration of 25 years to life. However, never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it can be viewed fairly that this has been a truly extraordinary case. There was unprecedented media attention, public interest, and heightened security involving various agencies.

And yet, the trial was a bit of a paradox because once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique or extraordinary than the other 32 criminal trials that took place in this courthouse at the same exact time. Jury selection was conducted, the same rules of evidence were followed, opening statements were made, witnesses called and cross examined, evidence presented, summations delivered, the same burden of proof was applied, and a jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict.

And it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure and guided by the law. Of course, part of what made it feel somewhat ordinary was the outstanding work, preparation and professionalism of the clerks, court officers, court reporters, security personnel, and the entire staff of this building who did their jobs as they would with any other criminal trial.

So while one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing. And that is because of the office you once occupied and which you will soon occupy again.

To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the Office of the President of the United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office. The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution afforded to the Office of the President, have been laid out by our Founders, the Constitution, and most recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump versus the United States, which was decided on July 1st, 2024.

As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision. Some of those aggravating factors have already been articulated in my Sandoval ruling at the start of this trial and by my recent written decisions on December 16th and January 3rd. Thus, they not -- need not be repeated at this time.

However, the considerable, indeed extraordinary legal protections afforded by the Office of the Chief -- Chief Executive is a factor that overrides all others. To be clear, the protections afforded the Office of the President are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness -- seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way.

The protections are, however, a legal mandate which, pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow. However, despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict. It is clear from legal precedent, which until July 1st was scarce, that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections.

I'm referring to protections that extend well beyond those afforded the average defendant who winds their way through the criminal justice system each day. No, ordinary citizens do not receive those legal protections. It is the Office of the President that bestows those far reaching protections to the office holder. And it was the citizenry of this nation that recently decided that you should once again receive the benefits of those protections, which include, among other things, the Supremacy Clause and presidential immunity.

[11:10:27]

It is through that lens and that reality that this court must determine a lawful sentence. After careful analysis and obedience to governing mandates, and pursuant to the rule of law, this court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge, which the New York State Legislature has determined is a lawful and permissible sentence for the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree.

Therefore, at this time, I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts. Sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office. Thank you.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: And you were listening to audio from inside Trump's sentencing hearing in a New York courtroom. Let me first go to Kaitlan Collins and Elie Honig. You heard Trump respond there in the sentencing. He is angry. He said this is very unfair. This case should have not been brought in the first place. He's going to be the first president to be entering office as a convicted felon.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Nothing he said was surprising, but hearing from him was notable because it was an open question going into this, if, you know, as anyone who's been convicted gets that chance to speak at their sentencing hearing. It was an open question of whether or not Trump would take that opportunity to do so, or if he would just speak, you know, after and put out a statement on Truth Social, which he is, he has subsequently done.

But -- but I do think, looking in this moment, you know, people in Trump's orbit are viewing this as a best case scenario. When he was convicted and that guilty verdict came down, it was long before it was clear that he was going to win the election or what was going to happen here. They didn't know what was going to happen.

Now, seeing this and with the outcome of conditional discharge, they're viewing this as the best case. But Trump himself, you know, has been having been on a roll essentially since he won the election. Two things have really been bothering him. This sentencing and Jack Smith's report that is expected to come out imminently. Those are two things that that you could see an undertone of anger in his press conference that he did the other day because of these two legal issues that he's been dealing with.

The sentencing primarily, I was told was bothering him. And so that is why he ultimately did decide to -- to take this chance to speak. And just to explain to people what they're looking at. Trump didn't actually go to -- to court in New York where he -- he was every day for this trial and where he was ultimately convicted. He appeared virtually from Mar-a-Lago. That's where he's appearing there, where he was unmuted, and then took that opportunity to speak.

BROWN: And we should note these pictures were taken before the sentencing hearing actually started where he's pointing there. But that's a really important point, Kaitlan, because it really emphasizes just the unique and remarkable set of circumstances here, as Judge Merchan himself put it. And we should also note, Elie Honig, you were mentioned in this hearing.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. So first public service announcement. You are -- anyone is free to use anything I say on air or in writing, but my words have zero binding impact on any judge anywhere. So I -- I don't recommend citing me, but you're free to do it. There was -- there was such a contrast here between sort of the remarkable and the unremarkable. And the judge actually noted this.

On the one hand, it wasn't really that different than any of the other. The judge said 32 different trials happening in that courthouse at that time. It was orderly. We followed all the normal procedures. The jury came out with its verdict. On the other hand, of course, this guy was at that point a former president now he is the president- elect.

And the fundamental divide that we just heard between the D.A. and the judge one hand and Donald Trump on the other is was this justice, right? The D.A. said many times, the judge said, no man is above the law. You should not be above the law. You're only getting this very minimal sentence because of your status as the president-elect.

