Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

"Speedy trial" Sought for Trump by Special Counsel; Interview with Former Attorney Tim Parlatore; Republican Leaders Jump to Trump's Defense, Democrats Call the Indictment "Shocking"; Trump Indicted in Unprecedented Third Criminal Case; Indictment of Trump for Attempting to Rig the 2020 Election. Aired 7:30-8a ET

Aired August 02, 2023 - 07:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN LAURO, TRUMP ATTORNEY: They want to go to trial so that instead of debating the issues against Joe Biden, that President Trump is sitting in a courtroom. How is that justice? The American people want to talk about the issues. What they don't want to do is relitigate the 2020 election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN THIS MORNING CO-ANCHOR: That was, just moments ago, Trump's Attorney, John Lauro, who's going to be representing the president in this case. He was, just moments ago, on the "TODAY" Show. Special Counsel Jack Smith says the Justice Department will speak a -- seek a speedy trial for Former President Trump.

With us now, Former President Trump's former attorney, Tim Parlatore, who played a key role in the classified documents investigation. He also once testified before that grand jury. Tim, good morning. It's good to have you. How strong do you see this indictment as being?

TIM PARLATORE, FORMER ATTORNEY: You know, when I read it through, really, the key element to me is knowledge, and whether he knew that the claims of fraud were false. And I didn't really see anything in that indictment that really spoke to that point. You know, it was kind of more of a detailed version of what the January 6th Committee tried to do to say what he was told certain things by certain people, but he was told that's not true by other people. And so, therefore we wanted him to believe these people not those people.

HARLOW: So, Tim, just to that point --

PARLATORE: And that's just not what the standard is.

HARLOW: To that point, knowingly, appears 36 times throughout this. And there are specific instances in this where he's detailed in meetings, for example, one meeting, 17 days before the inauguration of Joe Biden where he's talking about an issue that he is being advised not to deal with. And he obviously (ph) says, we'll leave that to the other guys. There's that. That's just one of many examples that Jack Smith outlines here.

I'm interested in your view of what John Lauro has put forward as the defense are going to present here of the former president. Here he was.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURO: Our focus is on the fact that this is an attack on free speech and political advocacy. And there's nothing that's more protected under the first amendment than political speech. Mr. Trump is entitled to a defense. The government has had three years to investigate this. And now, they want to rush this to trial in the middle of a political season.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: There are -- John Lauro knows, like, you and all good lawyers know, there's a limit to free speech and it does not protect you from committing something that is criminal. Is this the argument they're going to make in court?

PARLATORE: Apparently, that's what he's saying. I never personally saw the first amendment issue here because, you know, free speech does have limits. And when free speech is tied with an intent to defraud, you know, that is criminal. But, you know, for me it always comes back to, you know, was that speech knowingly false, or was he saying things that he believed at the time?

[07:35:00]

And even if some of these things have been later determined to be false, if they were later debunked, the question is, you know, the night of January 5th, morning of January 6th, did he, at that time, believe it?

And so, you know, even when you go to, you know, people, you know, Alyssa Farah Griffin who said right after the election --

HARLOW: I can't believe I lost to his guy.

PARLATORE: -- that he said, I can't believe I lost. But that's back in November. And a lot happened between November and January. A lot of, you know, briefings that he received from his legal team. And so, whatever he believed in November isn't as, you know, key here as what did he believe on the morning --

HARLOW: All right.

PARLATORE: -- of January 6th.

HARLOW: Well, I'll just note on page 30 of this indictment, the meeting I was referring to with the chairman refers to January 3rd, three days before that --

PARLATORE: Yes.

HARLOW: -- when the president said, you're right, it's too late for us. We're going give that to the next guy, meaning President Biden. Speedy trial --

PARLATORE: And that may be an acknowledgment that the --

HARLOW: Yes.

PARLATORE: -- that the election, you know, efforts are not going to succeed, and that it is going be a change of power. Yes -- but really, what I was expecting them to find is some, you know, specific evidence. You know, some admission on, you know, early January that he knew that there was no fraud. And I didn't see that.

HARLOW: Jack Smith made a point to say in his statement last night that we're going to have a speedy trial here. When do you expect that this case will be heard?

