Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Trump Indicted for Push to Overturn the 2020 Election; Dana Nessel is Interviewed about the Trump Indictment. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired August 02, 2023 - 08:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:33:09]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN LAURO, TRUMP ATTORNEY: Everything that President Trump did was with the advice of lawyers and counsel. That's an absolute defense to a criminal case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: The lawyers -- that was President Trump's lawyer this morning. Is everything to blame on the advice of counsel? How far does that defense go?

Let's bring in our experts. CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, CNN legal -- senior legal analyst Elie Honig, our political commentator Van Jones and political commentator, former Trump campaign advisor, David Urban.

Good morning, everyone.

MATTINGLY: I mean, I blame them. I blame them for everything always.

HARLOW: Never blame them. They are crucial.

(CROSS TALK)

MATTINGLY: Specifically, them. Not all lawyers, just those two.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, I get it.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That's fair.

HARLOW: They are crucial.

WILLIAMS: (INAUDIBLE).

HONIG: (INAUDIBLE) fair.

HARLOW: Blame the lawyers to an extent. First, the - I mean what I'm hearing from Lauro is, blame the lawyers and the First Amendment has no limits. There are limits to both of those things. How far do they go? HONIG: So, on the blame the lawyers defense, it works if the jury buys

it. There is a legal defense. What we call advice of counsel, meaning, my lawyer told me this was OK to do, but it's not automatic.

First of all, if you make that defense as a defendant it's risky because now your attorney-client privilege is gone. You give that up. So, every communication that the client had --

HARLOW: That's such a good point.

HONIG: It's all fair game now if they make that defense.

HARLOW: In court?

HONIG: Yes.

HARLOW: You can make it on the media all they want.

HONIG: Right. Right. Exactly. If they formally make it in court. So, that's number one.

Number two, it's not endless. If your lawyer gives you obviously preposterous advice, if you didn't really believe the advice, if you are a co-conspirator, and we just talked about how many lawyers are charged as co-conspirators, then it's not going to ultimately hold up with a jury.

MATTINGLY: David, we haven't talked to you yet.

HARLOW: Welcome.

MATTINGLY: You just didn't come hang out for the first three hours. (INAUDIBLE).

DAVID URBAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm glad to be here now.

MATTINGLY: No, we're glad to have you.

I'm interested, you know, Scott Jennings made an interesting point where he said, you know, Republicans who have openly called for their party to turn away from the former president haven't necessarily lined up behind this indictment.

[08:35:01]

What's your sense of it on first read?

URBAN: Yes, I think that, you know, to a large extent the Republicans in Congress reflect their congressional districts, right, and they reflect their states from which they come, right? So, you'll see folks from purple states, you know, have one - one expression here, and then you'll see folks from very -- you know, R-plus 24 districts being standing right with Trump. They're not going to - they're not going to waiver because their - because their voters, their constituents at home are - are with the former president. And that's, you know, that's something that's very interesting. I talked about this - we talked about this yesterday a little bit. If

you look at polling, you know, "The New York Times" poll was out just yesterday, Trump is doing incredibly well, not just in the primary, but in the general election in a head-to-head against Joe Biden. And I'm not quite sure that this - this indictment or the next coming indictment by Fani Williams (ph) or another indictment down the road is going to make any difference there. So, as long as that's the case, I don't think you'll see a lot of daylight between, you know, elected officials from safe districts and the president.

HARLOW: Van.

VAN JONES, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Depressing. That's depressing.

URBAN: But true. But stay (ph) true. True.

MATTINGLY: No, but actually that brings up an interesting point. Are -- two of my White House colleagues, Jeremey Diamond and Kevin Liptak, wrote a really great story about how this is complicated for the current president, who would be running against Trump if he were the general election nominee, because democracy, democracy versus autocracy, the erosion of democracy or threats of that have been so central to his 2020 campaign, to his geopolitical strategy over the course of the last two plus years. And yet, on this particular indictment, something he believes deeply when it comes to January 6th about just how terrible it was, he can't and won't say anything because he doesn't want to look like he's got his thumb on the scale.

JONES: Well, and I'm glad. I don't want him to say - I want him to say --

MATTINGLY: But how do you run an election without mentioning this, or run a campaign?