On the other hand, Donald Trump's position and his lawyer's position is that he was singled out unfairly and that he was actually, he was treated, in their view, differently than any other person in that position would have been viewed. The other thing that strikes me from hearing the audio is having been part of many, many sentencings, sentencing is a humbling moment for any defendant, even there. I mean, Kaitlan, you would -- you would unders -- you would, I guess, be able to expand on this.

But Donald Trump sounded subdued. He -- he was saying the usual things, playing the greatest hits, but he wasn't so much ranting and raving. He sounded a little soft spoken. And --

COLLINS: You know what it is?

HONIG: Yes.

[11:14:56]

COLLINS: And I'm actually so glad you brought that up, because I was there for -- for several days of Trump's trial in the courtroom, watching how he acted, where he would come outside the courtroom in front of the cameras and go on a tirade against the judge, criticizing him, reading, quoting these legal scholars, and then go into the courtroom. He was relatively subdued once he was actually in the room.

That was actually a window into what that actually was like inside the courtroom. He's very different when obviously he's in front of the cameras. He knows people are watching, how he's talking about this case. And then when he knows he's there in front of the judge and still in a courtroom, technically, even though he was appearing via Zoom. And so it does give a window into what he's actually like when he's -- he's addressing the judge and speaking to him.

And you also got to hear from the judge himself. You know, it was funny to hear Elie say he'd never heard Merchan's voice before.

HONIG: Right.

BROWN: Yes. He was saying, right.

COLLINS: Because obviously, you know, there are no court cameras in the courtroom, unfortunately. But you could also get a window into how the judge presided over this, acknowledging that Trump won the election and that the voters decided months after he was found guilty in this case to -- to restore him to the protections that the presidency affords him. And I thought that was a really interesting point there, that Judge Merchan went out of his way to -- to make that.

And also, Judge Merchan was pretty restrained in his statements. He has been very critical of Trump where it's saying he's attacking the rule of law, going after him, the district attorney's team. You didn't hear that as much in his -- in his final statement.

BROWN: You really didn't. And he ended it by saying, I wish you Godspeed in your second term to Trump. And I want to bring in CNN anchor and chief legal analyst, Laura Coates, on that note. And it was interesting, Laura, as an extension of what Kaitlan was talking about, Judge Merchan really emphasized that the protections afforded here for the office of the presidency, not the occupant -- not the actual occupant, but he noted this is just so out of the norm. This is anomaly. It's -- it's a first. And these -- this is very unique.

LAURA COATES, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: In fact, one, we did see the decorum that is supposed to be in every one of these court proceedings at play here. But you had this split screen. The typical sentencing, first of all, would have had a defendant present. You would not have had the preview to know what type of sentence you would hand down or not hand down, whether it be jail, a fine, a probationary period of some form and -- circumstance. That's the typical thing.

And of course, the prosecution would be asking and trying to advocate for a particular position, bringing in the conduct of the defendant, the very nature of the allegations as a proven burden of prison. Here the prosecution endeavored to do that, talked about how the defendant's words put the court personnel. I'm paraphrasing here, in -- in peril in different ways.

But ultimately each, not just the prosecution, but also the judge himself and obviously defense counsel all recognized one thing. All of those details were now subordinate to the fact that the person sitting there on that Zoom is 10 days away from becoming the 47th president of the United States. And they all recognize the impact.

In fact, the prosecutor making a statement about how every American, the American people, deserve a president unencumbered by having to deal with the court. I wonder how that will factor into later on. And of course, the judge talking about who he was at the time of trial, the so called ordinary citizen, although clearly he was former president at that point in time, to who he is now.

At no point did you see, though, anyone disrespecting the jury who were in the position to have to rule and decide something based on the presentation of evidence. But what you heard from a reserved and subdued Donald Trump and President-elect was that he was defiant without aggression about the fact of his innocence.

There is no requirement that a defendant have to say that they agree with the verdict or that they in fact are guilty, but they have to respect the process. And here you saw some evidence of at least that from the judge and others.

BROWN: Certainly. I want to bring in chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, on this as well. Paula, this is a first in history. Donald Trump will enter his second term as a convicted felon as a result of today's sentencing. But he is also vowing to appeal and to fight this. And the question is how successful could he be on appeal?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: He could be really successful, Pamela. What we saw last night is a divided Supreme Court on an issue that many legal experts thought was a long shot, that it was way too early for the Supreme Court to intervene in this case and block sentencing before the appeals had a chance to work their way through the system. But it was five-four. He got four justices to agree with him that, yes, maybe they should put this sentencing on hold.

