Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Trump Defiant After Pleading Not Guilty in Documents Case; Trump Uses His Arrest to Boost Campaign Fundraising; First Lady Jill Biden Warns Against Return to Chaos and Corruption of Trump Administration. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired June 14, 2023 - 07:00   ET

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

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[07:00:01]

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): This is Trump in true form. He says one thing to his supporters, says another thing privately.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pardon Donald J. Trump for these offenses.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: National security issues shouldn't be partisan.

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-AK): We have to take this seriously.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Had he not lied through his lawyers, he wouldn't be in this situation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would not feel comfortable with a convicted felon in the White House.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. We are so glad that you are with us on quite a morning after a day that made history, that is for sure, the first time a former president has ever, ever been arraigned on federal charges. Donald Trump pleading not guilty to all 37. And now it is the morning after, and we see what is ahead.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: There's the political, there's the legal, there's also the fact and the lie. We're going to go through all of that in the course of the next couple of hours.

Now, the former president wasted no time raising money for his presidential campaign after he became the first former president in U.S. history to be arrested on federal charges.

Just hours after he pleaded not guilty to 37 felony counts in Miami, he held a fundraiser at his golf club in New Jersey. He also delivered a speech that was full of misleading and false claims, including his dubious argument that a president can take whichever documents he wants whenever he leaves office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Threatening me with 400 years in prison for possessing my own presidential papers, which just about every other president has done, is one of the most outrageous, ambitious legal theories is ever put forward in an American court of law.

Whatever documents a president decides to take with him, he has the right to do so. It's an absolute right. This is the law.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: Federal prosecutors say Trump illegally hoarded classified documents containing some of America's most closely guarded secrets, including secrets about our nation's nuclear program. He allegedly stored them in places like his bedroom and a bathroom next to a toilet at Mar-a-Lago and showed them to people without security clearance. President Biden has refused to comment on Trump's indictment or arrest, and he again refused yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Would you comment on the arrest of the former president, sir?

JOE BIDEN, U.S. PRESIDENT: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: We have team coverage, Katelyn Polantz outside the courthouse in Miami for us again this morning, Alayna Treene is live near Bedminster, Arlette is standing by at the White House, Elie Honig, Laura Coates at the magic wall, Sara Murray, Shelby Talcott here in studio. Good morning, guys.

Let's start with you, Katelyn. You were there sort of previewing this with the rooster, by the way, yesterday morning. I'm sure they're greeting you again this morning, but talk about what happened yesterday and what you saw in the courtroom, because no cameras, so we can't see his demeanor?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. So, this was quite a stoic proceeding. It was about 50 minutes inside the courtroom. I had a clear view of Donald Trump, and he sat beneath a light that really lit him up in the courtroom. His hair was quite bright. He was wearing a brighter navy suit than anyone else around him, but he was slumped over. When you walk in and you see him when the judge took the bench, he was lagging to stand whenever you're supposed to rise when the judge says, all rise.

And for most of the proceeding, he sat with his arms crossed, sat back, clearly with a feeling of indignation or some sort of frustration with the proceeding. Occasionally, he was whispering to his attorney, but Donald Trump himself, he did not speak once in this proceeding. A little bit unusual for a federal court arraignment like this. The judge asked him no direct questions, instead referred to him as the former president throughout the proceeding. And his lawyer spoke on his behalf. His lawyer, Todd Blanche, stood up and was the one that said to the court that he enters a plea of not guilty at this time.

Jack Smith, the special counsel, he was also in the room. So, we get this rare glimpse of Smith and really the first time these two men have ever been in the same room like this. Smith had quite an entourage around him, and there was quite a lot of security, too, for a proceeding like this. But, really, all of these things coming together mark how significant this moment is, that Donald Trump is being placed under arrest for federal charges, and he is being told, these are your charges, and you now must abide by the court's rules as you fight these, as you say you will, as it goes to trial.

MATTINGLY: And, Katelyn, some of those rules, some of those restrictions, but also the fact that the president's alleged co- conspirator was not arraigned yesterday presents the question, what actually happens next here. How does this move forward? Walk us through that.

POLANTZ: Right. So, the next thing that's on the calendar right now is that Walt Nauta, Trump's co-defendant, the man accused of moving boxes on his behalf that had classified documents in them around Mar- a-Lago to avoid the Justice Department finding them, essentially.

