Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Source: Todd Blanche And Chris Kise To Represent Trump In Court; Trump Hours Away From Arrest In Documents Probe; Secretary Buttigieg To Visit I-95 Collapse Site. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired June 13, 2023 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: -- pushing for an aggressive approach. This hour of CNN THIS MORNING starts right now.

All right, we are about to witness an unprecedented moment in American history. It's never happened before. A huge day ahead.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, I feel like there is always hyperbole in cable news, it could be possible sometimes. Not on this. This is unprecedented in every way, shape, or form.

HARLOW: That's exactly right. You are looking at the courthouse. These are live images of the federal courthouse in Miami, Florida. That is where former President Trump will turn himself in this afternoon on federal charges. Right now, he is at his golf resort nearby in Doral. He is vowing to fight these charges. He has said he will enter a not guilty plea. These are new images of police in riot gear outside the courthouse this morning. Trump has called on supporters to show up and to protest peacefully.

MATTINGLY: And the former president is facing 37 felony counts including obstruction, conspiracy, and willful retention of national defense information. Federal prosecutors say he hoarded classified documents at Mar-a-Lago containing some of the nation's most sensitive secrets, including details about America's nuclear program. He allegedly kept them in places like a bathroom and a shower. Behind the scenes Trump's legal team has been scrambling to find lawyers in Florida to represent him in the case. Special Counsel Jack Smith also beefing up his team. He added at least two prosecutors from the U.S. attorney's office in Miami.

We have all this covered with our team coverage throughout the course of this hour. Our panel of experts, Scott Jennings, Van Jones, Laura Coates, and John Miller are standing by. Kaitlan Collins is live outside the courthouse in Miami. And Kaitlan, it's a couple of hours into the day, so you, obviously, have new reporting already. What do you know at this moment?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: We know that we are not going to see any new faces with the former president as he arrives to this courthouse in Miami this afternoon. He was on the phone all day yesterday and has been making calls for about the last week trying to add a new Florida- based attorney to his team. Of course, given this is where he is facing these federal charges that you laid out there, Phil.

But we are told as of now no one new has been added to the team as of this moment. Certainly, they have been trying to do so. They were hoping to do so by today but it wasn't seen as a hard deadline. So instead the two attorneys that you will see with former President Trump today when he comes here to court are Todd Blanche and Chris Kise. Todd Blanche has only been on the former president's legal team since about April. Chris Kise was actually brought on to handle the documents case in part last fall but he was pretty quickly sidelined with that whole matter.

The dynamic here has changed, though, because two of the top attorneys who were handling this, Jim Trusty and John Rowley, as we know, resigned abruptly last week when they heard that Trump was looking to bring in a new Florida-based attorney. So that remains to be seen what that looks like.

But we do know what the scene will be like here today. We may not actually see Trump going into the courthouse today like we did in New York. That's because of how they are structuring security and how he is going to be brought in. We do know that once he is in there, of course, he will be arraigned on these charges that he is facing, this 37-count indictment that was unveiled last week.

Trump himself is at his club in Doral. He had dinner last night with several of his aides, including the two attorneys who are going to be in the courtroom with him today. He will be uttering those words, "not guilty," for the second time in just a matter of months. And of course all of this comes as the big question is what happens after this. Once they have the next court date, which we do expect will be in front of that Trump-appointed judge, Judge Aileen Cannon.

HARLOW: Kaitlan, one question I had on this is some are pointing out that Todd Blanche doesn't have a lot of expertise, a seasoned lawyer, indeed, but not a lot are expertise when it comes to the Espionage Act, for example, and part of these charges here. What about Chris Kise?

COLLINS: Neither of them seem to have exactly -- of course, it's very specific type of knowledge that they need in these attorneys. Todd Blanche does have a good reputation as an attorney. That is why Trump brought him on back in April. He is taking the lead of this defense when it comes to this. He will be the one taking this to trial based on what we know right now of course. It's Trump's legal team so there is always a bit of drama added to that.

