Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Today, Trump Team Faces Deadline on Evidence Rules; Trump Lawyer Floats New Defense, Claims Trump's Efforts to Overturn Election were Aspiration; Trump Attorney, House Democrats Call for Trial to be Televised. Aired 7-7:30a ET

Aired August 07, 2023 - 07:00   ET

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

[07:00:02]

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: And Biles is back. Simone Biles has won her first competitive event in two years. This was her appearance since pulling out of several events in the Tokyo Olympics in 2021. This was when she was battling a bout of the twisties. She is qualified now for the U.S. National Championships. CNN This Morning starts right now.

POPPY HARLOW, CNN ANCHOR: Here is where we begin this hour. The morning, Donald Trump just hours away from a crucial deadline in the 2020 election interference case. He's got until 5:00 P.M. this afternoon to respond to Special Counsel Jack Smith's request for a protective order. Smith is trying to block Trump from disclosing evidence and making public comments that could intimidate witnesses or undermine the case. Smith asked the judge to step in after Trump issued a vague threat on social media on Friday. He wrote in all caps, quote if you go after me, I'm coming after you.

BLACKWELL: This morning, we're also keeping a close watch on Fulton County, Georgia, where Trump is facing another potential indictment for trying to overturn the election. The streets around the courthouse are being shut down as the grand jury considers charges. Trump's lawyer went on a media blitz and appeared on all five networks Sunday morning. He floated a new defense for Trump allegedly pressuring mike pence and Georgia officials to overturn the election results.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN LAURO, TRUMP ATTORNEY: You're saying that asking is action. No, asking is aspirational. Asking is not action. It's core free speech.

What President Trump did not do is direct Vice President Pence to do anything.

And what he was asking for is the secretary of state to act appropriately and find these votes that were counted illegally. That was an -- hold on one second. That was an aspirational ask.

We would like a diverse venue, a diverse jury.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you have any expectation that will be granted? LAURO: That reflects the characteristics of the American people. It's up to the judge. I think West Virginia would be an excellent venue to try this case.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Speaking of the judge --

LAURO: Or close to D.C. in a much more diverse -- one of the last and the ultimate requests that President Trump made was to pause the voting for ten days to allow the states to recertify or certify or audit. And Mr. Pence rejected that as well. After that, there was a peaceful transition of power. So, that's how the Constitution works.

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: What happened on January 6th was not peaceful.

LAURO: Mike Pence would be one of our best witnesses at trial.

Based on what Vice President Pence will say, the government will never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump had corrupt or criminal intent. That's what this case is about.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, what Mike Pence has said all this week is that what President Trump did was wrong.

LAURO: He never said it was criminal. He said it was wrong. He never said it was criminal.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARLOW: With more on where all Trump's legal cases stand, Elie Honig back with us at the wall.

Let's just walk through this most recent efforts to overturn the election, January 6th, where is it now?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, Poppy. The third indictment landed. We can take a moment and assess where we are and what's happening soon because we're going to have more action today. This, of course, is DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith's indictment of Donald Trump related to the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. This is in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Important to note, the focus here is not so much on the Capitol attack on January 6th as on the conspiracy in the weeks and months leading up to it, the conspiracy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election using knowingly false claims of election fraud.

Now, today, there will be litigation over a protective order. Prosecutors have said, judge, you need to limit the way that Donald Trump uses the evidence and talks about it publicly. Donald Trump's team asked for a little more time to respond and the judge said, nope, you have got to respond today, Monday. We'll get that response later in the day.

The next court appearance is going to be on August 28th. That's three weeks from now. And the key issue there is will the judge set a trial date? I think she will. She has signaled that she's likely to. And I think it's likely to be before the election. But the question, of course, is will that date hold? That's where we are on the newest of the indictments.

HARLOW: Okay. What about the others?

HONIG: Yes. So, three other cases, let's remember, first of all, the other DOJ Jack Smith case relating to classified documents at Mar-a- Lago. Ten days ago, DOJ returned a superseding indictment, meaning a second version of the indictment adding this individual, Carlos De Oliveira, as a third defendant and adding three new charges against Donald Trump.

Now, the parties are going to court later this week on Thursday, the 10th. And the big question will be in light of the new indictment, does this trial date of May 2024 get pushed back. You know Donald Trump's team will argue, hey, we're charged with three new crimes. We need more time. You know DOJ is going to push back against that.

Let's not forget the first indictment that landed, this is the state- level prosecution by the Manhattan D.A. of Donald Trump relating to hush money payments for Stormy Daniels.

[07:05:07]

They're in pre-trial motions. They also have a trial date of March of 2024. And then the one that has not yet landed, Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis. The grand jury is in. The barricades are up. This could come at any moment.

HARLOW: At any point.

HONIG: Yes.

HARLOW: We know by September 1st it's going to come.