[07:05:05]

Nauta, he has to come back in about two weeks or enter an appearance in some way saying that he will be pleading not guilty at this time. The reason he didn't right now is because he didn't have a lawyer in Florida yet to represent him. He does have a lawyer who's represented him from some time, but they're still trying to nail down exactly who's going to help this case move forward in this particular system.

But these two men, one of the restrictions that they walk out of court with and one of the things that is one of the first issues that Trump side took some issue with, took some dispute with, is a decision by the judge to put over this case the order that both Donald Trump and Walt Nauta cannot be speaking to any other witnesses or one another about the facts and the details of this case as it moves forward.

Now, that's going to be difficult because Trump has a lot of people in his employment, including Nauta himself, whom yesterday he was traveling with.

MATTINGLY: Yes, fascinating, dynamic. Katelyn Polantz, we will certainly be checking back in this morning. Thanks.

HARLOW: Okay. Let's go to Alayna Treene. She's now at Trump's golf club near Bedminster, New Jersey, after he had the big fundraiser last night. He's using this for politics to try to boost support, boost campaign donations. What was it like last night?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Right. Well, there are a few notable things that I took away from his speech, Poppy and Phil. The first is that he reverted to the well-worn playbook that we've seen him use time and time again in these situations. He called these charges political and argued that they amounted to election interference. He also claimed that he was entitled to taking these documents with him and that others were not prosecuted for doing the same thing.

Of course, the prosecutors in this case argue that that's not true, that he kept some of the nation's most sensitive national security documents and that his unwillingness to hand them over amounts to obstructions. That's the first thing.

The second thing I found pretty striking was his tone. He was surrounded by his most sympathetic supporters and his fiercest allies. That's the type of environment that Donald Trump tends to rely on to appear, define and give off the public image that he's pushing back. But he did sound angry, and that's something I know that some of his advisers picked up on as well. He also did not linger after his remarks. He didn't mingle with the crowd. He pretty immediately left the outdoor area at his club and then went back inside.

And then the third thing I would note is the substance. My colleague, Kristen Holmes, and I spoke with some Donald Trump allies prior to his speech, and they told us that they were hoping it would be more forward-looking, that he would focus on his re-election effort and some of his 2024 agenda items. But he did very little of that. He spent the majority of his roughly 30-minute remarks railing against his opponents, namely President Joe Biden and his 2016 presidential rival, Hillary Clinton. And he also specifically went after Special Counsel Jack Smith. And that's something I know that his advisers had urged him against doing, but he went ahead and did that anyway.

HARLOW: Alayan Treene, we will check back. Thank you very much.

MATTINGLY: Well, this morning, we're getting a clearer look at some of the potential defenses and tactics Donald Trump's legal team could use in his case. Among them is his, and I stress his, interpretation of the Presidential Records Act, which he invoked repeatedly last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Under the Presidential Records Act, which is civil, not criminal, I had every right to have these documents. The crucial legal precedent is laid out in the most important case ever on this subject, known as the Clinton Socks case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: I love the Clinton Socks case being the most important case ever.

HARLOW: It wasn't the actual name of the title of the case.

MATTINGLY: No, I don't think that was it. It's a good shorthand, though. For those who don't know, and I don't blame you if you don't, the Clinton Socks reference stems from a case involving former President Bill Clinton.

Now, a historian recorded audio interviews with Clinton during his time in the White House. That historian told G.Q. that Clinton stashed the audio cassettes of those interviews in his sock drawer. Now, a right-leaning nonprofit sued for access to those tapes, arguing they included classified information, but lost the case because the judge ruled, quote, the Presidential Records Act does not confer any mandatory or even discretional authority on the archivist. Under the statute this responsibility is left solely to the president. Now, Trump and his allies are trying to use that ruling to his advantage.

Joining us now to discuss are CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig, CNN Chief Legal Analyst Laura Coates and National Security Attorney Bradley Moss.

Bradley, my understanding is this is not a great defense, and what is being cited isn't very relevant. But can you walk through the comparison to the Clinton case and whether it works or doesn't as a defense?

[07:10:00]

BRADLEY MOSS, NATIONAL SECURITY ATTORNEY: Yes, it has no comparison to the present situation. So, what happened in the, quote/unquote, Clinton Socks case was, yes, former President Clinton had made these audiotapes, they clearly fell within the definition of personal records under the Presidential Records Act. They were never, ever designated as anything other than personal records, and he took them with them obviously after he left the White House.