So they were searching for someone who specifically had that knowledge. Right now based on what I have heard, and of course these things are fluid as they often are with the former president, it's not clear that Chris Kise is going to be handling this in the long term. He has certainly been trying to help find that new Florida-based attorney to be a part of this. Whether or not he ultimately does, that remains to be seen. Of course, Kise himself is the former attorney general for the state of Florida. And so that is a very kind of specific type of knowledge that they need to add to this legal team.

It is a big case. It is something that would draw the attention and would be attractive to attorneys because of just how monumental this case is going to be. But as we know, Trump has trouble getting attorneys, not only when it comes to paying them, but when it comes to taking their advice. Read this indictment and you can see how he went in great lengths according to prosecutors to mislead his other attorney who was on this case previously until he became a witness, Evan Corcoran, moving boxes around before Corcoran went to go into that storage room to look for classified documents.

[08:05:12]

They had taken about 60 boxes up to Trump's residence and only brought about 30 of them back with him. Of course, the person who did that was Walt Nauta, and that is someone we should note who traveled down here with the former president for this trip to Miami before he heads back to New Jersey tonight.

MATTINGLY: Kaitlan Collins, stay with us throughout the course of this hour. We will certainly be checking in with more of your scoop. Things are fluid. The Kaitlan Collins story of covering the former president, it seems to be a decent more time.

Joining us to now, though, to explain more about the security preparations ahead of today's historic arraignment, Doral, Florida, Police Chief Edwin Lopez. Trump staying at his Doral resort ahead of his trip to the courthouse in Miami. Sir, thanks so much for taking the time. I think one of the things everybody has been trying to figure out from our kind of law enforcement reporting side is the Miami mayor, Miami police chief are very confident based on what they said yesterday on kind of the dynamics of things to be able to handle whatever happens today. Do you share that confidence?

CHIEF EDWIN LOPEZ, DORAL, FLORIDA, POLICE: Absolutely. I mean, in south Florida here we work very collaboratively in combatting any potential issues that we have. We have been on the scene here at the Trump in Doral for quite some time and we've been monitoring the situation. And to this point the crowds have been calm. We have seen no more than 80 to 100 people at a single time. Overnight was very quiet. And our law enforcement officers remain on scene just to ensure the safety and security of our folks in the area.

HARLOW: This is not your jurisdiction where the president will show up for court today, but I do want to show our viewers some images of the tape and the plastic barriers and things that have been put up already in Miami, and just ask you your perspective as the chief of police if you think that is sufficient for what may come today.

LOPEZ: Absolutely. I have full confidence in Chief Morales and the city of Miami police department. As a matter of fact, we work hand and hand together here on a daily basis. We have more than 30 police departments here in Miami-Dade County as a whole, and I know the operation that they run. It's not them alone. There is local, state, and federal agencies as well assisting in this process, and the plan is in place. God forbid any incident occurs that jeopardizes the safety and security of any of those folks in downtown Miami today. So it should be a thorough event in terms of safety and security, and we expect law enforcement and anyone voicing their opinion to act accordingly.

MATTINGLY: You mentioned that it's federal, state, it's local. You are dealing with this, obviously, the Secret Service presence, down in Doral, state and federal, I assume, in that jurisdiction an area of, your area right now. What is working with them like? Where are there areas of tension? And where are there areas where there is clear cooperation?

LOPEZ: There has been very minimal tension in terms of any demonstrators either pro or anti-Trump. There was a few discussions yesterday, a small crowd of less than 10 anti-Trump supporters actually showed up on scene yesterday. But our law enforcement officers were there just ensuring the safety and security that everyone maintain the peace while letting everyone exercise their First Amendment rights. So, yes, we are on the scene. Yes, it is a hot and heavy topic, but we haven't seen anything that would jeopardize the safety of anyone involved.

MATTINGLY: All right, hope it stays that way for sure. Doral police chief Edwin Lopez, thanks so much, sir.

