Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
Trump Appears in Court for 3rd Indictment, Pleads Not Guilty; Video Shows Russian Warship Listing after Ukrainian Attack; Two Navy Sailors Accused of Sharing Sensitive Information with Chinese Intelligence Officers. Aired 6-6:30a ET
Aired August 04, 2023 - 06:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. It's Friday. We're really glad you're with us. It has been quite a week for this country.
[06:00:48]
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR/CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Quite a week, and consequential, historic. Also, framing what is going to be a very intense, consequential and historic months ahead.
HARLOW: Yes.
MATTINGLY: Maybe years ahead, to some degree.
HARLOW: Three -- three trials. Let's get started with "Five Things to Know" for this Friday, August 4.
Sour, dejected, defiant. We have new reporting this morning about Donald Trump's state of mind after he was indicted for the third time in four months. The former president proclaiming his innocence and accusing the special counsel of leading a political persecution.
Also new overnight, more than three dozen Democratic lawmakers want to watch the trial. They want a judge to allow cameras in a federal courtroom.
MATTINGLY: And in just a few hours, the July jobs report will come out. A key number for the Fed as it plots its next move.
Also this morning, a reenactment of the Parkland high school shooting will bring gunfire back to Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School today, as part of a lawsuit against the officer who failed to enter the building when a gunman killed 17 people.
HARLOW: Two U.S. Navy sailors under arrest this morning and have been indicted for allegedly sending sensitive military information to Chinese intelligence officers.
MATTINGLY: And if you're one of the thousands of Swifties heading to Los Angeles this weekend, fair warning. Politicians are pleading with the pop star to postpone her shows, in solidarity with the union workers.
CNN THIS MORNING starts right now. HARLOW: What a day America witnessed yesterday afternoon. What is
normally a mundane proceeding. It is not that when it is of a former president.
As the former president is waking up this morning after being arraigned yesterday, he is in Bedminster, his New Jersey home. He did plead not guilty for the third time in a courtroom yesterday in just four months, this time on charges stemming from his efforts to stay in power after he lost the 2020 election.
The clock is ticking. The next hearing just a few weeks from now. That is when a trial date will be set.
Trump's lawyers indicate they will attempt to delay the trial, push it out. So this just sets the stage for a chaotic campaign season, disrupted by court dates.
We do have new reporting this morning on how Trump is feeling, his state of mind, and his political positioning moving forward. Sources tell our Kaitlan Collins the former president was irked that the judge referred to him simply as "Mr. Trump," rather than his presidential title. And his lawyer foreshadowing that Trump is preparing to use the charges to revisit his election fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN LAURO, TRUMP ATTORNEY: We will relitigate every single issue in the 2020 election in the context of this litigation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: And new overnight, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy with a new defense of Trump, falsely equating his actions to those of Al Gore and Hillary Clinton after their election losses.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): You're entitled to raise a question. You're entitled to question whether it was honest or not. That's the uniqueness of the First Amendment. That's the uniqueness of America.
But you know what? You shouldn't be prosecuted for your thoughts. And the difference here is when Hillary Clinton said it, nothing happened to her. When had they said it in Georgia's election, nothing happened to them either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: The difference is actually concession.
Also overnight, 38 Democratic lawmakers appealing to a federal judge, asking that the trial be televised, despite rules prohibiting the broadcast of federal court proceedings.
The letter reads, quote, "Given the historic nature of the charges brought forth in these cases, it is hard to imagine a more powerful circumstance for televised proceedings."
Our CNN team was in the courtroom yesterday. CNN's Jessica Schneider has more.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Former President Trump pleading not guilty to all charges as he appeared for his third criminal arraignment in the past four months. This time at the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., right across the street from the Capitol building Trump supporters stormed inside on January 6th. Part of a broad effort to stop the certification of the 2020 election.
Trump sat in his trademark blue suit and red tie as the magistrate judge announced all four charges against him, including conspiracy to defraud the United State, and obstruction of an official proceeding. The maximum penalty on all charges: decades in prison.
Just 15 feet from Donald Trump inside the courtroom, special counsel Jack Smith, the man who has now charged Trump with multiple felony counts in Florida and Washington.