JONES: I think - well, I think he can talk about what everybody knows and feels, which is that there's a fragility. When I grew up, America felt strong and felt solid. You know, we were scared of nuclear attacks from the Soviet Union and stuff like that, but it felt like you had a solid thing here and other countries were kind of weird, they all had kind of like insurrectional movements and people trying to have coups. And, you know, like all those poor, silly people over there.

That feels like it's come here. We've somehow exported jobs and imported instability. And so I think that Joe Biden will speak to it. He won't have to talk about this particular case. I think he's talking about something that's deeply felt.

HARLOW: I think, you know, you just make me think about the American experiment.

JONES: Yes.

HARLOW: And it's not a guarantee. And, you know, Fitch just downgraded our debt, by the way.

URBAN: Yes, you -

HARLOW: And CNN's - huge, they talked about erosion of governance, but then CNN's reporting is that in the meeting with the Biden White House, the Fitch folks said -

JONES: You're talking about the insurrection.

HARLOW: January 6th, the insurrection. And that goes to the core of what you're saying.

JONES: It really does. And, you know, we're all friends here. We've been talking about this for a long time. Part of what's going on here is that constitutions are not perfect, OK? They're not. We have a convention in this country that on election night, or close after, if you lost the vote, you'd have a concession speech. That's a convention. It's not required.

What happens if you don't concede? If you don't concede, it turns out in our Constitution there's a whole bunch of other weird tiky, taky stuff. There's extra innings in our Constitution that nobody's ever played in hard. So, Trump goes and plays in those extra innings. Wait, what about this thing? What about the vice president?

Now, the question is, is that wrong? No, it's not wrong. You can play in extra innings, but you can't cheat. You can't lie. You can't defraud.

And so what's going to happen is, the other side's going to say, all Trump did was exercise his rights under our Constitution. And people who don't know this stuff will be confused. And so part of the challenge you've got here is, Constitutions aren't perfect. Everybody didn't go to civics class. Everybody's not a news nerd like us. And people are going to be easily confused.

There is a - there is a reality here that, yes, you could legitimately ask more questions after the voting. People don't usually do it. But if you asked those questions, you can't lie and cheat. And he did.

MATTINGLY: Elliot, does that complicate the legal side of this? Legal precedent here.

WILLIAMS: There's no - well, there is, though, right? There's no precedent in so far as the defendant is a former president of the United States.

MATTINGLY: Who has also done what Van's doing in terms of playing the extra innings -

WILLIAMS: Right.

MATTINGLY: To a degree -

WILLIAMS: Sure.

MATTINGLY: And at a level no one's ever seen.

WILLIAMS: Sure. But the idea of conspiracy to defraud the United States as a crime.

JONES: Cheating.

WILLIAMS: Cheating. And not even of money, right? Because when we they of the word fraud, defraud, you think about lying to take some money or something. But that statute has applied throughout history to obstructing government, in effect, through deceit or fraud or, as the Supreme Court has said, chicanery, actually used as the word in the Supreme Court case in the 1920s.

So, this idea that there's no template here, like, I think were the president a sitting president and this question of, can you charge a sitting president with a crime, of course that would be a much harder legal question.

[08:40:03]

But I think we're getting wrapped up in this idea of what someone's job used to be when you're really talking about trying a private citizen for a very serious crime that he committed in the past.

MATTINGLY: All right, guys, stay with us. We've got a lot more to get to on this.

The new indictment against former President Trump mentions the state of Michigan 39 times. The state was a key focus in the special counsel's investigation into the efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Michigan's attorney general, Dana Nessel, joins us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARLOW: A key focus of the special counsel's investigation into Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election is Michigan. That state is mentioned 39 times in this new indictment. Trump has said multiple times there was an illegal dump of votes in Detroit in the middle of the night during the election despite top Republican state lawmakers there at the time telling Trump that he had lost Michigan, not because of fraud, quote, but because the defendant had underperformed with certain voter populations in the state. That is according to this indictment.

Joining me this morning is Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel.

Two weeks ago, I should note, she was in the headlines because she charged 16 fake electors who signed certificates falsely claiming Trump won the Michigan - won Michigan in the 2020 election.

Madame Attorney General, thank you very much for joining me.

You've read through this. Your state is all over this thing 39 times. What is the significance of Michigan, do you believe, and what state officials there told Trump, now the defendant, about what actually happened in your state in the 2020 election?