HARLOW: Let's bring in CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller, our chief legal analyst and former federal prosecutor herself, Laura Coates, CNN political commentators Van Jones and Scott Jennings. Good morning, you guys. Laura, let me just begin with you, as someone who has been a federal prosecutor. Talk to us about what we're looking at today.

LAURA COATES, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It's going to be a moment that's really going to be maybe humbling for the former president of the United States. Obviously, he has Secret Service, he has a lot of protections that the average defendant would never receive. The idea of protesters possibly gathering in to support him. But at the end of the day, you have got an arraignment. You have got somebody who will be read dozens of charges, federal charges that have up to 20 years in some context for these cases. You have got the humbling experience of knowing that your calls and asks to be treated just like everyone else and not the alleged persecution, you are about to get it, and that includes no really favors being given to you.

You have the presumption of innocence, of course. You are going to have a judge -- you will be able to plead and say not guilty in all those things. A schedule will be set. But at the end of the day, the significance of this moment could not be overstated. You have a former head of the executive branch of the United States government whose job it is to faithfully execute and enforce the laws, being called to account for the alleged violation of them. That is so significant in this country and worldwide.

[08:10:07]

MATTINGLY: John, I want to ask you, our colleague Kristen Holmes just sent in some reporting that we know Walt Nauta, who is the other indicted individual in this particular case, has been traveling with the president at campaign stops, now reporting that he had dinner with the president last night, pretty much by his side continuously. What do you make of his indictment and his role kind of in this case as we really enter it being a reality now?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Walt is a key figure here, because if you read the indictment, the narrative is President Trump was actively moving this material for the purpose of concealing it from the National Archive, from the FBI, from subpoenas, from searches, and that Walt Nauta is charged as his co- conspirator. The interesting thing is that if you're Walt Nauta going into a case, your defense is going to be I don't know anything about that, but when the former president, my boss, tells me to move boxes, I move boxes. I wasn't part of any conspiracy.

There is going to be a moment of truth that's going to come sooner or later where Walt Nauta has to make the decision, do I stay with Donald Trump as his codefendant in this trial, or do I get a lawyer who is not part of the Trump defense team and ask the judge to be severed because I would like to be tried separately because our interests have split here. That hasn't happened. That may never happen. But that is going to be a pivotal moment if it comes around.

COATES: I have to say, too, I know earlier our colleague, Kaitlan Collins, there was a rooster behind her. This is not a game of chicken, though, where they are going to essentially say, hey, I am going to charge you as a defendant, Walt Nauta, and I'm hoping you're going to come around and be flipped here. When they charge the case as a prosecutor, you are not charging at this level with an eye towards maybe coaxing you to come over and see the quote-unquote light. That should have already happened. One of the reasons you have him charged right now is because it has not happened.

And remember, in the indictment, you have got a person called Trump employee number two, which means that there is some corroboration that says I saw what you were doing, I have told either a grand jury or otherwise, and that could be enough to avoid having to say, look, if you don't flip, I still got you on the hook. So don't be fooled by the conversations around always trying to go for the bigger fish for years. When you charge them, you've charged him.

HARLOW: I'm so glad you pointed that out, because the way this indictment reads, it really read like they don't need a flip. They don't need a flip for the argument that they are making. Then now the Trump team will present their side of all of this.

Van Jones, you're a lawyer. Looking at the big picture, you always help us see why this really matters for the country. So here you have a fight for the core of what the judicial system stands for in this country against not only a former president, but a frontrunner for president in the Republican Party who wants to completely undo that system as we know it.

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's a big dilemma for the prosecutor engineered by Donald Trump. There is no accident that he is running for president and he is being charged with this stuff. The question people have to ask is, this is a terrible -- you are creating a precedent here, and this precedent could be that every president prosecutes someone after. This is terrible. OK. Nobody wants that. But what's the other precedent? The other precedent is, once you have been president, you've got a license to steal. You've got a license to steal documents, to flaunt them, to put them in the bathroom. National security documents just lying around in ballrooms. Hey, I am a former president. I have a license to steal.