PARLATORE: You know, a case of this magnitude it -- I don't see it possibility going to trial before the election. You know, particularly because they included the civil rights count. What they're going to have to do there is they're going to have to produce evidence and discovery of basically all of the fraud claims. And showing, you know, the defense, and then showing the jury that all of these claims beyond a reasonable doubt were not true. That the election, you know, was completely free and fair.

And just from a volume perspective, you know, saying nothing about all of the other potential constitutional issues here, I don't see how they can possibly get this case into a jury before the election, it's 15 months away.

HARLOW: Trump's legal team can fight things like the prosecution's success leading up to this in piercing attorney-client privilege when it came to accessing certain documents, memos, et cetera with Evan Corcoran, that's just one example. But strategically if this were your case, would you want this tried fully before the election or not?

PARLATORE: You know, the election is kind of -- you know, as a criminal attorney, it's kind of a sideshow because really, I would look at this case, you know, purely from the criminal aspects. And am I willing to waive certain motions and waive certain constitutional arguments just because I want to rush it in before an election? No. Am I going to raise frivolous arguments to try and push it out past an election? No.

But the reality is the criminal cases in the federal system, especially ones of this size, they just don't go to trial in 15 months. So, I think the defense would have to actively forego certain strategies in order to get this case to go before the election. I just don't see that happening.

HARLOW: Finally, Tim, what does it tell you that the six alleged co- conspirators in this indictment are for now unindicted? PARLATORE: That was surprising to me. You know, you would expect that they would indict all of the co-conspirators unless they, you know specifically already have, you know, some form of cooperation agreement. What it indicated to me was that this indictment was rushed. You know, they probably didn't have all of the evidence to be able to indict the other six.

And, you know, quite frankly, I know that they have witness interviews that are scheduled for the next few weeks that go specifically to this key element of knowledge. So, for them to have brought the indictment yesterday, really struck me as, you know, ill-timed and rushed. And I wonder, of that maybe because he wanted to beat Fani Willis to the punch and get his indictment in first. So, I don't know what's going on with this. Are they going to be a part of the superseding indictment? You know, I don't know.

HARLOW: It's interesting.

PARLATORE: It is -- it's definitely an anomaly though.

HARLOW: Interesting because John Lauro who's representing the president, you know, obviously said he thinks this could have been rubber stamped, his word, you know, a year ago. So, Tim, thanks very much for the time. It's good to have your thoughts.

PARLATORE: Thank you.

HARLOW: Elie, Elliot, any thoughts on this?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, AND FORMER FEDERAL AND NEW JERSEY STATE PROSECUTOR: So, Tim's a very smart. He knows what he's talking about. I do disagree with his assertion at the end that this indictment was rushed. I think the reason --

HARLOW: That's the opposite of what?

HONIG: Yes, I think -- obviously the opposite, it took too long. But I think the reason why they did not charge the six people is, one, give them a chance to flip. Put the leverage on them and hope that they flip. And the other thing is, to Tim's point about timing, they're trying to streamline this.

[07:40:00]

If you load up this case with seven defendants, you have zero chance of getting it tried before the election. If you limit it to one person, the most important person, you have a fighting chance of getting it in.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AND FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL, DOJ: And an entirely fair point that Tim had made there is that getting inside someone's head. We were talking about this a minute ago, as to what he believed at the time versus what we think he believed is going to be the central challenge that prosecutors are going to have to, you know -- yes? HARLOW: To your point, do you agree with him that he thinks Jack Smith's team didn't do a good job of getting to intent in this?

WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so because we don't know what evidence they have. I -- this is -- you know, what you've seen is what's on the paper. So, you're going to have to prove that he believed something at the time, not just that it happened. And I think the defense has a plausible argument there, I'm not saying it wins, but you know, he's naming what will be a central part of the defense strategy, and that's OK as a matter of while (ph).

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: All right. Guys, stick with us. We also want to talk about Capitol Hill. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, obviously not holding back their thoughts on the newest indictment on the former president. But behind the scenes, particularly with House Republicans, pretty fascinating. We're going to tell you about that coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: This morning, lawmakers on Capitol Hill divided along party lines over Former President Trump's unprecedented third indictment in their January 6th investigation. Democrats supporting the four federal charges. Some of them are calling, "The most serious and most consequential thus far."

Meanwhile, Republicans blasting the indictment as partisan justice and an attempt to distract from Hunter Biden's ongoing legal issues. In other words, this is exactly what we've seen throughout the first two indictments to some degree.