DANA NESSEL (D), MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, you know, 2020 was, obviously, such a challenging year for us here in Michigan in regard to the election. I mean these false claims of voter fraud, voter irregularity were coming at us fast and furiously, lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.

[08:45:01]

As we know, none of those lawsuits were successful. Not a single claim that was made by any of the Trump attorneys, you know, was given any credence at all in any court. But, nonetheless, you know, it was utilized as a mechanism to dispute the election. And it's had these long-lasting implications.

But what my real concern here is this. You know, reading through the indictment that was handed down yesterday, you know, we're talking about lawyers who spearheaded this at the national level. Let's look at all the co-conspirators, right, Giuliani, Powell, Eastman, Clark, Chesebro, you know. And then you had all the lawyers that were charged with carrying these plans out at the state level, many of whom now have begun to be charged for their role that they played.

But the problem is this, virtually none of these attorneys, with the one exception of Rudy Giuliani, has been disbarred. There's been practically no consequences for them whatsoever. They continue to file meritless lawsuits. They continue to have law licenses, which allows them to undermine our democratic processes here in Michigan and all around the state or all around the nation.

HARLOW: One of the things that struck me, and is detailed about Michigan, is a text from co-conspirator one, Rudy Giuliani, to the then-house speaker in Michigan, a Republican. And it's about assisting and reversing the ascertainment of Biden electors. Let me read you what the indictment says that text is. Quote, from Giuliani, looks like Georgia may well hold some factual hearings and change certification as co-conspirator two explained they don't just have the right to do it, but the obligation. He goes on to say, help me get this done in Michigan. This is allegedly Rudy Giuliani to the former house speaker in Michigan, a Republican.

How extensive were these efforts?

NESSEL: Well, there were - there were, obviously, multiple efforts. And what's not really talked about in the indictment is the fact that when the former speaker, Lee Chatfield (ph), and the former senate majority leader, you know, Mike Sherky (ph), refused to go along with the plan, Donald Trump personally docks them, you know, sent out their personal cellphone numbers in an effort to try to intimidate them, you know.

And I will say, on behalf of the former senate majority leader and speaker, you know, they did not fall for this and they stood strong and they did not make any efforts to convene into session their chambers to try to disrupt what was already a certified election.

HARLOW: One of the things -

NESSEL: That doesn't change the fact that the president tried.

HARLOW: Sorry to step on your toes there.

One of the things in your indictment is also a text exchange of these 16 fake electors in your state, that one of them indicated, quote, we were all asked to keep silent as to not draw attention to what other states were doing similar to ours. Now we know Jack Smith and his team in their indictment lay out these seven states.

Was there a larger coordination among false electors, do you believe, from Michigan to other states?

NESSEL: Well, what we know is this, is that you had -- again, you had these national attorneys that were coordinating with states. And each of the states, there were Trump attorneys that were dispensed to those states. And you also had members of the state GOP that were helping to coordinate these plans as well.

So, it was like a spider web, you know? And you had, you know, tentacles that reached into each of these seven targeted states. And that -- that's not necessarily to say that everyone in each state knew what was happening in the other states.

HARLOW: Right.

NESSEL: But it was all coordinated from Trump himself.

HARLOW: So - so, to that point, I do wonder, finally, if you have had conversations since you charged those 16 people, you know, about a week plus ago, with other state attorneys general, for example, in Arizona or other states?

NESSEL: Yes, I had a few conversations. I am going to say this. In each instance, the law is different. The authority of the state attorney general is different in state by state. And the facts and circumstances differ as to exactly how this was carried out, even what the language was on the false slate, you know, certification form.

So, you know, things are not the same necessarily in Michigan as in other states. But I think what we've learned from this is that while certainly Jack Smith is doing his best to hold people accountable who devised this plan and who were at the very top of it, there are so many others that were involved in this conspiracy at the state level who have yet to have been charged.

HARLOW: Do you plan to bring more charges against people you believe are in that group in your state?

NESSEL: I haven't ruled it out.

[08:50:01]

Candidly, I was waiting to see what Jack Smith did in regard to he -- who he was charging. And that's going to, you know, create further evaluation by my department as to whether or not we have to charge any additional bad actors.

HARLOW: OK. We'll follow that closely. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, thank you.

NESSEL: Thanks for having me.

HARLOW: Phil.