HONIG: Exactly.

HARLOW: Calendar, so walk us through.

HONIG: The all important calendar, right? You see all those dates. How are we going to get this all in, in 2024? Let's circle a couple important dates. The election, of course, is here November 5th. We're not going to have a trial in October. There is going to be voting going on or September. No judge is going to have a trial that close to the election.

Now, what's already taken? The Manhattan case, the hush money case, that is scheduled to start at the end of March. That is going to carry us through April. The Mar-a-Lago case is scheduled to start at the end of May. That is going to carry us through June and I think through July.

So, where is there a spot for, let's say, the January 6th case? I mean, Trump's team said they believe it will take nine months to try it. I think that's wildly overstated. But what if it's half that time, what if it's four months? There is no four-month gap. So, one of these is going to have to move.

HARLOW: Unless this moves.

HONIG: Unless this was -- and, by the way, important point, Alvin Bragg, the D.A., has more than signaled multiple times probably that he's willing to come off this date or try to if necessary for the others. So, this is all going to be fluid, but there's only so much time to try all these cases.

HARLOW: Am I allowed to touch your magic wall, Elie?

HONIG: Go right ahead. This is actually a good visual representation of what our 2024 is going to look like.

HARLOW: Lovely. I can't wait. Victor?

BLACKWELL: Absolute worst football play you just drew up, and I even know football.

Joining us now, former Deputy Chief of Staff for Congressman Adam Kinzinger, Maura Gillespie, she also was the press adviser for House Speaker John Boehner, and former Communications Director for Vice President Kamala Harris, Jamal Simmons. And Elie will be back in just a moment.

Let's start here, Maura, with this claim from the former president that he won't get a fair trial in D.C., that he needs another judge. Do you think there's any credibility to either of those claims?

MAURA GILLESPIE, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR FORMER REP. ADAM KINZINGER: It's an interesting take on the situation, because, obviously, what happened on January 6th happened in D.C. and impacted not just the people in that vicinity but the city as a whole, but the country as a whole. So, I think that it's not surprising that he would make that argument especially with what we're seeing ahead of the Georgia indictment that's expected to come with the politicization of things and having those issues. But, no, I'm not.

BLACKWELL: You think he can get a fair trial in D.C.

GILLESPIE: I think he'll get a fair trial in D.C.

BLACKWELL: Jamal, this request to have the judge recused, Judge Tanya Chutkan, as I said in the last hour, she has in several cases sentenced these January 6th defendants to sentences beyond what the prosecutors have requested. So, if you look at this from a defense attorney perspective, you want a different judge. But is there anything here you think supports a request to recuse?

JAMAL SIMMONS, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR FOR VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: Yes. There's no constitutional right to being able to pick your courtroom, right? And the place they want to change, the Trump Team wants to change the venue to is West Virginia, right, which is a place that went for Donald Trump like 70 percent of the voters -- 69 percent of the voters went for Trump in West Virginia, so that's just not fair. Listen, Donald Trump should be giving the D.C. voters a little benefit of the doubt. I'm sure he will be fairer to them than he was to the Capitol Police officers who were getting beaten up the forces on January 6th. And he could have stopped that and he did not. So, I'm sure the D.C. Jurors would be much fairer to him than he was to them.

HONIG: I agree with Jamal. I think there's no basis to disqualify this judge or to move the case out of D.C. And Judge Chutkan has been really tough in her January 6th cases. We all love when we keep using the quote where she said, presidents are not kings, plaintiff is not president.

To me, the more telling quote Judge Chutkan as to the seriousness with which she views this, is she said in the sentencing of one of the January 6th rioters, this defendant did not go into the Capitol out of a sense of patriotic duty. He went in there for one man. That one man, of course, is now the person in front of her as a defendant. But there is not a conflict of interest here. The attacks on her are completely baseless and we should reject them.

HARLOW: Listening to Trump's legal team, especially his lead counsel on this, John Lauro, he makes it sound like this is a slam dunk for us. I thought it was interesting because when he said to Dana yesterday, he cited Supreme Court precedent, basically saying it's all clear here. Just look at what the Supreme Court did. I want to play that and get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURO: The government alleges deceit or trickery and all of this played out in the open. It's all free speech. There was a Supreme Court decision, Hammerschmidt, which is right on point, that says when you're exercising free speech, you're not engaging in a fraud on the government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HARLOW: That's a case from 1924, Hammerschmidt versus the United States. What did it actually set as precedent?

HONIG: So, what John Lauro is doing there, it doesn't answer the question, it frames the question. The Hammerschmidt case actually involved a person who was urging people not to register for those selective service, for the draft. And the court there said, well, this is speech. This doesn't cross the line over into conduct.