[06:05:04]
Smith and Trump stared at each other several times before the arraignment began. This most recent indictment, accusing Trump of conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election by spreading false claims of election fraud that Trump knew were false.
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This is a persecution of a political opponent.
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Trump remained defiant as he travelled in and out of Washington after his 30-minute court appearance, flying back to Bedminster, New Jersey, with a slew of lawyers and political advisors on board his personal jet.
Prosecutors did not ask for Donald Trump to be detained, but his release did come with conditions, including not being allowed to communicate with anyone else who is a witness in this case.
TRUMP: This is the persecution of the person that's leading by very, very substantial numbers in the Republican primary and leading Biden by a lot. So if you can't beat him, you persecute him or you prosecute him. We can't let this happen in America.
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Prosecutors for the special counsel's office are pushing for a speedy trial, telling the judge they are ready to hand over all of the evidence they've collected in their multiyear investigation. Trump's lawyers, meanwhile, continue to go on offense.
ALINA HABBA, TRUMP ATTORNEY: President Trump is under siege in a way that we have never seen before.
SCHNEIDER (voice-over): Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, accusing the special counsel of acting politically.
HABBA: This is the Biden political law-fare that we have seen time and time again.
Last week, Hunter Biden's sweetheart plea deal fell through when the judge realized it had blanket immunity. The following day, a superseding indictment against Donald Trump.
SCHNEIDER: Now, Trump will not be required to attend the next hearing in this case, which is scheduled for August 28. That's when Judge Tanya Chutkan could set a trial date.
Prosecutors here are pushing for a quick trial, likely well in advance of next year's presidential election, but Trump's team really pushed back, saying there is a massive amount of evidence here that they need to sift through before they can even begin thinking about a trial date -- Poppy and Phil.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MATTINGLY: Joining us now, CNN senior legal analyst and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig; and CNN political commentator and "New York" magazine columnist Errol Louis.
Elie, I want to start with you on timeline before we dig into the legal.
August 28, they will be meeting again. That is, I should not, five days after the first Republican debate. We don't know if Trump is going to participate in that.
Walk people through how fast we should or could be seeing things play out.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So this is going to be such an important decision. I would actually argue the timeline trumps -- no pun intended -- trumps the legal here, because the timeline is the big question. Can we get this in?
OK, the parties are going to go in front of the judge, the district judge, Tanya Chutkan. Yesterday, they were in front of a magistrate judge, who handled more clerical duties.
She will then set at least the beginning of a timeline. Sometimes in that scenario, a judge will say, I'm going to go all the way to the end and set a trial date and work backwards.
Sometimes a judge will say, let's set some intermediate dates, and then we'll hold off. But we'll set a trial date at some point in the future.
I think this judge is going to set a trial date.
Now, I also think she's given the signals that she's said so far I think she wants to get this in before the election. Easier said than done, though. Because let's keep in mind: 2024 looking ahead. March and April are already occupied by the Manhattan D.A. hush-money case. May into June and July are already occupied by Jack Smith's other case.
So I'm not sure if she's going to be able to fit in -- she can't do it after that. That's way too close to the election.
MATTINGLY: Right.
HONIG: If you try to do it before that, that's really, really quick. That does not give Trump's team much time at all to prepare.
So it's a tough spot. Those other two dates I talked about, they can move. These trial dates come and go. They can move to accommodate each other.
HARLOW: Elie, a lot people this morning, after the Democrats wrote that letter, saying they want it televised, are talking about what Neal Katyal wrote in "The Washington Post," saying it should be televised, I think.
He writes here, "most important broadcasting to let Americans see for themselves what's happening in the courtroom, and it will go a long way towards reassuring them that justice is being done."
How can you argue with that? I'll ask you if they can do it legally in a minute. But --
ERROL LOUIS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. It is -- it is a noble sentiment, and certainly, as a member of the media -- right?
HARLOW: You're skeptical.
LOUIS: Look, what it leads to is grandstanding. And that's always been the fear. And that's why the federal courts don't allow cameras now, is that, you know, we all know trial lawyers. And, you know, no disrespect. But --
HONIG: No, you're right.
