Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Special Counsel Jack Smith Indicts Former President Trump on Four Criminal Counts Related to His Attempt to Overthrow 2020 Presidential Election; Former Vice President Mike Pence's Chief of Staff Interviewed on His Attitude toward Recent Trump Indictments. Aired 8-8:30a ET

Aired August 02, 2023 - 08:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[08:00:35]

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The person who swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution is accused of trying to overthrow America's free and fair elections in an attempt to stay in power.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our focus is on the fact that this is an attack on free speech and political advocacy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To me, I think it's a tremendous shift in their argument.

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: This is from certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's the unlawful means? There was an effort to get alternate electors.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He was trying to overturn the --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which is a protocol that was --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, fake electors who were not legitimate.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump participated in each substantially and personally.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is more nervous about this because so many other folks involved.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My father-in-law, Donald Trump, who did exactly what you would want a president to do --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The only person or people whose view matters are the jurors who will eventually be sat and listen to the facts.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Will anyone else face charges, and will more details be revealed?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to our special coverage. Good morning, everyone. A really significant day for America, certainly a day that history will remember. And looking ahead to tomorrow, because former President Donald Trump will appear in a D.C. courtroom tomorrow after a federal grand jury returned an historic indictment against the former president for his alleged role in trying to overturn the 2020 election in order to stay in power.

Also this morning, city and federal law enforcement officials preparing for that appearance tomorrow. Trump's campaign calls the indictment, quote, election interference, even going so far as to baselessly call it, quote, reminiscent of Nazi Germany. Special Counsel Jack Smith spoke publicly to underline the seriousness and gravity of all of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JACK SMITH, SPECIAL COUNSEL: The attack on our nation's capital on January 6th, 2021, was an unprecedented assault on the seat of American democracy. As described in the indictment, it was fueled by lies, lies by the defendant targeted at obstructing a bedrock function of the U.S. government, the nation's process of collecting, counting, and certifying the results of the presidential election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Also this morning, we are starting to get a pretty good sense of what Trump's defense is going to look like. His lawyer, John Lauro, responded to -- to the criminal indictments just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN LAURO, TRUMP ATTORNEY: The government in a criminal case has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt criminal intent and corrupt intent. They have to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that, number one, President Trump did not believe that all these irregularities were true, and number two, that he did something to corruptly obstruct justice. And they can't prove that because everything he did was to get at the truth.

The bottom line is that they have 60 federal agents working on this, 60 lawyers, all kinds of government personnel, and we get this indictment and they want to go to trial in 90 days. Does that sound like justice to you?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: The former president now faces four criminal counts, conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts relating to an obstruction of an official proceeding, and a charge under a law against conspiring to deprive people of civil rights provided under federal law or the Constitution. The top charges carry a maximum of 20 years in prison.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz joins us now. Katelyn, Trump has been summoned to appear in a D.C. courtroom tomorrow. What's that going to look like?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: Phil and Poppy, we are still waiting to confirm that he will be here in person. Right now, the expectation is that Donald Trump will need to come to court in person to face these charges for the first time. That hearing tomorrow, it will be before a magistrate judge, a judge that typically sees the criminal defendants once they are initially charged, but then hands off the case to the federal district judge that oversees the case to trial. So the magistrate appearance tomorrow is very likely to be just that initial check-in, making sure Trump knows his rights, knows what he is charged with. And also he may have the opportunity, very likely will have the opportunity to enter his initial pleading of not guilty, which is of course expected here, and by what his lawyers are saying, very much what is expected through the course of this case to take him the whole way to trial.

[08:05:00]

Now, once that is done, then the rest of the court kicks up into focus as we get through all of the things that need to take place to set the parameters of a trial. That will all be before Judge Tanya Chutkan. And there is a lot of questions on exactly how this judge will handle this case. The prosecutors that she has before her from the special counsel's office and the Justice Department, they are extremely experienced in this court. They are formerly with the D.C. U.S. attorney's office, so they have tried public integrity cases like this. And so seeing how this court works, how fast it will move, exactly how it will approach Donald Trump as a defendant connected to January 6th after this court has seen hundreds of rioter cases and sentenced many of them, that is going to be a really big thing to watch for as the case moves forward.

And of course, to the other thing the special counsel's office announced yesterday, is that the investigation does appear to be ongoing, that they continue to look at the actions of other individuals.

MATTINGLY: Katelyn, I do want to ask you, John Lauro, the president's attorney, has been making the rounds. But last night and this morning, as part of that he floated the idea, interesting idea of a change of venue. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you seek a venue change?