CNN's Lauren Fox joins us now. And Lauren, I think it's the -- kind of, the behind the scenes of coordination from the Trump team in advance of this that caught my eye yesterday. The preparation. Trying to keep everybody together inside the Republican conference. What do we know about that?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Phil. I mean, if it feels familiar, at least the statements themselves, it's because they are. We have seen very similar sentiments coming from House Republicans over the course of the last several indictments that Trump has faced. But you're right, the -- behind the scenes coordination is what is so compelling here, because it wasn't just a couple of hours of conversations, it really was weeks in the making.

[07:45:00]

That's because Donald Trump's team knew or guessed that this was coming in short order and they continued to shore-up support, making sure that they had that robust defense coming yesterday from the House Republicans.

But I do want to take a minute to point out that what we saw from House Republicans is different than what we saw from Senate Republican leaders. And I think that that is just an important and compelling piece of this story as we move forward because this isn't just about this moment or this indictment. It's also about who in the Republican Party is going to be the face of the party moving forward. And you see Republicans senators wanting to turn the page a bit, and that is coming from Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, John Thune who did not put out statements last night supporting Former President Donald Trump.

And you've pointed it out a few times this morning, but I'll point it out once again, that after McConnell voted to acquit Donald Trump in February of 2021. When they were moving through that impeachment trial in the Senate, he came to the floor and he gave a speech. Talking about the fact that despite the fact he voted for acquittal, there was nothing in the Justice Department and law enforcement that barred Trump from potentially seeing some kind of implications for his actions in the future.

And I just want to point out that even though we haven't heard from McConnell, we can think about that statement he made back in February 2021. Phil.

MATTINGLY: Lauren, just for clarity if you can help me on this one, if the senate minority leader wanted to make a statement, he could probably do that, right? This is like an internet connectivity --

FOX: Exactly.

MATTINGLY: -- issue?

FOX: No internet connectivity issue and --

MATTINGLY: So, I should read something into the fact, we haven't heard from Mitch McConnell yet?

FOX: I just think that this is what we've seen time and time again. He does not talk about Donald Trump's legal issues, but if he wanted to support the president -- or former president, he certainly could do that. Phil.

MATTINGLY: Yes, his floor speech during that period is pretty good reference for where he is on this. Lauren Fox, thanks so much.

HARLOW: You're very concerned about the connectivity issues of leading Republicans at this morning.

MATTINGLY: I care. I care.

HARLOW: Yes.

MATTINGLY: I want people to talk --

HARLOW: Right.

MATTINGLY: -- and converse.

HARLOW: They're not going to be in session for a while. We might not hear for a while, right?

MATTINGLY: They can put out a statement --

HARLOW: I know. I know. I know.

MATTINGLY: Just because they're running away from Manu and Lauren in the halls, and they don't have to this month, they can still put out statements.

HARLOW: Yes, and their words carry a lot of weight.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

HARLOW: They matter. The criminal indictment places Former President Trump at the center of multiple conspiracies, that's what's alleged here, to try keep himself in power. We're going to be joined by Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger who, of course, was leading the January 6th Commission. How his party is reacting to all of this in the indictment?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:50:00]

HARLOW: The latest indictment against Donald Trump reveals the former president allegedly ignored the advice of his White House counsel to allow Congress to certify the 2020 election results just hours after that violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol. According to prosecutors, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone called Trump on the evening of January 6th to, "Ask him to withdraw any objections and allow the certification. The defendant refused."

That call took place at the same time as Rudy Giuliani was on the phone with Republican senators encouraging them to contest election results. And the prosecutors alleged the allegation confirms more specific detail what Cipollone told the House January 6th Committee. Let's play that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAT CIPOLLONE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: But if your question is, did I believe he should concede the election at a point in time? Yes, I did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: With us now is one of two Republicans who served on the House January 6th Committee, CNN's Senior Political Commentator, Former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger. Congressman Kinzinger, thank you for being with us. You spent so many months, so much detailed work, and credit to you guys for pushing a lot of this forward. I wonder what you read in this indictment, what stood out to you that you didn't know?

FORMER REP. ADAM KINZINGER (R-IL), CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, there's not a ton I didn't know because I think our committee was able to get to -- down to the bottom of a lot of this. I think, you know, bringing out the unindicted co-conspirators is very interesting, and that to me is interesting to see. Some of these people -- I think that the -- that DOJ was able to talk to, of course, were people that resisted the committee. So, there will be some information in a lot of the details.