HARLOW: I'm the daughter of a trial lawyer. I love trial lawyers.
LOUIS: You put them in front of a camera, and they start to perform. And as they should, right? I mean, you're supposed to take advantage of every opportunity, and they certainly would.
I think it would -- it would certainly change the character of it. And if they want a solemn, dignified, swift resolution to this, cameras would sort of work against it.
Now, despite all of that, I'm kind of hoping that they do do it. Because we need to hear this. If, as we heard before, the former president's lawyer wants to relitigate all of this, it's like, you sure you want to do that? OK, fine, let's go through it all over again.
[06:10:01]
And whatever it takes to get people up to speed and acquainted with the facts of this is probably a good thing. We saw with some of the numbers from the January 6th Committee hearings, there were a lot of people who tuned in and really did want to try and get a lot of information.
HONIG: OK, I have breaking news. Yes, trial lawyers grandstand already, without cameras in the courtroom. And yes, trial lawyers --
MATTINGLY: That's noble of you.
HONIG: It's not -- I may have done that at times, even without cameras in the courtroom. But defense lawyers -- in fairness, defense lawyers really -- I mean, defense lawyers, there are some that you know they're going to cry automatically, because it's their shtick, whether there's a camera in the courtroom or not.
I don't really buy this idea that the cameras will somehow undermine the decorum or turn the proceedings into a circus. We have recent examples.
The trial of Derek Chauvin, a state trial. So different rules. They allowed cameras in the courtroom. That, I think, was a fair, dignified proceeding. And I think it gave the American public confidence that justice was done.
We saw the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse. Same thing. I think those proceedings, people maybe didn't like the result, but those proceedings were fair. They were conducted fairly. We can see it.
Same thing with the trial in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery. Also in state court in Georgia. All three of those, we got to watch it. And I think it gave the American people confidence in the proceedings and the outcomes.
POPPY: And just the judge -- sorry, just the judge that can decide?
HONIG: So it's a little complicated. There is a federal rule of criminal procedure that says no cameras in the courtroom.
MATTINGLY: Right.
HONIG: But that can be changed. The federal courts can do what they want in this respect.
So it starts with something called the judicial conference, which Chief Justice Roberts, technically, is in charge of. But Judge Chutkan can start the ball rolling by saying I would like to have cameras in this courtroom and send it up.
MATTINGLY: Errol, I want to ask about something that you said in terms of the re-litigation of the election claims. Look, I think they went, what, 0 for 60 something in their court cases. So by all means, have at it. Frankly, it would probably be valuable for the country. But that's clearly a strategy. "The Washington Post" has a piece out
today, talking about how Trump's lawyers are focused on that. We heard one of Trump's lawyers last night talk about it. Why?
LOUIS: Well, look, their -- One of their defenses -- we don't know exactly what they're going to pick, but certainly, one of them that they've already telegraphed is this notion of it was awful but lawful.
Right? That you may not like my politics. You may not like my style. You may not like what my lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and some of my other attorneys do. And yes, we are strong-arming people. And yes, we are lying to the public. It's pretty awful. Politics can be awful, but we didn't cross the line.
If that's going to be their case, I think that they're going to put it out there. And I think the public, a certain segment of the public, will recoil from it. You know?
I mean, it makes you wonder if that's what they really want to do. Do you really want to do that at top volume? That's what the former president has done at -- certainly at all of his rallies. Do you really want to do that in a courtroom? Do you want to do that in front of a jury? We'll find out.
MATTINGLY: I mean, not to be skeptical, this also feels dilatory, right? If you're going to try and subpoena a bunch of people and you're going to try to do all this, it's less about the fact that you think you have something there and more about the fact that you want to push this past the election, because that's your get-out-of-jail- free card, to some degree.
HONIG: If their strategy is we're going to prove there was fraud in the 2020 election, I say good luck. Nobody has been able to do that yet, because it does not exist.
But yes, I think this is part of their plan to say, this is -- Judge, this is going to take months and months. We're going to have to go investigate all seven months.
But the judge -- look, judges are going to give defense lawyers and defendants very broad range over what their defenses can be.