JOHN LAURO, TRUMP ATTORNEY: Absolutely.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where do you want it to go instead? LAURO: There's other options. There's certainly West Virginia, which

is close by. There's other areas of the country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: West Virginia?

LAURO: Absolutely. It's in close in proximity to D.C.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which is like the political opposite of Washington, D.C.? You think he'll get a fair trial there?

LAURO: Well, it's much more diverse than Washington, D.C., which I think went 95 percent for Mr. Biden.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One other thing --

LAURO: Or there's other places.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: I am not sure "diverse" is the word he was looking for there. What are the chances that actually happens?

POLANTZ: Well, it's an interesting idea, one that is very likely expected. But it's not a novel idea, Phil and Poppy. Lots of criminal defendants, especially related to January 6th and related to Donald Trump, have come to this court before, are set to go to trial here, and have asked to move the venue. Typically, they are arguing things -- we don't know exactly what Trump will argue, but typically they've argued things like they can't have a fair trial because of the political climate in Washington, D.C.

Now, the judges have largely rejected, actually I think they rejected every time that request has been put before them because there are mechanisms that this court uses to make sure that the jury pool that they get is a fair one and that the jurors are talking their responsibility very seriously. We have seen that. We have seen acquittals of certain counts related to January 6th.

And of course, a reminder of what is really important here is that if these cases are brought in D.C., they are very likely being tried here because the victims are here as well. The actions of January 6th took place in Washington, D.C.

MATTINGLY: That's a great point. Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much. Poppy?

HARLOW: Let's get a lot more here at the magic wall with our CNN legal analyst Elie Honig. Elie, let's talk about the six alleged co- conspirators who, at least to our knowledge, have not yet been indicted.

ELIE HONIG, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: First of all, really important that prosecutors chose to use the label co-conspirator or CC one through six, as we use in the lingo. Prosecutors don't use that label lightly. It indicates that the prosecutors believe the people were part of the crime. Now, will they be charged remains to be seen. Often, but not always, CC one through six, people in that position do end up charged, but not always.

Let's run through what we know. CC One, co-conspirator one, not surprisingly, Rudy Giuliani, the indictment makes clear, he was the point person. He spread the false claims of election fraud when other attorneys on Donald Trump's election team would not do so. So he is listed as the first co-conspirator.

Number two, John Eastman. He is the constitutional scholar who came up with this whole legal strategy that we can pressure Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes, a theory that has been roundly rejected throughout the legal community. He is number two.

Number three, Sidney Powell, the Trump lawyer, who came up with these unfounded claims of election fraud that Donald Trump himself, according to the indictment, described those as crazy. When we talk about intent, did Donald Trump know --

HARLOW: That's a good point.

HONIG: That's a key part of the indictment. Donald Trump himself said Sidney Powell's theories of election fraud, crazy.

Number four, Jeffrey Clark. He was a DOJ official, and his role was to try to weaponize DOJ. He tried to get DOJ to open investigations based on bogus claims. He tried to get DOJ to pressure states.

Number five was another attorney, Kenneth Chesebro, who was involved in the scheme to submit fake electors.

Let me just pause for a moment. The first five are all lawyers. This is a dark day for the legal profession.

Number six, we don't know who it is. It's a political consultant also involved in that scheme.

HARLOW: Options they have now? Cooperation is one, but --

HONIG: They can flip, or they can wait and hold their breath and hope they don't get indicted. That's a risky bet.

HARLOW: Also, what do we know about the judge in this case? Randomly assigned?

HONIG: Yes.

HARLOW: But Judge Chutkan has been tough on January 6th defendants.

HONIG: So first of all, she was a public defender for over a decade. So she is going to understand the importance of due process in the defendants' rights.

[08:10:02]

She was nominated by President Obama, confirmed in 2014. But remember, she was confirmed by the Senate 95-0. She has been tough on her January 6th defendants. She said of one of them, he did not go to the United States capital out of love for our country, he went for one man. That is now the one man who is on trial before her.

HARLOW: Fascinating. Elie, thank you very much. Phil?

MATTINGLY: We learned from the indictment that investigators obtained contemporaneous notes from then Vice President Pence as part of the probe. Those notes document a conversation five days before the January 6th attack on the Capitol where Trump, quote, berated Pence for opposing a lawsuit filed to try and authorize Pence to reject the election results. Pence told Trump it was unconstitutional. Trump responded, you're too honest.