But you know, for me, it's satisfying to actually see this because Mitch McConnell actually wrote down what he said at one point. He said, this is -- and when he didn't vote to remove Trump. He said, Trump didn't get away with anything yet. We have a criminal justice system in the country and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.

And so, to be able to see that, yes, he escaped justice, if you will, when it came to impeachment because there was lack of courage in the political side, to see that he is actually coming under justice now, I think, is important for this country.

MATTINGLY: Congressman, Poppy referenced this at the top. I was not aware of the timeline that is detailed -- excuse me, between about 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. when the former president and Rudy Giuliani were continuing after the attack on the Capitol had started to finally get under control, be put down, were continuing with phone call, after phone call, after phone call to lawmakers. Asking them to continue to delay these events. Were you aware of that, because that struck me, and frankly, it was slightly enraging as somebody who's in the capitol, but did you know that those calls were occurring?

KINZINGER: Not all the details of them and not how many of them. We knew that during the attack, Rudy Giuliani was still making calls. We knew that he was making that effort. I think he had called -- I don't remember who it was at this point, and they said, I can't talk. I'm hunkered down here. And he's like, OK. Well, you know, calls the next person.

So, yes. I mean, it's just kind of cold because you think of Rudy Giuliani, you know, America's mayor after 9/11, that's not only not caring about this really craziest attack since 9/11 to happen in this country.

[07:55:00]

He's actually fueling it. And I think what's obvious is -- and I think this will come out even more when we get all the details or when the case actually gets underway, is during the 100 and some minutes, 187 minutes that Donald Trump -- that the attack on Capitol was happening, Donald Trump isn't just -- he is not just sitting there doing nothing. He is proactively resisting not just temptation, but demands from people to stop this.

You know, Donald Trump is not very good at resisting, like, kind of his emotion or resisting what the last person says to him. He, for three hours, sat there and actively did nothing until he saw that the attack was not going to work. When he saw that law enforcement had actually tipped the scales in favor of law enforcement, only then did he begrudgingly say to go home. Until then, he was actively waiting to see if this would succeed. HARLOW: Could we talk about Mike Pence here? We're going to have Marc Short who still advises Mike Pence, by the way, on the program next hour. But the fact that in this indictment, it is detailed that the day before the insurrection, January 5th, Marc Short witnessed Trump growing so frustrated with the vice president because he wouldn't do what he believed was and is unconstitutional. And that his chief of staff -- Marc Short was so concerned about Pence's safety that he alerted the head of Pence's security detail. The central role of Mike Pence in all of this, what stands out to you from this indictment?

KINZINGER: Look, you know, Mike -- the vice president did a good job on that day. I mean, we can take it away. I mean, it's -- it was his job. So, it's not -- he basically did his job on that day. And he did resist temptation, sure. He resisted that pressure from the outside. But since then, I mean, everything the vice president says is like walking this line between -- and watch it. Every comment, he and even Marc Short make, he's walking this line of, like, I don't want to tick off the Trump people, and I also want to appear fairly reasonable.

So, when he talks about this indictment, it's in the perspective of, I can't way if this is criminal. Sure, it's wrong. Look, I am not lawyer. I can't say. Well, of course, you can say if it's criminal. There is a lot of lawyers out there commenting about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden that feel OK to say whether things are criminal or not. Of course, you can say if it's criminal.

Mike Pence had the opportunity to be, I think, a hero to the Republican Party. To be the guy that stood by the Trump agenda, but then had enough on January 6th. And I don't know where he stands today. I mean, he put out a decent statement. He did a great job that day. But he's got to be the one that leads this party with others away from this insanity.

Right now, it's Chris Christie is the only one that's out there saying the truth. Asa Hutchinson, yes, and Will Hurd. But Chris Christie is the one that's powerfully putting it back to Donald Trump. Mike Pence can play that role, too, but he is not. It's just like middle ground.

Look, you can't be lukewarm, Mike. You've got to be either hot or cold. You can't be lukewarm in this. And I think that's where we are at as a party right now.

MATTINGLY: Adam Kinzinger, as Poppy noted, we're going to be talking with Former President Mike Pence's key advisor in the next hour. We appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

KINZINGER: You bet. See you.

MATTINGLY: We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:00:00]