Judicial Watch, the nonprofit, sued to try to get a judge to order the National Archives, the archivists at the Archives, to challenge that designation. And the judge simply said, the law doesn't give me the authority to make the archivist do this. The archivist, if it wanted to, arguably could have brought some kind of challenge, some civil action itself but I can't make them do so. That has nothing, nothing no way, shape, or form, nothing to do with what we're currently talking about.

The records at issue in the indictment were originally agency records. They became presidential records when they were sent to Donald Trump in the White House. They always were presidential records. They were always classified, and they always qualified as national defense information.

When he left the White House, under the Presidential Records Act, he was supposed to let the archivist take control of that. He was not supposed to walk off with them, and he certainly couldn't keep them in Mar-a-Lago in any of the various unsecured locations that were listed in the indictment. His team will try to raise this case in pretrial motions. It will fail.

HARLOW: They certainly will. We heard it. I believe Byron Donalds brought it up yesterday in the interview he did with Phil.

Elie, to you. I think the reason that many defendants of the president in this are clinging to this case is because of the words of Judge Amy Berman Jackson when she said, this is left solely to the president. Ultimately, these tapes were viewed as sort of an audio form of a personal diary. But can you explain why her words in this decision do not hold water, as Bradley was just saying, in this case?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Let me try to simplify presidential records. Generally, all presidential records are going to fall in one of two categories. One, sensitive government documents, the other, I think, to use your phrase that you used earlier today, tchotchkes, which is sometimes the Yiddish is the best --

LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Latin term.

HONIG: Yes, personal belongings, souvenirs, that kind of stuff.

HARLOW: I know, but Judicial Watch said that Clinton talked about things that were security related and classified on the tape.

HONIG: Right. So, the way it works is the Archives gets it presumptively. It starts with the National Archives. That's what the Presidential Records Act says. And then if the president or former president in this case can establish that they are personal, that they're not related to anything government related, then the president gets to keep those records, right?

So, there's a process, though. The president has to go through it. The president doesn't get to keep them in the first place. They start with the Archives. And then after you go through the process, usually Archives and the presidents agree on what gets to come and what gets to go.

So, this is the opposite of that. Donald Trump took them all for himself and says, essentially, I get to decide. In fact, the Archives gets to decide as a result of that long process.

COATES: And, remember, every court case has to do with what is the question before the court. It's not, let's have a general esoteric professorial debate. What is the question you're asking? What is the prayer for relief, as they call it? In that case, it was the idea of, I'd like you to make an entity do something. I'd like you to make them enforce their own laws in some way or own statute. And that's the court's dealing with that issue.

But the analogies regarding Clinton, whether it's Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton, are going to keep coming up for this very reason. It's about the substance of the information, where you find the analogy classified or sensitive material as the information. But this case before Trump is about the tangible documents, one. Remember, the Hillary Clinton email discussions is about classified information contained within without the headings or the actual documents. And perhaps most importantly, the core of this indictment has to do with obstruction and willful retention of documents, and conspiracy. That's where this really meets a fork in the road that goes towards a prosecution where the analogy is no longer apropos.

MATTINGLY: I think that actually ties directly into what I wanted to ask Bradley about, and that is the president is very fixated on the idea and his defenders of the Espionage Act, utilizing the Espionage Act. No one is saying the president is spying on anybody. That is not the technical definition of the Espionage Act. Can you explain to people not the full history of the Espionage Act, but what's being utilized here and why it's important to actually understand that detail?

MOSS: Yes. So, it's a horribly named statute in this context, and it predates the modern classification regime and what we think of. The Espionage Act came out of World War I. It encompasses a number of things. One is what you typically think of with spying, selling documents, spying for a foreign government, things along those lines.

But it also encompasses a number of other potential felony provisions, one of which is at issue here, which is the willful retention of national defense information, meaning you knew you had it, and you knew it qualified as national defense information and the failure to return it to the proper U.S. government authorities. That is what alleged. There's no allegation in the charges that he has sold or disseminated the national defense information that he has sold or given it to somebody else.

There's factual issues about how he knew it was still classified because he was talking about it with other people on those audio tapes, but they have not charged him with dissemination, just willful retention.