According to the indictment a few days later, Trump asked Pence again to obstruct the certification of the election. When Pence refused, Trump said he would have to publicly criticize him. Upon learning of this, Pence's chief of staff Marc Short alerted the head of the vice president's secret service detail because he was concerned for his safety.

Marc Short joins us now. Marc, based on your read of the indictment and your sense of where the former vice president is on this, do you believe there is clear evidence of criminality?

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: It's hard for me to know whether there was criminality, honestly, Phil. I think that what the president did was wrong. I think we've been outspoken about that.

I think that one of the biggest shifts that I think we have seen, though, in the last 24 hours, if you just pull back for a second, I think it's pretty tremendous, which is that for two-and-a-half years I think the president and his team argued that, look, the election was stolen, it was fraudulent, and if I only had my chance to present my evidence, like the court's rejected the chance to do that, the Congress rejected the chance to share my evidence. Well, if he has the evidence, then all these conspiracy charges would go away.

But that's not the case that you hear his defense team presenting. Instead, what they are saying he has a First Amendment right, which is in essence saying all elected officials lie. Are you going to charge everybody? Which I think is a dramatic shift to say, look, it was stolen, I never had a chance to present my evidence, to now saying, look, yes, maybe Mike Pence was right and really I don't know that it was stolen, but I have a right to tell the American people misrepresentations, which I think is a dramatic change in what they have been saying publicly in the last 24 hours.

HARLOW: The indictment, Marc, details contemporaneous notes that the vice president took. There are few people closer to him then and now than you. How detailed are those notes when he takes them?

SHORT: Poppy, I think that the reality is that almost all of those notes are represented in the vice president's memoir. And so for anyone who is curious, then can read his book.

HARLOW: So no more than that, really?

SHORT: I think they form much of what he wrote in the chapters in the book.

HARLOW: Will he testify?

SHORT: I am not sure that he will be called to testify. I think it seems that the facts of what Mike Pence did --

HARLOW: He's pretty central.

SHORT: Well, he is a central part, sure. But I think much of what he has represented is public. I think it seems what the charges are more on the conspiracy front, as opposed to facts of what Mike Pence did.

HARLOW: Marc in reading through the former vice president's statement last night, it was stronger than most of the others, the Republicans that are running for the Republican nomination in 2024, save for Chris Christie, Will Hurd, those types. And yet there are still Republicans who say Mike Pence -- we just had one on, Adam Kinzinger talking about how Pence was a hero on that day. And yet, this is what he said. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: 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. You can't be lukewarm, Mike. You've got to be either hot or cold. You can't be lukewarm in this?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: What's your response to that?

SHORT: I don't think anybody really questions where Mike Pence stands. I think he did what he was called to under the Constitution on January 6th. I think if you go back to his announcement speech, honestly, less than two months ago, Phil, he laid out the case very specifically as to why Donald Trump should not be president again. If he violates his oath of the Constitution and asked his vice president to violate his oath, he laid that out very clearly.

I think Adam is still jaded and upset that Vice President Pence didn't testify before the January 6th committee, and I think that colors his commentary a lot.

HARLOW: Is that you saying that you don't believe Vice President Mike Pence will change his answers to these questions going forward or change, or make more explicit how wrong he thinks it was? I mean, I vividly remember when he spoke with Dana Bash a few weeks ago on STATE OF THE UNION. She asked him, do you believe it's criminal. He won't go there. Are we going to hear the same from him?

SHORT: Well, I think what he has been -- and he has been clear on this, Poppy. He said that his actions he has written about in his book, he has talked about he does not think that Donald Trump should be president again, or else he wouldn't be running himself. And so he's been very clear with the American people about that. But I think he also said, my preference is for the American people to pass judgment on Donald Trump and his actions that day, as opposed to a criminal system that right now, I think many of us on the right feel is partisan and does have a two-tiered system of justice.

[08:15:00]

And so, I think his case has been, let's the American people decide, let's put the facts in front of them, and let them and history pass judgment on Donald Trump. And I think that's his preference. Having said that, you know, I do think that he's been very clear that these charges are real.

And the reality is that -- is that Donald Trump did ask his Vice President to put Donald Trump above the Vice President's oath to the Constitution. And he said that very clearly is a reason why he's running for office himself.

MATTINGLY: Marc, there's six unnamed co-conspirators in the indictment. I think you had dealings, you and the Vice President had dealings with a number of them, most notably, John Eastman, the lawyer who you guys battled with for several days, maybe longer than that. Do you believe that they should all be indicted?