We don't like kids running to CVS stealing stuff. I definitely don't want the former president stealing stuff. And so he has engineered a crisis. And if you are the prosecutor -- by the way, if you talk to anybody, your family, your friends, who has an opinion that has not read the indictment, you haven't read this, you can't talk about it. Once you read it, it makes sense --

HARLOW: It's 49 pages, double spaced. People should read it.

JONES: And then once you read it and you got national security documents in the toilet, you might think maybe somebody should do something about this.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I agree with you that we are here because Donald Trump put us here. And all he had to do was give them back. If he had just given them back --

MATTINGLY: Such a critical point. None of the 31 charges related to documents were from anything except what was taken during the search. He had opportunities, months, a year-and-a-half beforehand to give them back, repeatedly.

JENNINGS: And there appears to be no great motive for keeping them other than he either wanted to re-create the idea that he was still the president --

HARLOW: Did you say "mine"?

MATTINGLY: "Mine."

COATES: It's the movie, mine, mine, mine.

MATTINGLY: It's "Little Nemo."

HARLOW: I am just thinking of my five-year-old would say mine.

MATTINGLY: We all have small kids, and it's very apparent now.

HARLOW: There we go. We are off track.

JENNINGS: Sure. But the average Republican will look at this and say, you know, he beat the Mueller thing. He beat two impeachments. You've got this joke going on in New York. This is just Donald Trump's lot in life to be persecuted by the Democrats. I agree with Van.

[08:15:00]

You read this indictment and even if you think man, he should not be charged former President should get some protection. Still, the National Security implications of these documents being left laying around. We know that -- I think they've admitted there were at least two Chinese nationals that have come through Mar-a-Lago, who knows your --

HARLOW: In that time period.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, if you look at the headlines of the documents, nuclear weaponry. You know, where our troops could be, what we're doing in other countries? I mean, there are military families with family members and children operating overseas. And so, to me, there is a larger level of responsibility given to the President since he was the Commander in Chief. And you had that responsibility to the military. So, even if you say, look, we shouldn't be doing like Mike Pence the other night, well it's divisive. We shouldn't have a criminal. Even if you believe that, what are the National Security implications of a flippant, reckless Commander in Chief or former Commander in Chief who seeks it again?

JONES: And won't apologize, won't say I'm sorry, won't say you're -- so, what are you supposed to do? I mean, honestly, if you love Donald Trump, that's great. You can love your uncle. But realize this guy should not be driving cars, just like whatever he is. That doesn't mean this guy should be able to get away with stuff and be president of United States.

ACOSTA: But a lot of his supporters will not believe even if you read them that they won't believe it. Because the trust and the Justice Department, the trust in the FBI, they're going to believe that just like everything else about him in their mind, this is all fabricated, overblown, exaggerated, you know, apply your adjective (PH). And so, that's how they're going to see it until this process comes to a conclusion. And based on what I'm reading, it can take a long time for their can be a conclusion.

COATES: It'll be a hard thing for the jury -- for the prosecutors too. Because on the one hand, you're going to want to have some meat on the bone about the substance of these documents. And for good reason, you're going to want to withhold if you are these agencies, the nature of these documents. But then, it's a catch 22. If I show you the documents and let you know jurors what this is, what's the talking point? Well, you show jurors it can't be that big of a deal. This is going to be very, very choreographed.

MILLER: I think there's a -- there's a fix for that. And we've been down this road before in other classified document cases, which is there are top secret documents that went from secret to top secret because of one word or one name that, you know, fit that category. So, you sit down with the intelligence community, you take the 31 that they picked, which is a small percentage of declassified documents, and they say, what do we need to redact or take out from this document?

So, the jury can get the summon substance. And yet, for the NSA, the CIA, the NGA, you protect the sources that gave it to you or the methods that allowed you to collect it. And they could be able to get there. But I mean, we have all the ancillary problems. Donald Trump doesn't have a main lawyer who's, you know, admitted in Florida. He doesn't have any lawyer who's cleared for these documents. So, the hoops that you have to jump to deal with this.

