Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Fmr. Georgia State Sen. Jen Jordan is Interviewed about the Trump Indictment; U.S. Debt Rating Downgraded; Alberto Gonzales is Interviewed about the Trump Indictment. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired August 02, 2023 - 06:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:32:31]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF PATRICK LABAT, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA: Unless someone tells me differently, we are - we are following our part - our - our normal practices. And so it doesn't matter your status, we have - we have mug shots ready for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Well, as former President Trump faces a new indictment, this time over his role in the push to overturn the 2020 election, he's also awaiting another fourth indictment, this one tied to his efforts to overturn the 2020 results in the state of Georgia.

Our next guest has received subpoenas to testify before a Fulton County grand jury later this month, serving as a very strong indication that an indictment is, in fact, coming. The focus of the DA's questions, the election presentation she witnessed that was put on by Trump's former attorney, Rudy Giuliani, now an unindicted co- conspirators, along with other Trump allies in front of Georgia state lawmakers in 2020.

Former Georgia Democratic State Senator Jen Jordan joins us now.

Jen, I appreciate the time.

First, and I shouldn't (ph) really ask this question, but do you plan to comply with the subpoena?

JEN JORDAN, FORMER GEORGIA STATE SENATOR: Absolutely.

MATTINGLY: And have you been given any guidance -- I think generally we have an idea, but any guidance about what prosecutors want to ask you?

JORDAN: No, no guidance. I mean I'm assuming that it has to do with what the special grand jury asked with respect to Rudy Giuliani's presentation before the Georgia's State Senate. That's what they were interested in. And, you know, so I'm just going to go and I'm going to tell the truth and tell them what I saw and what I heard.

MATTINGLY: Can you tell people, what were - what were your impressions of Giuliani and his presentation in the moment back in December of 2020?

JORDAN: Yes, I have to tell you, it was very surreal being there because the presentation itself, it was false. It was almost presented like a small mini trial. And it had clearly been -- it felt like it was part of some kind of mock trial we were going through. And, you know, they had all of their witnesses that purportedly, you know, were telling the state legislators that they could basically choose the electors and could throw out the votes of millions and millions of Georgians.

And I was sitting there, I thought, this -- this - this can't be real. But, you know, as we're sitting there and the president of the United States is tweeting and OAN and "Newsmax" are live-streaming, it became, you know, it became very clear that - that this was part of the plan.

So, when we talk about kind of at the federal level, the federal indictment that came down last night, and - and Georgia is just one of the states that they talk about.

[06:35:04]

With respect to what happened on the ground here, it really was the implementation of the plan at the highest levels to overturn the election.

MATTINGLY: I want to bring in, Jen, if you don't mind, my colleague, Sara Murray, who's extensively covered the district attorney's case down in Georgia.

Sara.

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Jen, good to see you again.

I'm just curious, in this federal indictment we see people like John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani unnamed. They're unindicted co-conspirators. Obviously, you saw their presentation live in Georgia.

Do you have any concern about whether they are going to be held accountable for their actions in battleground states, like Georgia?

JORDAN: No, I don't. I mean they were the ones that were actually on the ground here. I mean that's what's been difficult, right, because Trump never actually came to Georgia. You know, there were the phone calls. There were the overt actions with respect to any kind of conspiracy. But the people who were actually here, who made misrepresentations, who lied, right, to officials here in Georgia with the intent to overturn the election, they were Rudy Giuliani, they were John Eastman, they were Sidney Powell. So, all of the undieted co-conspirators that y'all have been able to identify this - thus far, right, were the folks who were actually -- they were like the soldiers that were sent into the battleground states to actually implement the plan.

So, whether or not they get named at the federal level eventually, I have no doubt that with respect to the indictment here on the ground that they're definitely a target.

MURRAY: And what about that potential indictment in Georgia? I mean we're expecting sometime in the next couple of weeks Fani Willis is going to make her charging announcements.

Would you have liked to see her do this sooner, especially given what's turning out to be a very jam-packed court calendar for Donald Trump?

JORDAN: Look, I think she is taking this very seriously. I think her team is. And I think you have to.

This isn't about politics, no matter what the former president's legal team or some of the talking heads are trying to say. It's not about politics. It's about the law and it's about holding people responsible when they break that law.

So, with respect to that, she is putting together what I assume is going to be a very kind of sweeping RICO case. And when you do cases like that, they're very complicated and you have to make sure that you have all of the evidence, you know, all of the witnesses that you need to prove your case. Because what you don't want to do, I mean you don't want to take a swing at the former president of the United States and then miss.

So, with respect to the evidence she's going to present before the grand jury, I have no idea who's been subpoenaed or who will eventually give testimony. But I have no doubt that her team has basically, you know, blackboarded, white-boarded, taken all the elements of the case, put the witnesses up, who do we need to get this piece of evidence in, because at the end of the day it's going to be a closely watched trial. But also, you know, it's so important because if he isn't held accountable for what he's done, and if the other people aren't, you know, what does that really say ultimately about our justice system?