MATTINGLY: Well, President Trump is expected to head to federal court tomorrow for his arraignment. New details when CNN's special live coverage continues. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Well, a key pillar in the special counsel's indictment against Donald Trump is the multipronged effort by Trump and his allies to target seven states where Biden eventually won. That includes Georgia, where another indictment may soon be coming in response to Trump's efforts to overflow the election. Earlier this morning we spoke with former Georgia State Senator Jen Jordan, who was called to testify before the Fulton County grand jury.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEN JORDAN, FORMER GEORGIA STATE SENATOR: 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 isn't 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: That's a good point. We'll bring the panel back now.

Final words. Thinking through that lens but also the indictment generally.

WILLIAMS: There's a lot of cases around the country, Phil. And I think what we saw from the attorney general a moment ago, and this here, is that you've got any number of states that can bring cases against the former president. Now, some of that evidence will overlap with what was in the indictment yesterday, but this is incredibly complex. And I'm not certain that every one of these state cases is going to be as strong as what we see in the indictment here.

I know Elie Honig feels very strongly about this point, too.

HONIG: I'm chomping. WILLIAMS: Yes.

HONIG: I'm officially chomping. I think the Michigan criminal prosecution of fake electors is in big trouble. Here's why. We all agree, I think, Jack Smith is thorough, right? We all agree Jack Smith is aggressive. Jack Smith has not charged any state electors, nor he's referenced them several times in this indictment, but he does not label them as CC 1, 2, 6, anything. He does not even say they are co- conspirators. In fact, he says in this indictment that some of those fake electors, he doesn't specify which, they were tricked, they were duped. And so the Michigan attorney general has now charged 16, every one who signed that.

HARLOW: Because she needs to prove knowing intent?

WILLIAMS: Everybody, yes.

HONIG: She has to -- absolutely has to prove intent. I think she's going to have a big problem with that.

HARLOW: Next time you sit next to me during the interview, OK, Elie.

HONIG: Happy to do it.

HARLOW: OK.

URBAN: Sounds like some chicanery.

[08:55:02]

MATTINGLY: The Urban word of the day.

HARLOW: Yes, right.

WILLIAMS: You're welcome.

MATTINGLY: What are you thinking right now? You've had a good - a great big picture view over the last 18, 19 hours. How are you thinking spinning this forward?

JONES: Look, I think, you know, if you're Donald Trump, federal charges, state charges, local charges. You're catching case after case after case and your poll numbers are fine. Your opponents, who are supposed to be running against you, can't lay a glove on you. So, I think we're in a different place than I think most Americans assume. If you're on one side of this asteroid collision you think our guy is being, you know, persecuted and we're going to prove it all. If you're on the other side, you say, look, this guy is a criminal and he's trying to destroy democracy. There's going to be a collision here. There's going to be a collision here. And I think both sides are going to be shocked by the strength of the other side's arguments, the strength of the other side's passion and the strength of the other side's sense of being aggrieved here.

I think, even right now, in these conversations, you're like, wait a minute, Republicans, this morning, "The Wall Street Journal" isn't applauding this? " The Wall Street Journal" is biting their nails saying they don't agree with this indictment? We don't know where we are right now is what I'm saying.

WILLIAMS: You know, an important point, Van, when we read an indictment and everybody's, oh, it's so strong, the evidence is so great, it has not been stress tested yet in any way.

HARLOW: They're allegations.

WILLIAMS: They are allegations and someone's, you know, obviously, innocent until proven guilty. But they're allegations. You don't -- you haven't heard a defense argument, you haven't heard an opening statement, you haven't heard legal challenges. And those will all come. And it's the defendant's right to bring them.

HARLOW: And defense counsel doesn't speak before this grand jury.

URBAN: Well, and I'd say, none of these cases are going to be heard before the election. I mean, I don't see -- I know you guys think it's going to happen, but, you know, Judge Canon in the first case said May, set a date for May, and labeled it as complex litigation so it can slide. Those -- when Trump becomes the nominee they're going to go back to, he's a nominee, he can't do this now. That date's going to slide. So, everything's going to be tried after this. And I think the American people, at the election in 2024, in the presidential election, they'll be the ultimate jurors in this case. They'll decide whether they want Donald Trump to be president again or if they want Joe Biden to be the president again. That's what we're going to see here in the end.

HARLOW: David, Van, Elliot, Elie, thank you all very much.

Thank you for being with us for all of the news this morning. We'll be right back here tomorrow morning with you.

"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:00]