HARLOW: He will. I mean, he will.

MATTINGLY: He will.

HARLOW: He will.

MILLER: You know, are complicated and have the (INAUDIBLE)

MATTINGLY: And that will craft a defense of which we haven't really heard and a fully fleshed out manner yet, which is a critical piece --

ACOSTA: Well, his best defense is getting elected President of United States. I mean, it basically --

COATES: Because he will wipe out the investigation?

ACOSTA: Be very difficult, I think, to try the President of the United States for anything.

MILLER: He can't be tried. He can pardon (INAUDIBLE)

(CROSSTALK)

HARLOW: Yes. But he can also just, you know.

MILLER: But also.

(CROSSTALK)

COATES: His DOJ -- his DOJ is not. If he is the President, he'll appoint --

HARLOW: That's what I'm saying.

COATES: -- DOJ who won't pursue it.

HARLOW: Pursue it.

COATES: But technically, it'd be told, but that in all practical implications, yes.

MILLER: But also, I think we have to look at, you know, picking of Coates' point. You know, this case comes from the FBI who the Director Chris Wray was appointed by President Trump. A special prosecutor who they brought in from outside of the country where he was working for years and, you know, the World Court. His own former attorney Bill Barr has said, I've read the indictment, and this is a real.

HARLOW: Alan Dershowitz, even over the weekend.

MILLER: So, I mean.

JONES: It's a Trump appointed a judge. It's got to be a --

MILLER: And Trump avoid. So, I mean, you know, the whole world isn't stacked against him. It's about his actions.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Stay with us, there's a lot more to get into you guys appreciate it. And as the former President prepares to surrender in Miami will speak to one of his staunchest supporters on Capitol Hill. Republican Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida.

HARLOW: Also, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is set to visit the site of that fiery truck crash at the part of I-95 collapse in Philadelphia. We'll have the latest details on that ahead. Stay with us.

[08:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Well, they're very serious allegations. And the burden of proof for the Justice Department will be high. I think there are a lot of people across the country who have skepticism about the standards of justice and how they're applied. And wanting to make sure that they're applied equally.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It says that you may have obstructed this investigation made false statements prosecutors. Does that worry you?

SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): I don't know anything about that, you know. Eventually, they like, they obviously got what they wanted. I don't know whether he obstructed or not.

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG (R-NK): I wouldn't -- I wouldn't be pulling out the drapes in the curtains for a new FBI building right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: The former President is about to be arraigned on 37 Federal counts related to his alleged mishandling of classified documents. And his alleged scheme to conceal them from investigators. His Republican allies are coming to his defense for Congressman Byron Donalds is among them. He argues that Trump is being treated unfairly tweeting, quote, "This mob like justice system is turning Lady Justice on its head. And is the most significant threat to our democracy." Congressman Donalds joins us now, he has endorsed Donald Trump for President. Congressman, I want to start with, you've said repeatedly you've read the indictment. Do you feel like this case, when you look at the specifics of those 40 plus pages, just isn't there on the merits? Or is there some element of this that has you so opposed to?

REP. BYRON DONALDS (R-FL): Well, it's good to be with you this morning. A couple of things, one, an indictment is a one-handed account from the prosecutor. If you look at the history of Jack Smith, he did a railroad job on Bob McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia that was overturned by the Supreme Court. He did the same thing in another case, high profile overturned.

So, I'm reading his account of what's happened and now looking at his track record, it's dubious to begin with. Number two, if you want to talk about some of the aspects of obstruction, you got to understand that under the Presidential Records Act, the President does have authority for about a five-year period to dig take what actually goes back to the National Archives. His attorneys were going back and forth to the National Archives.

[08:25:01]

Number three, somebody narrowly said they wanted to go to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice had to get a sign off with the White House Counsel, before any of this could even be started. So, do I look at this very dubious, when, by the way, I also know being a member of the Oversight Committee, that Joe Biden that there are major allegations that he took $5 million from Burisma? Yes. I am very skeptical of this indictment.