SHORT: You know, again, I think that the President listened to some terrible advice. And I think that many of the people that are listed there were the ones offering that advice. To what extent that is criminal, Phil, I don't know. I think that we expressed our disagreements with John Eastman.

I think he had more than novel theories about the Vice President's role, something that no vice president 250 years of our Republican ever asserted, nor would I think John Eastman suggests to you today, that he thinks Kamala Harris should have that authority in 2024, to just unilaterally reject electors from various states, perhaps the Republican one.

And so, I think it was wrong in every single way. But to extend it, whether or not it's offering a novel theory to the -- to the President is criminal, I defer to others who have better judgment on that.

HARLOW: Well, it's really good to have your perspective this morning, former Chief of Staff, Current Adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short. Thanks.

SHORT: Thanks, Poppy.

HARLOW: Sure. Ahead, there has been strong support from Trump -- for Trump among his Republican allies in Congress. We'll be joined by one of them, straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WILL HURD (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is not about the weaponization of the government. This is not about the people that serve on Grand Juries in Washington D.C. This is about Donald Trump losing the election trying to use everything possible within his power to overturn that election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That was former Congressman Will Hurd, reacting to Trump's third indictment. He and Chris Christie are two of the Republican Presidential candidates condemning the former President for his actions. Christie tweeting, quote, "The events around the White House from election night forward are a stain on our country's history. This disgrace falls the most on Donald Trump. He swore an oath to the Constitution, violated his oath and brought shame to the presidency."

[08:20:12]

Joining us now is a Republican who has endorsed Donald Trump, Congressman Mike Waltz of Florida. Congressman, I appreciate your time.

First question I have, one of the responses from the Trump campaign was that this was reminiscent of Concordat Nazi Germany or Stalin's Stalinist Russia. Do you believe that's an accurate assessment?

REP. MIKE WALTZ (R-FL): Look, I think this is a very dangerous time in our history. I think this is incredibly concerning. I do think this is a weaponization of post-election speech. And I have to say, all of the people who claim that the 2016 election wasn't legitimate, all of the people who claimed in 2004, with a formal objection in the Congress, that that election wasn't legitimate, and in fact, objected to the point where they said that the voting machines in Ohio were tampered with, and that President Bush was selected, not elected -- and not to mention former presidents of the United States and secretary of states, Hillary Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and a whole slew of House Democrats who repeatedly led the nation to believe -- lied to the nation, that they said Russia selected Donald Trump as president, that the election was completely illegitimate. All of that was allowed to pass, but, yet, once again, we see a criminalization when it comes to Donald Trump.

MATTINGLY: So --

WALTZ: And I think, guys, you're going to have all kinds of analysts on here diving into the weeds, on the Electoral Count Act, on the Presidential Records Act, on all kinds of interpretation of the law. But I hope you don't lose the forest for the trees, that this is dangerously badly eroding public trust in the fairness of the law and the fairness of the Department of Justice in our institutions. And that is someone who's out on the ground talking to voters every day and every week is what I'm seeing is --

MATTINGLY: No excuse -- to that point, do you feel like a president who has lost an election, lying repeatedly about the vote to his supporters, and then leading and helping attempt to enact a scheme to overturn an election he lost, that that's not divisive, that that isn't problematic, that that doesn't create significant issues inside the country?

WALTZ: Well, I mean, frankly, it doesn't surprise me that you're presenting that as facts.

MATTINGLY: Which parts of that do you think are not?

WALTZ: At that time -- at the time that President Trump believed he was driving towards the truth. Believe the election -- it was -- it was being tampered with, that the Democrats changed the rules under the guise of COVID, in some cases, legally or illegally.

But if he's driving towards the truth, you have to prove intent that he knew none of that was true. Again, we're talking about someone that you confirm he was wrong--

MATTINGLY: I'm not asking from -- Congressman, I'm not asking from a legal basis, though.

WALTZ: -- you could argue, but to -- but no, but not criminalize that. And what I'm saying is that someone I would think, in the Department of Justice should say, hey, folks, let's tap the brakes here. This is not only a former president, it's a sitting candidate who is the leading --

MATTINGLY: Right.

WALTZ: -- voice and the leading political candidate against our boss, that should be a much, much higher bar. I've served --

(CROSSTALK)

WATLZ: -- all the time. This happens in Pakistan. This happens in places around the world and Africa where I've served. I never thought I'd see it happen here in the United States.

MATTINGLY: Right. But --

WALTZ: And I just can't underscore how damaging it is.