[07:10:00]

And that's exactly what the question will be in the Trump case. Was he just engaging in speech and political speech and dissent or was he crossing over the line into actual conduct? I think prosecutors are going to point to the submission of the fake elector certificates, among other things, to say this was conduct.

HARLOW: If there was not speech, there was act.

HONIG: Exactly. But that's the key question. That case doesn't answer it. It frames what the question will be.

BLACKWELL: The whataboutism that we're seeing and hearing from the former president's defenders in Congress, let's listen here to Senators Graham and Ernst and talk about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): When it comes to Donald Trump, there are no rules, destroy him, destroy his family. When it comes to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, they get away with almost everything.

SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): We have one system of justice if your last name is Trump and you have another system of justice if your last name is Biden. So, of course, Iowans are really upset about this.

They see this as a very political move.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Trump and Hunter Biden, how are these two cases comparable at all?

GILLESPIE: They're not comparable. But I think one thing that may seem like a foreign concept in politics is objectivity. And people are going to be objectively looking at this, there's no comparison, period. But to pretend like the Hunter Biden situation isn't important would be doing a disservice and is what's probably triggering people on the right to be so frustrated because it's being largely looked over.

Objectively, if you're looking at the situation, it looks a little off, right? It doesn't look great that the president's son got a sweetheart deal and then days later was being paraded around the White House at the state dinner with the DOJ head, Merrick Garland, also in attendance. So, objectively, it doesn't look good.

Again, there's no comparison to what these indictments are against former President Trump, but it just is important to point that out. But I think that's what they're trying to do in talking about those issues but correlating them is a mistake.

SIMMONS: Just for the record, just to remind everybody where we were. Early in the administration, there were members of the Kushner family who were caught in China telling people that he'd give visas if they were going to invest in the United States, that Donald Trump would give them visas. At the same time, Jared Kushner could not get a security clearance, a permanent security clearance, while he was working in the White House, right?

So, if we want to talk about family members of the president who are doing things that impact the country, I think Jared Kushner and his family are much more of a problem for the president during the Trump administration than Hunter Biden is for Joe Biden based on something that he did as a private citizen.

HARLOW: Both of those scenarios. You mean you need to take a closer lens at how this looks to the American people and what kind of parameters we have just in general.

GILLESPIE: It looks bad, generally. And I think you can be objective in that and say it doesn't look great.

SIMMONS: But neither one of them compared to a former president of the United States who is instigating a riot on the Capitol on January 6th that we all watched on television.

HARLOW: Stay with us. We have much more to talk to you guys about.

BLACKWELL: All right. We also have this coming up, cameras are not allowed in federal court, but House Democrats and Trump's own attorney are pushing for his trial to be televised. Could the judge make an exception?

HARLOW: Plus, Republican presidential candidates focusing their attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris. We have new reporting on the strategy, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:15:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LAURO: I personally want the public to see what's going on in this country right now. I want the public to see what kind of prosecution is going on.

BASH: So, yes?

LAURO: And I want the public to see the evidence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: That was John Lauro, Donald Trump's lawyer in the 2020 election subversion case. He tells CNN that he would absolutely like to see cameras in the courtroom once the former president goes on trial. Only problem here is cameras are not allowed in federal court and there's no indication at least yet that the rule will change.

Well, last week, House Democrats, they sent a letter to the judge who oversees the administration of federal courts urging for this case to be televised. This is part of the letter. If the public is to fully accept the outcome, it will be vitally important for it to witness and directly as possible how the trials are conducted, the strength of the evidence adduced and the credibility of witnesses.

And that's something our next guest echoed in a recent New York Times op-ed titled Americans will believe the Trump verdict only if they can see it. Stephen Brill writes in part, the last thing our country and the world needs is for this trial to become the ultimate device of spin game, in which each side roots for its team online and on cable news networks as if cheering from the bleachers.

And Steven Brill is with us now. He's the CEO -- co-CEO of NewsGuard and the founder of Court T.V. Good to have you this morning.

Listen, I'm for transparency. I want to see everything everywhere. But let me scrutinize your position here and let me start with the headline when I you write that Americans will believe the Trump verdict only if they can see it. What of the last eight years convinces you that people will believe it if they see it?

STEVEN BRILL, CO-CEO, NEWSGUARD: Well, what we've had the last eight years is people getting their news, you know, from online, from social media platforms. And what made me want to write this article was that I've been living in that world with NewsGuard watching what people see and read online. And it's unreliable. It's not feted. You don't know what the agenda is of the people who are making the posts. You don't know who's paying them. You don't know what their credentials are. And my experience with Court T.V. was exactly the opposite.

A judge vets all the evidence. Everybody gets to see the witnesses. They know who the witnesses are. And I think the most important thing about this trial is that after it's over, when people are debating the verdict, they are debating from the same set of facts.