MATTINGLY: Understood. I actually want to start with your point number two here. Presidential Records Act has never mentioned in the indictment. There is nothing about personal records here. The indictment is based on 31 documents that are the purview of agency they come from agency documents. And no matter what the President says, or does once he left leaves office, this would not fall under the PRA in any way, shape, or form.

So, I guess what I'm asking you about here is these specific documents that are National Security information that come from specific agencies and are not personal records of the president. Why do you feel like those were his -- not only just to take with him, but then repeatedly keep from both Nauta and prosecutors and the FBI when they asked for them repeatedly?

DONALDS: Well, two things you say the word repeatedly, we don't know that. Because you weren't involved in those negotiations with his attorneys, and neither do I. That's an accusation from Jack Smith, a couple of things on that piece. The President took the documents when he left the White House. According to wide reporting, his attorneys removed the boxes when they left the White House on their way to Mar- a-Lago.

The President's attorneys were also in negotiations with the National Archives, back and forth about what was there and reviewing those documents. And the reason why the Presidential Records Act is important is because the President has the ability to review those records for up to five years and has broad latitude to review them. That's why I say that. The reason why they never bring up the presidential records that are in the indictment, in my view, is because if you put that in the context of what they're trying to charge him with the Espionage Act, then it just looks plain ridiculous.

Last point I'll make on this, the President of the United States and even former presidents of the United States. They were the Executive Branch. So, to charge them with a violation of the Espionage Act, there is an extremely high bar to do that. And it's not clear even Jack Smith has that. Like I said, look at his track record when he's charged other political officials, and it didn't cut mustard.

MATTINGLY: All right. So, I want to take just one of the points that you made there, even if you stipulate several of them. The President was only charged related to documents that came after the search of his Mar-a-Lago residence. Everything else before that time, and there were hundreds of documents that the 15 boxes that his attorneys had turned over. Other documents that had been turned over before and after that, were not charged. There was nothing in the indictment related to those which seems to make the application give the application that had he just given these back.

There would not have been an indictment, or at least not an indictment, tied to what we've seen in these 40 plus pages. Do you see -- is that something that you would agree with? Is that a stipulation that's fair? This only came, you say that it's just speculation that these were just negotiations that were occurring. No. I mean, I think it's pretty well documented both in letters from attorneys, letters from Nauta, and also in this indictment. And he wasn't charged on anything that had been voluntarily handed back even after some of those negotiations.

DONALDS: Look, what I will tell you is, again, I was not in the room with his attorneys when they were doing this. He and Nauta are going back and forth. Nauta decided probably in the first time of his existence dealing with the former President, that they wanted to bring the Department of Justice into this, and the White House Counsel had to sign off on this. One other point I want to make, you guys are throwing up the pitches about they were in a bathroom, or they were on a stage.

As somebody who's been to Mar-a-Lago, you just can't walk through Mar- a-Lago of your own accord, because Secret Service is all over the place. So, if the documents are in a place, they're in a room, depending on the time of year, you can't even get into said room. There are 33 bathrooms at Mar-a-Lago. So, don't act like it's just in some random bathroom that the guests can go into, that's not true. And so, I think that when you look at this information, and you look at what's come down in the indictment, an indictment is a one-sided argument from the prosecution.

The President and his team is going to have an opportunity to respond to this. And actually, in looking at the indictment, one of the things you also have to understand is that there's a lot of context issues here. The context you're getting is directly from Jack Smith, and deciding on what he thinks is relevant or not. Until the legal proceedings happen, you can't go through that. But as a broader perspective, let's be very clear, that what you see here is a political prosecution of Donald Trump.

Because former officials of our government, who did not have classification -- declassification ability. And did not and were not the head of the Executive Branch. They did significantly worse things with material and classified material. And the Department of Justice previous iterations, and they -- and just basically turned a blind eye and moved down the road. And that is why the American people look at this, they think is disgusting.

[08:30:00]