MATTINGLY: No, I understand that. Sort of attempted coups, which I think is the problem here. If you have to have a higher bar for a former president, isn't that a two-tiered justice system?

WALTZ: No. I think that is someone who is exercising prosecutorial discretion. I think that is -- and I do think there should be some consideration when you have the leading political opponent of the party in power. I mean, that just seems to me to be so obvious. And look, guys, it's not as though someone walked in on President Trump holding a gun over a murder victim, or he was caught selling secrets to the Chinese or Russians.

These are incredibly complex, legal theories that a lot of people are going to debate. And now that we're in an election year, someone should have said, hey, folks, let's slow down here. This is going to be damaging the country, because I can tell you tens of Americans, tens of millions of Americans out there believe this is all about getting Trump.

I just had a family member last night, who's a registered Independent, can't stand Trump, say if he dropped out of the race tomorrow, this would all go away. And I think that's what a heck of a lot of people believe. I don't know how we put Pandora back in the box after these indictments.

[08:25:12]

MATTINGLY: Congressman, I do want to ask you. Usually, we're talking it's about your role in the Foreign Relations Committee, also in the Intelligence Committee. There have been several drone attacks in Moscow over the course of the last week or two. Do you believe that there is a shift in the dynamic related to how Ukraine operates with Russia on Russian territory?

WALTZ: Yes, it was -- it was notable that the Ukrainians are fully taking credit for these attacks in Russia. And one of the things that you're going to continue to see from me and others coming out of the House, I do believe there should be conditionality on our aid going forward. The Europeans have to step up and do more, this is right in their backyard.

And we have to have a strategy from the administration on how this ends. Look, I do think that the Ukrainians are willing to do the fighting and dying, and they're asking us for the beans and bullets. That has been a worthwhile investment for the United States to stop Putin.

But at the end of the day, as this counterattack flounders, and as it struggles, this does seem like we are inching towards a long-term protracted conflict. And the Europeans have got to, when it comes to long term aid, I think, do a heck of a lot more they've done half of what the United States has provided.

MATTINGLY: Can I do a real quick before I let you go? The former president now the leading --

WALTZ: Sure.

MATTINGLY: -- candidate for the Republican nomination, who you endorsed in April. When he was talking about conditionality this past weekend, he said it should be tied to investigations and evidence being turned over by the FBI, DOJ and IRS related to the Biden family. Do you believe that conditionality should be pursued?

WALTZ: Well, look, I think it's a -- it is incredibly significant that, you know, we had a major oil and gas company that was known to be corrupt in Burisma that had Hunter Biden on a --

MATTINGLY: Right.

WALTZ: -- payroll with no, I mean, with no expertise. Either an oil and gas or --

(CROSSTALK) MATTINGLY: I think what I'm trying to understand is tying the Ukrainian aid to that.

WALTZ: And now we have whistleblowers. Now, we have whistleblowers saying that they weren't allowed to investigate this. That the FBI did not hand information over to the IRS. And that we now have his business partner saying Biden interfered from a directly -- from a policy perspective, to fire a prosecutor looking into corruption. That is corruption at the highest level.

And again, going back to the big picture, the context, when people see that being ignored by this Department of Justice, or even interfered with, yet, we see them throwing the book at President Trump in the middle of an election year, that looks like two-tiered justice to most Americans, that looks like it's unfair, and it's eroding trust in our institutions, which is horrible for this country.

MATTINGLY: My question was whether or not, do you think that you should tie Ukrainian aid in its war against Russia to those investigations or a production to those investigations?

WALTZ: Yes, I think -- look, I think the Ukrainians -- I think the Ukrainians -- if a -- if a prosecutor looking into corruption was corruptly forced to be fired and aid was withheld, as President Biden has bragged about that, he withheld billions of dollars of aid until this prosecutor was fired, I think that absolutely should be turned over.

MATTINGLY: All right. For what it's worth, I covered that administration, that was kind of the view of all Western countries at that point in time, related to that prosecutor. But that is an ongoing investigation, you guys did have Devon Archer in to testify earlier this week.

Congressman Mike Waltz, I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you.

WALTZ: And I'd love to see a lot more coverage to that guy. But I appreciate it. Good to be on with you, thanks.

HARLOW: The American people deserve a trial before the election next year, and will they get one.

MATTINGLY: And President Biden has tried to distance himself from the Justice Department's investigations of the former President, but let's call him a quick threat to democracy. How will he respond to the third indictment? We'll discuss, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:00]