[07:20:02]

They're not debating based on what one of the lawyers might have said on one of the Sunday talk shows. They're not debating based on what the defendant or the government might have said in a tweet. And that is crucially important that we all use the same set of facts, which is something that we've lost in this country and in the world with the advent of the social media platforms.

BLACKWELL: But, Steven, my pushback would be, and, again, I think that having the ability to watch the arguments and to see what is happening in the courtroom would add some add facts to the conversation, but to suggest that people will be arguing the same set of facts, even when we have the Mueller report, we have the January 6th commission, we have lists, we have these sources before and still people don't argue the same set of facts. Do you consider that it will not be a panacea?

BRILL: How many people -- well, I don't think anything is a panacea in this world. How many people do you think actually read the Mueller report as opposed to have watched the spin that Attorney General Barr put on it before it was released?

The thing about a trial, if it's televised, is it is really a drama that people will watch. Most people will be glued to this and watch it in full. So, the comparison with the Mueller report is just not real.

BLACKWELL: Sure. Let's talk about the drama of it if you're watching on television from the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal. Now, they put this in a partisan lens where they say Democrats won an O.J. Simpson trial, but they end this by saying the trials of Donald Trump are going to be traumatic enough without their various participants playing to the cameras and watching their reviewers on nightly cable news. The consideration that the observer effect that these people being observed will change how they argue, that the attorneys will be playing to the camera, especially if their defendants, if they're defended, if their client requires that. I mean, Donald Trump is the defendant in this case.

BRILL: Well, that's really laughable. What I recall from the early days of starting the Court T.V. channel is that it was remarkably bipartisan. One of the biggest supporters of cameras in the courtroom was the then speaker, Mr. Gingrich. It is bipartisan that people want to see how their justice system is operating.

And as for lawyers playing to the cameras, you had a defense lawyer on five different Sunday shows yesterday. And often, you have the prosecutors, though, thankfully not this Justice Department, but often you have prosecutors who hold a press conference and they describe the evidence. Let's let people see everything as it plays out in court.

BLACKWELL: I just got to wrap, but I got to ask you this one. You detailed in your op-ed what it would take to get the cameras in the courtroom. The U.S. Judicial Conference chaired by Chief Justice John Roberts would have to vote in favor of suspension. Judicial Counsel, the D .C. Circuit would have to suspend its rule. Federal rules of criminal procedure would have to change. What's the plausibility of this happening over the next several months or a year before the trial?

BRILL: Well, there's going to be lots of time, it looks like, before there is a trial. And the key really is the chief justice. If the chief justice wants this to happen, it will happen.

BLACKWELL: All right. Steven Brill, thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

HARLOW: That was a really interesting conversation.

BLACKWELL: Yes, I mean, I would -- absolutely, I think we should all see as much of this as we can, but what will be the impact of it?

HARLOW: And the fact that he said at the end, it's going to be up to John Roberts. And your point about what in the last eight years tells you that people will believe it, maybe watching things like the O.J. trial.

BLACKWELL: Sure.

HARLOW: I don't know.

BLACKWELL: I mean, they watched the January 6th Commission, they watched that, or the special committee.

HARLOW: I feel like even more people would watch this.

BLACKWELL: Yes, they would, but did they believe it after they watched it?

HARLOW: Yes, it's really, really fascinating conversation.

Okay, ahead, my favorite story of the morning. Simone Biles making a dazzling comeback to competitive gymnastics, her incredible performance just totally perfect and where she's headed next.

BLACKWELL: Plus, thousands of Beyonce fans forced to shelter in place at last night's concert outside of D.C. What the stadium is now saying.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[07:25:00]

HARLOW: Scary scene at a Beyonce concert outside of Washington D.C. last night, concertgoers at a Renaissance World Tour forced a shelter in place for hours. After storms delayed the show, the stadium says a number of people were treated on site for heat exhaustion, given the very high temperatures, how packed people were in the concourse, one person was taken to the hospital for heat exhaustion.

The show did go on. Beyonce's tour covered the $100,000 that it cost to keep D.C. metro stations open running for an extra hour. Nice of her. The storm was one example of severe weather sweeping the nation.

Meteorologist Derek Van Dam is with us with more. It doesn't stop.

DEREK VAN DAM, CNN METEOROLOGIST: No. She also has a song called, Cuff It, that has the lyrics, Baby, Make it Rain. And I guess, apparently, she did. So, pretty impressive to see that she extended that favor to her fans as well, keeping the Metro open that long.

But this is all part of a larger storm system that has brought several tornadoes, but more or less a wind threat across the eastern half of the country. And today, this is what we're really concerned with. We have 120 million Americans under the threat of severe weather. So D.C., once again, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York City, all the way to Atlanta. Damaging winds, very large hail, can't rule out a tornado.

But let's focus in on that wind threat because the Storm Prediction Center has highlighted the Mid-Atlantic as our greatest threat.

[07:30:05]