MATTINGLY: It's important context. Bradley, thanks so much. Guys. Stick with us. Trump's 2024 rivals divided on how to respond to his federal charges. Now, his former vice president, Mike Pence, says he cannot defend his former boss.

HARLOW: Also, President Biden appears to want little to do with or nothing to do with Trump's federal charges. Why the White House is keeping quiet about this historic indictment, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:20:00]

HARLOW: Welcome back. First Lady Joe Biden ramping up her criticism of Republicans at two Democratic fundraisers in the Bay Area Tuesday night, the first lady warning of what would happen if, quote, MAGA Republicans win, calling 2024 the most important election of our lives.

[07:20:08]

Arlette Saenz joins us at the White House. You cover all things White House and particularly the first lady. Significant that she went this far?

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Poppy, there's really this tale of two Biden approaches that is playing out at this moment surrounding the indictment of former President Donald Trump. The White House has really maintained a deliberate, stay silent strategy. You don't see the campaign or the Democratic National Committee fundraising off of this event.

And aides say that is all by design. Behind the scenes, they don't want to provide any further fodder to former President Trump and his accusations of these investigations being politically motivated. And that is why you have repeatedly heard President Biden saying that he is not commenting on this matter, including last night in an exchange with our colleague, Jeremy Diamond.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Would you comment on the arrest of the former president, sir?

BIDEN: No.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAENZ: But there is one Biden who is speaking out, and that is the first lady. Over the course of the past two days, you've heard her repeatedly in these Democratic fundraisers talk about the former president, specifically in one of those that took place in New York City. She expressed shock that many in the Republican Party are still supporting Trump despite the indictments.

And yesterday in the Bay Area, she tried to present this election as a choice between what she described as the chaos and corruption of the Trump administration and the stability provided by her husband. She said in those fundraisers, quote, we cannot go to those dark days. You know what's in store if these MAGA Republicans win. We know it because we lived it. Remember how hard it was last time? This time it's going to be even harder now.

Now, these comments came in a fundraiser where the cameras were off. And oftentimes those types of venues give politicians and surrogates a chance to speak a little bit more freely. But I think what those comments really highlight is the role that the first lady could play heading into a campaign, as she has shown a willingness to take on the former president at a time when the White House is staying silent.

HARLOW: Somehow we always find out what they say, and they're more candid moments at these fundraisers, right?

MATTINGLY: What Arlette is not telling you is the president in fundraisers, where there are no cameras, that's where you learn more about what he's thinking, what he's doing, and Arlette knows it's better than anybody, she has him for as long as she has. Hi, buddy.

HARLOW: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Thanks, Arlette

HARLOW: Thanks, Arlette.

MATTINGLY: All right. That's my day job, guys.

The former president attacking the Special Counsel last night following his arrest and arraignment in Florida on 37 federal charges related to his handling of classified information. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This is called election interference and yet another attempt to rig and steal a presidential election. More importantly, it's a political persecution, like something straight out of a fascist or a communist nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: All right, Sara Murray, not only are you extremely involved in the reporting on this case and several of the investigations ongoing, you covered his campaign in 2016 every single day and survived. What's your takeaway after hearing that response to this historic moment?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Look, it's a loser of a message to say, well, I took all these documents with me because I really thought they were mine, and that's that, and this is all about me. He's got to make it about a you versus me mentality. I think we've seen that over and over again in his speeches.

It is remarkable to me that they have sort of settled on this being an election interference issue, because this is what these two outstanding investigations focus on. I mean, Jack Smith's January 6th investigation focuses on Trump's efforts to meddle in the end of the 2020 election, the peaceful transfer of power. That is what the Fulton County district attorney is focusing on in her investigation into efforts by Donald Trump and his allies to overturn the election results.

So, I think from a political messaging standpoint, it sort of opens up the question of, okay, well, what about these other things that are going on?

HARLOW: Elie, I do want to ask you because you have an interesting and important take on the argument we heard from former President Trump last night about, you can't do this, this is election interference. His pointing to the trial calendar could bump right up to the key points in the election and because he has to be in the courtroom. It's not civil. He's got to be in the courtroom.

HONIG: So, I want to be clear. There is no evidence to support the claim that this prosecution by DOJ is political in any way. There's nothing to connect this to the White House. I have to say, Byron Donalds came on yesterday and said twice that this indictment had to be approved by the White House Counsel? That's fabricated. There's no evidence of that. If it did happen, let's see the proof. But there's just nothing making that links this to anything political.