But judges can say, no, I don't recognize that as a valid defense. No, I'm not allowing that. I don't want this to become a circus. So that's going to be a huge decision for Judge Chutkan. Is she going to give them that leeway to try to make this seven states actual fraud defense, or she can cut it off.
MATTINGLY: All right, guys. Stay with us. I have about 30,000 more questions to come on multiple different alleys (ph).
HARLOW: We have three hours.
MATTINGLY: We do?
HARLOW: New overnight, Ukraine claiming responsibility for an attack on a Russian Navy ship. The new video of that sea drone attack. We'll show you more ahead.
MATTINGLY: And two U.S. Navy sailors have been arrested for allegedly sharing sensitive military information with China. We're live at the Pentagon with new details.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
MATTINGLY: We have brand-new video from overnight, showing a damaged Russian warship listing heavily, being towed in the Black Sea. Ukraine says about 100 Russian servicemen were aboard as it carried out a sea drone attack on a major Russian naval base.
Russia claims the attack was repelled.
The source tells CNN the Russian ship received, quote, "serious damage" and is not able to fulfill its duties.
CNN's Nick Paton Walsh is live for us in Zaporizhzhia. Nick, what more do we know about what actually happened here?
NICK PATON WALSH, CNN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY EDITOR: Yes, look, a startling claim by Ukraine here. Born out it seems, by some video evidence they've supplied, indeed, showing there's to be this water surface drone approaching what looks like the Olenegorsky Gornyak ship.
Now they say that 100 Russian personnel were on board when, indeed, just short of half a metric ton -- 450 kilograms -- of TNT struck that ship. That is an absolutely devastating blast, indeed, if that did occur.
And where this happened, Phil, possibly more important. Novorossiysk, a Black Sea port that is, again, one of those places Russia would have thought was frankly unassailable. It was out of the reach of Ukraine's missiles.
But instead, ingenious technology here, it appears, attacking a boat with a large number of personnel on it and another, I think, dent in Russia's sense of impregnability.
We've seen the Kerch Bridge that leads to the Crimean Peninsula they occupied in 2014 also hit by a Ukrainian drone. Now this.
And again, I think a reminder as Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said a few days ago, that the war is gradually returning to Russian territory.
It's still raging here in Ukraine, with multiple dead most days, and strikes on civilian areas. But things like this, just a sign this is simply not going away as Vladimir Putin has thought -- Phil.
MATTINGLY: Yes. Nick Paton Walsh for us, thank you.
HARLOW: Also this: two U.S. Navy sailors have been arrested and accused of sending sensitive military information to Chinese intelligence officers. The Justice Department announced the charges against the service
members yesterday. One man is facing espionage charges. The other accused of accepting bribes for the information he handed over.
Our national security reporter, Natasha Bertrand, is live from the Pentagon. I mean, wow. When you hear that, the question is what's -- what's the evidence that the prosecutors have? What are they saying?
NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Poppy, these are really remarkable charges. And notably, they're actually separate cases, but the government chose to unveil them both really at the same time yesterday to emphasize, really, how far China is willing to go to try to get military secrets from U.S. service members.
[06:20:15]
So what prosecutors are saying is that two U.S. Navy sailors, they engaged in relationships with Chinese intelligence officers over the course of, in one case -- in one of the cases, a year, and another case, two years, in which these U.S. Navy sailors provided very sensitive U.S. military information to these Chinese intelligence officers.
Now, one of these sailors, whose name is Jinchao Wei, he worked at Naval Base San Diego. And he was actually a machinist mate, essentially an engineer responsible for repairing things on Navy ships, including the USS Essex.
And according to prosecutors, he provided photos and videos, as well as the layout of these ships, to this Chinese intelligence officer beginning in February of 2022, and actually received thousands of dollars in return for that information.
Notably, he was also trying to obtain U.S. citizenship through this period, and the Chinese intelligence officer, according to this indictment, actually congratulated him in May of 2022 for obtaining U.S. citizenship. All the while, prosecutors say, he was providing this very sensitive and classified U.S. military information to this Chinese officer.
Now, in the second case, against Petty Officer Wenheng Zhao, he actually worked at Naval Base Ventura County, and he was responsible for fixing electrical equipment at U.S. military installations around the world.