MATTINGLY: You know, Jen, to that point, is there concern, though, given the fact that this would be the fourth indictment if it actually comes - it - and this kind of gets to Murray's point too, where people kind of tune it out. They get numb to it. They put everything in a bucket and just decide, I don't have time to pay attention to that, there's so many?

JORDAN: They might. I mean, but, look, most people don't pay attention to indictments on, you know, a day-to-day basis, but that doesn't mean you don't proceed when people break the law. And in some ways it makes sense that, you know, the district attorney here in Georgia, hers is going to be last because really I think her case is going to be the most significant and probably bring in way more people even than the federal indictment that we saw released that was yesterday.

So, look, there are 75 witnesses before the special grand jury. Seventy-five. They met for weeks and weeks. They know exactly who they want to bring in to present the evidence that then they want to present at trial. They'll get the indictment and then we're going to proceed to trail.

And, look, I think they're going to have a case that is going to be -- I think it's going to be pretty lock tight. I mean and - and I think if people actually listen and have open hearts and open minds and see what was really going on behind the scenes because all we know, right, is what we know that's public. So, I can't even imagine what they've discovered and what their investigators have discovered. And we just need to listen and we need to learn and we need to understand that it doesn't matter who you are in this country, you can be the former president of the United States but you cannot break the law and you will be held accountable.

MATTINGLY: Yes, a busy couple weeks ahead down in Georgia, as well as what's going on here - or down in Washington as well.

Jen Jordan, thank you so much.

My colleague, Sara Murray, great to see you. Thank you.

MURRAY: Thanks.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, really fascinating conversation about what is ahead in Georgia.

Another crucial story we're covering today. For the first time in an over a decade, Fitch ratings has downgraded the debt of the United States.

[06:40:05]

The White House and their pointed response, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: A black eye this morning for America's economy. Fitch ratings downgraded the U.S. debt rating from its highest AAA rating to AA+. This marks the first downgrade for our debt since 2011. And according to someone familiar with the manner, in a meeting with Biden officials, representatives from Fitch repeatedly highlighted the January 6th insurrection as a significant concern relating to U.S. governance. Erosion of governance a major factor for the debt rating downgrade with the, quote, repeated debt limit political standoffs. That's what Fitch is saying they underscored in making this decision.

Lawmakers averted what would have been the nation's first default with an eleventh hour deal you'll remember at the end of May.

Let's go to Alette Saenz. She's covering the president, who is on vacation in Rehoboth Beach.

Good morning to you.

In any -- on any other day this would be the leading story. This is a big deal. And the reasoning is fascinating.

ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it really is, Poppy. And the White House is not happy with fact that Fitch decided to downgrade the U.S. credit rating. Only the second time in U.S. history that this decision has been made by a major credit rating agency.

Now, Fitch had actually warned the administration that this was a possibility as that debt ceiling fight had played out earlier in the year, but they finally made that move just yesterday. And in their report they decided an erosion of governments that has just - that has occurred not just in this administration but also over the past two decades.

[06:45:01]

And also CNN has learned that in a meeting with administration officials, Fitch repeatedly expressed concerns about the impact the January 6th insurrection had had on U.S. governance.

Now, the White House was very quick to push back on this decision from Fitch. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, quote, it defies reality to downgrade the United States at a moment when President Biden has delivered the strongest recovery of any major economy in the world.

And Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen called the decision arbitrary, and went on to say, Fitch's decision does not change what Americans, investors and people all around the world already know, that Treasury securities remain the world's preeminent safe and liquid asset, and that the American economy is fundamentally strong.

But what this decision really does is it speaks to the impact that these political standoffs that we've seen play out in Washington so often can have on these types of decisions. And it also could have real-world impacts for Americans at home on things like mortgages. So, this will be a situation the White House is closely watching, especially as those markets are set to open in just a few hours.

HARLOW: We'll watch how they do open on the news.

Arlette, thanks very much.

MATTINGLY: Well, the Trump indictment goes into the false claims from the former president that he made about seven separate states publicly. A look back at those claims that are now under scrutiny when our coverage continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:50:30]

MATTINGLY: Thirty-six times. That's how many times you can find the word "knowingly" in the 45 pages of the special counsel's indictment of former President Trump. He alleges he pushed, quote, knowingly false claims of fraud to overturn the 2020 election results. It's now up to Smith to prove Trump knew that statements like these were false. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: So, in Pennsylvania, you had 205,000 more votes than you had voters.

And this is a mathematical impossibility, unless you want to say it's a total fraud.

If you signed your name as Santa Claus it would go through. There were also more than 42,000 double votes in Nevada.

But after officials in Detroit announced the last votes had been counted, tens of thousands of additional ballots arrive without required envelopes. Every single one was for a Democrat. I got no votes.