So now, as he continues his appeals, that I'm told, you know, they're going to push all the way to the Supreme Court. All he would need is one justice to agree that their recent immunity ruling applies in this case, that certain evidence should not have been brought in and that conviction could be overturned. So were watching very closely last night what the Supreme Court would do, and it suggests that he has a fair shot of getting this overturned.

[11:20:00]

But what I just heard in that recording were the dueling interpretations of the legacy of this case. The prosecutors said they believe, really the legacy of this case is the damage that Trump has done with his attacks on the judiciary, putting the lives officers in the court at risk. But the defense attorneys said, no, the legacy of this case is that it's one that never should have been brought in, and also that the public agrees with them and inferred that this is part of why Trump got elected.

Now, Trump didn't really have anything new to say. Like any defendant, he was really unhappy to be there. It was pretty clear why he didn't testify at trial. But, Pamela, we are likely going to be dealing with this case for at least another year or two. This has to deal with conduct that occurred back in 2016. And I would expect that these appeals, in order to make their way all the way through the system, could go through 2026.

BROWN: Yes, I remember when I was covering the White House during Trump's first term when this all started percolating and coming about, and now this. And it -- it's not ending just with the sentencing today, as you note. Paula, I want to bring in reporter, Kara Scannell, right outside the court. If we could put up those pictures again, showing Trump. If you would help us understand what's going on in these pictures where we see Donald Trump next to his attorney, Todd Blanche.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So those pictures were taken at the very start of the hearing before the judge was even on the bench. That's something that the court allows still photographers to come in and take photos of the defendants because they don't allow cameras in the courtroom. Normally, it was highly unusual that were even given the audio that we had just played and listened to. But that was something that a media coalition had worked out with the court, of course, the argument because of the public's interest.

And one thing that, you know, you can't see, but you can kind of piece together between that still shot and the audio is just what this scene was like. The judge is sitting on the bench when Trump did speak, it was that image of him side by side with his attorney that -- that -- that we, the members of the media saw in there and the members of the public that were allowed into the courtroom. The judge was looking at that screen as Trump was giving his statement.

And then when the judge handed down sentence, he was directing his attention fully to that screen, looking directly at it, speaking to Donald Trump as he handed down the sentence. One thing that stands out a lot about today is there has been so much that the public has heard from Donald Trump. I've been in this courthouse every single day during this trial and the other three trials that Donald Trump has had where he speaks often to the cameras in the hallway.

One thing that you never hear from the public, never hear from is the judge. So for the first time today, the public was able to see the demeanor of Judge Juan Merchan. Trump has launched numerous attacks throughout the course of this trial. And you were able to hear Merchan's demeanor. That is the tone he carried throughout this entire trial, even while Trump was making statements about Merchan and his family in the hallways.

The -- the person, the voice you heard on the bench today is the judge who presided over this case, keeping an even keel and as you could hear, being very judicious in his statements and thoughtful on them. Pam?

BROWN: All right, Kara, thanks so much and thank you to everyone.

[11:23:06]

Still to come on this very busy Friday morning, we are following breaking news out of Southern California now, five fires ravaging that area. We're going to bring you the latest on the devastation and efforts to contain the blaze, up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BROWN: And we are following this breaking news. Five wildfires are now tearing through the area there out in California. And more than 10,000 homes and businesses have been lost. So many people right now are just grieving all that they've lost. And as you can see, the images there are just, they are breathtaking and they are just terrifying. Ten people are confirmed dead, but fire officials say that number will likely climb.

And this is some new video of the Kenneth fire which erupted just yesterday afternoon. Overnight, we learned a man has been arrested on suspicion of arson. But police won't say if he's a suspect in this fire. And here's a quick look at the five active fires in and around L.A. County. You see it right here on your screen. The Palisades fire is the most destructive in L.A. history.

The county's infrastructure is also severely damaged, the power grid, transportation, even the ability to use toilets. This is Pacific Palisades before the fire and the heart wrenching image of a neighborhood leveled. This new exclusive satellite imagery from Airbus shows the overwhelming majority of homes and businesses are destroyed. Think how many people are impacted there.

We've also heard varying explanations of why some fire hydrants were temporarily dry when they were needed the most.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There's also been a water shortage. The fact is the utilities understandably shut off power because they're worried the lines that there -- they carried energy were going to be blown down and spark additional fires. But the Cal fire, and when it did that, it cut off the ability to generate pumping of water. That's what caused the lack of water in these hydrants.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): According to the Department of Water and Power, all 114 water storage facilities were filled. But heavy use of fire hydrants depleted the supply. The extreme conditions compounded by high winds keeping firefighting aircraft grounded.

[11:30:06]

GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): I mean, just when you have a system that's not dissimilar to what --