According to prosecutors, he entered into a relationship with someone who was posing as kind of an investor, but in reality, that person was a Chinese intelligence officer.
And he was allegedly providing him with very sensitive plans about U.S. training exercises in the Indo-Pacific, as well as information about a U.S. radar system that is stationed on a military base in Okinawa, Japan.
So very serious charges here. And of course, it also comes as the U.S. is kind of -- the U.S. military is still reeling from the espionage charges against another U.S. service member, who was accused of leaking information online, classified information online earlier this year.
So at least the third instance this year of U.S. service members allegedly mishandling classified information, Poppy.
MATTINGLY: Natasha, I have to ask you about some reporting I've been fixated on the last 24 hours or so. CNN has learned that the U.S. is considering putting troops on some commercial vessels in the Middle East to block Iran from seizing them.
I don't think there's much, if any, precedent for this. It feels like they're getting close to potential direct confrontation, right?
BERTRAND: This would be a really remarkable plan, if it was actually implemented, Phil.
So what we're learning is that the U.S. is considering putting around 20 U.S. Marines or sailors on commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Iran from continuing to seize these commercial ships in -- in that area.
This has been a major problem since 2021. Iran has seized around 20 of these ships, including oil tankers. And the U.S. has tried to figure out a way to deter that.
Now, this plan could be implemented not just in days or weeks -- not just in weeks or months, I should say, but it could come in a matter of days.
There has been no final decision made here. And these ships, importantly, would have to actually request this additional security. But it would, in effect, put U.S. Marines in direct confrontation with
Iranians, who are in operating in that area. And potentially, of course, if they tried to seize a ship that these Marines were on, then we could see some kind of violence break out.
So obviously, a pretty controversial plan but one that we should really emphasize has not received final sign-off yet, guys.
HARLOW: OK, keep us posted if it does, Natasha. Thanks.
MATTINGLY: Well, Trump, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, strawman. The false comparison Kevin McCarthy is now making to downplay Trump's stolen election claims.
HARLOW: We also have new CNN reporting on how Vladimir Putin is factoring into the 2024 presidential election in his war on Ukraine. We've got those numbers, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:28:06]
MATTINGLY: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy saying former President Trump is being, quote, "prosecuted for his thoughts." The top House Republican falsely comparing Trump's stolen election claims with Hillary Clinton and Al Gore, who both won the popular vote but lost their elections. Here's McCarthy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCARTHY: You're entitled to raise a question. You're entitled to question whether it was honest or not. That's the uniqueness of the First Amendment. That's the uniqueness of America. But you know what? You shouldn't be prosecuted for your thoughts. And the difference here is when Hillary Clinton said it, nothing happened to her.
When they said it in Georgia's election, nothing happened to them either.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: Elie Honig and Errol Louis are back with us. Look, Errol, my frustration with this argument is probably palpable to all of you at this point.
Because I believe there were actual defenses, as we've talked about repeatedly the Trump lawyers may throw out there. One that has no basis in reality or tied to the actual indictment itself is a little bit off-putting.
Is Kevin McCarthy right? Is there an apples-to-apples comparative to Al Gore and Hillary Clinton?
LOUIS: No, no, no. Of course not. Politicians are entitled -- whether it's Al Gore, Hillary Clinton or anyone else, or Donald Trump, frankly -- to say whatever they want.
It's the actions that are what resulted in this indictment. You can say anything you want, but it's when you take actions that cross the line and puts you into legal jeopardy. That's what this case is about.
It's not because Donald Trump kept saying at rallies that he thinks he won the election, or he thinks the election was stolen. He can say that every day. And in fact, the indictment makes that clear in the very first paragraph.
What he cannot do is sic his lawyers on a bunch of state officials and start intimidating them and start challenging facts that he already knows are not true. And to the extent that he did all of those kind of things, that's why he got arrested yesterday.
HARLOW: I think this is what we were going back and forth with. I was going back and forth with one of John Eastman's lawyers about these yesterday. Because they keep saying, you know, it's OK that he changed his mind; and he was being a good lawyer.
But there's a line. You can -- you can lawyer. What you can't do is --