In the state of Arizona, over 36,000 ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens.

The other thing, dead people. So dead people voted. And I think the - the number is in the -- close to 5,000 people.

BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE: The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. And so that's wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Well, joining us now for reaction to this historic indictment is someone who used to run the Justice Department, former attorney general, and also former White House council to President George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales. He now serves as the dean of the Belmont University College of Law.

Both the Justice Department and the White House Counsel Office playing pretty significant roles in these 45 pages of the indictment. To start, though, what's your reaction based on what you've seen in the indictment so far?

ALBERTO GONZALES, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, it's a -- I think it's a strong - strong indictment. It's pretty straightforward. Pretty clean.

You know, it's been described as historic, unprecedented, momentous. I'd like to perhaps add a different word, which is potentially perilous. You know, I think the words and actions that are described in the indictment portray a picture that puts tremendous stress on our government institutions, it puts tremendous stress on the rule of law. And I was thinking about Attorney General Merrick Garland. You know, the attorney general is viewed by many as sort of the guardian of the rule of law. That's the job of the attorney general heading up the Department of Justice. In this particular case, the attorney general is recused, and rightly so given the fact that his boss is going to be the Democratic nominee for president.

And so, you know, I suspect that while he may have great confidence in Jack Smith, nonetheless, he was confirmed -- Merrick Garland was confirmed for his intellect, his character, his experience and integrity. And that's not on the table here in perhaps one of the most momentous cases in our nation's history. And the outcome of which will have a tremendous impact on the opinion of the Department of Justice and the rule of law in the minds of many in this country.

And so, you know, again, he probably has great confidence in Jack Smith, but also perhaps, you know, very, very curious about how this is going to proceed because the outcome, I think, could have tremendous ramifications again for the country and for the Department of Justice.

HARLOW: Trump's team is criticizing the timing of this, Mr. Attorney General. John Laura (ph), who's representing the president in this case, said on Fox last night, the Justice Department could have rubber stamped this a year ago if they wanted to. Do you see any issue with the timing here? No? Your face tells me no.

GONZALES: No, I don't.

HARLOW: OK.

GONZALES: No, I don't. Obviously, the department is sensitive to investigations - announcements -- public announcement of investigations and prosecutions during a campaign season. They try to avoid it if possible. Sometimes it is not possible. And, obviously, a case of this nature, you want to make sure you get it right. If you're going to go after the former president, you want to make sure that the evidence is there, that there are credible witnesses, that you'll have -- be able to get the evidence into court.

And so, you know, the timing is unfortunate. There's no question about that. From my own perspective, I think it would be great if the outcome of this case is known before the election. I think the American people are very interested in whether or not Donald Trump committed the crimes of which he's accused of in this indictment.

[06:55:03]

So - and I think that probably shaped in some way the -- the scope of the indictment. And - but I do believe it's important to try to get this resolved before the election.

MATTINGLY: I noted at the top that you served as the attorney general. You were also White House Counsel. Can you explain to people the rarity of an assistant attorney general responsible for the environmental division being handed the attorney general role by the president that ended up not coming to fruition, but then also essentially trying to take over the Justice Department's operations, as Jeffrey Clark, the unnamed co-conspirator number four did according to the indictment. And also that Pat Cipollone, the White House council, regularly telling the president that he was wrong and the president basically shutting him out of everything.

GONZALES: Right. Well, as it - you know, obviously, you'd like to think, as White House Council, that the advice you'd give to the president of the United States, that that advice would be heeded. But, of course, at the end of the day, from my perspective, it is the Department of Justice and the attorney general that has the final word as to what is lawful, you know, what is unlawful.

And with respect to the environmental lawyer being in the chain of command, there is - there are protocols within each department and agency in the executive branch in terms of chain of command. And the environmental lawyer is way, way down in the chain of command of decision makers at the Department of Justice. So it would -- it would have been something that would be extremely unusual.

MATTINGLY: Potentially illegal?

GONZALES: It's not a question of illegal. The president of the United States can consult with whoever he wants to with respect to legal advice. And so it wouldn't be potentially illegal again, but it would be highly irregular.

MATTINGLY: As in no precedent based on your knowledge?

GONZALES: Based on what I know (INAUDIBLE).

MATTINGLY: That's -

GONZALES: You never know who a president consults in terms for legal advice.

MATTINGLY: Good point. Yes.

GONZALES: And - but, yes, (INAUDIBLE) it would be unknown precedence as far as I know.

MATTINGLY: Appreciate it.

All right, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, thank you very much for your time, sir.

GONZALES: Thank you.

HARLOW: We do have new reporting that details how conversations between Trump and his then Vice President Pence, multiple conversations, provided key evidence for prosecutors.

MATTINGLY: And what to expect as Trump heads to federal court tomorrow. CNN's special live coverage continues ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:00:00]