However, I do have to criticize all three prosecutors here, because by taking as long as they've taken, they've created this or contributed to this situation where Donald Trump can correctly say, well, look at this, they're lobbying their charges only after I've announced my candidacy.

[07:25:03]

And now when are the trials going to land in 2024, all three of them, Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, Merrick Garland. Jack Smith came on later.

HARLOW: Fani Willis hasn't brought charges yet, but we'll see what happens.

HONIG: She's the slowest of all.

COATES: And, by the way, this could count against him, though, in the same sense. For that very reason, Jack Smith and team could go into this Florida courtroom and say, we are anticipating the fact that this will be a removal from the campaign trail for at least 21 days of this potential presumptive frontrunner in the GOP primary. That's why we stand ready to try the case right now. I want motions in 45 days where it will respond to everything at that point in time. It's going to be unrealistic in many respects. But the same token, this will now be the onus on Trump to say why he can't be ready.

HARLOW: That's what I was going to say. Isn't a lot of deference in these cases given, though, to counsel, defendant's counsel to have time to get ready, so delay, delay, delay with some good lawyering could be really successful?

HONIG: When Jack Smith said in his press conference, we're ready for trial, that's what every prosecutor, we are trained. That's the only thing you ever say. You never say, Judge, we need more time as a prosecutor. But, really, the speedy trial right belongs to the defendant. If he wants to force a trial within 70 days, he can. And the person who sets the trial date is the judge.

And, of course, Donald Trump's team is going to try to delay. That's the best, maybe only defense I see right here. And all those issues that we just talked about, challenging the search warrant, challenging the constitutionality of Evan Corcoran, the use of Evan Corcoran's statements, which you talked about before, those all have to be litigated. So, I think they have a quite good chance.

People say, is this going to get in before the 2024 election? We don't know. But I think he has quite a good chance, Donald Trump, to stretch this beyond that.

COATES: I've been thinking about this, as I often do, and in thinking about the idea, just look at the reaction to the civil defeat with E. Jean Carroll. He bankrolled off of it. There is something to be said. There's been many commentators talking about the jury pool in, say, West Palm Beach versus one in Washington, D.C. I could see an argument being made as to wanting to resolve the issue quicker if you believe that an acquittal or maybe even a hung jury is in your immediate future and then have yet another instance to either campaign off of or to demonstrate that this is some sort of political witch hunt.

And so I wonder if it's going -- I mean, as an attorney, I would be counseling my client to have protracted proceedings and elongate his calendar. But if there is some delusion that there is a guarantee, which is never the case, of an acquittal or a guilty verdict, I bet that's factoring in to figure out when the calendar and the speed of trial would be.

MATTINGLY: So, I've been thinking about you thinking about this.

COATES: I'm thinking about that too.

MATTINGLY: As I try and draft off of whatever you say and co opt it uses mine, but how the political element fits into this, I think, is really important. I do want to play what Nikki Haley, one of the Republican primary candidates, said about this yesterday. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI HALEY, REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When you look at a pardon, the issue is less about guilt and more about what's good for the country. And I think it would be terrible for the country to have a former president in prison for years because of a documents case. That's something you've seen in a third world country. I saw that at the United Nations. So, I would be inclined, in favor of a pardon.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: So, you have the President and his team trying to figure out the messaging, the timing, how the legal and the political mesh together. You have the other candidates looking at this and trying to figure out the messaging and the timing and how this all links together. What was your thought process when you heard what the ambassador said?

SHELBY TALCOTT, POLITICS REPORTER, SEMAFOR: I thought it was interesting that she was going so far as to say that she would potentially pardon Trump but at the same time walk that fine line of the day before noting that these are really serious allegations, that her husband is about to deploy to Africa. But it just broadly represents this fine line that Republican candidates are having to walk between admitting that these are really serious charges while also not angering the Republican base who views it as politicized and is very defensive of the former president.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's going to be fascinating.

HARLOW: Quite a needle to thread.

MATTINGLY: And operatives trying to figure that out right now. Good luck. All right, guys, stay with us. We're going to be back to you soon.

The upcoming and final song from the Beatles will include John Lennon's voice, how. The band is using A.I. to make that happen.

HARLOW: Also, the Las Vegas Knights crushed the Florida Panthers to win their first Stanley Cup. The highlights, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00]